Tag Archives: economic growth

spending vs. investment

Maybe somebody can explain all this to me (from Project Syndicate):

With all of the rules pointing toward recession, how can Europe boost recovery?

A two-year €400 billion ($510 billion) public-investment program, financed with European Investment Bank bonds, would be the best way to overcome Europe’s current impasse. Borrowing by the EIB has no implications in terms of European fiscal rules. It is recorded neither as new debt nor as a deficit for any of the member states, which means that new government spending could be funded without affecting national fiscal performance.

Thus, some of the investment spending currently planned at the national level could be financed via European borrowing to relieve national budgets. Such an indirect way of dealing with strict rules would also be easier than starting long and wearying negotiations on changes to the fiscal framework…

In addition, the ECB could purchase EIB bonds on secondary markets, which would help to keep funding costs low – or even reduce them. More important, purchases of EIB bonds would enable the ECB to undertake quantitative easing without triggering the degree of controversy implied by intervening in 18 separate sovereign-bond markets, where concerns that ECB purchases would affect the relative pricing of sovereigns are very real.

Already, €200 billion of EIB bonds are available. Adding €400 billion would increase the pool substantially. Together with asset-backed securities, covered bonds, and corporate bonds, €1 trillion of assets – the threshold widely thought to make quantitative easing by the ECB credible – would be available for purchase.

What I think it means is that if we don’t have the money to do the things we want to do, we can just make some more up. But of course, we can’t just make up an infinite amount of money, because we can’t just do an infinite amount of things here on our finite planet. So if we make up too much money, people might start to realize that money is just made up.

Here on this finite planet, we have a certain amount of resources at our disposal that allow us to do things – natural resources like energy, water, and fertile soils; machines, structures, and infrastructure we have built; and the physical efforts, knowledge, and skills of people. Also, less tangible things that we have tended to take for granted in the past – the ability of oceans and other ecosystems to grow food, absorb wastes, and cycle carbon, nutrients and gases that we can’t live without, for example. If we are finding that we don’t have the resources to do all the things we want to do, then we are poorer than we would like to be. We can make up some more money, but ultimately the financial system is just something we have come up with to allocate the resources and efforts we do have available, and ultimately to impose limits on ourselves just short of the actual physical limits, which actually do exist.

Where am I going with this? If we want to get richer, we have to protect the resources we can’t do without, like the health of ecosystems and the atmosphere. We have to impose limits on ourselves voluntarily today before the real physical limits are imposed on us. Then if we want to be richer tomorrow, we need to spend the resources we do have on the right kinds of investments in the right kinds of structures and machines; we need to spend our efforts in smart ways and increase our knowledge and skills in the right areas.

The kind of short term economic and financial press coverage I quoted at the beginning of this post doesn’t make the connections between money and the real world, and doesn’t make a distinction between financial spending in general and smart investment in the future. Jeffrey Sachs has written a nice post that makes some of these points, and argues that there has been a recent drop in true investment right when the world needs it most urgently:

Neither neo-Keynesians nor supply-siders focus on the true remedies for this persistent drop in investment spending. Our societies urgently need more investment, particularly to convert heavily polluting, energy-intensive, and high-carbon production into sustainable economies based on the efficient use of natural resources and a shift to low-carbon energy sources. Such investments require complementary steps by the public and private sectors.

The necessary investments include large-scale deployment of solar and wind power; broader adoption of electric transport, both public (buses and trains) and private (cars); energy-efficient buildings; and power grids to carry renewable energy across large distances (say, from the North Sea and North Africa to continental Europe, and from California’s Mojave Desert to US population centers)…

These considerations are reasonably clear to anyone concerned with the urgent need to harmonize economic growth and environmental sustainability. Our generation’s most pressing challenge is to convert the world’s dirty and carbon-based energy systems and infrastructure into clean, smart, and efficient systems for the twenty-first century. Investing in a sustainable economy would dramatically boost our wellbeing and use our “excess” savings for just the right purposes.

Krugman vs. limits to growth

Paul Krugman has weighed in with an anecdotal example of how companies can find ways to conserve energy:

After 2008, when oil prices rose sharply, shipping companies — which send massive container ships on regular “pendulum routes”, taking stuff (say) from Rotterdam to China and back again — responded by reducing the speed of their ships. It turns out that steaming more slowly reduces fuel consumption more than proportionately to the reduction in speed

Interesting, but Mark Buchanan makes the point that total energy use keeps increasing even as efficiency per unit of GDP decreases (the Krugman article was actually a response to this one):

Growth inevitably entails doing more stuff of one kind or another, whether it’s manufacturing things or transporting people or feeding electricity to Facebook server farms or providing legal services. All this activity requires energy. We are getting more efficient in using it: The available data suggest that the U.S. uses about half as much per dollar of economic output as it did 30 years ago. Still, the total amount of energy we consume increases every year.

Data from more than 200 nations from 1980 to 2003 fit a consistent pattern: On average, energy use increases about 70 percent every time economic output doubles. This is consistent with other things we know from biology. Bigger organisms as a rule use energy more efficiently than small ones do, yet they use more energy overall. The same goes for cities. Efficiencies of scale are never powerful enough to make bigger things use less energy.

I have yet to see an economist present a coherent argument as to how humans will somehow break free from such physical constraints. Standard economics doesn’t even discuss how energy is tied into growth, which it sees as the outcome of interactions between capital and labor.

Brian Czech further attacks the Krugman article:

Let’s not let Krugman delude us. “Growing real GDP” isn’t about an efficiency gain here and there. It means increasing production and consumption of goods and services in the aggregate. It entails a growing human population and/or per capita consumption. It means growing the whole, integrated economy: agriculture, extraction, manufacturing, services, and infrastructure. From the tailpipe of all this activity comes pollution.

Krugman seems to have fallen for the pixie dust of “dematerializing” and “green growth” in the “Information Economy.” He may want to revisit Chapter 4 of The Wealth of Nations, where Adam Smith pointed out that agricultural surplus is what frees the hands for the division of labor. In Smith’s day that included the likes of candle-making and pin manufacturing. Today it includes everything from auto-making to information processing, but the fundamentals haven’t changed. No agricultural surplus, no economic growth. And agriculture is hardly a low-energy sector.

Now, I think it’s possible to have a vision of truly clean energy, which could one day allow us to grow energy use without increasing our environmental footprint. But to get there, we have to turn the corner where the reduction in impact per unit increase in energy use is greater than the overall increase in energy use. And we are nowhere near turning that corner yet.

urbanization and economic growth

From PLOS, Urbanization is correlated with economic growth, but it is not necessarily the cause of it.

The authors of the study argue that GDP growth may create conditions that organically drive migration from rural to urban areas, but the assumption that urbanization will necessarily drive strong economic growth may be false. Pointing to the numerous examples of accelerated urbanization without strong economic growth (again, the green graph above), they caution that “urbanization is not an automatic panacea” for economic difficulties. Citing other work, the authors suggest that instead of trying to move people into cities, governments and development agencies should focus on creating a mobile workforce, ensuring broad access to goods and markets, implementing government policies that support commerce, and investing in infrastructure. These efforts could make a bigger difference for short- and medium-term economic growth than arbitrary urbanization targets.

While economic growth is an incredibly complex process and much work remains, this study serves as a good reminder not to confuse causation and correlation: just because two variables are closely related doesn’t necessarily mean that one directly causes the other.

slowdown in entrepreneurialism

I thought that high unemployment and downward pressure on wages was leading to more startup companies and entrepreneurs. Not so, according to Janet Yellen from the Federal Reserve:

With a good deal of justification, the United States has always viewed itself as an entrepreneurial country. Although most new businesses fail, founding a new company is still a key way for people to move up the income distribution, Yellen said. “However, it appears that it has become harder to start and build businesses,” she added. “The pace of new business creation has gradually declined over the past couple of decades.” This decline could serve to depress the growth of productivity, wages, and employment, Yellen went on, and it “may well threaten what I believe likely has been a significant source of economic opportunity for many families below the very top in income and wealth.”

world economic slowdown

Here’s a laundry list of world economic problems from CBS News:

The focused has been on Germany over the past week, the weakly beating heart of the still-troubled eurozone, where industrial production, factory orders and export activity all posted the worst results since early 2009 amid chatter that the country is on the verge of falling back into a technical recession.

Separately, France is having budget woes. And the eurozone debt crisis threatens a comeback as credit rating agencies issue new warnings and the market starts to realize that the European Central Bank can no longer bluff its way out of trouble. It now must step up with a bona fide sovereign bond-buying stimulus program (which could be illegal according to its charter and is unpopular idea with the Germans) after playing at one for more than two years.

Japan is also at risk of falling back into technical recession (GDP growth already contracted last quarter) as a recent sales tax hike and the negative impact of a very weak yen (higher food, fuel and import costs) pinches consumers.

Japan has been held together by the idea that the Bank of Japan would issue more cheap money stimulus and further slam the yen if the economy faltered. But economists are realizing that a weak yen is hurting more than it’s helping at this point. And given Japan’s massive 227% national debt-to-GDP ratio (vs. around 100% for the U.S.) time is running out.

And in China, the People’s Bank of China is watching as electricity production contracts outright for the first time since early 2009, an anecdotal sign that China’s economy has hit a wall.

The second reason is that the U.S. Federal Reserve is watching as its efforts to merely return monetary policy to a more neutral footing — by bringing to an end the QE3 bond-buying program and looking ahead to the first interest rate hike since 2006 — has resulted in a volatile corporate bond market and a massive rally in the U.S. dollar.

This has crushed commodity prices, tightened credit to foreign economies (many of which have grown dependent on borrowing at low rates in cheap dollars) and threatens to slow U.S. GDP growth by pinching American exports.

It goes on after that…

No mention of root causes here. I keep repeating myself all the time redundantly but some potential root causes, which are not mutually exclusive are (1) the world is still feeling effects of the 2007-8 financial crisis, in a classic depression and loss of demand and confidence scenario, (2) rich people and corporations are driving government policy in their favor to the point that inequality has gotten so bad it has broken our economic system, with the middle class and working class not having enough incentive (i.e. income) to be productive, (3) technology and automation are putting strong downward pressure on middle class and working class wages, (4) climate change and natural capital depletion are starting to be felt in energy and food prices, putting a head wind on economic growth, with “green” technological progress not enough to lessen or reverse environmental impacts, or (5) innovation and technological progress in general have slowed down and are not driving economic growth like they have over the past century or so.

a rambling post on oil prices, France, and U.S. health care

I said recently that I didn’t think oil prices would continue to decline much below $100 a barrel. Well, today (October 10 as I write) West Texas Intermediate is at $85.82 and Brent Crude at $90.21. An article I linked to recently said that fracking is cost-effective right now when oil stays above about $60.

In other economic news, U.S. health care cost growth is significantly down and it seems like that trend might continue. And France’s economy might be in trouble.

What do all these trends mean taken together? I have no idea, but I can speculate as well as anyone. Europe has been stagnant and is staying that way. Growth and energy demand are slowing in Asia too, exactly when U.S. oil and gas production are booming. Maybe solar panels are starting to take a bite out of the natural gas market? Probably not yet, but that will happen.

The U.S. health care system is an extraordinarily complex and inefficient market that nobody truly understands. There are some signs it may finally be getting a little more efficient. I think this may be one reason the U.S. looks like a bright spot in the overall lackluster world economy right now.

 

GDP and child mortality

In this 2007 TED talk, Hans Rosling compares GDP and child mortality rates between countries over long periods of time. He makes some interesting comparisons – today’s “developing” or “emerging” countries have GDP similar to the U.S. about a hundred years ago (all adjusted for inflation and purchasing power, I assume), but they are much more advanced in terms of health and living standards than the U.S. was then. By animating over time, you can see how the catching up process occurred particularly after World War II. These plots are interesting because they show child mortality and GDP in two dimensions, but then use colors and bubbles to add various third variables like education level or carbon emissions.

I have to critique a little bit, I can’t help it. He mentions that GDP growth statistically explains 80% of the gains in child mortality. I accept the statistics, but I don’t think GDP growth is logically the cause of these gains. I suspect there are a couple key technologies, vaccination and water disinfection, that can probably explain a lot of the trend, and the discovery of these technologies happened to occur at a certain time in history. 100 years ago, when the U.S. was passing a threshold to join the club of truly wealth countries, we were in the early stages of discovering and implementing these trends. Today, when countries in Asia and South America are joining the club, these technologies are well established. So it’s not just about wealth, it’s about where we are at a particular moment of history. Logically, there can be periods where the world makes large gains in quality of life without equally large increases in financial wealth, and also the opposite.

September 2014 in Review

At the end of August, my Hope for the Future Index stood at +1.  As I did last month, I’ll sort selected posts that talk about positive trends and ideas vs. negative trends, predictions, and risks. Just for fun, I’ll keep a score card and pretend my posts are some kind of indicator of whether things are getting better or worse. I’ll give posts a score from -3 to +3 based on how negative or positive they are.

Negative trends and predictions (-8):

  • The drought in California’s Central Valley and on the Great Plains continues to get worse. (-1)
  • There are signs that Europe may be in a long-term economic depression. The term “new normal” is being batted around to describe a possible long term slowdown in growth affecting the entire world. (-2)
  • Governments and corporations are starting to use armed drones in crowd control. (-1)
  • In a new simulation of a society with increasing resource scarcity and technological innovation, increasing resource scarcity wins. (-1)
  • Meat and dairy consumption can’t continue rising at their current rate forever. (-1)
  • Herman Daly reminds us that the most common measure of economic growth does not distinguish between costs and benefits. Benjamin Friedman, in arguing that there is a moral imperative for economic growth, also used a more socially inclusive definition of growth than the most common one in use today. (-1)
  • The Ebola outbreak continues to get worse and worse, although people are arguing that this is not the type of plague that could threaten civilization itself. (-1)

Positive trends and predictions (+8):

  • Some countries have more sustainable policies than others, and the world could become more sustainable if we all copy the best examples. But even then, the world would probably not be sustainable enough. (+0)
  • People have come up with some novel ideas for backyard wildlife habitat. (+1)
  • Big companies are figuring out how to set up units that innovate more like startups. (+1)
  • Walkable cities with green infrastructure may help boost creativity and problem solving. There is plenty of evidence that walkability might be the single most important key to more sustainable cities. (+1)
  • There have actually been small advances in telepathy. Too soon to say if this will be used for good or evil. (+0)
  • There is a new generation of robot vacuum cleaners. Anything that can free humanity from the drudgery of house work has to be a good thing – almost any other use of our time has to be more productive, creative, or at least more fun. (+1)
  • There is some buzz about sustainable consumption. I just don’t know – the whole concept of “consumption” as an end in itself seems unsustainable to me. (+0)
  • There is also continuing buzz about “green growth” and “de-growth”, but in my opinion very little evidence that these ideas are catching on. (+0)
  • We were reminded that green infrastructure is more than just stormwater management. It’s a beautiful vision to link stormwater management, urban trees and parks, corridors and rural reserves together. But we need more people to share the vision and make it happen. (+1)
  • Another way to make cities a lot more sustainable is to have the price of parking actually reflect its total economic, social, and environmental cost, including the opportunity cost of the oceans of land that are just wasted. (+1)
  • Worldwide child mortality has dropped almost by half just since 1990. (+2)

Hope for the Future Index (August 2014): +1

August 2014 change: -8 + 8 = 0

Hope for the Future Index (September 2014): +1

growth, sustainability, and employment

This article in Ecological Economics looks at economic growth, sustainability, and employment together:

Two empirical correlations are studied: one between economic growth and environmental impacts, and the other between the lack of economic growth and unemployment. It is demonstrated that, at a global level, economic growth is strongly correlated with environmental impacts, and barriers to fast decoupling are large and numerous. On the other hand, low or negative growth is highly correlated with increasing unemployment in most market economies, and strategies to change this lead to difficult questions and tradeoffs. The coexistence of these two correlations – which have rarely been studied together in the literature on “green growth”, “degrowth” and “a-growth” – justifies ambivalence about growth. To make key environmental goals compatible with full employment, the decoupling of environmental impacts from economic output has to be accompanied by a reduction of dependence on growth. In particular, strategies to tackle unemployment without the need for growth, several of which are studied in this article, need much more attention in research and policy.

I get it – growth and employment are often looked at together in the mainstream economic literature, obviously. Employment is pretty important to living standards and social/political stability. Sustainability and growth are often looked at together in the sustainability literature (which is “mainstream” to some, but not really to most economists). There is an obvious tradeoff between the two as long as our economy devours large amounts of natural resources and produces enormous amounts of waste and pollution. The idea of “decoupling” is that each unit of growth gets slightly greener and cleaner over time. But unfortunately, that process does not seem to be nearly fast enough to prevent eventual collapse. Damage to natural ecosystems is increasing and will eventually threaten the ecosystem services that our human civilization depends on. That is the trend we are on. The only two ways out are to slow growth or to accelerate the decoupling process. This article seems to focus on the former. My opinion is that this path is politically impossible unless it is precipitated by some serious crisis, which we can’t just sit around and wait for because it could cause enormous pain and suffering. So the latter option is the only hope. It is hard but entirely possible if enough people understand the situation and dedicate their efforts to make it happen.