Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: stimulus

19th Century Urban Transport Was An Environmental Problem

Hearing Kermit the Frog say, “It’s not easy being green,” Mexican environmentalists might agree.

Since March 2009, Mexican households have been offered cash payments or subsidized loans for replacing refrigerators and air-conditioners that were more than 10 years old with new energy efficient appliances. The goal was to diminish electricity usage and carbon dioxide emissions. So far, 1.5 million households have participated.

Surprisingly, refrigerator savings were less than expected and air-conditioner use increased. Researchers believe that newer refrigerator models were larger and had extra features like ice makers that somewhat offset their energy savings. For air-conditioners, people just used them much more.

Energy savings programs are tough to design and evaluate. As with refrigerators and air-conditioners, changing incentives can have unpredictable consequences. In addition, even if an energy savings program does not save energy, it still could provide considerable benefits far beyond its costs because of better refrigeration and cooler homes. And finally, we should always remember the “rebound” effect. Explained by William Jevons in an 1865 book called The Coal Question, the “rebound” effect resulted when the energy efficiency created by the steam engine encouraged more energy use rather than less. Jevons said, “It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is truth.”

Maybe Kermit was right.

This NBER paper fully describes  the Mexican cash for coolers program and if you want to read more about the rebound effect, I suggest this fascinating New Yorker article.  For a more academic study, this Congressional Research Service (CRS) report explains that the “rebound” effect is most evident in a developing economy because slack demand can lead to considerable increase in energy use. In a mature market, the “rebound” effect is less pronounced.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16644_9.27_000014887933XSmall

You’ve probably never heard of Lincoln Beachey.

An aviation pioneer, Beachey flew at the beginning of the 20th century. During one of his first air exhibitions, Beachey did something totally terrifying when his plane stalled. The opposite of what anyone had ever done before, he counterintuitively turned his plane into the spin and pointed its nose downwards. Reversing a deadly nosedive, he landed safely.

Hearing about Lincoln Beachey on a Radio Lab podcast, I thought of February 2009. With the economy nosediving, the President proposed and the Congress approved a massive injection of stimulus money. A seemingly logical maneuver, it appears not to have had the impact that many of us expected.

Are we responding like Lincoln Beachey’s predecessors who turned away from the spin and pointed their noses upward? Or does the intuitive response work and we just need more?

The Economic Lesson

One group of economists describes the American Jobs Act as the additional stimulus we need. Seeing the money directed toward job creation, infrastructure projects and payroll tax cuts, a second group of economists says it is a repeat of the failed 2009 stimulus program.

As with Lincoln Beachey, we seem to have a group that believes the logical sounding Keynesian approach will work and a second group saying, if we look more closely and think like Friedrich Hayek, we would see it is profoundly flawed.  You might enjoy looking at the Keynes/Hayek rap debates here.

An Economic Question: Is your bias toward more or less government economic intervention. Explain.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16622_3.1_000005787159XSmall

The health care industry has added 300,000 jobs to the U.S. economy during the past 12 months. New jobs, new construction, new technology, more care. Should we be pleased?

This Dr. Seuss-like animated short from marketplace.org presents the downside of health care job growth. Discussing the issue further in a report on suburban Detroit, they explain that a new medical center can indeed help one community. However, a proliferation of medical facilities means higher health insurance premiums and soaring Medicare and Medicaid expenses. Consequently, although one community might benefit, overexpansion means the entire nation will suffer.

Here are additional statistics on the health care jobs boom. And here is another perspective in a previous econlife post.

The Economic Lesson

Sometimes what is good for one person becomes bad when everyone does it. If there is a fire at a public event, one person can rush to the exit but everyone simultaneously cannot. Enjoying higher prices, one farmer can decide to plant more and earn more. However, when all farmers together produce a bumper crop, price dips. Called the fallacy of composition, sometimes what is good for the individual is bad when everyone does the same thing.

An Economic Question: How does building too many medical centers result in the fallacy of composition?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16225_7.19_000006524235XSmall

What if the Congress decides to slash spending by $60 billion right now? Prominent economists are again disagreeing.

According to Stanford economist John Taylor, we would have a resurgence of business confidence, renewed investment spending and new jobs. Assured that taxes and regulation will not increase, businesses will expand.

On the other hand, economist Mark Zandi (Moody’s Analytics) says that we will lose 700,000 jobs because of spending cuts. He is against “too much too soon.” Referring to “fiscal drag,” economist Alec Phillips (Goldman Sachs) cites the rippling impact of less federal spending that will retard GDP growth.

Who is right?

The Economic Lesson

Looking back and looking forward, the economic debate about fiscal policy is a traditional one. Looking back at stimulus spending since 2008, opponents point out that the stimulus will not only ignite inflation but also was not really necessary. Meanwhile, advocates say we are much better off because of it. Looking forward they differ on how businesses and unemployment will respond.

Also, we should not forget about monetary policy. A similar debate surrounds Dr. Bernanke’s QE2.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

15935_6.30_000005521931XSmall

Economists still cannot agree. With the new unemployment rate, at 9.6%, the same as the old unemployment rate, one question remains the same. Is it a jobs mismatch, contractionary lay-offs, or a third economic ailment? The diagnosis you choose will determine the policy you support.

On the structural side are those who say that the high unemployment rate is the result of too many unemployed workers who cannot fit the jobs that are available. As expressed by the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis,  the s ources of the mismatch are probably a combination of geography, demography, and skills. The policy implication: the Federal Reserve cannot do very much. While this gentleman suggests more unemployment insurance, others have a more laissez-faire inclination.

Cyclical advocates say that high unemployment is the result of inadequate demand from consumers, businesses, and government. With sluggish economic growth and tepid business confidence, we have moved from the trough of this business cycle to an anemic expansion. As expressed by the former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christine Romer:

In short, in my view the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that the current very high — and very disturbing — levels of overall and long-term unemployment are not a separate, structural problem, but largely a cyclical one.  It reflects the fact that we are still feeling the effects of the collapse of demand caused by the crisis.  Indeed, at one point I had tentatively titled my talk “It’s Aggregate Demand, Stupid”; but my chief of staff suggested that I find something a tad more dignified.

The policy implication? More stimulus and “QE2″ (quantitative easing).

Yet another group of economists rejects the structural diagnosis and then moves onward to other problems such as a “balance sheet” recession. You might want to go here to see what other economists have suggested in an online Economist debate.

The Economic Lesson

Structural unemployment takes us to buggy whips and typewriters. When the former was replaced by the Model T and the latter became obsolete because of computers, workers with traditional skills lost their jobs while those who could make the new goods and services were in greater demand. What happened? The structure of the economy changed as old industries died.

Cyclical unemployment is about the business cycle. Like death and taxes, we will always have a business cycle. 1) First, production grows. 2) Then it hits a peak. 3) Reversing, it stagnates and declines. 4) It reaches a trough. A lagging economic phenomenom, cyclical unemployment is most evident when the economy is at its lowest and also as it begins its expansion.

Then, a new cycle begins, it reaches a new and higher peak, and you know what happens next.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment