• 15949_10.16_000009738365XSmall

    Powerful Women

    Oct 16 • Behavioral Economics, Businesses, Gender Issues, Labor • 294 Views

    Lady Gaga is #7. Yes, according to a 2010 Forbes list of the most powerful women in the world, Lady Gaga’s power is surpassed by just 6 other women: Michelle Obama, Irene Rosenfeld (Kraft Foods CEO), Oprah, Angela Merkel (Germany’s Chancellor), Hillary Clinton, and Indra Nooyi (CEO of PepsiCo). Why? As Forbes expressed it, their criteria include a “buzz” and a business component.

    This took me to a WSJ Jonah Lehrer article. Citing studies about how people achieve power, Lehrer challenges the traditional assumption that ruthless individuals are more likely to reach the top. Instead he says that “people give authority to people they genuinely like” and ostracize those who are malicious. Even among chimpanzees, males who were best at socially connecting ascended to dominance.  

    However, Lehrer also tells us that once people achieve power, their behavior changes. Those with authority tend to become less empathic and to behave inappropriately. Also though, they acquire a toughness that can come in handy.  

    The Economic Lesson

    Controlling power is basic to the success of a market economy. To some extent, the invisible hand uses competition, demand, and supply to harness self-interest. Still though, in the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith alluded to the “wretched spirit of monopoly” (p. 461) as a threat to economic health. Smith also points out that, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices”.  


    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15947_10.15_000001088767XSmall

    Nobel Cash

    Oct 15 • Economic History, Economic Thinkers, Financial Markets, International Trade and Finance • 371 Views

    If you win a Nobel Prize, you get a cash prize of approximately $1.5 million. The size of that prize relates to how well the foundation that manages Alfred Nobel’s endowment has fared.  According to the Financial Times, during the 1990s the payout increased each year. More recently, prize amounts have been frozen because of a plunge in the fund’s value.

    When he created the endowment in 1895, Alfred Nobel specified that its assets should be invested in “safe securities”. The Times says that today, the fund is apportioned among global stocks, fixed income, and alternative investments that include hedge funds. The fund’s executive director said that in the future, additional attention would be given to “risk control”.

    When economist Robert Lucas won his Nobel Prize in 1995, half was given to his ex-wife Rita. As stated in their 1988 settlement, “‘wife shall receive 50 percent of any Nobel Prize.’ The clause expired on October 31, 1995.” Albert Einstein’s Nobel money also had to go to an ex-wife because of their divorce settlement.

    Talking about the cash prize, Elinor Ostrom, the first and only woman to become an economic Nobel laureate (and she is a political scientist) said that she donated it to fund research at the Indiana University Foundation.

    Winners Robert Mundell and Gary Becker were concerned about exchange rates. Expecting the euro would appreciate against the dollar, Mundell first converted his kronor to euros. Gary Becker postponed collecting his prize as he sought to buy futures to protect its value against the dollar. Before he completed the transaction, a Swedish currency crisis diminished the value of the prize from $1.2 million to $900,000.

    Chemistry winner Martin Chalfie, a Columbia professor, pointed out that an international prize used to be tax free. Now, though, as he expressed it, “50 percent of it immediately went to the city, the state, and the federal government. The rest of it is going to help put my daughter through college.”

    The Economic Lesson

    Just like the price of a dress, the “price” of foreign currency can fluctuate in response to demand and supply. Because the Nobel Prize money is paid in Swedish currency, exchange rates affect its size.



    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15945_10.14_000011796094XSmall

    A Phone Call From Adam Smith

    Oct 14 • Demand, Supply, and Markets, Economic Thinkers, Labor, Macroeconomic Measurement • 304 Views

    The phone rings. The caller says he is Adam Smith and you have won the Nobel Prize in Economics. Your response?

    As you know, the 18th century author of The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith, is perhaps the greatest economic thinker. Seemingly chaotic, the market seemed more orderly after Smith told us about the role of the invisible hand.

    The person who calls the winners, Smith’s namesake, is the editor-in-chief at nobelprize.org. As he introduced himself, I wonder what he said to the economists.

    This year, the work of the three economics winners was especially relevant. Focusing on labor markets, their research sought to explore why laborers remain unemployed even when jobs are available. As expressed on the Nobel website, “…although the perfect employee or buyer may be out there somewhere, the job and property markets unfortunately do not work with such efficiency that you can locate them immediately, or indeed at all.”

    I wonder whether the slow match time between jobs and employees is happening in San Francisco. According to a recent WSJ article, San Francisco is experiencing a “boomlet” in web and digital media companies. And yet, during August, their unemployment rate was 9.7%.

    The Economic Lesson

    To calculate the unemployment rate, you need to know the size of the labor force and the number of people who are 16 years old, a part of the labor force, and looking for jobs. Currently there are approximately 155 million people in the labor force which includes anyone who is 16 or older and employed or looking for a job. 14.8 million of those individuals are unemployed. Dividing 14.8 million by 155 million, you get a 9.6% unemployment rate.

    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15943_3.27_000001882191XSmall

    China’s Market

    Oct 13 • Developing Economies, Economic Debates, International Trade and Finance • 343 Views

    Sort of like jumbo shrimp and a working vacation, we could say that an authoritarian market is an oxymoron.The chief economist of the World Bank, Justin Yifu Lin, would disagree.

    As described in a recent New Yorker Magazine profile, Dr. Lin has an unusual background. Born in Taiwan, he defected to the mainland, studied economics at the University of Chicago, and ran a think tank at Peking University. As chief economist at the World Bank, he occupies a position once held by Nobel Laureat Joseph Stiglitz and former Treasury Secretary, Harvard president, and Obama economic advisor Laurence Summers. 

    The profile was so very fascinating because of its inherent contradictions. Dr. Lin, attended the University of Chicago, the center of free market studies, in order to become an expert on China’s authoritarian capitalism.  Discussing China, he says that government is necessary for the success of its market. At the World Bank, he suggests that China’s successes can serve as a prototype for other developing nations.

    Recent headlines about Chinese currency manipulation, about Chinese acquisitions of western firms, about the Chinese economy becoming #2 in the world all return us to authoritarian capitalism. Is it working?

    I suspect Adam Smith would say “No”. Your opinion?

    The Economic Lesson

    When he described an 18th century market economy, Adam Smith cited several basic characteristics. 1) Self-interest propels economic activity. 2) Competition controls self-interest. 3) Division of labor facilitates efficiency, invention, and mass production. 4) Except for justice, money, and defense, government should adhere to a laissez-faire policy.

    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15941_6.29_000001423466XSmall

    Aging Trends

    Oct 12 • Economic Debates, Economic History, Government, Households, Innovation, Labor, Macroeconomic Measurement, Thinking Economically • 393 Views

    Baseball’s MVPs are typically younger than 30 and rarely over 35. Office workers and salespeople tend to be most productive in their early to mid-40s. Most Nobel prize winners in physics and chemistry did their innovative work before they were 50. Academic studies even imply that businesses with younger workers have a higher return on their assets.

    In an excellent course on “Modern Economic Issues” from the Teaching Company, when Dr. Robert Whaples discusses aging in Lecture 13, he suggests that we have more to worry about than soaring health care spending and Social Security programs. An aging population could diminish productivity and innovation.

    By 2050, close to 27% of the U.S. population will probably be older than 65 and the median age will be 41. Older than we are, Europe and Japan will have a median age that is close to 50 in 2050.

    Should we be concerned? One researcher suggests that we might “coax more output from the workers we already have, through more physical capital, improved technology, or better resource management.”

    Your ideas?

    The Economic Lesson

    All of this returns us to economic growth. To sustain and better our standard of living, we need economic growth. Our yardstick for measuring economic growth is the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The GDP is equal to the value of the goods and services that we produce in the U.S. each year.  Its four components are 1) gross investment (primarily business spending), 2) consumer spending, 3) government spending, 4) exports minus imports. 

    No Comments

    Read More