June 05, 2003
Gains From International Trade and Investment

An Irish-Arizonian-Australian cross-disciplinary alliance of Kieran Healy and John Quiggin is thinking about Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas and Olivier Jeanne's brand-new "The Elusive Benefits of International Financial Integration"--the conclusion of which is that in standard neoclassical models freeing up capital flows across nations has the capability to boost economic welfare by an amount on the order of magnitude of one percent: John Quiggin: (Small) gains from trade: (Small) gains from trade: Kieran Healy links to a paper by Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas and the missing-from-the-web Olivier Jeanne in which a calibrated growth accounting model is used to show that the gains from unrestricted capital mobility are likely to be of the order of 1 per cent of GDP. Gains from risk sharing aren't mentioned but other papers are cited to say that these are of a similar magnitude. Those who listen to the general pronouncements of economists might be surprised by the modest size of the estimated gains. But for those who have looked at similar exercises in the past there is no surprise here. One of the better-kept secrets of economics is the fact that most studies suggest that the replacement of a typical high-tariff regime (say Australia's in the 1960s) will yield...

Posted by DeLong at 07:09 AM

September 12, 2002
Who Benefits Most from the High-Tech Revolution?

David Wessel writes about one of the secrets of the new economy: the principal productivity gains and cost reductions are found not in IT-making but IT-using industries. Indeed, given the fierceness of competition in (most) IT-making industries, not just the productivity gains but the profits are likely to be found in IT-using industries, both here and abroad. WSJ.com - Capital: ...Ireland is proudly turning itself into the Silicon Isle. The Philippines and Thailand boast of their electronics exports. But one of the biggest beneficiaries from information technology is Australia, which hasn't any high-tech industry at all. Yet it is one of the few economies to have enjoyed a 1990s surge in productivity (or output for each hour of work) as impressive as the one the U.S. has seen. Its secret: import high-tech gear that others make. As in the U.S., the spread of bar-coding, scanning and inventory-management systems is making Australian wholesalers much more efficient, and that is paying economywide dividends. Compared to its population, Australia has more secure servers, the sort used in e-commerce, than anyone else besides the U.S. and Iceland (that is another story). "Australia is far better off being an importer of information- and communications-technology equipment...

Posted by DeLong at 01:48 AM

September 09, 2002
Stephen Roach on "The Great Failure of Central Banking"

I don't agree with Stephen Roach that the Federal Reserve should have made interest rates higher and tried to make unemployment higher in the late 1990s in order to diminish investment spending and collapse the stock market bubble. In my view, the time to deal with any problems created by the bubble's collapse is when the bubble collapses--not before. Relative to a lower-stock prices, lower-investment, one-percentage-point-of-unemployment-higher bubble-popping path for the U.S. economy in the late 1990s, the actual path that we took gave us an extra $1 trillion of real production. You can complain about how that $1 trillion was distributed. You can regret that a large chunk of it--$200 billion?--was spent on investments that have much lower social value looking forward than their social cost. You can fear the damaging consequences of banruptcy and fraud on the economy. But you have to argue that these drawbacks from the fallout are quantitatively very large for the cost-benefit analysis to go Stephen Roach's way. Nevertheless, he makes his case more strongly than anybody else does: Morgan Stanley: ... Yet out of this glorious disinflation a new inflation was borne -- asset inflation. And central bankers didnít have a clue how to...

Posted by DeLong at 09:58 AM

September 06, 2002
Think Analytically!

Think Analytically! I remember one day during the first Clinton Administration when Joe Stiglitz came into the room to chair a meeting, looked around, noticed that--so far--only economists had shown up, and announced that nobody who did not have a Ph.D. in economics would be allowed to speak at the meeting. (Do I need to point out that that Joe was making a joke?) He was. All of us got it. All of us cheered and applauded. We did so not because we Clinton-era economists all agreed on all the issues--anybody with half an ear to the ground would know that we did not. We did so because we had found that it was possible to make intellectual and policy progress in discussions with economists because we had all been trained to think analytically: to break the issue down into background assumptions about the world, beliefs about the principal causal mechanisms, and claims about the likely effects of different policies on those chains of cause-and-effect. When we disagreed--as we often did--we could quickly ascertain where and why, and then agree on how to go hunting for pieces of information that would help resolve the disagreement. This was in striking contrast...

Posted by DeLong at 05:58 PM

August 01, 1990
J. Bradford DeLong (1990), "`Liquidation' Cycles: Old-Fashioned Real Business Cycle Theory and the Great Depression" (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Department of Economics).

J. Bradford DeLong (1990), "`Liquidation' Cycles: Old-Fashioned Real Business Cycle Theory and the Great Depression" (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Department of Economics)....

Posted by DeLong at 03:15 PM