[...]But they are wrong. For in a world where there is often not enough demand to go around, the case for free markets is a hard case to make. ...
The right perspective is to realize how very much good free markets and globalization have done; the point is to preserve those gains. One cannot defend globalization merely by repeating free-market mantras as economy after economy crashes. If we want to see more nations making the transition from abject poverty to the hope of a decent life, we had better find answers to the problems of depression economics. ...
I don't like the idea that countries will need to interfere in markets - to limit the free market in order to save it. But it is hard to see how anyone who has been paying attention can still insist that nothing of the kind needs to be done, that financial markets will always reward virtue and punish only vice.

The irony is that we still suffer from a surfeit of savings: China et. al. have trade surpluses to recycle, and increased savings in the West are still eagerly seeking safe, liquid investments. That the 10-year Treasury bond recently yielded less than two percent and gilts touched lows not seen since the 1890s shows that the markets are desperate for debt from sovereigns that can credibly promise NGDP growth.
 
If the "Keynesian game" is indeed over, it is because of the misguided choices of politicians in countries that can still borrow to pursue austerity instead, while the PIIGS suffer under a renewed version of that old barbarous relic.

The article is about new data that show that productivity growth has stagnated since 2009. There's lots of good stuff in the article, but I want to focus on one part that really caught my eye:
 
"One problem may be offshoring by American companies, as stressed in a study by Michael Mandel, chief economic strategist of the Progressive Policy Institute, and Susan Houseman, senior economist with the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Some productivity gains from the manufacturing of the iPad are captured by workers in China, who make important parts of the device, rather than by American workers. American companies often save on costs by finding lower wages abroad, not by enhancing the abilities of American workers. That would help explain why measured productivity has often been high over the last decade while despite year-to-year variation domestic wages and job creation have been flat."
 
I've been critical in the past of Mike Mandel's thesis. After all, productivity gains from outsourcing are real. Suppose I am a guy who designs and builds widgets. Hiring cheap Chinese workers to make my widgets more cheaply boosts my productivity almost the same, in the short term, as inventing a robot to make my widgets more cheaply (minus the small amount I pay the Chinese workers).
 
BUT...productivity is not the same thing as technology. This is a fact that often gets ignored, since economists tend to treat the two as being equivalent. But they are not. In particular, trade can boost productivity without any new technology being invented. This is what Mandel claims has been responsible for the large productivity gains in the U.S. over the past 10 years. I tend to believe him.
 
So why should we care whether our productivity comes from robots (technology) or from cheap Chinese labor (trade)? One answer - and I feel like this is what Cowen and Mandel may have been getting at - is that one may crowd out the other. And this brings me to the theory of endogenous growth.
 
Paul Romer (a physics B.A. like me!) invented the theory of endogenous growth back in the 80s. The idea is that technological progress does not simply arrive out of nowhere, but is a byproduct of economic activity. Since ideas are a nonrival production input (a.k.a. a "public good" ), there is no guarantee that the market will produce enough of them. Some growth models may be a lot better at innovation than others, and policy can make a big deal. If we're not channeling enough of our economic output into the production of new technology, we'll all be poorer down the line.
 
And here's the interesting part. Romer's first crack at a theory of endogenous growth was this 1987 paper. His model uses this very interesting assumption:
 
 
"I also assumed that an increase in the total supply of labor causes negative spillover effects because it reduces the incentives for firms to discover and implement labor-saving innovations that also have positive spillover effects on production throughout the economy."
 
In other words, if we suddenly get access to a bunch of cheap Chinese labor, we don't bother to invent robots. Then tomorrow, when the cheap Chinese labor runs out, we find ourselves without any robots.
 
This is just an assumption, of course. Even if the model works well, the assumption may be wrong. But it's an interesting idea, isn't it? What's even more interesting is that this exact same idea is one of the leading explanations for the "Great Divergence" between Europe and China that began around the 1600s. The idea is that European countries, flush with capital but short of labor, invented modern industrial technologies to compensate for their labor scarcity, while China, with a huge labor surplus, felt no need to invest in fancy machines. For more technical formulations of this notion, see Basu & Weil (1998), and this recent survey by Allen. But the basic idea is pretty clear: cheap humans crowd out robots.
 
So here's the question: what if our slow rate of innovation is due not to an inexplicable slowdown in the arrival of new ideas, but from the fact that China has made the discovery of those ideas less urgent? If that were true (and I'm only raising the possibility), what would be our best response? Would shutting ourselves off from cheap Chinese labor force us to become like 1600s Netherlands and invent a bunch of cool robots? Or would it just cause companies to pack up and leave the U.S. entirely, rendering us a protectionist backwater? If there is a "negative labor spillover" going on, is our only choice simply to wait until it runs out? And is it already running out?
 
I can't claim to have the answers. But I feel like Mike Mandel and Tyler Cowen (and Paul Romer and Basu & Weil) are on to something here.

"Why Amazon Can't Make A Kindle In the USA"
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steved [...] n-the-usa/
 
"Take the story of Dell Computer [DELL] and its Taiwanese electronics manufacturer. The story is told in the brilliant book by Clayton Christensen, Jerome Grossman and Jason Hwang, The Innovator’s Prescription :
 
ASUSTeK started out making the simple circuit boards within a Dell computer. Then ASUSTeK came to Dell with an interesting value proposition: ‘We’ve been doing a good job making these little boards. Why don’t you let us make the motherboard for you? Circuit manufacturing isn’t your core competence anyway and we could do it for 20% less.’
 
Dell accepted the proposal because from a perspective of making money, it made sense: Dell’s revenues were unaffected and its profits improved significantly. On successive occasions, ASUSTeK came back and took over the motherboard, the assembly of the computer, the management of the supply chain and the design of the computer. In each case Dell accepted the proposal because from a perspective of making money, it made sense: Dell’s revenues were unaffected and its profits improved significantly. However the next time, ASUSTeK came back, it wasn’t to talk to Dell. It was to talk to Best Buy and other retailers to tell them that they could offer them their own brand or any brand PC for 20% lower cost. As The Innovator’s Prescription concludes:
 
Bingo. One company gone, another has taken its place. There’s no stupidity in the story. The managers in both companies did exactly what business school professors and the best management consultants would tell them to do—improve profitability by focuson on those activities that are profitable and by getting out of activities that are less profitable."

OK, REALLY, dissertation committee, this is my last blog post for a while. PROMISE.
 
But this Tyler Cowen article was too good to pass up. I just had to blog it. The article is about new data that show that productivity growth has stagnated since 2009. There's lots of good stuff in the article, but I want to focus on one part that really caught my eye:
 

• One problem may be offshoring by American companies, as stressed in a study by Michael Mandel, chief economic strategist of the Progressive Policy Institute, and Susan Houseman, senior economist with the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Some productivity gains from the manufacturing of the iPad are captured by workers in China, who make important parts of the device, rather than by American workers. American companies often save on costs by finding lower wages abroad, not by enhancing the abilities of American workers. That would help explain why measured productivity has often been high over the last decade while despite year-to-year variation domestic wages and job creation have been flat.

I've been critical in the past of Mike Mandel's thesis. After all, productivity gains from outsourcing are real. Suppose I am a guy who designs and builds widgets. Hiring cheap Chinese workers to make my widgets more cheaply boosts my productivity almost the same, in the short term, as inventing a robot to make my widgets more cheaply (minus the small amount I pay the Chinese workers).
 
BUT...productivity is not the same thing as technology. This is a fact that often gets ignored, since economists tend to treat the two as being equivalent. But they are not. In particular, trade can boost productivity without any new technology being invented. This is what Mandel claims has been responsible for the large productivity gains in the U.S. over the past 10 years. I tend to believe him.
 
So why should we care whether our productivity comes from robots (technology) or from cheap Chinese labor (trade)? One answer - and I feel like this is what Cowen and Mandel may have been getting at - is that one may crowd out the other. And this brings me to the theory of endogenous growth.
 
Paul Romer (a physics B.A. like me!) invented the theory of endogenous growth back in the 80s. The idea is that technological progress does not simply arrive out of nowhere, but is a byproduct of economic activity. Since ideas are a nonrival production input (a.k.a. a "public good" ), there is no guarantee that the market will produce enough of them. Some growth models may be a lot better at innovation than others, and policy can make a big deal. If we're not channeling enough of our economic output into the production of new technology, we'll all be poorer down the line.
 
And here's the interesting part. Romer's first crack at a theory of endogenous growth was this 1987 paper. His model uses this very interesting assumption:
 

• I also assumed that an increase in the total supply of labor causes negative spillover effects because it reduces the incentives for firms to discover and implement labor-saving innovations that also have positive spillover effects on production throughout the economy.

In other words, if we suddenly get access to a bunch of cheap Chinese labor, we don't bother to invent robots. Then tomorrow, when the cheap Chinese labor runs out, we find ourselves without any robots.
 
This is just an assumption, of course. Even if the model works well, the assumption may be wrong. But it's an interesting idea, isn't it? What's even more interesting is that this exact same idea is one of the leading explanations for the "Great Divergence" between Europe and China that began around the 1600s. The idea is that European countries, flush with capital but short of labor, invented modern industrial technologies to compensate for their labor scarcity, while China, with a huge labor surplus, felt no need to invest in fancy machines. For more technical formulations of this notion, see Basu & Weil (1998), and this recent survey by Allen. But the basic idea is pretty clear: cheap humans crowd out robots.
 
So here's the question: what if our slow rate of innovation is due not to an inexplicable slowdown in the arrival of new ideas, but from the fact that China has made the discovery of those ideas less urgent? If that were true (and I'm only raising the possibility), what would be our best response? Would shutting ourselves off from cheap Chinese labor force us to become like 1600s Netherlands and invent a bunch of cool robots? Or would it just cause companies to pack up and leave the U.S. entirely, rendering us a protectionist backwater? If there is a "negative labor spillover" going on, is our only choice simply to wait until it runs out? And is it already running out?
 
I can't claim to have the answers. But I feel like Mike Mandel and Tyler Cowen (and Paul Romer and Basu & Weil) are on to something here.