Environmental Economics

Movie Review: The Economics of Happiness

From one of the Black and Gold Standard's bloggers, Brad Cookson*:

The Economics of Happiness is a documentary film by Helena-Norberg Hodge, Steven Gorelick, and John Page that critiques globalization and the continued development of a global culture.  The film makes the case that globalization has led to an expansion of power and influence of big business and has, ultimately, decreased world welfare. It then goes on to propose that the solution to the challenges associated with globalization can be solved with a return to more localized economies, regulation of large corporations, and strategic policy changes that allow local businesses to prosper.

The film starts with Helena-Norberg Hodge in Ladakh, or "little Tibet,"a small region in northern India where she has been conducting research for decades. Hodge asserts that prior to introduction to western culture in the 1970's, Ladakh was a near-ideal society. Apparently, Ladakh had a fully localized economy where there was no unemployment, everyone was healthy, provided for, and undeniably happy. However, upon the imposition of western culture in the region, Hodge began to notice trends that led to an extreme loss of well-being. The Ladakh case therefore leads into the dramatic criticism of globalization and the description of eight over-simplified "inconvenient truths:"

Globalization...
1.  makes us unhappy
2.  breeds insecurity
3.  wastes natural resources
4.  accelerates climate change
5.  destroys livelihoods
6.  increases conflicts
7.  is built on handouts to big business
8.  in built on false accounting

To legitimize the anti-globalization argument, the filmmakers interview a variety of talking heads from around the globe who see the negative impacts of globalization everyday. This is really where my first problem with the film is established. Upon researching the backgrounds of the filmmakers and interviewees, it came to my attention that none of them have a serious academic background in economics.  Given the fact that the film is called The Economics of Happiness one would think that they might actually interview a legitimate economist. Indeed, even Hodge, who is presented as an "economic analyst" in the beginning of the film, has her academic background in linguistics.  Moreover, many of the films anecdotal arguments would more appropriately be characterized as anthropological/sociological. The filmmakers rarely touch on any actual economics, and even when they do it is over-simplified and used only when convenient.

The next major problem I had with the film is how they present globalization as being defended by inaccurate measures of prosperity, and they even go so far as to attack GDP as a backwards method for measuring well-being that only takes into account monetary welfare. Their proposed solution is a more comprehensive index for well-being that factors in physical, mental, and emotional well-being in addition to monetary wealth.  Other than that description of the basic components, however, they give no indication of how such an index could accurately be calculated on a macro-scale. In fact, there is a regrettable lack of real numbers and data throughout the entire film, and most of the arguments are conclusory and provide the viewer with little or no evidence with which to form their own opinions.

In conclusion, I feel that The Economics of Happiness will leave many people yearning for more information about the real facts of the situation.  I strongly believe that this film touches on some extremely pertinent issues for out time, but it is presented in such a one-sided fashion that it leaves far too much room for cynics (such as myself) to find illegitimacy in their arguments.  By playing to the ignorance of many concerning economic issues (ignorance not to be confused with stupidity here) the film leaves the reasonable viewer with a taste that is a little more political and a little less altruistic.

Here is the movie's website.

Note: the Black and Gold Standard is my senior seminar course blog.

Crickets chirping

The sound I hear after sending this email in response to a showing of the Economics of Happiness on campus:

The film "economics of happiness" was the major topic of discussion in my senior seminar class yesterday. Several of my students thought that the panel could have used an environmental economist (to my knowledge, no one from the department was invited to participate). I agree, since the "... series focuses on environmental and economic issues ...". I'm sure that if invited to participate in the future we could make every effort to have a representative present the economics angle in a balanced way that would benefit the audience. ...

Here is more on the movie: http://www.theeconomicsofhappiness.org/.

I had hoped to attend the movie and panel discussion along with my students but I was chose my kids first U11 soccer practice instead. If I knew that the economics discipline would receive the one-sided treatment that caused my students concern, I would have found a substitute soccer chauffeur.

My Christmas post, only two days late

Modo on Dickens:

In October 1843, he had the idea for “A Christmas Carol.” As Claire Tomalin writes in another new book, “Charles Dickens: A Life,” he told a friend “he had composed it in his head, weeping and laughing and weeping again” as he walked around London at night.

He had visited one of the “ragged schools,” set up in poor parts of London by volunteer teachers to educate homeless, starving and disabled pupils, and the novella, published that December, was his screed about the indifference of the rich toward those less fortunate.

Scrooge gets redeemed from an alternate life as a misanthrope, and Tiny Tim is saved from death. But two “wolfish” children, a boy named Ignorance and a girl named Want, are not rescued, but rather left to haunt readers’ consciences.

We watched the George C. Scott version last week. There was lots of explaining to do about ignorance and want to 7 and 9 year olds. Also last week, we went to the Biltmore for the first time. Again, lots of explaining to do.

The PHD Movie

The PHD Movie is screening at OSU tomorrow night at 7:30.  Fortunately I have a life and don't need to relive the horrors of graduate school*.  I'm picturing a bunch of nerds sitting around laughing hysterically and their 'dates' wondering what the hell they are doing there.  At least that's what me and my wife would look like if we were at the screening.

 

PHD Movie Trailer from PHD Comics on Vimeo.

*Instead I get to watch 10 year olds play basketball.

A Mighty Wind

From the The Energy Collective:

We need more wind coverage! Please consider covering this topic in your blog, and do reach out to me if you know anyone who writes about wind and would be a good blogger candidate for TEC. We're also looking for more market news on the cleantech sector.

I was flipping channels the other day and ran into A Mighty Wind. I've seen it several times before but I wanted to see the scene where the actress from Glee tells the story of how she ended up in the band. I saw that scene, and it was great, and then kept watching. I couldn't change the channel! That is one awesome movie. I highly recommend it.

I bet a lot of other economist bloggers have seen the movie. You should consider joining The Energy Collective!

Monopoly - Official Trailer

From the Funny or Die Newsletter:

Monopoly - Official Trailer - watch more funny videos

I see a Margaret Maron book and Coen brothers movie in my future*

The title of the book/film would be something like: "And the rivers turned to blood" (Falls Lake cleanup will be costly, contentious):

Five years after the need for a cleanup was recognized by the state legislature, the state Environmental Management Commission is hammering out a strategy to reduce pollutants flowing into the almost 12,500-acre reservoir from streams and rivers in Orange, Person, Granville, Wake and Durham counties that have led to rising levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in the lake. ...

And mysterious deaths! Several residents, all with connections to Duke and NCSU, have died while swimming in Falls Lake (and drinking treated Falls Lake water). What could be behind this crime?

The push and pull between the interests of Durham and Raleigh - the two communities with possibly the most at stake - may lead to tense relations between the two cities.

Raleigh, and a large part of Wake County, needs Falls Lake for its drinking water and will spend millions upgrading the city's water treatment plant if pollution isn't reduced by 2016.

But Durham looks as though it will be on the hook for millions of dollars to lower the amount of sediment-laden stormwater that rushes off pavement in its urban core into streams, creeks and rivers that flow into the lake. Durham doesn't get its water from Falls Lake but from Lake Michie and the Little River Reservoir.

And it will definitely lead to some tension between Triangle-area environmental economists (those guys need some tension). Can't you see a Duke (Murray/Pattanayek) vs. NCSU (Phaneuf/Von Haefen) empirical study-type showdown? I'd go after the following actors: Gabriel Bryne to play a Murray-type character (I'm typecasting with an Irish theme), Hank Azaria for the Pattanayek-type character, Jeff Bridges for the Phaneuf-type character (because he's Oscar-hot ... and he'd shave his head like in Ironman), and, er, Will Ferrell to play the Von Haefen-type character (sorry Roger, but I gots to get my boy in the film somehow).

... To fix the lake, Durham might have to shell out $20 million over the next decade. City leaders say the cost could rise to as much as $1 billion overall to upgrade a sewage plant and bring existing development into compliance. Among other measures, that could involve encouraging more stormwater to be filtered by the soil, which would help curb pollution in the lake's upper reaches, where pollution is most concentrated. ...

One BILLION dollars? That represents $1 billion in potential funding for Duke medical research.

But money is also behind Raleigh's push to start cleaning up soon.

Money? And Murder. Someone definitely has to go down. Not an economist because economic life is too boring to generate a motive, but probably an evil mid-level research administrator with higher administrative ambitions.

If the lake quality doesn't improve by 2016, a $115 million upgrade of Raleigh's E.M. Johnson Water Treatment Plant, which handles all the water for Raleigh's system, will be needed. In addition, as much as $200 million in other improvements may be necessary.

And if Raleigh has to spend this much money on clean drinking water, all of NCSU's external funding will be crowded out. No indirect costs? That's motive.

All this story needs is a crusading heroine played by Julia Roberts:

JoAnn Burkholder, an N.C. State University aquatic ecology professor who has been researching the Falls Lake pollution, said the unsafe conditions on the beaches may be symptoms of the lake's illnesses.

"That indicates to me that something has seriously gone wrong," Burkholder said about the beach closures at a recent forum about Falls Lake.

And, of course, we'll also need a team of heros. I suggest a Mansfield/Van Houtven-type (Sandy Bullock/Clooney or Pitt) meta-analysis that determines which empirical study is the outlier, determine if net benefits are positive and reveal the true mid-level-academic-administrator-with-higher-administrative-ambitions villain.

And I'd be the technical advisor so they'd get the economics right.

*A post like this? It must be spring break.

My best post of 2008

I left a comment on a green jobs post the day after pagan celebration of a Christian holy day:

That is why economics is known as the dismal science. We strange economists are most adept at recognizing the opportunity costs of various decisions. No one else really seems to care if opportunity costs offset some, or all, of the benefits of a good idea.

Opportunity cost is a strange notion to some (especially intro micro students) ... it is the value of the next best alternative whenever a choice is made. For example, if I purchase a $1000 flat panel LCD TV, the true cost of the TV is not $1000, but what I could purchase instead (such as $500 in each kid's college education 529 plan [sorry kids]).

In the case of green energy subsidies, if you are an economist then you must at least wonder if this is the best way to spend the money. There are benefits of pushing down the costs of green energy (e.g., improved air quality), and there are opportunity costs. Ignoring the opportunity costs is likely to lead to wasteful spending. Considering the opportunity costs is likely to lead to better social decision making -- regardless of whether the benefits of the subsidies exceed the costs.

The notion of opportunity cost, its recognition and the inevitable result that not all great sounding ideas are really great ideas, is the most important thing that economists bring to many policy discussions. Pointing out the unpleasantantries of opportunity cost is one of the purposes of this blog. The dismal part of the dismal science can not be avoided.

The obligatory post-election analysis: pirate behavior on a sinking ship

If I was a Pirate and my ship was sinking, I'd grab the money too (Pirates left quickly).

Artifacts from the wreckage of a sailing vessel thought to have been the pirate Blackbeard's flagship suggest that the crew left in a hurry, but the reasons aren't clear, the director of a recovery project said yesterday.

...

He also said the fact that cannons were left shows that the crew grabbed money and other items of immediate value when they abandoned the ship after it ran aground off Beaufort Inlet in 1718. The wreck was discovered in 1996 in 20 to 25 feet of water.

"Folks took most everything off of value," he said. "They were in a hurry. It may have been the elements. It probably went down pretty fast, and that's fortunate for us."

I wouldn't need anything else. And that's it and that's the only thing I would need. I wouldn't need this [kicking a pair of pirate boots] or this [dropping a pirate hat]. Just the rum. I would need the rum. And my earring. The rum and the earring and that's all I would need. And the purple bandana. The rum, the earring, and the purple bandana, and that's all I would need. And the sword. The rum, and the sword, and the purple bandana and the earring. I wouldn't need one other thing, not one - I need this [as I grab a parrot]. And that's all I would need. The rum, the sword, the purple bandana, the earring and my parrot. [Parrot squaks] I don't need my parrot. [*]

*Note: Adapted from the famous Navin Johnson line in The Jerk.

Rock Star: The Sequel

Aguanomics is at it again at Freakonomics:

In my second piece, I discuss water and oil.