This Fall I am teaching two Intro Macro classes. This would be the students' first Econ class, so I am covering basic Micro Principles as well. Last week we talked at length about Unintended Consequences and I think my students get the idea. Here is a piece from the WSJ that gives some more examples. I must say, I never thought about smoking rules and obesity as having some correlation. My classes will be reading Freakonomics next week and we will also see the movie in late October and have a discussion on it.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Today's main tech news in Indian news outlets is that Indian IT companies are fuming over Ohio state ban on using public funds on outsourcing. Apparently Indian IT companies are crying foul over this proposed idea. For over 50 years, and continuing on to today, Indian government money is not spent abroad is it? So, why is it wrong that US state government decided not to use its tax-payers money on services outside the country? What is good for the goose is bad for the gander eh! How come this policy is trade protection, and 50 years and continued harrassment of entrepreneurs trying to legitimately import into or export from India is not trade protection. In six years of living abroad, the Indian government has banned the exports of lentils and other items from India at least 6 times due to a domestic shortage. Is that not trade protection? Why should the US give any special status to India. Besides, this policy only bans public funds from being used for outsourcing. If a private entrepreneur wants to outsource with her own funds, the Ohio state does not ban it. I find such holier-than-thou attitudes in India ridiculous. Incidentally, a simple google search does not show any US news outlets running this story, so I am already pretty suspect of the source and content of these reports in India. A policy such as this ban as touted by the Indian news outlets, would be big news. Besides, I am in Ohio right now, and see nothing even in the local newspapers.
Friday, August 06, 2010
The last few weeks, I have been researching books to use in my International Trade class this Fall. I wanted to assign my students one fun book to read in addition to the main text that we will be using in class. While browsing through the Trade isle in my local public library I came across this interesting title. Since I have seen A Day without a Mexican, I thought this might be on similar lines. It was large print and not very big, so I thought I would read it in a few hours and see it was suitable for my class. The first two chapters seemed like they were going to lead up to China bashing. I was not happy that the author did not like WalMart. However, she was at least taking a stance and boycotting it, which was refreshingly different from most WalMart bashers, who eventually end up shopping there anyway.
In any case, the book is written in a fun conversational way, and is a simple sociological experiment by one family to avoid purchasing things Made in China for a year. Gifts were an exception. In the process, they realise that a lot of the common everyday products that they purchased were Made in China. In many cases there were no substitutes available and when they were available they were either expensive or did not meet the expected standards or both. There were times in the book where the author talks about a complete meltdown and China dominating the world in the future. However, she wraps up the experiment somewhat objectively by noting that globalization is indeed here to stay and helped her get the products she wanted.
The narrative is clean and easy to read. Its easy to empathize with the author as you read along and that I think is powerful. If you haven't read it, I recommend it highly. I am using this book as additional reading in my class.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Recently, I received an e-mail forward that claimed that 9/11 was a conspiracy hatched by the US government and its agencies. It urged me to follow a link that had irrevocable evidence to the fact. I prudently deleted the email, and did not follow the link. However, I think understanding economics and the power of incentives leads me to dismiss any such conspiracy theories. If we look at the number of scandals that have been breaking out in recent years, it is far fetched to believe that a large group of people can keep their mouth shut for long periods of time. Mancur Olson argued in the Logic of Collective Action that unless the number of individuals was small, or there was coercive force, a group of individuals cannot be persuaded to act in their collective interest. Assuming, a conspiracy as big as 9/11 would have involved hundreds of people, I do not think it would be possible to swear them all to an oath of secrecy. I do not think so many citizens would be willing to kill thousands of their own. Yes! There are individual murderers, but its beyond imagination that so many American citizens would want their own dead. Even with genocide and terrorism it is a targeted population outside the social group of the attacker, and we may say that some of the prejudices that individuals held are fuelled by a persuasive leader. However, 9/11 affected a diverse group of people of different nationalities (primarily US citizens), ethnicities, religions, and trades. Even if some of the people involved in the conspiracy had a general prejudice I doubt that hundreds or even dozens of people would have held similar beliefs. Logically, to me, it does not seem possible that 9/11 was a conspiracy hatched by someone in the US government against their own citizens. It was a terrorist attack hatched by some fanatics.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
"EPIC RECESSION: Prelude to Global Depression" is the name of the new book by Dr.Jack Rasmus. I had the opportunity to listen to his talk about the book yesterday. I have not had a chance to read the book yet, but here are some of my observations from the seminar presentation. Dr. Rasmus's conclusion is that similar to the recession in 1907 and the Great Depression, the current recession as well was driven by increases in the money sector without commensurate increases in the real sector. He has a good historical section where he discussed the shift in economic research from the causes of the Great Depression to the solutions to it. He highlighted that Keynes's earlier research was on the causes of the Great Depression. He also mentioned that Irving Fisher discussed at length the speculatory causes of the recession and subsequent depression. However, I was disappointed that there was no mention of F.A.Hayek, who had published Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle in 1933. My understanding is that F.A.Hayek, and others who have expanded on the Austrian Business Cycle Theory have an existing explanation for these credit expansion lead recessions. In addition, I believe there was some kind of debate between Hayek and Keynes around that time. Hopefully, some of that stuff is in the book and did not make it to the presentation. His explanation was very reminiscent of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, even though he did not use the title to identify it as such. I do not agree with his solutions of increased fiscal expenditure to move out of the current crisis. Especially, some of his recommendation on nationalising consumer credit markets and re-unionising private sector work force would only lead to long-term economic crisis in my opinion. His solutions aside, I think the credit expansion explanation of economic crises would be an interesting addition to existing literature. I am looking forward to reading the book.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
My friend recently found out (quite by accident) that the apartment complex he lived in has stopped their nightly Security Patrol of the grounds due to cost cutting measures. Their apartment is in a pretty safe neighbourhood but recently they had begun to notice strange men in the compound late in the evening and decided to complain to the management, and that is when they found out that the security patrol had been stopped. My friend was indignant that they were not informed about the security patrol. Moreover, he complained to me that the apartment management was simply fattening their profits by removing essential services. It made him angrier still that the apartment complex was spending money to dig up and rebuild a perfectly good pool side.
While I agree with him that the apartment management should have informed the residents about cancelling the Security Patrol, and I personally would prefer the Security Patrol over renovations to the pool, I am not sure his economic reasoning is entirely correct. The apartment management may be cash strapped and unable to pay a recurring amount every month to the Security Agency; however, they may still have funds to perform one time modifications to the pool area. Since the management does not guarantee any security, and the lease states that renters are responsible for their belongings, I am not sure they could be held liable. Besides, other residents may have shown a preference for a better pool area.
My friend, nevertheless acted exactly how consumers respond in a market: he put in his notice to vacate and is moving to a gated community. His priorities are security, and he responded to the situation aptly. For him, the opportunity cost of the extra rent he would pay (33% higher than earlier) in the gated community is less than that of not having a security patrol. This is another example of consumers in the market constantly take decisions based on their opportunity costs, only we call it priorities instead of opportunity costs.
Monday, May 17, 2010
My current research is on zone based growth in developing countries. This policy is extremely popular among politicians and bureaucrats, especially in India. The rhetoric uses examples from China to Taiwan to South Korea to show successful these policies can be. I am not so sure it can be as huge a success in India as the government departments want us to believe. Just as an extension, I looked at some studies on enterprise zone policies in the US. The results are mixed at best. I think, the enterprise zone policy can be compared to earlier zones in India. Both policies were meant to improve the conditions of regions with low growth and high unemployment. Some official reports on enterprise zones also state that their employment creation potential has been low. It just leads me to believe that it is not an easy task to firstly identify which regions have the potential to succeed and which do not, and secondly what kinds of businesses will flourish in these areas. More importantly, these policies cannot simply be transferred from one region to another. It would be good for the Central and State level politicians and bureaucrats in India to realise this quickly and just let growth happen zone or otherwise.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
I have been watching the TV series Lie to Me (Season 1) recently and was pleasantly surprised to see that script writers seem to understand public choice. Most crime shows these days have elements to show the fight against terrorism, pedophiles being apprehended and such items where the government and its agents are the heros. Lie to Me is different. The investigating agency is a private company founded by one man who has studied facial expressions for decades and can solve crimes by telling if the person he is talking to is lying. The most interesting part to me is not how he solves the crimes, but who gets implicated in the end. In at least two episodes, they reveal corrupt bureaucrats and politicians who caused people to die.
The bureaucrat in the immigration office uses his power to grant Visa extensions to aliens and uses them in an illegal surrogacy racket. One of the characters talks about how long and expensive formal surrogacy procedures are which is why she chose the cheaper side-market. That I think is a wonderful explanation of how well-intended regulations go awry all the time. In another episode, the Mayor of the city anonymously bribes the city engineer to clear a site without inspecting for Methane under the building site which leads to an explosion killing some people. Her reasoning was that she needed the factory to be built to bring in jobs to the town where several people were unemployed. Here again we see a person in power, pushing her own agenda not only with the bribe to forgo inspection of the site, but through licensing and zoning laws. She admits that she used the latter two methods to force the company to hire more people than they needed.
I am skeptical about claims of lie detection using facial expressions, because I think there are too many personal variables that cannot be objectively measured; however, this series (at least as far as I have seen it) understands Economics and more importantly Public Choice better than other TV series I have seen. I already have a few ideas to use some of these clips in my classroom exercises when I teach Public Choice.