Tuesday, December 14, 2010

WikiLeaks is free speech

It's little surprise that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has found himself in trouble. People in high places like to keep their secrets. But secrecy is incompatible with democracy and an open society. Maybe that doesn't mean there should be no secrecy. But it does mean there should be people fighting relentlessly to bring the truth out into the open.

It's revealing that the same people that promoted corporate funding of independent political broadcasts as free speech deny the same label to WikiLeaks.

I'm reminded of what happened to Eliot Spitzer when he pissed off the wrong people. He was taken down by a hooker scandal after a bank reported a suspicious wire transfer.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Will India's growth outpace China's?

The Economist's cover this week makes the claim that India's growth will outpace China's. India will be experiencing the demographic wave that other asian countries have ridden to prosperity in which a high percentage of the population falls within working age. Prevalence of English is an extra bonus. Further, India's democracy and entrepreneurial culture give it a flexibility unmatched by China's state dominated economy.

The conventional wisdom is that India's boom in the service sector is leaving a big chunk of the population stranded in poverty. This is because high skilled jobs like engineering or medicine -- even moderately skilled jobs in call centers -- require education and therefore are available largely to the children of the established middle class. In many countries, manufacturing has been the traditional stepping-stone out of subsistence agriculture. For example, a chinese factory girl might be the daughter of farming peasants from the countryside. These missing bottom rungs of the ladder have resulted in rising inequality. Amartya Sen warned that India risks becoming "half California and half sub-Saharan Africa".

Also working against India is it's crappy infrastructure and low literacy rates, 66% vs China's 93%. India's primary schools perform poorly and, the world-class IIT schools notwithstanding, its university system is undersized. The result is a chronic shortage of skilled workers. And business dealings involving land, natural resources and government contracts are riddled with corruption.

On India's cacophonous democracy, they quote a western banker as waying, "It's much easier to deal with the well-understood 'org chart' of China Inc than the freewheeling chaos of India.", which probably says a lot about western bankers.

I'd love to see India, with all it's contradictions, bust out and rival China. Based on Indian multinationals like Tata or Infosys, or the "frugal innovations" like $2000 cars, you might believe it possible. Whether the "freewheeling chaos" of democracy can function in a country of 1 billion; whether democracy is compatible with productivity; whether India can get its act together; those are some serious open questions. I hope the answer is yes.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Let the Bush tax cuts expire

Has the Wall Street Journal gone totally right wing nutballs or has it always been that way? A recent article on the expiration of the Bush tax cuts gives cause for concern.

In the summer of 2007, Rupert Murdoch prevailed upon the Bancroft family and sucked the WSJ into the media empire of News Corp. Murdoch's other properties include Fox News and the New York Post, neither of which are exactly monuments to journalistic integrity. As a very occasional reader, I can't say whether or how much the WSJ has changed since.

In the weekend edition of August 28, 2010 an unsigned editorial titled The $31 Billion Revenue Fantasy complains about the plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire. They make the claim that the Bush tax cuts were not a windfall for the rich. After the particularly piercing argument "Yada, yada, yada," (really, they said that), they throw up a bunch of numbers. It's not that surprising to find a sermon to the anti-tax faithful in the WSJ. But, the totally bogus and deceptive line of argument they use has a real Fox News ring to it. For example:

The IRS data show that in 2003 those with incomes above $200,000 paid $313 billion in income tax. By 2007 they paid $610 billion. When the recession hit, the payments fell to $537 billion in 2008. But even accounting for that decline, payments by the rich were still 65% higher five years after the rate cut that was supposedly a giveaway to the rich. The share of federal income taxes paid by the $200,000-a-year club was 42% in 2003 but 52% in 2008. (The IRS doesn't adjust these annual numbers for inflation.)

Inflation is only one reason why these numbers are not very meaningful. According to CPI numbers, 100 2003-dollars is about 117 2008 dollars. So, even if incomes only track inflation the pool of 200k-plus tax-payers grew. Also at the same time, the economy was expanding (and bubbles growing in housing and finance), which also lifts people into the higher income bracket. Tax receipts at all levels go up with the economy. Tax receipts from higher brackets go up more. Finally, high-income earners (for example those already over the 200k line) saw their incomes increase at a rate greater than the economy as a whole, thus paying more taxes.

These numbers are completely consistent with the story that the rich got richer while being taxed at a lower rate. As the New York Times put it:

Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years.

- NYT “Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich”

In 2003, 450 economists signed a statement (Economists’ statement opposing the Bush tax cuts (2003)) opposing the Bush tax cuts on the grounds that they would fail as a growth stimulus, increase inequality and worsen the budget outlook. Even Alan Greenspan thinks these tax cuts should expire as do former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Paul O'Neill.

The real question the editorial is trying to address is what degree of progressivity do we want in our tax system. Should those who have benefited most, in turn, support the system most? That's a fair and legitimate question. As economist Russ Roberts puts it, “Should we be more like France or less like France?

What disappoints me about the WSJ article is this: Shouldn't the readers of the WSJ - educated businessmen, rather than tea-party loonies - be able to think this through soberly and logically? Given the audience of the WSJ, we're left with the scary conclusion that many of the wealthy are lying to themselves to justify their own sense of entitlement. Either that, or they're trying to arm themselves with deceitful and self-serving arguments to manipulate those less savvy than themselves.

There are common features to be found in several species of voodoo economics from the Laffer curve and trickle-down economics to "starving the beast" to the claim that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would stifle the recovery. Numerical quackery obscures policy that always seems to favor the rich at the expense of the common good.

What about what's good for the country? Shouldn't the country's business elites have a few ounces of patriotic blood in their veins? And might that lead to pursuit of goals that are good for America as a whole; strategies that grow the pie for everyone rather than tactics for capturing an ever bigger slice?

Related stuff

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Paul Romer's Charter Cities

In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty July's Atlantic profiles economist Paul Romer and his current project, “Charter Cities”. NYTime's Freakonomics column asks Can “Charter Cities” Change the World?.

Erik Desmazières, Ville Imaginaire II (1998)
Erik Desmazières, Ville Imaginaire II (1998)

In a nutshell, the idea is to build new cities with new rules in developing countries. The cities would be administered by first-world powers. One might be tempted to respond that people generally didn't like colonialism the first time around. But, people may come to the new cities or stay away as they please and are thus free to vote with their feet. Taking Hong Kong as an example, "dysfunctional nations can kick-start their own development by creating new cities with new rules" that "slough off debilitating customs and vested interests".

Romer explains his idea by way of an analogy:

Large corporations operate according to an internal set of rules that we sometimes call a corporate culture. A natural question to ask is what mechanisms lead to improvement in the rule-sets that prevail in all the corporations in an industry. If you think of an industry like computing, it is immediately evident that much of the change comes from the entry of new organizations. They have new rule-sets that attract resources away from the existing ones.

I like the emphasis on the dynamics of the situation. "Moving from bad rules to better ones may be much harder than most economists have allowed." The path from one political-economic system seems often to be bloody, so it's probably worth studying non-violent but effective means of change.

Here's another piece of thinking I like:

Cities are components - modules - that are relatively self-contained. They have some interfaces that they use to connect with the rest of the world - container ships, fiber optic cables, airport.

The idea that the rules and norms of a culture are a technology and are critical to growth seems related to an idea that I'm fond of. Due to the fungibility of power and money, separating politics and economics is an impossibility. My favorite illustration of this is the castles on the Rhine River. These homes of the original robber barons overlook the river, extracting tolls from passing merchants and travelers and threatening to rain cannonballs on those that decline to pay.

Romer's work in the private sector also seeks to break down toll gates of another sort. Romer's company Aplia was an attempt at refactoring the textbook in light of the web, not entirely different from Scott McNealy's new project, Curriki.

Not everyone likes this idea: Paul Romer is a brilliant economist – but his idea for charter cities is bad. The idea reminds me a little of various attempts to recreate new silicon valleys in other places around the world, like Malaysia's Cyberjaya. None of the attempts is entirely successful. Silicon valley and Hong Kong both grew organically out of their unique situations. A million subtle factors would need to be captured to reproduce either one.

Also, I don't know who the super-technocrats are that are going to run these new cities. Ever since western capitalism did a face-plant on the pavement, I'm not sure who's going to be lining up to let a western country run one of their cities. Considering the state of our (US) politics, you'd have to be desperate or nuts to trust us to be the administrator country. Still, it's probably too easy to dismiss Romer as dreaming of utopian Disneylands. I certainly understand the appeal of a clean slate, when it seems things are so intractably screwed up. Maybe we can find some hyper-intelligent martians to run a city in our country?

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Andy Grove: How America Can Create Jobs

Andy Grove: How America Can Create Jobs, July 1, 2010
In a thorough study of the industrial development of East Asia, Robert Wade of the London School of Economics found that these economies turned in precedent-shattering economic performances over the '70s and '80s in large part because of the effective involvement of the government in targeting the growth of manufacturing industries.
While pursuing our company goals, all of us in business have a responsibility to maintain the industrial base on which we depend and the society whose adaptability—and stability—we may have taken for granted.

A political economy

A recent piece in the Economist ( A new anthology of essays reconsiders Thomas Piketty’s “Capital” , May 20, 2107) ends with these words: ...