Environmental Economics

Q and A with The Energy Collective

Last Friday I spoke with Brian Roger at The Energy Collective (previous post). Based on my notes and the podcast, here is our Q & A ...

An Adam Smith (dot org) endorsement

From Blog Review 848:

Yes, jobs are a cost when you do a cost benefit analysis.

"Twisted green stimulus logic of the day"

I don't want to steal Rich's thunder, so go over to Common Tragedies now. Right Freakin' Now.

Another best albums of 2008 list

Many of these on Twangville's list were on my list:

This is our second year aggregate of our year-end best album lists representing another great year in music. This year we’ve broadened the list to include our Reader’s Picks and Bobby K’s annual picks. Scoring was based on 10 points for a #1 pick working its way down to 1 point for a #10 pick. Non-ranked picks defaulted to 5 points. Being that the number of lists we pull from is still small there quite a few ties including our first tie at the #1 spot. The first number in parenthesis represents the cumulative score and the second number is the number of editors who selected the album. Enough about the scoring, here are the results:

• #1 DRIVE-BY TRUCKERS, Brighter Than Creation’s Dark (New West) (28/4)
• #1 THE HOLD STEADY, Stay Positive (Vagrant) (28/3)
• #3 RECKLESS KELLY, Bulletproof (Yep Roc) (26/4)
• #4 HAYES CARLL, Trouble In Mind (Lost Highway) (20/4)
• #5 OLD 97S, Blame It On Gravity (New West) (19/3)
• #6 KASEY CHAMBERS & SHANE NICHOLSON, Rattlin’ Bones (Sugar Hill) (13/3)
• #6 ELI “PAPERBOY” REED, Roll With You (Q Dvision) (13/2)
• #6 AUSTIN COLLINS, Roses Are Black (Fat Caddy) (13/2)
• #9 ALEJANDRO ESCOVEDO, Real Animal (Back Porch) (11/3)
• #9 LUCINDA WILLIAMS, Little Honey (Lost Highway) (11/2)

See full lists from Tom, Mayer, Chip and Kelly. Todd’s list was included but remains unpublished at this time.

Note to Will: I'm on my first Kathleen Edwards listen. Thanks for the tip.

Check out our new "winter" design theme!

OK. I'll admit it. I'm quite proud of my efforts:

I can't help fiddling with the design, I hope readers don't find this too distracting [the banner image was taken in my front yard a few days ago]. Here are the original and second env-econ designs (click the thumbnails for a larger image):

Graph of the day

Top priorities for President Obama from a new Pew Poll:

 

"...there aren't any boneheads in the room"

Tyler Cowen on anti-stimulus economist bashing (Dumping on Robert Barro):

Matt Yglesias has a very good post on Robert Barro's latest.  Brad DeLong seems to agree with Matt.  Paul Krugman uses the word "boneheaded" to describe the Barro piece.

This exchange is a good micro-cosm of how the stimulus debate has proceeded.  A highly respected anti-stimulus economist puts up some anti-stimulus evidence in a highly imperfect test (in Barro's defense, he did cover more than just WWII).  The anti-stimulus economist is attacked by pro-stimulus economists.  But the pro-stimulus proponents are focused on attack.  They are not putting up comparable empirical evidence of their own for the efficacy of fiscal policy and there is a reason for that, namely that the evidence isn't really there.

I fully admit that I don't trust the oft-cited evidence that tax cuts are 4x better stimulus than government spending boosts; I think the result is a mirage from underspecified models.  Overall we simply don't know how well the proposed stimulus will work -- if at all (is aggregate demand always the relevant war?).  It's a kind of Hail Mary pass, an enduring belief in aggregate demand macroeconomics at the theoretical level, even in light of broken banks, sectoral shifts, and nasty, failing expectations, all mixed in with hard to spend well, slow to come on line, monies.  Yes it could work but our agnosticism should be strong rather than just perfunctory. 

Writing polemics against market-oriented economists, no matter what the failings of such economists (and I am one of them, and I have failings), doesn't get us out of that box.

I'll say it again to the pro-stimulus forces: a stimulus is going to happen, so I'd love to be cheered up by your evidence.  Put it on the table.

Economist Mom on fiscal stimulus

When stimulus is not very stimulating:

I’m a bit concerned that despite the new President’s assurances, we could be headed for a not-so-smart economic “recovery” package. ... So, my question is, if most of the deficit-financed spending will occur after the recession, is the deficit financing justified?

... “Fastest-spending” doesn’t necessarily mean most stimulative though.  This hints at the (backwards) notion that the cost of the policies is a measure of the effectiveness, i.e., benefits, of the policies.  It actually reminds me of how the Bush Administration (for all eight years) talked of the “benefits” of the Bush tax cuts–by referencing the budgetary cost of the tax cuts given away, rather than any evidence of the real economic benefits of the tax cuts.

... There’s a huge difference between just throwing huge money at a huge problem and intelligently designing a policy to most effectively tackle that huge problem.

More "blind leading the blind"? Note: Economist Mom is not a macroeconomist but is paid to worry about the government budget deficit at The Concord Coalition.

In the "sent items" folder

Tim,

The good news is I’m sending you a check for about $[multi-millions] from Blogads. The bad news is that we are earning it. This is getting to be like work!

John W.

Quote of the day

Who said this?

There are certainly legitimate arguments against spending-based fiscal stimulus. You can worry about the burden of debt; you can argue that the government will spend money so badly that the jobs created are not worth having; and I’m sure there are other arguments worth taking seriously.

Hint: He is eminently qualified to publicly discuss macroeconomics. Yet, he endorses two worries that get two "guys [who] are great in their respective micro fields" dissed.

I'll send an Env-econ.net bumber sticker to the first commenter who supplies the link (anyone other than Odograph, that is).