Monday, November 15, 2010

Macroeconomics!


GDP – Total quantity of final goods and services produced in a country over a period of time measured in constant prices.
-       What’s wrong with inflation?
o      Creditor/debtor income redistribution
o      Shoe leather costs:the cost of running back and forth to the bank in order to make financial transactions. Transaction cost
o      Unit-of-Account Costs: Reduce quality of economic decisions, less likely to enter long-term contracts b/c of uncertainty.
-       Uncertainty about price information, this creates uncertainty in anything involving long-term contracting. Having stable prices is important.
o      Menu Costs: Costs arising from having to print prices.
-       A recession is 6 moths or 2 quarters of falling real output. In the US the NBER makes a judgment call based on economic indicators about recessions.
-       Calculating GDP: Y = C + I + G + X – IM (Expenditure Approach):
o      The value of domestic production of final goods.
1.     Value added approach: Revenue– payments to factors of production and for intermediate goods.
2.     Income approach: Income earned by factors of production, wages and salaries, rents, interest, and profits (payments for capital services).
3.     Expenditure approach: Total value of final sales (includes investment and inventory goods)
o      Gross GDP includes government expenditures on goods and service. Government outlays are public goods includes transfer payments.
o      Investments are current production that wind up as capital goods, not private investment such as machinery. 
Calculating CPI:
o      100 * Cost of market basket in current period/ cost of market basket in base period
o      Two good basket: Base period: 100 * (Quantities in year 1 x Prices in year 1 / Quantities year 1 x Prices in year 1)
o      2nd Period: 100 * (Quantities in year 1 x Prices in year 1 / Quantities year 2 x Prices in year 2)
o      Inflation rate: CPI year 2 – CPI year 1/100
o      However, choosing base period matters because of the substitution effect. Goods that have high/negative inflation, and therefore reduced/increased demand, must be factored. Use 1st year as comparison: CPI 2 = 100 x ( Year 2 Quantities x Year 1 Prices / Year 2 Quantities x Year 2 Prices)
o      2nd year as base year: CPI 1 = 100 x ( Year 2 Quantities x Year 2 Prices / Year 2 Quantities x Year 2 Prices). Inflation rate: CPI 1 – CPI 2 / CPI 2
Headline Inflation Rate: % Change from last month or % change from same month last year in CPI and seasonally adjusted. Annualized rate, r/12 * 4 = per quarter change.


Y = AF(K,N) -> Full employment output is given as the output that results from equilibrium in the labor market. Assuming Cobb-Douglas, equal increases in K and N that result in an unequal increase in Y must necessitate a change in A equal to the difference between the other two changes.
- When labor demand = labor supply; wage and employment level are set:







This level of employment plugged into production function yields full employment output.
-       Adverse supply shock reduces full employment output directly, reducing quantity of output that can be produced with fixed amounts of capital and labor (reduction in A)
-       Reduces full employment indirectly, lowers N thereby lowering Y.
Labor force: All employed and unemployed workers.
-       Employed: over 16, employed part or full time in the past week
-       Unemployed – Didn’t work for the past week but look for work during the past 4 weeks.
-       Not in labor force – didn’t work during the past week and didn’t look for work during the past 4 weeks. Discouraged workers leave the labor force.
-       Unemployment rate: unemployed/labor force
-       Participation rate: Labor Force/Adult Population
-       Employment ratio: Employed/population.
-       Frictional unemployment – Unemployment created by searching, firms for workers and workers for firms.
-       Structural Unemployment –Can’t be attributed to matching process. Exists even when economy is not in recession. Unskilled workers are unable to obtain desirable, long term jobs. Reallocation pains from labor in contracting industries moving into expanding industries. unemployment that results when there are more people seeking jobs in a labor market than there are jobs available at the current wage rate.
o      Sources of Structural Unemployment:
o      Limited geographic mobility
o      Limited mobility of job types, contracting to expanding industry
o      Inability to acquire better skill sets.
o      Cultural/sociological barriers to new markets
o      Culture of unemployment – People who spend a long time unemployed have a reduced flexibility. (Older unemployed workers)
-       Natural rate of unemployment – Unemployment rate is never zero, even when economy is at full employment output. Reflects structural and frictional forces.
-       The natural rate of unemployment changes over time, and it can be affected by economic policies.
-       Cyclical unemployment: Actual unemployment – natural unemployment.
Say’s Law: Market stays in equilibrium b/c if output is produced, income is created or earned in production. Output = Income, Y = I
-       Leakages out of income: Tax payments, savings, and imports. Not spent on consumption.
-       Injections (not earned from consumption): investment, government expenditure, exports.
-       Current Account: Measure of foreign assets. NX + Net factor income (interests + dividends) + net transfer payments (aid). If deficit, R.O.W holds more assets if surplus holds more assets from the R.O.W.
-       Saving Investment Identity: T + S + M = I + G + X
o      I = S + (T-G) – (X-M)
o      T-G = Government Surplus if T > G
o      X-M = Capital Inflow if M > X
o      NX = Y – (C+I+T-G), when output exceeds absorption, an economy will send its goods abroad and have a current account surplus.
-       Capital Inflow: As other nations sell us goods, they accumulate our currency and use that money to buy our investment goods. Thereby providing their purchasing power via our investment goods.
-       Physical Capital: Stock of investment goods
-       Human capital: Labor force stock of skills
-       Financial capital: Funds available for investment expenditures from either private savings or capital inflow.
Loanable funds market (interest rate equilibrates):







-       Loanble funds market tells us nothing about full employment and output.
-       Factors that cause shift of demand curve: changes in perceived business opportunities, changes in government borrowing.
-       Government deficit reduces capital available to private sector b/c it increases the interest rate, pushes the demand curve out.
-       Govt. needs diff b/t D1 and D2 but the change in loanable funds (F2-F1) is less than this amount; business are CROWDED out of loanable funds.
-       Savings curve can shift b/c of changes in private savings behavior (substitution or income effect) and change in capital inflows. More exports means more holders of our currency, buying more investment goods.
-       Investment curve shifts can be a result of expected future MPK (higher MPK means desired capital stock increases) and the tax rate.
Income-Expenditure Model:
-       When inventory grows at a faster rate than desired expenditure than inventory accumulates b/c no one buys it and when inventory grows slower, inventory declines.
-       Expenditure model is a model of quantity adjustments, ignores capacity, interest rates, and prices.
-       Y = C + Ip + G + NX only in equilibrium, Ip being planned investment otherwise Y = C + I + G + NX
-       I = Ip + unplanned inventory; so equilibrium when unplanned inventory = 0
-       Consumption function = a + MPC*Income
o      A + MPC*yd = Consumer spending, A = wealth, yd = disposable income







-       MPC*Y + Ip + G = AE, AE = Ip + C, Assume no govt. outlays









-       The slope of the AE curve is MPC because it demonstrates the relationship between Y and Aggregate Expenditure.
-       45 degree line is the level of output b/c output = income
-       When AE line is above output GDP rises b/c unplanned inventory is < 0, people expend more than there is output. AE line below GDP, unplanned inventory > 0.
-       Prices do not change b/c prices do not respond to difference between AE and output. Prices are sticky, firms adjust output constantly but rarely change prices.
Keynes -> Equilibrium in expenditure model is not necessarily at full employment.
-       Short run expenditure equilibrium involves cyclical unemployment.
-       AE is low, economy can be stuck for temporarily in underemployment equilibrium. B/c people do not spend, people do not have jobs.
AD-AS Model:





AD Curve slopes up because:
Interest rate effect:
  • As aggregate price level increases people need to hold larger amounts of money (cash and equivalents) to make purchases so demand for funds increases the interest rate.
Wealth Effect
  • As aggregate price level rises, people’s purchasing power falls. As a result spending on final goods and services fall.
Shifts
  • Increases in the money supply push out the AD curve.
  • Exogenous changes not resulting from the price level shift AD
AS Curve slopes down because:
  • Increase in output raises unit costs, thereby raising input costs and making firms raise their own prices to protect markups, making the overall price level increase
  • Wages are sticky in the short run, higher price level means higher profits so firms increase output in the short run.
Shifts of the supply curves
  • occur when input prices change (commodity prices, nominal wages, and productivity).
  • LRAS is vertical b/c potential output does not depend on price level. Long run growth, driven by productivity, physical capital, and human capital push LRAS:





  • In the short run a positive supply shock pushes SRAS out but a rise in nominal wages shifts SRAS back. A negative demand shock means that nominal wages fall and eventually firms supply more, pushing SRAS out and into LRAS.
  • Long run growth: Rule of 70, 70/r = time to double r
Fiscal Policy
  • Discretionary Fiscal Policy: Use of government spending, transfer payments, or tax policy to influence aggregate demand
  • Supply side influences as well as deficit and government debt (crowding out)
  • Lags, multiplier process takes time (AE curve shifts out equilibrium output further than the shift in the AE curve).
  • Magnitude of multiplier is uncertain, temporary cuts might make people just save but permanent cuts are an income effect but can create unsustainable deficits.
  • Economy is ALWAYS self-correcting in the long run. Years of lost output: idle resources and unemployment problems
  • . Stabilization policy is one that offsets shocks and maintains full employment
  • Automatic stabilizers: Tax revenues tend to fall in recession and transfer payments increase, thereby running a deficit. The opposite is true in boom times.
  • Government saving = Tax revenue – Transfer payments – Expenditure
  • Expansionary policy increase Tr and G while reducing T
  • Contractionary policy decreases Tr and G while increasing T
  • When deficits are cyclically adjusted (w/o automatic stablizers) they are smaller
  • US is more often than not in deficit rather than surplus
  • Deficits are a problem b/c they make the Debt/GDP ratio rise, meaning future interest payments must rise.
  • Large public debt -> bonds are safe and crowd out private sector borrowing, eventually there will be an unwillingness to hold debt b/c of concerns about stability of public sector meaning interest rates will rise. A gov.t that can’t sell debt can print money, but this means inflation.
  • Hidden debt in addition to Debt/GDP ratio: Future liabilities, social security, medicare, and Medicaid. Unfunded obligations.
  • Marginal tax rates increase employment because it reduces the tax wedge, effectively an increase in marginal returns to labor.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Vanguard

For some reason, Current TV buries these Vanguard episodes. I can't seem to find them on Hulu and it took a little digging to pull them up. But whatever, nothing too different in these episodes I thinks.

China's Wild West:
http://current.com/shows/vanguard/89221794_chinas-wild-west.htm

The Art of War:
http://vodpod.com/watch/1856785-vanguard-the-art-of-war-meet-the-rebels-fighting-in-the-philippines-current

End of the Road (This ones kinda understandable, the quality is...meh):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eju3QPNZcc4&has_verified=1

Global Border Battle:
http://current.com/shows/vanguard/89361127_global-border-battle.htm

Smuggler's Paradise
http://current.com/groups/on-current-tv/85681361_smugglers-paradise.htm

Cocaine and lobster
http://www.clicker.com/tv/vanguard-journalism/Cocaine-and-Lobster-815097/

BTW, has anyone got a link to the newest Vanguard episode on meth and sex?

Thursday, November 11, 2010

From a recent interview with James Fellow from The Atlantic Monthly

http://mis-asia.com/cio_focus/leadership__and__management/chinese-internet-censorship-an-inside-look
"When you can't reach a site from a computer in China, you're never quite sure what's happened. Is the problem with your ISP? With the site itself? Or is the firewall? You never know for sure."


The implications of this are enormous. Uncertainty is a rare source of irrationality. It’s a blank slate for imagination to fill, stretch, and distort. The Chinese aren't going to give this up because it's such a central power. The next generation of warfare is going to be just as horrendous as all the previous ones. We're animals, always will be and always have been. I mean animals in the sense that no matter how much we try, how many strides we make in technology and social progress, we'll always be faced with jealousy, love, greed, pride, and all those other little irrational intricacies that push us forward as a species. 


So there will be war. But what kind of war? As nations have come to realize the mutual destruction in traditional warfare, either directly or indirectly from loss of public support and other intangibles. They will move more and more into the digital world, using digital attacks that target infrastructure and standard of living. China now has a much wider tool set to choose from. Attacks upon Chinese soil will undoubtedly incite a wave of nationalism and patriotism. With information in its current form, staging an attack would be quite easy. Indeed, it's discouraged to talk about the firewall in polite company.

Nonetheless, no one can say for certain what the present state of Chinese sentiment is towards the firewall. The Chinese are very much aware of the firewall. It's impossible not to, so betting on this reaction remains a risky gambit.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Dyadic Selectorate Model!

THIS IS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR!

The Dyadic Selectorate Model
The theory shows that leaders who require a large coalition to remain in office favor spending resources on public goods rather than on private benefits for their coalition of supporters (…). Leaders who rely on a small winning coalition, such as autocrats, hold power by spending resources disproportionately on private goods to reward their backers.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Exporting Negative Externalities and Political Instability

Okay, so here's the general idea: exporting negative externalities cause political instability. Democratic peace theory tells us that as a nations political players increase any ruling leader or party must have a greater coalition in order to exert power.

That's why we see the United States going to war over Oil but not over personal attrition: the gains from these actions are visible enough, large enough and spread out over enough people to make those actions by the ruling party or leader feasible. As political players decrease, the ability of a ruling party or leader to take action increase as they only have to appease a smaller group of people. Well, what makes one system have more political players than another? Here, we have to delve into a qualitative approach. A sense of equity allows political power to be shared, otherwise those with it would just oppress those without. It's a classic prisoner's dilemma:






Left to our own devices, people will always grab for power because they either fear oppression or they love power. That is, they either want to avoid getting -20 as a payoff or they want 0 as a payoff (the upper right quadrant or the lower left one). But because they grab power, and having grabbed it must work to maintain it, they end up in the upper left quadrant (-10, -10). Now, how do they get into the lower right quadrant? In the model of the prisoners dilemma, they'd achieve this result by cooperating and not snitching. In terms of political science, this means a set of rules and regulations: rule of law.

Why is this the case? Why can't people just get along? 

Because there's a shit ton of us and each one of us have our own aspirations, goals, and motivations. So we clash. I'm not just talking about stealing or killing or being a dick. But to get what we want we often have to do many peripheral tasks and objectives and when we do this, our peripherals inevitably fuck up someone else's peripheral. So we need government. We need someone to tell us what we've and what our neighbors have done is okay or not. Only with systems and institutions can we have a civil discourse. If you don't believe me, go read The Grand Inquisitor.


What does all this have to do with Democratic peace theory?

Well, a lot. Leaders in unstable countries realize that they need very little to stay in power. They need the support of a few generals, land owners, drug dealers, or whatever form political players come in within their nation. I'm not talking about leaders processing Bueno De Mesquita's logic and programming complex analytical models. But they are aware (probably intensely aware) that they need the support of certain people and collections of people to continue wielding power as they do. And to keep this group small, they prevent others from forming. And what's the best way to prevent others from forming? By fucking telling them they can't.

That is, manipulating the legal system to their advantage. This can and is done in a variety of ways, in fact our Constitution recognizes this fact and plays the interests of factions against each other. Each party, when in the Executive, can and are encouraged to stack the Judiciary with favorable candidates. And when in the Legislative, each party obviously attempts to make the legal institution in its image. The longevity of judicial appointments make openings scarce and ideological influence extensive, living on long after the political deaths of those in charge. But you don't have to do that when you don't have a Constitution. You don't have to do that when you only need to care about a small group of people. So, Fuck it. You do what you want. This undermines the legal system, because you can't really trust in a set of laws when whoever in charge can just change them on a whim. It'd be interesting to look at Henry VIII, economic data from the sixteenth century probably doesn't exist though right?

That's one of the trappings of power: when you get it, you don't want to listen to shit from no one. There's actually scientific evidence behind that. Power breeds hypocrisy.

This goes back to what I was saying about the prisoners dilemma: a power grab leads to a sub-optimal equilibrium because when power is grabbed and not granted everything basically gets pretty shitty, pretty quickly.

Now I know this is a big statement so that's why I'm going to take this blog to try to explain it. Where to begin? I guess I have to start looking at nations.

Candidates (Taken from the Political Instability Index):

1. Zimbabwe
2. Haiti
3. Cambodia
4. Sierra Leone
5. Guinea Bissau

All of these countries rank in the top 50 on the Political Instability Index, put out by The Economist. I got Guinea Bissau from this article on the Huffington Post the that goes into detail about the Cocaine Trade moving into West Africa.

I'll be looking at these negative externality goods:

1. Cocaine Trafficking
2. Blood diamonds
3. Cannabis, Methamphetamine, and Heroin. (Golden Triangle)
4. Human Trafficking (Where the hell am I going to get data for this?)

That's all for now, next time I'll throw in some numbers and see if the math behind the democratic peace theory holds.