Archive
Man Bites Dog, Part 4
(For previous installments, see here.)
Wind energy is killing rare birds and many bats.
Some of the most damning images of oil industry destruction are of birds soaked in spilled oil. These images help form an image of oil as a dirty, earth-unfriendly energy source.
And in some ways, it is.
But every energy source is in some ways earth-unfriendly.
Why so little reporting on bird deaths cause by wind energy? Does anyone doubt that it’s not because wind energy is considered “environmentally friendly” by most journalists, who then won’t naturally gravitate to any story that runs counter to that narrative?
Man Bites Dog, Part 3
(See parts 1 and 2, here.)
Because of increased oil and mineral production in the Congo, there is less rainforest being destroyed.
Yet, somehow I doubt we’ll see people protesting for more oil production to save the rainforest.
Already someone has figured out a way to explain that, still, all this could be bad for the environment:
But on the other side, the big increase in human population and the rise in living standards globally means we may need more agricultural commodities…
In other words, it would be better for the environment for the world to have lower living standards! Because we all know that the poorest countries do a great job of protecting the environment, right?
The World’s Most Interesting Industry
Ok, I’m exaggerating, but really, could there be a more interesting intersection of logistics, economics, politics and physics than is present in this explanation of why WTI and Brent crude oil prices have recently converged?
The American Middle Class Shrinks…
…as more and more of it joins the upper class, quite contrary to common perception:
Environmentalism and Economics
I’m reading a classic of environmentalism, Clive Ponting’s A Green History of the World. It’s fairly left-leaning, and doesn’t have much good to say about economics. Mr. Ponting’s basic view of economics seems to be that it’s short-sighted and oblivious to the long-term damage of, for example, over-fishing.
In fact, every basic economics text deals with just this problem: it’s called the tragedy of the commons.
The problem may or may not be inadequate government regulation. It could also be a lack of property rights. But in any case, it’s not caused by classical economics, and economics has plenty of useful things to say about how to solve this problem.
I’ll probably show this video in Microeconomics class next semester, for example:
China’s GDP growth slows to 7.5%? Or less?
The number 7.5% is right in line with the target…and Mamta Babkar thinks that’s too good to be true.
Maybe.
But I doubt the real numbers are much different from the official figures. Here’s why: with reporting like this, you can only fudge the numbers for so long.
A hypothetical example:
Suppose you are an official reporting economic growth for XYZ Province in China. Let’s make it a reasonably large province…say, one with a big economy of around $815 billion.
Now suppose the economy really only grows by 6.5% to $868 billion. But you want to fudge the numbers and report growth of 7.5%, or a $876 billion economy. The actual/reported gap is $8 billion, not even noticeable in an economy of this size.
What happens next year? Suppose the target is again 7.5% but again you only get 6.5% growth. This time, you have to report a $942 billion economy, when the real size is only $924 billion. Now the actual/reported gap is $17 billion–twice as big relative to the actual economy size as the year before.
By the fifth year the gap would be $53 billion, or five times as big relative to the first year “fudge.”
In other words, since these numbers are compounding annually, you can’t just roll fake numbers forward. They snowball.
China’s political leaders may or may not be less honest with numbers than politicians of other countries–who’s to say?–but they certainly understand math better than the average journalist.
My guess is that the numbers are pretty close to correct, even if they’ve been “smoothed” a little.
MOOCs May Do for Education What TV Did for Sports
The Economist has another article on the phenomenon of online education, this time focusing on the question of whether or not any provider has actually hit on a viable business model.
Besides the uncertainty over which business model, if any, will produce profits, there is disagreement over how big the market will be. Some see a zero- or negative-sum game, in which cheap online providers radically reduce the cost of higher education and drive many traditional institutions to the wall. Others believe this effect will be dwarfed by the dramatic increase in access to higher education that the MOOCs will bring.
There are some interesting angles here, including the idea that MOOCs may open higher education to advertising sponsorship.
One idea that isn’t mentioned is the possibility for MOOCs to introduce the superstar phenomena to higher education. Many teachers and universities are going to be made obsolete, but the best teachers will be able to be experienced by millions of students. The current upper limit of the number of students who can consume the output of a top-ranked university professor’s lecture is in the hundreds.
Prepare for the coming superstar educator.
Indonesia’s Economy Cools a Bit
Still, 6% growth is faster than most countries.
Growth in Southeast Asia’s largest economy will probably slow to 5.9 percent, from an earlier forecast of 6.2 percent, according to a quarterly report released in Jakarta today. The Washington-based lender also lifted its annual inflation forecast to 7.2 percent, after the government raised fuel prices last month.
The government isn’t actually raising fuel prices, though…it’s removing (only part) of a subsidy that makes fuel cheaper than the market would otherwise value it at.
Journalists often write imprecisely about prices and subsides.
Global Marketing Final Exam, Part 1
Because I set the timer wrong at the beginning of the exam period, several students rushed through part one to get to part two. I regret the mistake. To make it right, I am going to take the best grade (as a percent) from either part one or part two. In other words, if you did worse on part one than part two, it won’t matter–only part two will count. And if you did worse on part two, only part one will count for you. This should be fair to all students.
That said, here are the results for part one, out of a possible 15:
Student: 7777; Correct: 14
Student: 3204; Correct: 10
Student: 1302; Correct: 9.5
Student: 8549; Correct: 9
Student: 4695; Correct: 8
Student: 2113; Correct: 8
Student: 0069; Correct: 8
Student: 5729; Correct: 8
Student: 1657; Correct: 8
Student: 4488; Correct: 7
Student: 8754; Correct: 7
Student: 2410; Correct: 7
Student: 1807; Correct: 7
Student: 1012; Correct: 6
Student: 6563; Correct: 6
Student: 1507; Correct: 6
Student: 1407; Correct: 6
Student: 5703; Correct: 6
Student: 4999; Correct: 6
Student: 1824; Correct: 6
Student: 2626; Correct: 5.5
Student: 5115; Correct: 5.5
Student: 3012; Correct: 5
Student: 1422; Correct: 5
Student: 2159; Correct: 5
Student: 3236; Correct: 5
Student: 6710; Correct: 4.5
Student: 2525; Correct: 4
Student: 1963; Correct: 4
Student: 7730; Correct: 4
Student: 1992; Correct: 4
Student: 2290; Correct: 4
Student: 5394; Correct: 4
Student: 2044; Correct: 4
Student: 2908; Correct: 4
Student: 7557; Correct: 4
Student: 1912; Correct: 3.5
Student: 9999; Correct: 3
Student: 0880; Correct: 3
Student: 1832; Correct: 3
Student: 7477; Correct: 3
Student: 1310; Correct: 3
Student: 2012; Correct: 3
Student: 5559; Correct: 2
Student: 6507; Correct: 2
Student: 3116; Correct: 2
Student: 2239; Correct: 2
Student: 1234; Correct: 1
Student: 1994; Correct: 1
Student: 3037; Correct: 1
Student: 3637; Correct: 0
Student: 6464; Correct: 0
Student: 0524; Correct: 0
Student: 0307; Correct: 0
Transnational Corporation Management, Final Exam Part 1
Out of a possible 15:
Student: 69690; Correct: 15
Student: 1519; Correct: 14
Student: 1168; Correct: 13
Student: 1728; Correct: 13
Student: 5510; Correct: 12
Student: 1725; Correct: 12
Student: 2009; Correct: 11
Student: 3106; Correct: 11
Student: 6564; Correct: 11
Student: 2243; Correct: 11
Student: 3003; Correct: 10
Student: 6688; Correct: 10
Student: 2121; Correct: 10
Student: 9450; Correct: 9
Student: 19541; Correct: 9
Student: 6064; Correct: 9
Student: 5433; Correct: 9
Student: 2131; Correct: 8.5
Student: 3142; Correct: 8
Student: 1900; Correct: 8
Student: 69691; Correct: 8
Student: 407; Correct: 7
Student: 1680; Correct: 7
Student: 1112; Correct: 7
Student: 3514; Correct: 7
Student: 533; Correct: 7
Student: 711; Correct: 6
Student: 19540; Correct: 6
Student: 666; Correct: 6
Student: 6568; Correct: 6
Student: 5819; Correct: 6
Student: 9752; Correct: 5
Student: 7007; Correct: 5
Student: n/a; Correct: 5
Student: 4202; Correct: 5
Student: ; Correct: 5
Student: 1910; Correct: 4
Student: 291; Correct: 4
Student: 7722; Correct: 4
Student: 2505; Correct: 4
Student: 7857; Correct: 3
Student: 1611; Correct: 3
Student: 8590; Correct: 3
Student: 1592; Correct: 3
Student: 6207; Correct: 3
Student: 1333; Correct: 2
Student: 7958; Correct: 2
Student: 9696; Correct: 1
Student: 5271; Correct: 1
Student: 9229; Correct: 1
Student: 1413; Correct: 1
Student: 8471; Correct: 0
Student: 3109; Correct: 0
Student: 9192; Correct: 0
China Loans Nigeria $1.1 Billion (Again)
Overall, this is good news for both China and Nigeria.
But you can almost be certain that there’s less “news” here than meets the eye.
Yesterday Aljazeera posted this “news“:
Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, have presided over the signing of accords between their governments to facilitate $1.1bn in low-interest loans for much-needed infrastructure in Nigeria.
The ceremony took place on Wednesday in Beijing at the start of Jonathan’s four-day visit.
But, last September, 2012, the New York Times already had the breaking story:
China is offering Nigeria $1.1 billion in loans to help the West African nation build airport terminals, a light rail line for its capital city and communication system improvements, the country’s Finance Ministry said Wednesday.
These deals are almost always hammered out well in advance of meetings of heads of state. I’m more surprised that the number is still just $1.1 billion.
But again, overall, this is good.
International Economics Final, Part 3
Correct out of 15 possible:
Student: 9842; Correct: 10
Student: 0410; Correct: 9
Student: 1991; Correct: 9
Student: 6969; Correct: 9
Student: 7169; Correct: 7
Student: 1358; Correct: 7
Student: 3010; Correct: 6
Student: 2012; Correct: 6
Student: 0000; Correct: 5
Student: 0304; Correct: 5
Student: 0116; Correct: 4
Student: 0509; Correct: 4
Student: 1616; Correct: 4
Student: 6688; Correct: 3
Student: 4321; Correct: 3
Student: 0910; Correct: 3
Student: 0007; Correct: 2
Student: 2120; Correct: 2
Student: 9595; Correct: 2
Student: 2016; Correct: 2
Student: 1605; Correct: 2
Student: 0005; Correct: 1
Student: 1200; Correct: 1
Student: 8984; Correct: 1
Student: 1791; Correct: 1
Student: 5664; Correct: 1
Student: 2804; Correct: 1
Student: 3832; Correct: 1
Student: 1911; Correct: 1
Student: 1350; Correct: 1
Student: 2121; Correct: 0
Student: 5750; Correct: 0
Student: 1212; Correct: 0
Student: 0103; Correct: 0
Student: 0494; Correct: 0
Student: 5292; Correct: 0
Student: 1806; Correct: 0
Student: 1960; Correct: 0
Student: 5393; Correct: 0
Student: 9555; Correct: 0
Student: 2536; Correct: 0
Student: 1382; Correct: 0
Student: 0507; Correct: 0
International Economics Final, Part 2
Out of 60 possible points:
Student: 9842; Correct: 55
Student: 7169; Correct: 49
Student: 0103; Correct: 48
Student: 0304; Correct: 46
Student: 2120; Correct: 44
Student: 1991; Correct: 31
Student: 0507; Correct: 28
Student: 1616; Correct: 27
Student: 2012; Correct: 20
Student: 1212; Correct: 20
Student: 0116; Correct: 17
Student: 5292; Correct: 16
Student: 2016; Correct: 16
Student: 8984; Correct: 13
Student: 0494; Correct: 12
Student: 1350; Correct: 12
Student: 0509; Correct: 11
Student: 9555; Correct: 11
Student: 6688; Correct: 10
Student: 1791; Correct: 10
Student: 0410; Correct: 8
Student: 0007; Correct: 8
Student: 2121; Correct: 7
Student: 1358; Correct: 7
Student: 1605; Correct: 7
Student: 5750; Correct: 6
Student: 3010; Correct: 5
Student: 0910; Correct: 5
Student: 6969; Correct: 4
Student: 1806; Correct: 4
Student: 5393; Correct: 4
Student: 1911; Correct: 4
Student: 2536; Correct: 4
Student: 0000; Correct: 3
Student: 2804; Correct: 3
Student: 3832; Correct: 2
Student: 9595; Correct: 2
Student: 1200; Correct: 1
Student: 5664; Correct: 1
Student: 4321; Correct: 1
Student: 0005; Correct: 0
Student: 1960; Correct: 0
Student: 1382; Correct: 0
Text Your Answer to…
So far, my favorite fill in the blank answer is this one:
The question, from the management final exam, was about management by objectives. Management by objectives is often abbreviated MBO, and many of my students wrote the abbreviation “MBO” instead of the correct answer, “objectives.”
One student, instead of writing MBO, filled in the blank “…management by ______” with “OMG”.
(>_<)
Washing Machines and Other “Job Stealing Robots”
Even though this article is written more from the perspective of what these “job stealing robots” mean for U.S. “onshoring,” I can’t help but think of two rather obvious things I am afraid most people miss when they think about this phenomenon:
When labor becomes more productive, it rightly demands a higher wage. Increasing human capital though training and eduction makes labor more productive (or we’re wasting our time, no?) As wages rise, capital (machinery, in this example) gets relatively cheaper and is substituted for labor.
So, don’t blame a greedy factory owner for those job “losses”–blame a teacher. I’ll gladly take the blame! And if you want to slow down the substitution of capital for labor, just make labor less expensive. Destroying a bunch of schools would be a good start. (Last sentence tongue-in-cheek, hope you know.)
We live with “job stealing robots” everyday. Remember when people hired others–women, mostly–to hand wash their clothes? No? If you don’t it’s because you probably grew up with a washing machine, a robot that has replaced untold thousands of what used to be called “washerwomen.” Has that not been good for humanity in general and even better for women? Couldn’t we “create” thousands of jobs for low-skilled workers by banning washing machines?
So why do we call shoe-making machines job stealers, but not washing machines?
Teaching Economics in China 