I’m back in beautiful Brisbane and, I hope, back to normal blogging. It’s time for your comments on any topic (civilised discussion and no coarse language, please).
As a starter question, I’ll ask – should I join the general trend, and give this blog a name? If so, any suggestions? (I know I’m leaving myself wide open here, but that’s what blogging’s all about!)
Disgrace by JM Coetzee. It’s been sitting on my shelf for a year or so, and the Nobel Prize (along with the interesting, if not strictly relevant, fact that Coetzee is now living in Adelaide) finally prompted me to read it. It’s a bleak look at post-apartheid South Africa and at the human condition in general. The hero is a middle-aged academic, formerly a classicist and now reduced to teaching communications who leaves his job in disgrace after an affair with a student, and goes to live with his daughter on a remote farmlet. Coetzee got into a lot of trouble in South Africa over the central scene, in which the pair are attacked by a group of black marauders, and for the generally pessimistic outlook of the book as a whole. His latest book, Elizabeth Costello has an Australian writer as its main character, and covers some of the same themes as Disgrace, including animal rights and how to talk about evil. I was impressed by the excerpt I read in Prospect but haven’t yet seen the book.
Last night, I went to a concert by Margret RoadKnight, looking back on forty years on the folk scene. She showed off both her vast range of traditional and contemporary music and a voice that hasn’t lost any of its quality in the thirty years I’ve been listening to her. Accompaniment was provided by Bruce McNicol, late of the Captain Matchbox Whoopee Band. The concert was held at the very snazzy Judith Wright Cultural Centre and the audience was much more cultural centre than folk club. With the exception of the goateed youngsters taking the tickets mine was just about the only beard there.
Brad de Long reports on a dinner discussion with Paul Krugman and Janet Yellen, hinking About Puzzling Anomalies in the Flow of Macroeconomic Data . He says
We currently have two large, puzzling anomalies in the macroeconomic dataflow. First, productivity growth is ludicrously, ridiculously, unbelievably rapid. Second, the high current level of the U.S. trade deficit fits very uneasily with the relatively high value of the dollar and the lack of large interest rate differentials in favor of the U.S. relative to other countries
and says
Things that readers think are smart should be attributed to Paul Krugman or to Janet Yellen. Things that people think are dumb should be attributed to me.
. At the risk of showing myself up as dumb (at least relative to these very smart guys), I don’t see a problem in either case.
Beginning with productivity, it’s only labour productivity that’s grown rapidly and seemingly anomalously. Capital productivity has declined markedly, as has multifactor productivity (a weighted average of capital and labour productivity) In part this reflects the economics of embodied technical change – as computing power has become cheaper it has been applied more intensively. But there’s also a big hangover effect from the bubble and bust, when crazy signals from capital markets led lots of firms to undertake unprofitable investments. Once some semblance of reality returns, the natural response is to cut back and it’s much easier to sack the least productive workers than to reduce capital stock. So labour productivity rises fast, but output growth is weak. I’ve done the numbers here (see also here and here), and they fit the data neatly.
On the absence of a large interest rate differential and the relatively high value of the dollar despite the large deficit, this is only a problem if you assume capital markets operate rationally. All the recent evidence is against this assumption, but in any case the markets aren’t as crazy as all that. Most non-US participants are now selling US-denominated assets ,which are only being kept afloat by the efforts of Asian central banks. Strong versions of the efficient markets hypothesis would suggest that such activities must be futile, and that speculators, anticipating the inevitable decline of the dollar would drive the central banks to the wall, but I don’t have any problem ignoring strong versions of the efficient markets hypothesis.
I’m just back from appearing before yet another Senate inquiry into the sale of Telstra. I’ve been doing this for so many years, I’ve outlasted all the original members of the Committee, and most of the government’s policy position (in 1996, for example, they were arguing strenuously that partial privatisation was a good idea). I’ll post my submission soon, but this Evatt piece gives you a summary of my position.
I’ve also outlasted Communications Minister Richard Alston, described in this political obituary by Tex as “One of the worst ministers of his generation”. What was even more striking than Alston’s incompetence was the arrogance that went with it. I think Alston would be aptly memorialised by a scale measuring the ratio of arrogance to the amount one has to be arrogant about. Richard himself would set the upper bound of 10.
Assuming a log scale, I’d give Costello a 6 on the Alston scale, Keating a 5 and Whitlam a 4. They’re about equally arrogant, but Keating has 10 times as much to be arrogant about than Costello, and similarly for Whitlam v Keating (common sense is another matter).
A quick report on the Economists’ conference.
The first plenary was by Paul Ormerod on “What can economic agents learn?”. The central idea is that we need more realistic models in which people’s capacity to learn and make inferences is bounded. I’m fully in agreement with this and am actively working on a way of modelling such ideas. Ormerod didn’t give much detail about his own approach to the problem.
Deirdre McCloskey presented her ideas on statistical significance, which have already been discussed on this blog. In question time, Adrian Pagan gave a characteristically vigorous defence of the standard approach, making some good points I thought (disclosure: McCloskey’s paper includes a ranking of all the papers published in the American Economic Review according to the adequacy of their treatment of significance in published regressions. My paper with Steve Dowrick ranks a bit below average on this scale. I don’t really think it should have been included, since the main focus of the paper is on nonparametric measures of relative international income. We only threw in a regression to show the difference between our measure and the standard PPP measure).
Richard Freeman gave a talk on “Not your Father’s Union”, talking up the prospect of a resurgence of unionism based on Internet organisation. Coincidentally or otherwise, the same day I got an email from the AFL-CIO (US equivalent of the ACTU), which I’ve appended as an instance of this phenomenon. It was part of a campaign to resist Administration attacks on overtime pay, which was successful in its immediate objective of getting a favorable vote in the House of Representatives.
The higher education session was, as Derrida Derider mentioned, disgustingly civilised, with no fisticuffs between me and fellow-blogger Andrew Norton. I plan to post a full paper before long. There was at least a good crowd, filling the small room. By contrast, my paper on water reform was presented to an audience of about twenty in a theatre with a capacity of 500. Again, I’ll try to post a paper. My idea is to spend money now buying irrigators’ rights to license renewal in ten years’ time.
(AFL-CIO email follows)
As you can see from the sidebar, my comments boxes have been extensively spammed, I assume by some sort of spambot. This could really be a threat to blogging – is anyone aware of countermeasures?
Meanwhile, please post lots of comments on different topics, to push this lowlife off my page and save me the trouble of deleting him manually.
Get into the Western Plains Zoo. We turned up yesterday afternoon, but admissions had already stopped for the day. There was a big storm overnight, and the zoo was closed for repairs today. So we drove back to Brisbane, seeing most of the northern catchments of the Murray-Darling Basin in the aftermath of excellent and widespread rain. My back of the envelope estimate suggested that several thousand GL of water had fallen in a single day, but I’m glad to be corrected on this.
I also missed the Senate Committee on Telstra which, by a surprising coincidence, held its hearings in Dubbo yesterday. I’m appearing tomorrow in Nambour, a little way north of Brisbane.
As I mentioned in my previous post, Bjorn Lomborg’s favorite argument against Kyoto is that the money it would cost would be better spent helping poor countries. This is in keeping with his pose as a leftist greenie, reluctantly convinced of the truth of the arguments of people like Julian Simon.
So it would not be surprising to find Lomborg working for a Danish government that opposed Kyoto and spent more on foreign aid. The Rasmussen govt, for which Lomborg works, does indeed oppose Kyoto. But it has also repeatedly cut foreign aid.
Lomborg is a hypocrite and a fraud. It’s as simple as that
Update Various commentators have reacted on the apparent assumption that Lomborg is a civil servant, expressing his private views in his spare time. In fact, the Danish government created an Environmental Assessment Institute with a position as director specifically for Lomborg, whose only qualifications for such a post are the political views expressed in The Sceptical Environmentalist (he has never published a refereed article on any environmental issue). Given the frequency with which he pops up around the world, I assume that his tour to Australia is being carried out as part of his official duties.
Further update 5/10 Stentor Danielson has a good discussion of the issues raised by Lomborg’s actions, and concludes, that Lomborg doesn’t care too much about the foreign aid cuts because
really thinks that reducing spending on global warming is a good thing in and of itself (only a suspicion because I haven’t read his manifesto, The Skeptical Environmentalist)
I have read it, and I agree.
Bjorn Lomborg pushes his usual anti-Kyoto line in the Oz
will be extremely expensive and will have only a negligible effect. The global cost will be large: the estimates from all macro-economic models show a cost of $US150 billion ($224 billion) to $US350 billion every year. At the same time, the effect on extreme weather will be marginal: the climate models show that Kyoto will merely postpone the temperature rise by six years from 2100 to 2106. Most global warming problems will occur in the Third World, yet these countries have many other, more serious, problems with which to contend. For the cost of Kyoto, in 2010, we could permanently solve the biggest problem in the world รถ we could permanently provide clean drinking water and sanitation for every person in the world. Should we not deal with the most pressing problems for real people first?
What Lomborg doesn’t say here is that these scary estimates refer only to the case when Kyoto is implemented without emissions trading. With emissions trading, the net cost to the world would be much smaller, but Lomborg says this is politically infeasible because it would require big transfers from rich to poor countries.
In other words, we can’t implement Kyoto efficiently because we would have to give lots of money to poor countries and that’s politically impossible. But, as an alternative to implementing inefficiently we should give lots of money to poor countries.
I’ve pointed out this contradiction ad nauseam, but consistency is not a major issue for Lomborg or for his right-wing employers (the nastiest government in recent Danish history) and promoters.
I’ll be presenting twice at the Economists’ conference today. First, in the morning on “Higher Education: The Last Nationalised Industry?” and then in the afternoon on “Discounting and sustainable management of the Murray-Darling system”. After that I’ll be heading back to Brisbane, stopping along the way at Dubbo zoo and the Parkes radiotelescope. Normal blogging should resume next week.
I plan to post copies of my presentations on my website next week, and to have full papers a bit later.
John Quiggin 