Inkstain CSFC Index

The new bike path makes getting in and out of my neighborhood much safer, but I no longer find myself behind the neighborhood Wal-Mart MegaStore, which means I’ve lost touch with the Inkstain Cheap Shit From China (CSFC) Index. It’s based on the number of shipping containers out back to hold the overflow inventory they can’t fit in the store at this time of year.

Cheap Shit From China

Cheap Shit From China

I swung by this afternoon on my way home from a ride to find that, as one might expect, the CSFC is down from previous years. I’ve seen it reach near 40 of those big shipping containers as Christmas approaches. It’s frequently in the mid 20s by Thanksgiving, rising steadily as the Holiday of Shopping approaches.

This year, Dec 20: only 23.

Quigley on the Cause of the Mess

One of the pluses of working in a newsroom is when smart people walk by your desk and tell you interesting things. One of the pluses of subscribing to a newspaper is the followup part, where the smart people write it all down, and then people stay up all night to print it up and throw it on your driveway. This morning’s case in point is my colleague Win Quigley’s explanation of risk models:

Wall Street was doing the equivalent of flying an airplane with an altimeter that says you’re 1,000 feet higher than you really are. It works great, just so long as you’re more than 1,000 feet off the ground.

“Speedy’s Back”


Roadrunner

Originally uploaded by heinemanfleck.

Lissa was on her way out the door this morning when she stuck her head back in and shouted to me, “Speedy’s back.” Lissa took this picture last week. I’m pretty sure it’s a pair, because this morning’s bird had the more dramatic color behind the eye than it looks like you can see in this picture.

There’s been some discussion about putting out food, but I suspect we’re already doing that indirectly by putting out seeds for the other birds. This morning, Speedy had a feather stuck to his beak.

Green Jobs Yet Again

John Whitehead’s green jobs freight train has apparently completely burned its brakes on the run out of the mountains, and is hurtling headlong toward we know not what. In this morning’s epistle, Whitehead quotes a Forbes listing of the new green jobs (Could Forbes really misunderstand macroeconomics? This being a blog and not real journalism, (update: see addendum below) I never actually clicked through to find out.) and adds this:

In a standard benefit-cost analysis of an environmental policy that leads to the creation of jobs such as emissions brokers, bio-mimicry engineers, sustainability coordinators and green architects, the cost of these jobs (i.e., wages, salaries and benefits) would go in the cost column. Government policy raises the cost of doing business. Some of these costs are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

These costs, (1) reductions in profit (i.e., producer surplus) and (2) higher prices (i.e., lost consumer surplus) would be compared against the environmental quality benefits (e.g., the value of improved health, better recreational opportunities) that the policy generates in order to determine if the policy is economically efficient (i.e., net benefits are positive).

Based on my climate-economics intuitions, the net benefits are clearly positive, but it’s worth remembering Whitehead’s point that all those jobs (of which my job might properly be described as one) really belong in the “cost” column.

addendum: A reader points out in a thoughtful email how totally bogus my observation about the blog-journalism distinction was. It was an attempt at self-deprecating humor, but fails to acknowledge the important point that many blogs do do real research, and many journalists don’t. In my case, I’ll cheerfully toss off asides like my Forbes point on my Inkstain blog – which I view as a sort of sketchbook – that I never would on my work blog or in print, because I hold myself there to a different standard. But sometimes I do real research for Inkstain too. Other bloggers and journalists set their own standards, and I should not have so generalized.

Liberal? Socialistic?

A couple of months ago in this space, a commenter responded to a post about economists favoring a carbon tax as a response to climate change by asking whether said economists were “liberal and socialistic”. The question is perhaps best answered by reference to former advisors to George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan who favor a carbon tax.

Note that I’m not an advocate of labels as useful tool in such discussions, but if they’re going to be bandied about, it’s worth seeing how well they stick.

For further reference, see Pigou Club.

Elasticities in the Short and Long Term

Via Dessler and Revkin, an interesting interview with economist Gary Yohe that gets to the heart of the puzzle about gasoline consumption this year. Gas prices soared over the summer, but consumption dropped only a bit (on the order of 3-5 percent year-over-year). The question posed by critics of a carbon tax as a greenhouse gas reduction measure – what does this suggest about the size of the tax required to get serious reductions? If doubling the price of gas doesn’t get us very far (and most advocates think we’ve got to go farther than 5 percent), does that mean a price increase in the form of a gas tax won’t work? If you look at this year’s data, you might be tempted to come to the conclusion that the gas tax would have to be enormous.

The answer, as Yohe explains, lies in the difference between short and longer term elasticities. In the short run, there’s not much you can do. In the longer term, a consistent signal that prices will be higher (which government can send in the form of a tax in a way the market on its own will not) makes me more likely not to buy that Hummer I’ve been so badly wanting. Here’s Yohe:

The price bounces around and that adds a little bit of uncertainty, potentially a lot of uncertainty… A tax, on the other hand, sends a very strong price signal that’s unambiguous and not clouded with a lot of noise, so that people can actually understand what carbon will cost them and how the price of carbon will increase persistently and predictably over time.

Net Green Jobs Watch

John Whitehead’s jihad against the green jobs argument continues:

The implication of this type of study is that environmental policy creates net positive green jobs. The jobs lost as a result of environmental policy are never mentioned.

You’ve really got to follow the comment threads on these. And to be clear – John is not arguing that green policies are not of value. See externalities. He’s arguing that the green job creation argument is bogus.

Elephant Diaries: Information in Meatspace

Bruce Barcott on the loss of newspapers:

It matters because papers exist in the physical world, the meatspace with the rest of us, and the fact of their existence, in print on paper, sitting on every corner of downtown Seattle, reminds us that there’s a larger conversation going on around us. She’s worried that the physical existence of newspapers binds us together as a society. Without it, we float off into our private little nodes of self-interest.