Sunday, May 22, 2016

San Francisco's attraction comes at a price.... so does Auckland's

Insightful article about the high cost of living in San Francisco... many commented in response to recent photos, on how they love the place. This piece draws on a highly innovative data set to throw light on the plight. Conclusion?

For the love of god, keep adding homes. Keep adding homes so things don’t get any worse and you’re not trapped in a lose-lose-lose shitstorm like San Francisco.

Here is the paper.

Very relevant to NZ and in particular Auckland housing bothers - as expected it concerms free lunches, the middle classes and failure to face trade offs. Surprise.

DAO - next step in applying the blockchain

The blockchain offers probably the most productive leap in efficiency and equity since the development of money. It's a liitle demanding to understand but it is revolutionary.... the following updates progress and gives an idea of why it is important.

What Is the DAO?

The blockchain is a shared, decentralized, digital ledger that cryptologically seals and stores a permanent record of all transactions that occur on it. Bitcoin, the digital currency, is perhaps the most well-known and widely used application of blockchain technology. Ethereum is a different blockchain from Bitcoin and was created with the intention to allow self-executing smart contracts to be coded directly into it, permitting trusted transactions and agreements to be carried out among disparate, anonymous parties without the need for a central authority, legal system, or external enforcement mechanism. (See also: Is Ethereum More Important Than Bitcoin?)
The organizational theorist Arthur Stinchcombe once wrote that contracts are merely organizations in miniature, and by extension all organizations are just complexes of contracts. Firms are created using a series of contractual agreements, ranging from employment contracts and employee benefits, to deals with vendors and suppliers and obligations to its customers, to building leases and sales & purchases of equipment. Traditionally, these contractual obligations are quite costly because they need to be enforced externally by society in the form of a trusted legal system and through legal enforcement. Courts, lawyers, judges and investigators all form this system of contract enforcement. With a blockchain-based smart contract, however, much of these costs are greatly reduced or eliminated. This promises to make blockchain-based organizations more efficient, cost-effective, and competitive compared to traditional firms in the marketplace. (For more, see: Decentralized Autonomous Organizations: IoT Today.)



Monday, February 8, 2016

Digging out the meaning of sovereignty

The issue of sovereignty has been much discussed in respect of the TPP. Long experienced trade negotiator and former minister Hon Phil Goff spells out the essence of sovereignty, in this context, most usefully:
“Every time you sign any international agreement you give away a degree of your sovereignty.” He cited the China free trade deal negotiated when he was Trade Minister.
“We gave up the sovereign right to impose tariffs against China when we signed up to the China free trade agreement. But it came with quid pro quos. China gave up its right to impose huge tariffs on us.
“That’s what an international agreement is; it’s an agreement to follow a particular course of action and a limitation on your ability to take action against the other country.
“You have the ultimate right of sovereignty that you can back out of an agreement – with all the cost that that incurs.”
Note that Phil Goff is a former Labour Minister of Trade.

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Short skirts and tall buildings

There is a reasonably respectable theory (by comparison with the universe thereof) which says that stock prices track hemlines (the Go Go 60s and the grim early ‘70s e.g.) – and randomness is a prime culprit. Another interesting line up comes from the building of sky scrapers.
Consider
  • 1885 and the first seriously tall edifice… the Home Insurance Building in Chicago
  • 1907 the stock crash and up goes the Singer Building to lead the leap skyward
  • 1936 and the depths of depression brings us the Empire State building (still the optimal height / yield mix)
  • 1970s and the oil shock gave us the World Trade Centre and Willis Towers
  • late 1990s and the Asian Financial crisis sees the Petronas Towers  pierce new heights
  • and the GFC in 2010 produced the record breaking Burj Khalifa in Dubai
What is tougher to tell is whether the buildings preceded a crash or were built shortly after in an attempt to inspire confidence. Too few data points of course (but it’s Christmas).

The worry is that 2018 will see the tallest yet at 1,000m Kingdom Tower, Jeddah opened. Precursor or sugar high? Clearly a skirt length prediction called for.

Monday, December 7, 2015

Dangers of sheer ignorance….

A recent and respectable poll of appropriate size and sample showed that when NZ’s were asked:

“How much of the country’s wealth is owned by the richest 1%?” the average response was “50%”

“How much should the richest 1% own?” the average response was “27%”

Now – how much does the richest 1% actually own? 10%.

Does the average NZr therefore want the top 1% to get a top up of 15% ?

Thanks to D. Farrar.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Advice for journos: Read “Stats Done Wrong” …

A fine example of rubbish designed to grow stories not knowledge would be this mornings “death by bacon if the sausage hasn’t killed you” piece of melodrama drawn from the aptly named WHO.

We are told that an extra 50 grams of bacon will increase one’s chances of getting bowel cancer by 18% – and variants on those numbers. We are not told an 18% increase “over what”. Yesterdays consumption? Some unspecified existing average? Zero? Presumably Dr WHO tells us in his report and the mere detail has eluded the journalistic mind?

Getting only slightly more picky, how does this compare with a 50 gram increase in anything else? The only clue seems to be that processed meat is as bad as tobacco and arsenic. Most helpful I’m sure. Alarm and despondency is however as job preserving for WHO persons as it is for news inventers.

Of course living another day does indeed increase one’s probability of dying. What’s more the longer this living an extra day business goes on the more dangerous it gets.. A sure-fire means of preventing this is not to be born. More effective than any rasher avoidance scheme.

BTW the book, written in a less annoyed frame of mind than I write, may be found here in draft or buy at Amazon.

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Nobel and Noble… why this year’s econ choice is smart

Balanced views about global poverty – and how to do something useful about it….

Angus Deaton | JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images

OPINION

A humane Nobel economist

By

PETER BOETTKE

10/13/15, 6:27 PM CET

Princeton University Professor Angus Deaton has won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, and it is a very worthy award. The 69-year-old Scottish-born economist has contributed to our understanding at a theoretical, empirical, and policy-relevant level throughout his very productive career. And he continues to challenge his fellow economists methodologically, analytically, and practically with new works. In many ways, this was a very inspiring choice.

Let me explain. Deaton’s first main idea was the basic one that people don’t eat growth rates: We learn a lot more from studying consumption behavior than we would from focusing our attention on aggregate income measures. It is a decidedly microeconomic approach to empirical analysis, and in so doing he innovated ways to conduct household surveys. And this way of measuring human well-being opened eyes to the plight of the world’s poor, and the economic improvements in global development. In many ways, Deaton’s work provides the scientific underpinnings of Hans Rosling’s BBC Four video, The Joy of Stats, on 200 countries, 200 Years or his TED Talk on the washing machine.

Deaton’s work made us see the impact innovation and development has had on the well-being of the world’s poor. In this sense, his receiving the Nobel is also a nod by the committee to economic history and the fundamental importance of development economics as a field as much as to the theoretical and empirical thrust of Deaton’s work on consumption behavior.

* * *

In addition to being a thorough thinker, Deaton is a bold one, and does not shy away from taking controversial positions. In his very accessible “The Great Escape,” he explains that the rising incomes of American CEOs may not be at all due to a culture of overpaying themselves, but a consequence that in the global marketplace, top English-speaking managers may be more like superstar opera singers or athletes, where the compensation reflects returns to super-sized talents in this new global marketplace.

Moreover, he explains that for studying questions of global inequality, the top 1 per cent in any one country is the wrong way to think about the issue. In tackling the issue, what matters is not within-country inequality, because the decisive factor in global inequality are the differences between countries.

The factors determining between-countries differences include size, talents, and restrictions on opportunity. And while within-country inequality may invoke political action, what effective measures could be done globally? There is no world government, and global institutions such as the World Bank possess neither the authority nor the ability to implement a global tax and redistribution policies.

* * *

The fact that the world is a better place than it ever has been is due to innovations and the expansion of trade and mobility. People across the globe are wealthier, healthier and live longer and happier lives. Deaton is neither a free-market fundamentalist, nor Panglossian about global economic development; there have been major setbacks in terms of disease, and natural and man-made disasters that have fallen on the world’s poor. A billion people still live in conditions of destitution, and millions of children still die due to the accident of their birthplace.

There is something policy-wise that can be done about this, especially with regard to global health. But foreign aid programs since World War II have not provided the answer as to how to help the least advantaged and most vulnerable among the world population.

Foreign aid faces a dilemma: If extreme poverty is a result of poor institutions and bad politics, giving money only sustains that offending government. If a country has the conditions for development in place, then aid is not required — trade and foreign direct investment will provide the resources for development. If a country is hostile to economic development, then aid will be ineffective and perhaps even harmful by propping up bad regimes.

Deaton, thus, falls more or less on the P. T. Bauer/William Easterly spectrum of thinking about the effectiveness of foreign aid to address the problems of facing less developed economies as has been practiced to date. But his is not a wholesale rejection of foreign aid. We just have to rethink the project and learn how to do it more effectively. As he wrote in a 2013 essay, “Weak States, Poor Countries”:

“The absence of state capacity — that is, of the services and protections that people in rich countries take for granted — is one of the major causes of poverty and deprivation around the world. Without effective states working with active and involved citizens, there is little chance for the growth that is needed to abolish global poverty.”

Unfortunately, the world’s rich countries currently are making things worse.Foreign aid — transfers from rich countries to poor countries — has much to its credit, particularly in terms of health care, with many people alive today who would otherwise be dead. But foreign aid also undermines the development of local state capacity.

Critical to Deaton’s thinking is the building of state capacity. In this sense, his work echoes an important theme of another Nobel Prize winner Douglass North, when North claimed in “Structure and Change in Economic History” (1981) that the state was both the greatest impetus for economic development and the greatest impediment.

* * *

In an essay published this past summer commenting on Easterly’s “The Tyranny of Experts,” Deaton agreed that “technological illusions” of development planners must be rejected. But Deaton also cautions that while development policy should, of course, respect the rights of the poor and encourage their participation in the democratic process of their own governments, it is a case of over-optimism and wishful thinking to believe that rights and democracy naturally lead to growth and prosperity.

Deaton’s position on these issues is perhaps best summed up in “The Great Escape”: “What surely ought to happen is what happened in the now-rich world, where countries developed in their own way, in their own time, under their own political and economic structures. No one gave them aid or tried to bribe them to adopt policies for their own good. What we need to do is to make sure that we are not standing on the way of the now-poor countries doing what we have already done. We need to let poor people help themselves and get out of the way — or, more positively, stop doing things that are obstructing them.”

Angus Deaton has advanced our understanding of wealth, health and well-being through detailed empirical examination of household consumption data and theoretical insights from microeconomics to political economy. The Nobel Prize committee chose wisely this year.

Peter Boettke is professor of economics and philosophy at George Mason University and director of the F. A. Hayek program for advanced study in philosophy, politics and economics at the Mercatus Center.