Quotulatiousness

February 13, 2019

California mercifully kills the High Speed Train project

Filed under: Economics, Politics, Railways, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

In Reason, Scott Shackford reports on the sudden acceptance that California’s high speed train dream is dead:

Construction of the Fresno River Viaduct in January 2016. The bridge was the first permanent structure constructed as part of California High-Speed Rail. The BNSF Railway bridge is visible in the background.
Photo by the California High-Speed Rail Authority via Wikimedia Commons.

California’s wasteful, expensive, and likely doomed-to-fail statewide bullet train project is getting killed. Today, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said he’s abandoning the plan as “too costly.”

Newsom made the announcement in his State of the State address this morning. As the Associated Press reports:

    Newsom said Tuesday in his State of the State address it “would cost too much and take too long” to build the line long championed by his predecessor, Jerry Brown. Latest estimates pin the cost at $77 billion and completion in 2033.

    Newsom says he wants to continue construction of the high-speed link from Merced to Bakersfield in California’s Central Valley. He says building the line could bring economic transformation to the agricultural region.

    And he says abandoning that portion of the project would require the state to return $3.5 billion in federal dollars.

    Newsom also is replacing Brown’s head of the board that oversee the project and is pledging to hold the project’s contractors more accountable for cost overruns.

Newsom actually turned against the bullet train project years ago but then went quiet about it when he began his plans to run for governor. He declined to discuss what he saw as the train’s future on the campaign trail, but after he was elected he suggested some sort of cutback was coming, possibly eliminating the bottom half of the project, making it a train from San Francisco to the Central Valley of California.

Now it looks like he’s scaling even that back. Californians are just going to be left with a train in the middle of some of the more rural parts of the state because the Newsom administration doesn’t want to have to repay the federal funding.

Whatever may come next, this is happy news for most California citizens. Voters approved a ballot initiative in 2008 that set aside a $10 billion bond to begin the project of building a high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco with the promise that more funding would come through from the feds or from private sources, that the train would not require subsidies to operate, and that it would help fight climate change.

February 9, 2019

The price tag for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s renewable energy dream

Filed under: Economics, Environment, Politics, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 03:00

At Reason, Ronald Bailey looks at how much it would cost to implement Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s post-fossil-fuel plans:

There’s a lot to consider in this resolution, but let’s for the time being focus on the goal of “meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” by 2030. The resolution is light on fiscal details, so let’s consider the question of how achieving this goal would cost.

As it happens, a team of Stanford engineers led by Mark Jacobson outlined just such a plan back in 2015. Jacobson’s repowering plan would involve installing 335,000 onshore wind turbines; 154,000 offshore wind turbines; 75 million residential photovoltaic systems; 2.75 million commercial photovoltaic systems; 46,000 utility-scale photovoltaic facilities; 3,600 concentrated solar power facilities with onsite heat storage; and an extensive array of underground thermal storage facilities.

Assuming steep declines in the costs of each form of renewable electric power generation, just running the electrical grid using only renewable power would still cost roughly $7 trillion by 2030. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation calculated that the total cost of an earlier version of Jacobson’s scheme would amount to $13 trillion. And based on how fast it has taken to install energy generation infrastructure in the past, Jacobson’s repowering plan would require a sustained installation rate that is more than 14 times the U.S. average over the last 55 years and more than six times the peak rate.

The cost — $7 trillion — would be spent to save … how much?

    ..global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause— (A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change; (B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;

$500 billion a year isn’t a lot in the context of the US economy. It’s currently around $20 trillion in size, so we’re talking about 2.5% of the economy being lost. But of course we’re also predicting that the economy will grow between now and then. Actually, we think the US economy will be about $100 trillion a year by 2100. So we’re talking about 0.5% of that economy. Or about the change in size of the US economy between September and December last year. Think how much richer we did feel over those few months. And how much poorer we’d be if it hadn’t happened, that growth.

Oh, and to avoid that loss AOC is suggesting that we spend $7 trillion now? That just doesn’t pass the cost benefit test. It doesn’t even pass at the Stern Review’s special discount rate.

Which is, of course, what all the economists have been trying to tell us all about dealing with climate change. Don’t do it by central planning, do it by using market incentives. Have a carbon tax. Don’t try and do it too quickly – William Nordhaus gained his Nobel in part for saying this – but do it more gradually over time. Don’t junk what we’ve got that already works, instead when the normal time comes to replace it then make sure it’s non-carbon emitting. Finally, don’t do it the expensive way, do it the cheap way. For the cheaper we make it to solve it then the more of the problem we’ll solve. You know, humans usually doing less of the expensive things and more of the cheap?

QotD: The global utility of a national carbon tax

Filed under: Economics, Environment, Government, Quotations — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

James Griffin [of] Texas A&M’s Bush School of Government […] is a carbon-tax advocate who begins by acknowledging what everyone knows but hardly anyone says: that, absent subsidies and mandates, renewables and so-called green energy could not begin to compete with oil and coal, and the market would be entirely dominated by fossil fuels.

The carbon tax is one of those policy ideas that is largely sound in theory but runs up hard upon the shoals of reality. I am not convinced that a national carbon tax would change U.S. consumer behavior to such an extent that it would have positive effects on what is after all a global phenomenon, nor am I convinced that the U.S. government would use the revenue from a carbon tax to invest in real climate-change mitigation. That makes the carbon tax a very expensive way of demonstrating good intentions, which does not seem to me like a very fruitful way to work. And compared to more direct programs, such as clearing the way for the development of new, modern, nuclear-power facilities, a carbon tax is even less attractive.

Kevin D. Williamson, “The Case for a Carbon Tax”, National Review, 2017-03-08.

February 6, 2019

“The haggis croquette is the most London-thing ever done in London”

Filed under: Britain, Economics, Humour — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

At the IEA, Andy Mayer reports on the first attempted Burns Night Supper in the City of London:

Haggis is a traditional Scottish dish made with sheep’s heart, liver and lungs, and stomach (or sausage casing); onion, oatmeal, suet, and spices. It’s either a local delicacy or an elaborate joke played on the English (take your pick).
Photo by “Lordvolom1” via Wikimedia Commons.

Last week the City of London held their first attempt at a Burns night supper, with the First Minister and representatives of the Scottish Government as guests of honour.

It is a difficult tradition to get wrong. Largely it requires steaming piles of Scotland’s revenge on the sausage, poetry that the English politely pretend to understand while feeling vaguely threatened, and bonhomie to overcome it, enabled through litres of distillate infused with the flavour of an entire peat bog.

The City served haggis croquettes, with wine.

There’s possibly a Glaswegian satirist somewhere who’s just given up. “Ach I canne compete. The sassenach dough-monkeys just served wee Nicola a haggis croquette, on Rabbie Burns night! I’m breaking-me pen.”

Meanwhile in Shoreditch two Millenials have just set up the Haggis Croquette Cafe, serving Organic Iron-Bru made from recycled plastic girders. The haggis croquette is the most London-thing ever done in London.

I spent much of the evening talking to trade officials. Their job is to sell Scottish opportunity around the world and open up its markets.

This was interesting – how would descendants of Adam Smith visiting the birthplace of trade economist David Ricardo define their comparative advantage? What can Scotland do better than anyone else? What might they do well enough that they can carve out positions, despite larger rivals, better off leaving such things to Scotland? Fundamentally, how are they going to compete?

There was an uneasy pause after these questions. And then to paraphrase, “Oh no, we don’t want to compete, we want to cooperate! With everyone! Not being threatening, that’s our advantage!”

I feel very sure that Smith, on hearing this, would have reached out, to extend the invisible hand of history across time, to give this official a mild slap. “Encouraging competition, with and from other places, and then getting out of the way, is the whole point”, he might say.

The “Green New Deal” of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won’t work

Filed under: Economics, Environment, Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Tim Worstall predicts — well in advance of hearing any details of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal — that it won’t work:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaking at the Reardon Convention Center in Kansas City, on 20 July 2018.
Photo by Mark Dillman via Wikimedia Commons.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is to reveal the details of her Green New Deal in the next few days – the one thing we absolutely know about this being that it won’t work. This isn’t a commentary upon climate change nor the desirability of doing something about it. This is just a simple statement of fact about the universe we inhabit. As with the climate the economy is a complex, even chaotic, thing. Plans to substantially reform it therefore don’t work, no matter how egghead the planners nor pure in motive the instigators.

All of this being why the very reports which tell us we should do something about climate change – say, the Stern Review – tell us that we shouldn’t try to have those detailed plans for what we’ll do and how we’ll do it. Instead we’ve got to use the only management technique we’ve got for something this complex, markets and prices. Which is why near every economist who has even thought about the problem advocates either cap and trade or a carbon tax.

This is, of course, just a rerun of Friedrich Hayek’s point in his Nobel Lecture, “The Pretence of Knowledge”. That universe out there is a complicated place. There’s just no manner that the planner can gain enough information about it, in anything like real time, to be able to plan it. We’ve thus got to use other methods to bend that reality to our will. We can jam a crowbar into prices with a carbon tax for example, but we can’t start planning who should be taking how many car journeys in what sort of vehicles powered in what manner.

So, the Green New Deal from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex, it fails at this first and basic hurdle. She’s using the wrong method to try to solve the agreed upon problem. Central planning just doesn’t work.

[…]

The reason we want cheap solutions to climate change is that this justifies producing more of a solution. Again, the justification of doing something about climate change is that it will be expensive. So, we should spend up to the amount of the damage to prevent it. Say it will cost $100, then we’re willing to spend up to $99.99 to stop it. This makes us one cent better off. We’re not willing to spend $200 to stop those $100 damages, that would make us poorer.

And more – we should spend that $99.99 as efficiently as we can because that means we’ll stop more climate change for our dollars. That also makes us richer.

Don’t forget, we’ve all already agreed that we’re going to have some climate change. Our arguments are over how much and how much are we willing to do to stop how much of it?

February 5, 2019

Macron’s desperate efforts to keep the “European Project” on life-support

Filed under: Economics, Europe, France, Government, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Justin Raimondo on the plight French President Emmanuel Macron is facing:

The EU was a joint project of Euro-intellectuals who wanted a super-socialist State and were afraid Europeans might turn away from “Europe.” They sought to create an ersatz Euro-nationalism that has still only caught on among deracinated yuppies and oligarchs, if anyone at all. What they wanted and still want is what every true state has – an army. Which Macron has been agitating about for some time now. He doesn’t want to persuade Italy and Poland and Hungary to take more refugees – he wants to force them. Even more, he wants a reliable force to crush domestic protests, one that is unlikely to sympathize with the protesters.

Protests are everywhere: the media loves to cover them provided it’s the right cause – and one of the qualifying requirements of coverage should be drama. One would think therefore that the most recent and most violent would attract the media. Not so! We hear nothing about the twelve-week riots that have shaken the Macronist regime to its foundations.

But as the so-called Yellow Vests run roughshod in France – and all over the self-proclaimed “anti-nationalist” Macron – their origins, their ideology, their story remains untold.

French President Macron, a fanatic environmentalist, decided to revise the fuel tax code so that the small urban cars beloved by his circle had their tax reduced, while fuel for trucks and more industrial uses went up as much as 30%. It was a deliberate insult to the rural working poor who must drive long distances.

Macron went out of his way to convey his contempt for the rural voters who did not vote for him. The original reduction was actually intended for long-distance fuel, but Macron changed it around at the last minute to punish this use.

The French “Deplorables” reacted swiftly and not with the usual threat to strike: they simply started an insurrection. No preliminaries. They call themselves Yellow Vests referencing the safety vests required by French law of all motorists to signal emergency: yes, they declare: there IS an emergency going on!

February 2, 2019

Remy: Better Now?

Filed under: Economics, Humour, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 06:00

ReasonTV
Published on 1 Feb 2019

Promised an improved way of life, Remy does everything he can to believe in a new ideology – except the math.

Written and performed by Remy. Video produced by Austin Bragg. Music tracks and mastering by Ben Karlstrom.

Reason is the planet’s leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won’t get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.

—————-

LYRICS
Listened to those leaders so intently
Those Che Guevara shirts all seemed so trendy
Thought that things would be so good and friendly
So why’m I eating my neighbor’s dog Benji?

Twenty million killed, sure, that’s stuff I don’t like
But I could stay on Momma’s plan for the rest of my life
A guaranteed job digging ditches? Well what’s not to like?
It’s failed miserably each time so trying again seemed wise

Now I’m looting, looting, looting, looting
Grabbing wieners like I’m Kevin Spacey
Told a crowd “we need free markets instead”
Now my neck is no longer attached to my head

They promised things would all be better now, better now
If pure equality was finally found, finally found
Now we’re all grocery shopping at the pound, at the pound
Said that we’d have everything
Now we don’t have anything
Whoa…

How much plasma are they gonna take?
Before I finally have enough to trade?
For toilet paper or a rodent steak?
I keep on looking back on better days

They promised things would all be better now, better now
If free expression it was not allowed, not allowed
But I just caught my Roomba texting Mao
Said that we’d have everything
Now we don’t have anything

They promised things would all be better now, better now
If men with guns took farmers’ land and plow, land and plow
Now it’s another night of Rat Kung Pao, Rat Kung Pao
Said that we’d have everything
Now we don’t have anything

They promised things would all be better now, better now
If we just nationalized oil in the ground, in the ground
Now somehow gasoline can not be found, not be found
Said that we’d have everything
Now we don’t have anything

January 30, 2019

The high cost Canadians pay to support our oligopolies

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Politics — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

In the National Post, Andrew Coyne compares the Liberal and Conservative parties’ respective claims to lower the cost of living for Canadians, and points out some examples that neither party is willing to address:

For example, there is the notorious system of agricultural quotas known as supply management — a price-fixing ring the government not only approves but organizes and enforces, whose effect is to double or even triple the prices of such basic food items as milk, cheese, eggs and chicken. For all their pretended concern for affordability, all parties and every MP, with the sole exception of Maxime Bernier, are publicly, nay fervently in favour of it.

But while the farm cartel gets a lot of ink, there are plenty of other examples. Canadians pay among the highest wireless telephone fees in the world, for starters — maybe even the highest — as study after study has found. The latest report from Tefficient, a European consultancy, found Canada’s carriers take in more revenue per gigabyte of data than their counterparts anywhere else in the world — 23 times more than in Finland.

Similarly, Canadians pay among the highest air fares in the world. The travel website Kiwi. com recently found flights from Canada on a full-service airline cost roughly five times as much per 100 kilometres as flights from the United States. The situation was a little better for domestic flights, where costs were only twice as high as in the U.S. The makers of Hopper, the travel app, note it is typically cheaper to fly from Vancouver to Hawaii than from Vancouver to Regina, though Regina is 3,000 km closer.

Finally, there are Canadian bank fees, also — you guessed it — among the highest in the world, particularly for mutual funds. What is the common thread among these three industries? All are highly concentrated oligopolies: three big wireless carriers, two big airlines and five big banks dominate their respective markets.

Rather than compete as vigorously as they might for Canadian consumers, these quasi-cartels are permitted, in effect, to harvest them. They do so, again, not only with the tolerance but the active participation of the government. Foreigners are effectively precluded from competing in any of them, whether by foreign-ownership restrictions or outright prohibitions on competition — foreign airlines may not fly from one Canadian city to another, for example.

None of the parties currently boasting of their desire to make life more affordable for Canadians proposes to change a line of this, either. Whatever else may be in (artificially) scarce supply, in Canadian politics there’s never any shortage of rank hypocrisy.

January 20, 2019

The Short-Run Aggregate Supply Curve

Filed under: Economics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Marginal Revolution University
Published on 9 May 2017

In this video, we explore how rapid shocks to the aggregate demand curve can cause business fluctuations.

As the government increases the money supply, aggregate demand also increases. A baker, for example, may see greater demand for her baked goods, resulting in her hiring more workers. In this sense, real output increases along with money supply.

But what happens when the baker and her workers begin to spend this extra money? Prices begin to rise. The baker will also increase the price of her baked goods to match the price increases elsewhere in the economy. As prices increase, workers demand higher wages to be able to afford goods at a higher price.

In this example, the increase in money supply initially increased nominal and real wages for the baker and her employees, but as prices begin to rise, real wages begin to fall, and workers can afford less. Overtime, the demand for the baker’s goods will fall to pre-spending levels.

The takeaway? An increase in spending can increase output and growth in the short run, but not in the long run. To model this scenario, this video will show you how to draw a short-run aggregate supply curve. Let’s get started!

January 16, 2019

Tropico, the game for budding central planners

Filed under: Economics, Gaming — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

At FEE, Ong Jia Yi Justin looks at the video game Tropico and what it can show about real world economics:

In Tropico 5, you are El Presidente — the leader of a Caribbean island that is a semi-democratic banana republic. Your primary objective is to preserve your rule by micromanaging your country’s economy to appease your citizens, the Tropicans. If they are dissatisfied with your rule, they can vote you out in the next elections or stage a coup d’état, costing you the game.

First released in 2001, the city-building and management game has sold millions of copies worldwide, and the sixth installment is scheduled for release later in 2019. The game was even banned in Thailand due to concerns it would stir social unrest. In a hilarious response, the game developers included a mission in its DLC (downloadable content) to steal away tourists from Thailand.

Tropico 5 presents an engaging platform for players to craft their socialist paradise and examine the mechanics of socialist economies. Apart from sandy beaches and skyscrapers, Tropico 5’s appeal arises from loading players with a swarm of decisions to make, each with certain trade-offs that must be accounted for. Since most of us formulate our ideals from an armchair perspective, Tropico 5 delivers a much-needed dose of reality and numerous lessons on economics for its players to reflect upon.

Pineapples, Cotton, or Death

The first focus when you start up the Tropico 5 game is managing your agricultural sector. Players must choose between constructing two types of farms. Farms producing food crops for local consumption, such as bananas and pineapples, boost your approval rating but don’t add income to your budget. Conversely, farms growing economic crops such as tobacco and cotton bring a healthy income stream but don’t feed your people.

Some players prefer to amass large sums of wealth in the early game through cotton exports and then focus on food production later, hopefully before too many people starve to death. Other players risk bankruptcy in their attempt to bring their popularity to a safe level by spamming pineapple plantations before transitioning to economic crops later. Either way, you’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.

January 10, 2019

What Happened to America’s Passenger Trains?! The Truth – from Class to Crap!

Filed under: Economics, Government, History, Railways, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

American Rail Club
Published on 1 Jul 2017

Did America’s once industrious and world-famous passenger rail system fall because of “fair and equal” competition – or did the federal government tax it to death? Did America’s shift from rails to roads come out naturally – or from lobbying from General Motors? We visit two of America’s passenger rail cars from a bygone era to reminisce and then dive into the history and truth behind the decline of America’s passenger railroad system.

January 9, 2019

Sticky Wages

Filed under: Economics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Marginal Revolution University
Published on 2 May 2017

Imagine you’re an employer during a recession, and you desperately need to cut labor costs to keep your firm afloat. Are you more likely to cut wages across the board for all employees, or institute layoffs for only some?

While it may seem that wage cuts are the “better” choice, they aren’t as common as you might think. Why is that?

To answer that question, this video explores a phenomenon known as “sticky wages.”

In other words, wages have a tendency to get “stuck” and not adjust downwards. This occurs even during a recession, when falling wages would help end the recession more quickly.

However, that’s not to say that wages cannot adjust downward for an individual during a recession. This can happen, but likely only after an employee has been fired from their initial job, and eventually rehired by a different firm at a lower wage rate.

Back to our original question — why are employers unlikely to cut wages? A big reason has to do with the effect on morale. Employees may become disgruntled and angry when they experience a nominal wage cut, and become less productive.

An important note here — notice that we said nominal wage cut, meaning, not adjusted for inflation. If an employee receives a 3% raise in nominal wages, they may remain happy in their current position. But what if inflation is 5%? What does this mean for their real wage? (Hint: For an in depth answer to this question check out our earlier Macroeconomics video on “money illusion.”)

Next week we’ll return to our discussion on the AD/AS model for a look at how factors such as “sticky wages” affect the economy in the short run.

January 6, 2019

The demands to re-nationalize British passenger railways

Filed under: Britain, Business, Economics, Government, Railways — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

In the Continental Telegraph, Tim Worstall points out the mutually exclusive claims about the state of British passenger rail services and the counter-productive demand to shuffle it all back into the state’s tender mercies:

Wikimedia caption – “This is the Bring Back British Rail, a reverse image of the old BR logo, (now used by the TOC’s) to show we are heading the wrong way with Rail in the UK”

A standard whinge in Britain today is that rail privatisation has failed – just look, the trains are so crowded! The thought that people flocking to use something proves failure being a most odd one of course. That more people use the train sets to travel longer distances more often should be seen as a triumph of privatisation, not a proof of its failure. And we should note that the last few decades of British Rail did show – population adjusted – falling ridership.

There’s also a certain puzzlement at the next cry of outrage – that ticket prices are too high. If people are flocking to use something etc then it’s difficult to insist that prices are too high. […] Popularity both proves that the basic system is wrong and also that prices are too high. Tough this economics stuff, isn’t it?

As to the congestion part, well, on those popular lines and routes the route itself is running at capacity. It’s just not possible to squeeze more trains onto the tracks without them running into each other. Ah, but goes the cry, government should do something! But the tracks are already run by government, that we’re not getting more track capacity is government’s fault. Giving us a good guide to how it would be if government ran it all – as history tells it was like when government did.

As to the prices, well, that overcrowding shows us that prices are too low. We need some method of rationing that access to something being over-used. Price is always the best method of rationing. Thus prices should be higher to relieve that over-crowding – while we wait a few decades for government to pull thumb out and provide more track capacity.

Thameslink Class 700 Desiro City at London Blackfriars in 2016.
Photo by Alex Nevin-Tylee via Wikimedia Commons.

January 5, 2019

We may already have passed the peak of High Speed Railways

Filed under: Economics, Japan, Railways, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Hans Bader looks at the mass transit mess, including a brief glance at the state of high speed passenger rail:

So-called bullet trains generally turn out to be white elephants. South Korea is abolishing its celebrated high-speed rail line from its capital, Seoul, to a nearby major city because it can’t cover even the marginal costs of keeping the trains running. Most people who ride trains don’t need maximum possible speed, and most of those who do will still take the plane to reach distant destinations.

Despite Japan’s much-vaunted bullet trains, most Japanese don’t take the bullet train either; they take buses because the bullet train is too expensive. Bullet trains do interfere with freight lines, so Japanese freight lines carry much less cargo than in the United States, where railroads—rather than trucks—carry most freight, thereby reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

California’s so-called bullet train is vastly behind schedule and over budget, and will likely never come close to covering its operating costs once it is built. As Reason magazine noted, transportation officials have warned that California’s misnamed “bullet train” is a disaster in the making. California is drastically understating the costs of its high-speed rail project. Just the first leg of this $77 billion project will cost billions more than budgeted. And the project is already at least 11 years behind schedule.

December 30, 2018

The Long-Run Aggregate Supply Curve

Filed under: Economics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Marginal Revolution University
Published on 25 Apr 2017

The long-run aggregate supply curve is actually pretty simple: it’s a vertical line showing an economy’s potential growth rates. Combining the long-run aggregate supply curve with the aggregate demand curve can help us understand business fluctuations.

For example, while the U.S. economy grows at about 3% per year on average, it does tend to fluctuate quite a bit. What causes these fluctuations? One cause is “real shocks” that affect the fundamental factors of production. Droughts, changes to the oil supply, hurricanes, wars, technological changes, etc. can all have big and potentially far-reaching consequences.

Next week, we’ll dig into why wages are considered “sticky,” or slow to change.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress