Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Towards full-world economics - Chronic unemployment edition

by JakeS Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 01:55:51 AM EST

In this diary I introduced a frame of discussion about economics that I labelled the full world (by contrast with current economic thought which I claim is largely developed in and adapted to the empty world). In that diary, I looked at the different kinds of resources and the kinds of price shocks that could be expected when our non-negotiable way of life runs head first into the even less negotiable laws of physics.

This time, I'll look at a slightly different issue:

If economic activity is the process of converting raw materials to consumer goods and services, what happens when the capacity of one's industrial plant to convert raw materials into goods and services outstrips one's capacity to acquire raw materials?

To explore this, I'm going to go back to a fairly basic analytical tool: The production possibility frontier (PPF). The production possibility frontier represents the possible configurations of an economy when its labour and capital are fully deployed in the conversion of raw materials into consumer goods. The points that fall inside the PPF represent configurations that do not fully employ the capital and/or labour of the economy. The points that fall outside the PPF are unachievable given the available plant and labour force.


In the empty world, this is the entire story. There is, of course, always a theoretical upper limit to production (given by the laws of physics and the accidents of geography and geology). But in the empty world (see figure on the right) it lies beyond the PPF. Which means that even if the empty-world economy stretches its capital plant and labour force to the breaking point, the supply of raw materials will never be an interesting constraint.

In the empty world, idle plant and labour can be put to productive use through an expansion of demand - an insight normally attributed to John Maynard Keynes. It is therefore, in principle, possible to ensure full employment by using only fiscal and monetary policy.

In the full world, this is no longer true. In the full world (shown below on the left), possible configurations of capital, labour and aggregate demand exist in which part of the labour force and capital plant is idle not because of insufficient purchasing power, but because of insufficient access to raw materials. This can happen either because the resources they depend upon for production have been depleted or because our capital plant now permits us to convert raw materials to consumer goods faster than it permits us to recover said raw materials.

In the full world you can, in other words, have involuntary unemployment that cannot be cured by fiscal or monetary policy, because attempts to expand demand sufficiently to force the deployment of the entire productive apparatus will run into non-negotiable resource constraints. Attempting to force the economy into a state of full employment by expanding demand will then run into ruinous cost-push inflation, as increasing demand strains against unexpanding availability of raw materials.

But this is not all. The goods that I have chosen to for the illustrations in this diary are picked with malice aforethought: Gasoline and automobiles are complementary goods - demand for automobiles depends on the availability of gasoline. If consumers are not reasonably confident that they will be able to procure the fuel necessary to run their automobiles, no amount of government handouts will induce them to demand automobiles.

The figure below on the right shows the effect of such demand constraints. The dashed line represents the theoretical maximum demand (i.e. the demand if all consumers had as much money as they could possibly desire to spend) for automobiles, given a certain production of gasoline. The astute reader will notice that the dashed line intersects the line representing the resource constraint before it intersects with the production possibility frontier.

Two conclusions may be drawn from this: First, that resource constraints can and will reach into industries where the resources concerned do not enter into the supply line, by virtue of those resources being in the supply line of complementary goods. Second, that the economy in this example will never reach full employment. (Barring outright make-work schemes. And make-work is not, in my book, about full employment - it's about camouflaging unemployment subsidies in a way that sufficiently appeases reactionaries to prevent outright obstructionism.)

Clearly, the economics of the full world will need serious reconsideration of the definition and desirability of "full employment."

- Jake

Display:
I guess this is right up ThatBritGuy's alley, since it presents a fairly serious challenge to the worship of JobsTM.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 01:57:18 AM EST
Excellent diary.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 03:18:06 AM EST
Good diary, but what's the value of the charts here, other than as an arbitrary illustration of the points (well) argued in the text?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 04:29:36 AM EST
Because this is ET. Without charts you cannot be Serious ;-))

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 05:20:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Some people read the text, some people read the charts. If the point is fully made in both of them, I've done the job as planned.

(That and the fact that I made the charts first. The text is a description of the thought process that went into the charts and the conclusions I drew when looking at them.)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 07:36:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's a good idea, but you're taking an industry in isolation and suggesting the employees displaced from it cannot be re-deployed.

Thatis what employment policy should be about, identifying which employment will be available and re-educating workers for it. Yes, that is utopian given that most govts haven't taken climate change or peak oil on board yet, but that's what it will be.

Frankly, and I know I've been banging this drum for a long time, but it's "back to the land" for most of us. Without oil-based weedkillers, pesticides and fertilizers, food production is gonna be a bit more localised and hands-on than it used to be. Same with energy management and production.

The existing housing stock needs substantial retro-fitting to be energy efficient.

These are areas ripe for re-deployment. Railways need to be rebuilt as well.

Manual labour is always badly-paid, but they are nevertheless actual jobs.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 05:28:01 AM EST
I very much doubt "most of us" - the numbers I've seen give me the impression that direct agricultural employment will rise significantly, but hardly far enough to be "most" of us. And that's before people set their minds to the problems of automation in the context of (broadly) organic production. Just because current machinery is optimized for huge monocultures doesn't mean that future machines have to be.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 05:38:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not so much in direct food production, but add in ancilliary support and that's a good percentage of the current manual labour/ low skilled office work force accounted for.

Personally I still think there's a lot of mileage in the Stranded Wind initiative, but it requires significat backing at governmental level to become a way out of this mess. I fear it's an idea which won't develop the backing in time to be a significant contributor.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 05:49:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's a good idea, but you're taking an industry in isolation and suggesting the employees displaced from it cannot be re-deployed.

Not quite. What I am suggesting is that it is possible that resource constraints can constrain all sectors of a mechanised society in such a way as to render full employment unachievable. In principle, I could have included every single product currently being produced on the planet in the PPF figures above - but that would have required a way to make infinite-dimensional plots, and would not have materially aided understanding.

Frankly, and I know I've been banging this drum for a long time, but it's "back to the land" for most of us. Without oil-based weedkillers, pesticides and fertilizers, food production is gonna be a bit more localised and hands-on than it used to be. Same with energy management and production.

What you are talking about here is a pell-mell collapse of current economic and political institutions, not a managed transition to a sustainable paradigm.

Yes, if we have a pell-mell collapse, we'll have our hands full. Even in a managed transition, we'll have our hands full the next half century or so with replacing and upgrading obsolete or insufficient capital plant and infrastructure.

But after the transition to a sustainable economy is complete, I am not convinced that we'll have meaningful, productive labour for every idle hand. The characteristic feature of most sustainable energy production is that it is capital-intensive and low-maintenance (that's why the government does it so much better than the private sector).

We cannot keep expanding our capital plant forever, and there is no guarantee that we will reach a sufficient volume of capital plant for the population to be meaningfully employed in its continual maintenance and replacement before we run out of planet to put said capital plant on.

On agriculture, I'll have to defer to somebody who has a clue, because I don't. But it would take between a five and tenfold increase in payroll before agriculture became the dominant economic sector in terms of employment.

And even if an increase of this order happens, mechanisation may well catch up with those sectors eventually. Any sector that has the full and serious attention of a modern industrial society is going to have a very large chance of mechanising - that's the point of having an industrial society, after all.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 08:01:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What you are talking about here is a pell-mell collapse of current economic and political institutions, not a managed transition to a sustainable paradigm.

This is important and, I believe, this is the first place in this diary/thread that it has been directly stated. The constraints you show in the full world graph apply if we continue, in our usual pig-headed manner, to allow the present profit needs of economic incumbents to dominate until the system moves to the crash point.

Sustainable work-arounds and substitutions are starting to appear in the form of electric vehicles and increasingly affordable sustainable power generation. High speed electrified freight and passenger train transport are starting to emerge. And, in the US, the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsac, is pushing the potential for offsets and new profit potentials for farmers as means of mitigating the impact of carbon taxes.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 04:35:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The laws of physics are not negotiable, so the constraints I show in the graphs apply regardless of our economic behaviour. The consequences of those constraints depends on our ability to react to them in a timely and astute fashion. The consequence can be a controlled transition to a sustainable economic structure, or the consequences can involve mass deprivation.

But this model does not really deal with the transition from the current industrial infrastructure to a hypothetical sustainable infrastructure. As long as there exists a need for sustainable capital plant, there is a dimension in the production area that aggregate demand can be expanded into. So with only a little bit of finesse, standard Keynesian prescriptions for achieving full employment can be utilised during this transition.

This model deals with the endpoint of the transition, where the sustainable capital plant is fully phased in, and there is still surplus man-hours available. Since the sustainable capital plant is fully phased in, these man-hours by definition cannot be put to work in building a sustainable capital plant, and so standard Keynesian policy prescriptions will fail to ensure full employment.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 04:53:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Your graph modeled gasoline and gasoline fueled automobiles. So, yes, there will be limits on the number of gasoline fueled automobiles that can be built. Thus capital equipment that can only be used for manufacture of gasoline fueled automobiles will be underutilized and skilled labor that is only applicable to gasoline engines and production products will be underutilized.

But much of the capital equipment and all of the skilled labor can be employed elsewhere, provided sustainable energy and material resources are available. In theory, extrapolating from existing technology, it is possible that graphene or other forms of carbon nano-tubes could be produced from atmospheric CO2 or from industrial sources and used to make composite structures, and being constrained for CO2 as a resource would be cool, as it would likely lead to cooling.

Why should constrained production of gasoline fueled automobiles be any more of a limit on economic activity than are buggies. Price and performance could well make them obsolete before availability of gasoline at any price will.

Of course there are finite limits to total production, but I am not sure we have properly identified them. And while your example of automobiles and gasoline are used as a stand-in for the entire economy, the fact that it is a simplification cannot be ignored despite the fact that evaluating the manifold of all available product/resource PPFs is vastly more complex.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 06:27:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This essentially boils down to the argument that resource constraints on one sector of the economy can, given intelligent policy, be offset by growth in another sector of the economy. And that's true.

Sometimes.

But this diary does not deal with those situations. From an economist's point of view, those situations are straightforward: Stop doing stupid things, start doing smart things, and have a helping of Ye Olde Ordinarie Keynesian Fiscal Policy.

If you think automobiles will be (or should be) fully phased out before serious raw material shortages hit gasoline production, feel free to substitute solar panels and high-voltage transformer stations for gasoline and automobiles.

But having a more complicated economy does not help you. The arguments advanced here generalise in a straightforward way to an n-dimensional economy - but n-dimensional manifolds are rather harder to draw.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 08:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Agreed. And it is hard to tell when those limits will be reached, much more so than for any individual resource. Even which resource will be the most critical limit is hard to know. But I think you had another point as well, even if it is only implicit.

Given the trends in automation, population and education we are already facing problems of too many people for the necessary jobs. This is exacerbated by the dominant ideology, the existing patterns of wealth distribution and current corporate and government policies. And those patterns and policies driven by those ideologies are producing more and more strains and imbalances.

Manufactured good are produced in low wage countries such as China, which maintains a fixed peg to the US dollar for its currency in order to maintain a competitive price for its goods in the USA. But even at that rate they accumulate macro-economically significant reserves of US dollars in various instruments. But even that does not enable China to grow at a rate the government sees as necessary to absorb the enormous reserves of labor from the countryside. So they have built roads, bridges and railways many reportedly unnecessary, and entire unoccupied cities.

Meanwhile, shipping all of the jobs for consumer manufacturing to China has hollowed out the US economy so that for the last decade imports were financed by money extracted from the real estate bubble that broke in 2008. When that bubble broke there was nothing really to fall back on. The USA can no longer import enough consumer goods from China to satisfy China's need to be an export driven economy on a scale adequate to their social needs. Europe is unlikely to step into the gap and no one else can afford to do so.

But even worse, the logical extrapolation of existing trends is for the production of manufactured goods to be increasingly automated. As a similar trend played out in US agriculture, all agricultural output was generated by a few percent of the labor force. If only that portion of the production chain for manufactured goods that involves US labor is considered, then we are approaching a similar figure for manufactured goods. Worse, the same process has made retail more efficient, thereby reducing retail employment also.

Looked at from a wealth distribution point of view, when <1% of the population hold >90% of the wealth the economy has to suffer. This is similar to the situation that J.A. Hobson analyzed over a century ago in Imperialism. In order to avoid giving labor in the U.K. a larger portion of earnings so they could purchase goods, markets and investment opportunities were sought in captive colonies. But we are now at the limits of that or more subtle forms of imperialism and they are no longer a useful options.

Given the mess we have made with money, debt and finance it would seem likely that the limits of our current ideology as embodied in financial capitalism is likely to be a limit before resource constraints are. The sooner the better as far as I can see.  Were we able to see that our existing ideology is leading us over multiple cliffs simultaneously, perhaps we could consider alternatives.  If we could figure out how to place a value on the survival of the next four generations that is equal to or greater than the value we place on return on investment over the next year or even ten years, we would be more likely to find our way out of the dilemmas of climate change and resource limitation, but the "solution" is likely to involve the premature deaths of a very large fraction of the world's population over the remainder of this century as things stand.  


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Dec 10th, 2009 at 12:29:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But you're still caught in the Conventional Wisdom that JobsTM are important.

They aren't.

Income distribution is important, but that is only incidentally connected to jobs.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Dec 10th, 2009 at 01:08:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is the other implicit but previously unstated point to your diary. The point of production is consumption. That is short-circuited by massively unequal wealth and income distribution. Just another contradiction between the ideology and reality. J.S. Mill pointed out some 130 years ago that, while competitive capitalism might be the most efficient means of generating wealth yet found, that did not imply that it was the best means of distributing wealth.

I think that was the point at which THE POWERS THAT BETM concluded that he was "un-sound" and encouraged the development of "sound" theories to be taught in the institutions which they endowed. This gave us Neo-Classical Economics, brought to you by Anglo-American capitalism, the long term practice of which is now known by some as "The Anglo Disease."

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Dec 10th, 2009 at 12:11:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ARGeezer:
The point of production is consumption.

The point of production is slavery organised for personal profit. Accidentally, progress for the common good occasionally falls out as a side effect - usually only after it's demanded. But it's a side benefit, not the main event.

It's not just about Jobs™ - it's about the realisation that beyond a certain point it's impossible to run an economy for purely material ends.

If you expand production to include non-material benefits - creativity, scientific investigation, personal development, innovation, increasing psychological and social maturity - then physical constraints become much less important.

You could, in fact, have a steady-state material economy with closed resource cycles, and efficient energy use, underpinning a booming and potentially expansive non-material economy.

People would have to get used to buying and wasting less crap, but there might be benefits to that model they haven't yet experienced.

The real problem is the cult-like nature of the economic religion, and its strictly limited beliefs about what constitutes good experience.

You can't understand economics algorithmically. It's entirely a ritual activity, not a rational one, and the only way to disinvent it is to replace its rituals with more survivable ones.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Dec 10th, 2009 at 07:56:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Agreed. This goes to my longstanding criticism that we are, effectively, mono-valent societies, that one value being return on investment. Put all other alleged values in one pan of the balance and put return on investment in the other and tell me when "other" has outweighed "ROI". Cult-like nature of economic religion? I recall watching G.H.W. Bush on TV in 1992 talking about how "The Invisible Hand" would take care of economic problems and literally screaming at the TV, "It's a metaphor, you idiot, not The Left Hand of God"!

The term had fallen out of general use but Milton Friedman brought it back in the '60s. My own view is that, prior to Time Magazine's "God is Dead" cover, the vast majority of US citizens believed that the USA was protected by God's providence, so there was no scope for an "Invisible Hand" theory, except, perhaps, as the "Left Hand of God"  As this view began to lose traction, a bowdlerized version of Adam Smith's metaphor was put forward as a more secular version of Divine Providence.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Dec 11th, 2009 at 12:44:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A lot of people could be soaked up in retail as well.  Super-efficient producer-consumer sales allow for low prices and good profits, but several layers of middlemen take that same money and put extra people to work.  Inefficiency employs people.
by Zwackus on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 05:26:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why is this A Good Thing, again?

If you can perform the same economic function (deliver bread and fruit from the producer to the consumer) with 10 people, why should we feel the urge to employ 20 people?

I can see the appeal of employing 20 people for half as long, but that's a slightly different point, and tangential to this diary.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 08:30:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, it's a form of social redistribution.  Instead of all the profit from a sale going into one set of hands, its distributed in smaller doses amongst a variety of hands.

It's how a lot of Japan did business until fairly recently, and seems to have a lot of social-fabric-supporting side-benefits, so I thought I'd mention in.

I have a larger theory on inefficiency and its benefits, but that really demands a diary.

by Zwackus on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 11:04:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you want to distribute the workload, which is something I can certainly get behind, there's the much simpler expedient of reducing the "full-time" work week.

Now, a lot of what was called "inefficiency" in Japan my actually have been a matter of providing better customer service than we are used to in The WestTM to people who did not pay extra for it. Which would show up as lower productivity, because such things as customer service only show up in productivity statistics when somebody gets billed for it.

But that is a problem with the way our national accounts work, not an argument in favour of inefficiency...

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 11:10:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Now, a lot of what was called "inefficiency" in Japan my actually have been a matter of providing better customer service than we are used to in The WestTM to people who did not pay extra for it. Which would show up as lower productivity, because such things as customer service only show up in productivity statistics when somebody gets billed for it.

That gets to the problem of our social/economic ideology. Even though business people are always concerned with having a "well educated" work force, I do not believe that the costs of the production of that work force are well included, if at all, in the economic theories that are the basis for that ideology, and, in effect, that the existence of labor is an externality. On a popular level we just assume the necessary labor of the necessary skill will appear when needed, complain bitterly when it does not and assume it can go into hibernation when not needed. I hope some of the models are more sophisticated, but I doubt that the views of a majority of those who shape economic policy are. Indeed we still have adherents of old line Chicago School Economics who believe that depressions are due to people voluntarily withholding their labor from the market.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Dec 10th, 2009 at 12:46:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Helen:
It's a good idea, but you're taking an industry in isolation and suggesting the employees displaced from it cannot be re-deployed.
Not really. This is in the same ballpark as the classic "guns or butter" examples. In this case, "gasoline" is a stand-in for "resources" and "automobiles" is a stand-in for "manufactured goods". The general point stands unless there's some effect that would manifest itself in higher dimensions, and I can't see one off-hand (typically you need more than 3 industries to get economic cycles, I think - and those are a tangential issue to this diary which is about the concept of full employment).

You make the point that agriculture will expand to take up some of the slack - but agriculture is mostly "resource" and food mostly "goods", to a first approximation (though in our current mode of production, "agriculture" seems to be "goods", too, fuelled by fossil carbon as "resource" like everything else).

Others make the point that the service sector can be expanded and that is true. in fact, I see the expansion of the service sector and, more generally, of white-collar work, as an indicator of the extent to which the economy is already (and has been for decades) trying to cope with chronic unemployment in the agricultural and blue-collar (industrial) sectors.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 10th, 2009 at 06:45:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not really. This is in the same ballpark as the classic "guns or butter" examples. In this case, "gasoline" is a stand-in for "resources" and "automobiles" is a stand-in for "manufactured goods".

Almost, but not quite. "Oil in the barrel" is a manufactured good. The underlying raw materials are "oil in the ground," "man-hours," "iron ore in the ground," etc.

In fact, everything that shows up in our national accounting as economic activity is manufactured goods or services. Because the production of raw materials (the replenishment of fish stock in the sea, the growth of trees in the forest) are, by definition, not counted as an economic activity. And raw materials are not counted as assets in the national balance sheet (just as public infrastructure is usually not counted as an asset in the national balance sheet).

But the argument still generalises trivially to an arbitrary number of dimensions.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Dec 10th, 2009 at 05:01:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for these diaries, Jake.  You are (almost) succeeding in making this econo-illiterate think he can understand economics - and moreover introducing variables which I always intuitively felt were missing from economics and which prevented me from studying economics in college in the first place.  Do I feel the bones of a thesis/book being formed here?

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 07:41:47 AM EST
For now, I'm going to continue taking the models apart and putting them back together again with resource constraints included and without the most hysterically silly assumptions about small, independent, rational actors with perfectly symmetrical information.

If we ever have enough to publish an anthology, I'm certainly game. But just having an online bank of de- and re-constructed models will work too.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 at 08:05:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The third diagram is not displaying for me (FF) now. It was yesterday.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Dec 10th, 2009 at 02:21:33 AM EST
Seems Imageshack had misplaced the image...

Not to worry, I uploaded it again.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Dec 10th, 2009 at 04:52:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Recommend Photobucket rather than Imageshack.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Dec 10th, 2009 at 07:49:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not agree with the conclusion.

To look at it from another angle:

If one family of farmers extract food for 1,1 families then for every 1000 farmers you can have 100 non-farmers. These can produce goods from resources or provide services for the whole population. (Priests, kings, warriors etc are counted as services.)

If every family of farmers can extract food for 20 families then for every 100 farmers you can have 1900 non-farmers. If say 1000 take raw materials from nature and add their labor to turn them into goods then you can have a lot of stuff, and the other 900 can provide services.

Now lets say that the 1000 runs into resource constraints. That means there will be less stuff produced and and less people needed in production. Say you just have 500 left and 400 becomes unemployed. Well, then (with societal change and retraining) you have 400 more to provide services. The problem is less stuff, not chronic unemployment.

To shift to the real world, in addition to TBG's suggestions upthread I would add education and care. How many teacher would it take to get something like 5 pupils/teacher? How many doctors and nurses to eliminate waiting periods and lack of care in hospitals and other facilities? Sure, some goods are needed for schools and hospitals too, but we are not lacking that much.

Our chronic unemployment is not today from a lack of worthwhile things to be done, nor will it in the future. It comes from a societal system that sees unemployment as good or at least less bad then something else.

That said, I support shortening "full time", not because it is needed, but because it is good.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Dec 11th, 2009 at 09:34:22 AM EST
The idea of "surplus" or "profit" paying for "ancillary" activity including "services" and "non-productive" occupations such as the military is central to the Kaleckian macroeconomics underlying Minsky's Stabilizing an Unstable Economy. This, of course, is dismissed off-hand by the Krugmans of this world.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Dec 11th, 2009 at 10:33:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jake, you're on a good path here, but you really can't mix the economic concepts the way you are doing here and claim it helps to organize thinking about economics, which is the only reason anyone dreamed up things like PPF in the first place. The PPF, especially in the unrealistic, two-dimensional way you're presenting it, really is just a way of illustrating the concepts of trade-offs and diminishing returns in an intuitive way. You can't arbitrarily include demand for either axis in the graph by plotting them as if there is truly a production trade-off between gasoline and automobiles.  As complements, PPF's of autos and gasoline are more likely to be misleading or confusing as they are illuminating in presenting your argument.

You might try re-doing you argument by placing gasoline on one axis and all other commodities (including automobiles), represented by a $US or a Euro symbol, on the other axis, and then think through how you might add in limits to auto demand and fuel exploitation to that graph.  

However, this important part of your thesis remains problematic no matter what you do to your graphs:

In the full world you can, in other words, have involuntary unemployment that cannot be cured by fiscal or monetary policy, because attempts to expand demand sufficiently to force the deployment of the entire productive apparatus will run into non-negotiable resource constraints.

It should be noted that Keynesian economics, while allowing for the possibility of full employment through correct application of fiscal and monetary policies, is not at all invested in actually using such macroeconomic tools to try to obtain full employment. Rather, the normative lesson of Keynes is in using such tools to prevent or alleviate incidences of severe deprivation during recessions and (moreso) depressions.

If there were, presently, a hard constraint on global fuel resources lower than current (not future) use allows for, your argument that fiscal spending on automobiles won't lead to full employment would be correct.  But projections of future reduced fuel availability are still consistent with more than ample present supplies of fuel, so there is no reason to believe that Keynesian stimulus, even of something as perverse as subsidizing gas guzzling autos, would result in anything other than providing much needed employment during an economic crisis.  As Keynes said, "In the long run, we're all dead."  What matters for fiscal and monetary policy is the short run in the Keynesian worldview that you are contesting here.

by santiago on Fri Dec 11th, 2009 at 12:21:49 PM EST
You can't arbitrarily include demand for either axis in the graph by plotting them as if there is truly a production trade-off between gasoline and automobiles.

Why not? If there is no demand for a product, it will not be produced. If there is no supply of gasoline, then clearly there will be no demand for automobiles.

No law of physics prevents their production, of course, so in that sense it's not a tradeoff. But no law of physics prevents you from showing up naked at work. Nevertheless, we can say with some confidence that it will not happen in any economically interesting magnitude.

all other commodities (including automobiles), represented by a $US or a Euro symbol

Money does not represent goods or services. It represents promises.

there is [currently] no reason to believe that Keynesian stimulus, even of something as perverse as subsidizing gas guzzling autos, would result in anything other than providing much needed employment during an economic crisis.

But now you are confusing objective and strategy. Employment is not an objective. Income isn't even an objective. An adequate supply, to all members of society, of the goods and services that make life safe, comfortable and enjoyable - that is an objective.

The rest are means to that end.

The advantage of securing an adequate supply of goods and services by way of ensuring full employment is that this expands production, allowing one to supply the goods and services more easily (and/or to expand the capital plant, allowing one to supply the goods and services more easily in the future). But if all necessary goods and services can already be provided without full employment, then there is no reason to engage in make-work just to reach a certain employment figure. Straightforward redistribution would suffice, and has the advantage of not wasting people's time with unproductive toil.

By way of example, hiring people to build a railway is more desirable than simply paying them unemployment insurance, if and only if the railway actually makes sense. If the railway in question is unnecessary, all you accomplish (over and above what can be accomplished by simply printing money and handing it to the unemployed) is wasting people's time, and whatever steel, cement and copper wire you need to make the railway.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Dec 11th, 2009 at 09:07:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why not? If there is no demand for a product, it will not be produced. If there is no supply of gasoline, then clearly there will be no demand for automobiles.

No law of physics prevents their production, of course, so in that sense it's not a tradeoff. But no law of physics prevents you from showing up naked at work. Nevertheless, we can say with some confidence that it will not happen in any economically interesting magnitude.

The issue is the use of mental tools for organizing thinking.  The pedagogical purpose of the PPF is distinguish thinking about physical limitations on production as distinct demand limitations in order to be able to identify supply limitations and demand limitations, so it just confuses people to add a demand limitation back into the PPF.  There's no reason to even make a graph with a PPF if it's not a picture about tradeoffs in solely production possibilities. Demand gets brought into the PPF picture with an additional constraint drawn in some way on the graph. Then you've organized your thoughts about two distinct pieces of a complete argument: limitations due to physical tradeoffs, and limitations due to the quantity demanded for things being different at different prices faced by consumers in terms of the physical elements making up a produced good.

by santiago on Tue Dec 15th, 2009 at 12:01:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Then you've organized your thoughts about two distinct pieces of a complete argument: limitations due to physical tradeoffs, and limitations due to the quantity demanded for things being different at different prices faced by consumers in terms of the physical elements making up a produced good.

I don't understand why that's a bad thing. From the point of view of what is actually produced, all these constraints matter. Attempting to put them all into a model and then examine the remaining degrees of freedom strikes me as a worthwhile exercise.

Perhaps "production possibility frontier" is a misnomer, though.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Dec 15th, 2009 at 12:13:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not a bad thing. But it's usually helpful for clarity's sake to isolate which constraints are due to limitations in technology or actual, physical availability of things, such as fossil fuels, and which limitations are due to utility preferences among individuals (aka, demand). Regardless of the utility preferences of individuals, there may exist a hard cap on availability of resources, which truncates the shape of a production possibility function. That is what I think you are arguing regarding fossil fuels and the limitations of fiscal stimulus against a hard cap on energy resources. Demand doesn't even have to be addressed at all here.
by santiago on Tue Dec 15th, 2009 at 12:29:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It does not have to be addressed, but it provides a mechanism for resource constraints in one sector to reach into other sectors in ways that are not immediately apparent from their input/output tables.

If one sector runs into a hard upper limit to production, leading to scarcity-induced price inflation in that commodity, demand for all complementary commodities will decline. This has dramatic consequences, in that a fairly small number of resource constraints can seriously hamper a modern, highly interconnected economy. And this is not obvious from a purely supply-side picture.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Dec 15th, 2009 at 12:47:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't disagree. I just think you might be asking too much of a humble PPF graph to try to make argument, thus resulting in confusion. I think it would be clearer to leave just the supply side picture to the PPF, which is what it was made for, and allow another graph to show the demand side effects, similar to the way macro econ students learn to use related but different IS-LM graphics regarding interest rates and aggregate demand.
by santiago on Tue Dec 15th, 2009 at 01:36:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]