The Economics of Alien Conquest

My cousin, Brendon, and his girlfriend, Jenna, were in town this weekend. Both of them read my blog and Jenna told me I'm clearly knowledgeable about what I'm talking about, but still wrong. That response in itself deserves a post, which I may or may not get around to. Still, it would be fun to deviate a bit away from controversial topics and I thought of alien invasion. If aliens invaded, what would be their motivation?

Natural resources is a favorite Hollywood staple. Aliens will destroy our planet to take our stuff, likely minerals (Independence Day comes to mind but the physical land might be valuable, too (in The Day the Earth Stood Still, alien invaders attempted to terraformed our planet).

This is quite possibly the least likely reason aliens would go through the trouble of global conquest. The universe is filled with minerals and other resources that no one's using and are much easier to get to than stuff on an occupied planet. Maybe other extraterrestrials make harvesting Vega asteroids difficult, but even in the boundaries of our solar system there's still quite a lot to draw on.

Unless aliens are after biomass (i.e. living things). Perhaps there's some technology or feeding requirement that requires biomass (or they just want us as slaves), and Earth is the best place to get it. Lots of biomass with little ability to defend it. In that case, the best strategy probably wouldn't be a messy mass attack on the resource you're trying to harvest. Aliens would likely be much more insidious with probably a pathogen--killing everyone or knocking us all out while leaving the bodies around for collection later.

Racism is a likely motivation. This pops up in a lot of Sci-Fi television shows (Star Trek, Stargate, Babylon 5). A similar train of thought is a concern for humanity and a fear of what will happen if we're allowed to continue to live. Given many humans mistakenly fall into one of these two categories, I'd like it's a reasonable motivation for aliens to kill us.

Technology is a justification that's rarely explored. This is understandable but not for the reasons you probably think. Most assume that if aliens know how to travel faster than light, they are clearly more advanced than us on all other levels. That is far from certain, especially since an alien brain will probably not be wired the same way as a human one. As Richard Dawkins suggests, it is entirely possible there's a group of extraterrestrial life who intuitively understand the theory of relativity but have difficulties grasping principles of air resistance and other "slow" speed phenomena.

But it would be rather clear that the easiest way to get technology is to trade for it, not to take it by force. If such aliens were interested in our technology, they would more likely be peaceful. The one exception to this rule is if they discover it's easier to kill us than to learn a single human language. That would certainly be a sad state of affairs for us.

Then there's the possibility that aliens need to build a intergalactic superhighway along a path that intersects with Earth's orbit. That's a bit unlikely given how big space is ("Really big," according to Douglas Adams) but it could still be true. And if galactic eminent domain is as potent as our terrestrial version, then considered us conquered.

Politics As Usual

Alex Tabarrok ran some numbers, breaking the stimulus plan down by state. Below is the relation of infrastructure spending per person versus the unemployment rate. The red line is the best fit line for all the data points. Note it's sloping down.

The basic logic of a stimulus package is that government will create jobs, people spend the money, which creates more jobs, which allow people to spend the money again, etc, increasing money's "velocity." But here we see the states with the least unemployment get the most money and with the most unemployment get the least money (with some outliers). I can think of three explanations. Here they are in decreasing likelihood.

Shut up. This relationship is because congress members are using the package to send money to their home district/state. Those with the most political clout/understanding get the most money. This package really isn't about helping the whole economy but about boasting one region at the expense of another in order to get re-elected.

Oops. The government made a mistake. Some numbers got mixed up and checks are being sent to the wrong states. Granted, it's a pretty big mistake and one must wonder how an institution which make such mistakes will rationally plan us out of this mess.

Holier Than Thou. We missed something and the U.S. government knows what's going on but this graph doesn't capture all we need to know. If it did, everything will fit together very logically. This is possible, but no where near as likely as the other two.

Most Interesting Sentence I Read Today

From this week's Economist:

Indeed, some say the Few learnt [Irving] Fisher too well: from 2001 to 2004, to contain the deflationary shock waves of the tech-stock collapse, it kept interest rates low and thus helped to inflate a new bubble, in property.

A concise reminder that artificially fixing one sector one sector of the economy has unintended consequences in other sectors. One must wonder where the new holes will appear in the aftermath of the $787 billion stimulus package.

Krugman on the Virtues of Protectionism

When I read Paul Krugman, I first think "that's crazy! He's insane." Then I read it again and that usually (but not always) becomes "that's interesting, but it still wrong." Reading Krugman's February 1st article (spawning a nifty debate here, then here, then here) led me to the typical reaction.

I'm still reading through the responses, but Krugman's basic argument is that fiscal stimulus benefits other countries in addition to the one doing the stimulating (for now, let us assume Keynesian economics works the way Keynesian insist it does). The country being directly stimulated imports from other countries, which help their economy. But these economies share none of the debt generated by the stimulus package. Thus the funding country gets a smaller benefit than they should and we have too few economic recovery acts. Short term protectionism internalizes the benefits to those that are paying for it, thus we get more such packages when we need them.

It's a clear argument but to see why it doesn't work, let's follow the money. Suppose the exporting foreign country is Japan. They now have (say) American dollars. What do they do with this crazy American money? They can't spend it in their country. There are two things they can do with it.

(1) They can import from America. This means that money Keynesians want to stay in the US will come back. It's just adding another step. Instead of Government to Domestic Market, it's Government to Foreign Market to Domestic Market.

(2) They can invest in America. Instead of buying goods, they buy companies (or just capital). Again, the money comes back into the economy, but now there are two steps before it enters domestic consumption (Foreign market to Domestic Company to Domestic Market). Again, it's a wash.

You could argue time is an issue but money moves pretty quickly, especially in the era of Internet and telecommunication satellites. And, because the government's buying international, it's going to get a better deal which will help in the long run (when this huge debt will have to pay off). It's hard to imagine that extra delay is really such a huge problem.

An implicit assumption of Krugman's argument is that exports are inherently good for an economy and imports are not. But that's completely wrong. While Krugman might paint my argument as grounded in theology and not economics, the case for free trade is so strong, and for protectionism so weak, such interpretations are closer to being grounded in laws of economics as irrefutable as gravity or motion.

Economics, the Law, and Treasure Hunting

Last week, deep-sea explorers announced they found the shipwreck of the original HMS Victory which sank in 1744. This is certainly a victory for the decedents of her captain (as the location of the ship demonstrates it sank due to a storm, not mistakes on the captain's part). But that is not the interesting part of the rest of us: it's the treasure.

Well, the legal battle for the treasure is what's interesting as the treasure is mostly large bronze cannons of historic significance. There also might be as much as four tons of gold, but that's just a theory. Due to the decay of the site, we're a long way off from a good estimation of value.

But that hasn't stopped the British government from claiming "dibs," though the site's in international waters. Lost for over 250 years, the government argues they never explicitly gave up sovereignty of the ship and its contents.

If it really is the HMS Victory, "her remains are sovereign immune," the British Ministry of Defense (MOD) said in a statement on its blog Monday.

"The wreck remains the property of the Crown. We have not waived our rights to it. This means that no intrusive action may be taken without the express consent of the United Kingdom."

They also want a cut of what's found, though the exact size is under negotiation (but you can bet it'll be a sizable one).

Safe to say, it creates a mess for the people who found the ship to sort out. It also cuts on their profit margin. This is where law and economics can help. The boringly named field of law and economics uses economics to better form the law so it encourages efficiency.

In this case, the law allowing a country to claim sovereignty on a wreck someone else found makes it less profitable for other people to find and recover wrecks. Thus more ships sit at the bottom of the ocean, slowly decaying into nothing. There are few examples so illustrative of waste as that one. Granted, there's a good argument for claiming sovereignty on a ship that sank last week. It takes time to find wrecks and if somebody just stumbles upon it in the meantime and gets to claim it all, that would have its own unintended consequences on how willing people are to use ships (or even build them in the first place). But that argument doesn't spill over to a quarter of a millennium. This looks a lot more like theft then maintaining sovereignty. I hope the British government aren't looking for any other important ships, of their own sake.

Stimulus Package May Prove Flaccid

A friend showed me this video:



Brilliant.

HT: Mike Mills

The Illusion of the Pay Gap

The first homework of the semester informs my students that one of the reasons men get paid more than women is because women can get pregnant. Because contracts promising to not get pregnant are illegal, hiring women is riskier for employers. An employee could take several months leave with relatively little warning. What a coincidence that President Obama's first bill addresses the same issue, but ignores the explanation.

Insisting that employers pay women less for malevolent reasons, Mr. Obama made it easier to make pay discrimination suits. Notes CNN,

companies will need to meticulously document pay decisions and retain detailed employment records, legal experts say. In this, small companies may be at a disadvantage - few have access to the attorneys and human-resources professionals that will help larger businesses comply with the newly expanded law.

A strange thing to do in rough economic times.

Risk of pregnancy isn't the only reasons for pay gap. Women tend to enter less technical jobs. Part of that is a natural tendency; for whatever reason, women are less likely to enter the sciences and, save economics, more likely to enter the social sciences. Go to any college math class and I bet you'll see mostly men (no going to an all-women school; that's cheating).

The other reason for the draw to the less technical is, you guessed it, pregnancy. Technical jobs have a high degree of obsolescence, meaning you have to stay on top of the latest developments to keep pace. But when you leave the job market for months at a time to care for a newborn, this is really hard to do. Hence women become secretaries, not engineers.

Biology's a sneaky thing and even seeps in after the children are born. Women also tend to work part-time, since women are still the gender that tends to take of kids. Being restricted to part-time adds additional restrictions to where they can work; again, these places that accept part-time employment tend to be paid less. Fringe benefits are usually off the table as well.

The nice thing about this story is it's easily testable. Simply look at groups where the biology issue isn't relevant and control for education. Thomas Sowell from Economic Facts and Fallacies:

Among college-educated, never-married individuals with no children who worked full-time and were from 40 to 64 years old--that is, beyond the child-bearing years--men averaged $40,000 a year in income, while women averaged $47,000. (p70)

Women are paid 17.5% more than men! Maybe we'll see that new legislation end the tyranny of male bosses upon his fellow man.

The Law of One Strange Price

Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution is rightly skeptical of macroeconomic explanation that rely on one strange price, including interest rates, tax rates, and the price of T-bills compared to cash. But it's only partly true. Yes, one screwy price is unlikely to mess with the whole economy (even for systematic prices such as interest rates and taxes). But it can if it's screwy enough. If the minimum wage was $100 an hour, there would be a major macroeconomic downturn thanks to that law alone.

The question becomes what is likely to be so out of whack. Interest rates and T-bills are traded on the market, checked and rechecked every day. If there is a systematic error, it's either short lived or relatively small. Taxes are checked as well (by voters), but that happens only every couple of years, if at all. They're also checked in a political process where the "right" tax is determined and spent by lawmakers acting on the voters behalf, instead the voters themselves. Most prices aren't so strange to mess up an economy by themselves. But if one is, I bet it's a tax.

Life Follows Death

During his inaugural address, President Obama rightly reminded us that it is the risk takers that ensure a better tomorrow. Yet he paradoxically argued that the current economic slowdown is the fault of greed and the market needs a "watchful eye." One cannot have both. Risk takers have to fail; otherwise it would not be risk. Pointing to mistakes as evidence of too much risk, of a need to remove bad decisions, necessarily curtails the capacity to make the right ones. We cannot have growth without bankruptcy nor more than we can have evolution without extinction.

The Smell of the Marble

Millions are gathering in the National Mall this morning to bear witness to the swearing in of Barack Obama. There's anticipation in the air that Mr. Obama is something unique and new. A different kind of politician.

He's certainly different (Joe Scarborough mentioned this morning that Obama is less prone to the sin of pride, which undos so many politicians). But the incentives of office haven't changed. Norris Cotton, a New Hampshire senator from the fifties to the seventies, warned colleagues of smelling of the marble, as in the white marble that covers DC. "And when you can smell it, you'll like it. And you'll be ruined for life." Great unchecked power leads to abuse and despite the Constitution's efforts, much of the power in Washington is unchecked.

This goes double for the presidency, whose role has expanded over the centuries but is now joined with a sympathetic congress. It's entirely possible that Mr. Obama, bending to expectations that he's a different kind of politician, will rise above such abuses. But the hero worship is strong and the people euphoric. Unless we become much more scrutinizing, he'll smell the marble.

Traffic Patterns and the Left Lane

Frustrated in DC traffic, a friend of mine wondered why, in the States, people drive in the city about as much in the left lane as in the right while in Europe, the left lane is traditionally held exclusively for people going very fast and passing. This is an excellent question and I think I have the solution.

Americans have low car taxes, free parking, few tolls, and relatively cheap gas. Not surprisingly, we have more cars compared to our European counterparts and traffic is thus much worse. With crowded streets, drivers learn it's far better to drive in the left lane if they're planning to turn left, even if the turn isn't for miles. No one wants to miss a turn because they never could claim a spot in the correct lane. Thus people drive in one lane as easily as they drive in the other.

The same can be said of interstate traffic, though the story's slightly different. With so many cars on the road, there's greater likelihood that the right lane will have an unusually slow driver. Constantly passing in and out of the right lane to avoid these drivers might induce the faster car to simply stick with the left lane, even though an even faster car will likely be stuck behind it soon. Thus we see very fast cars weaving through traffic, blazing a sort of third lane.

The Illusion of Irrationality: Free Is Fun

A friend loaned me his copy of Predictably Irrational, by Dan Ariely. Ariely's a behavior economist, exploring all the ways people don't react in quite the same ways theory predicts. It's a fascinating area of research, a blending of economics and psychology. The book itself is well written and the content makes you think. But it goes way too far.

Because people don't act as theory predicts, Ariely proclaims they are irrational. In reality, the theory doesn't capture all the elements in play (or Ariely's not acknowledging they do). For example, Ariely dedicates chapter three to how people will get something just because it's free, even if it's not the better deal. They'll choose the free $10 gift certificate over a $20 gift certificate which costs seven dollar (effectively choosing $10 over $13). But people like getting things for free. Even if it's not really free, even if we know it's not really free.

Ironically, Ariely said it best: "FREE! gives us such an emotional charge that we perceive what is being offered as immensely more valuable than it really is." (p54) If it gives us that emotional charge, it really is more valuable. People also gamble though few will think they actually come out ahead. The joy comes from those few times you win. That joy, that emotional charge of getting something for nothing, is valuable to people and they'll gladly pay for it in the form of a lost opportunity.

My theory is easily testable (though expensive). Start by offering the $10 gift certificate versus $20 certificate for $7. Then increase that value from $20 to $30 then $40 then $50, steadily increasing the (opportunity) cost of the indulgent from $3 to $13 to $23 to $33. I'll bet you'll see more people start grabbing for their wallets, rationally determining that the joy of FREE! isn't worth the cost.

Comma Marries And

Writing out lists in writing is rather straight forward, but a simple mistake makes the list confusing. One of the easiest ways to keep it clear is to be consistent with commas. Consider the following sentence:

My favorite types of yogurt are orange creme, pineapple, strawberry and banana and vanilla.

Are there three flavors? Four? Two? Is strawberry and banana one flavor or is banana and vanilla one flavor? It's not clear. It's also awkward because the reader doesn't know when to finish the sentence. Now consider the same sentence with one more comma.

My favorite types of yogurt are orange creme, pineapple, strawberry and banana, and vanilla.

Much clearer, isn't it? A friend of mine once told me that commas separate each idea in a sentence as if they were the gaps between cars of a train. It's a pause to signal a slight change in thought. Don't treat it like a period (i.e. watch sentence length) but use it right in a list.

Questionable Writing

It's natural for people to ask questions in their writing, likely because those very questions are running through the writer's mind as they type. I saw this style many times while grading rough drafts my students submitted last week. It's not inherently bad writing. But like quoting, it should be used sparingly with two rules in mind.

1. If you're going to ask a question, ask only one and then immediately answer it. If it has a long answer (i.e. it introduces a section), then answer it in a way that summarizes the section. Asking a whole bunch of questions at once confuses the reader and wastes her time. It also robs you of authority; the reader might ask "Why is he asking so many questions? Does he not know the answer?"

2. You can also ask several questions to illustrate the extent of the difference of alternatives, alternating between one side and the other. Make sure you summarize at the end, of course. Virigina Postrel does this very well in her book The Future and Its Enemies:

How we feel about the evolving future tells us who we are as individuals and as a civilization: Do we search for stasis--a regulated, engineered world? Or do we embrace dynamism--a world of constant creation, discovery, and competition? Do we value stability and control, or evolution and learning? Do we declare with Appelo that "we're scared of the future" and join Adams in decrying technology as "a killing thing"? Or do we see technology as an expression of human creativity and the future as inviting? Do we think that progress requires a central blueprint, or do we see it as a decentralized, evolutionary process? Do we consider mistakes permanent disasters, or the correctable by-products of experimentation? Do we crave predictability, or relish surprise? These two poles, stasis and dynamism, increasingly define our political, intellectual, and cultural landscape. The central question of our time is what to do about the future. And that question creates a deep divide. (p xiv) [Original Emphasis]

Newsflash: Big Plans Are Complicated

Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez commented on CNBC today arguing if the government loan goes though, the government will only manage the big involving their balance sheet. He insists politicians are capable of doing this well.

What we're talking about here is not the running of the auto company. We're saying someone who can evaluate whether they are making the tough calls and whether they are restructuring and whether the numbers suggest they are making the tough calls...We're talking about a big picture of what needs to be done to restructure these companies based on what the executives will bring forward.

This is a lot like saying "I'm not going to tell you how to drive because I'm not an expert. But I will tell you how to make your Civic do tricks out of a James Bond movie." These big picture changes are immensely complicated, filled with nuanced information no one in Congress or the Commerce Department has. They are precisely the things outsiders should not micromanage.

Quote With Caution: Leading and Following

With my development students feverishly working on their final drafts, I want to take some time passing on some writing advice. Today we discuss quoting.

While I've mentioned it before, it's worth repeating. There's only two reasons to quote: (a) convincing the reader that someone believes something (usually something the quoted may not freely admit) and (b) repeating an idea illustrated so well, you can't possibly say it better.

But knowing when to quote is not the same as knowing how to quote. I've witnessed many papers where the writer will quote without comment. Their lead in will be bland and their follow up will be nonexistent. I read phrases such as "Paul Collier says," "Jared Diamond writes," "William Easterly argues," with barely a hint of what they are going to say.

Instead, try something more tailored. Paraphrase the author's idea in the context of the subject of the paper. Then, indicate to the reader why you are bothering to quote. (i.e. "Friedman said it best: 'If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.'")

Other times, the writer will quote and simply move on. If you going to bother quoting, add context to the quotation. Comment on it (but don't repeat yourself from the lead in). Reference an idea or phrase from within the quote and connect it back to your paper. Quotes are supposed to complement your writing, not replace it.

Don't Celebrate Yet

A surprising 61% of Americans oppose the Detroit bailout of the big three (Ford, GM, and Chrysler). This is hard to explain, given the populace's distaste for seeing big employers go under.

I wish I could say the results are due to people understanding growth doesn't come from preserving failures. Or a realization that there are some things Americans shouldn't do. But while the big picture's the same, the reasoning's likely much more nuanced. Quick depreciation of American cars, declining sales in SUVs, and the rise of the foreign-made hybrid are everyday examples of a poorly performing sector of the economy. Now if only people would take the essence of the argument and apply it consistently.

Paradoxically, the results are also low. Despite the repeated failures of the auto industry, despite the everyday logic that if something doesn't perform you shouldn't work to preserve it, despite the fundamental reality that letting something go away allows us to do something else, nearly forty percent of Americans are not against a bailout.

And then things make sense again.

The Forgotten Charity

Amity Shlaes recalls the last great act of banker, industrialist, and art collector Andrew Mellon in The Forgotten Man:

By giving largely, generously, completely, and entirely, he would demonstrate that the private man could be as good a servant to the public as the government official was...Mellon's gift would show the value of leaving art--or capital--to accumulate and compound in the shadows, untaxed. The National Gallery would be an object lesson that the high taxers could not forget.

One of the finest collections of Western art in the world, and the main building which houses it, was originally the gift of a "robber baron" who gave so selfishly that it doesn't even bear his name. And so, alongside the monuments to presidents and memorials to wars, among the lawmakers and tourists, in the shadow of the Capitol building, rests a silent dedication to low taxes.

The Siren's Song of Manufacturing

Today on Morning Joe Pat Buchanan mourned the decline of the manufacturing sector, whose members now (supposedly) work at Wal-Mart. Forget that over the past thirty years median individual income rose about 40%. Even if they were becoming nurses and lawyers (and they are), Buchanan still prefers manufacturing cars, toys, and electronics in America, by American firms.

Manufacturing is no more important than farming, customer support, or mining. The key is never one sector. The key to American prosperity (among other things) is trade. Freer trade opens the plethora of human ingenuity to more people at steadily decreasing amounts of effort. Alaskans get bananas year round. Nevadans get free tech support. Indianans get toys under the tree. Just because we can't point to a single area where everyone works doesn't mean they can't find good jobs, obtain consumer goods, or live a fuller life. Freer trade means all these things are more common, not less.

Burn, Baby, Burn

With the world financial system still in turmoil (and Japan joining the recession ranks), governments hear the public cry for action. It's a knee-jerk call with little forethought. People mistaken the current economy as a burning building: clearly, something has to be done. This analogy makes a series of errors, assuming the government could fix the problem, knows how to fix the problem, and wants to fix the problem in a way that actually works (instead of just claiming it works).

If you insist on the analogy, we should wonder if the fire's too hot to suffocate. We should wonder if the buckets contain water or kerosene. We should wonder if the firefighters wish to get burned putting it out or stay away and roast marshmallows. But most of all, we should wonder if if the building should just burn down.

The financial sector is really large. Arguably too large. At the very least, many firms made some big errors. Saving the company that's a proven failure is not a recipe for long term growth. Ditto for Detroit, who focused on SUVs while gas prices climbed. The same goes for virtually any struggling industry, especially its old and unimaginative players. They made a mistake, honest or not, and now they're dead weight.

Forest fires occur naturally. As forests age, dry undergrowth covers the ground and old trees block out all light. Nothing new grows. It takes only a bolt of lightning to ignite the old structure and wipe it away in a cruel immolation. This is the only way new life can flourish and the forest can ultimately survive.

Let the ancients burn.