The Pin Factory Blog

The tenth thing we have to understand is that actually Americans aren't as rich as all that. This is very important because if that sort of free market capitalist society did lead to the richest society on Earth then of course all the other strictures about how awful free market capitalism is would be rather wasted. We'd start to believe our own lyin' eyes rather than the Reader in Economics at Camdridge and that would just never do.

The rest of the chapter is just hemming and hawing about how we should change the figures to show that actually Americans are not the richest society on the planet. Well, OK, even I'm not going to claim that there aren't certain microstates that beat the US: Luxembourg for example. But comparing a few hundred thousand people to 300 million seems rather like cheating. It would be like comparing Manhattan to Texas for example, just not quite fair. Or, again about the same distortion of scale, comparing the residents of Eaton Square to the entirety of Luxembourg.

Chang has two basic methods in use here to show that the American Dream is just that, a wraith. After we go through all the various ways that we can measure income he agrees that Purchasing Power Parity is the right one. Which is good, for it is. We don't measure just incomes, but incomes as compared to prices in the places the people are living. This gives us a much better idea of living standards. And by PPP measurements, absent those microstates, the US is indeed the winner. To which Chang says but hang about a bit.

Firstly, we know that the US is a more unequal society than many others. Thus the average doesn't give us a true view of how people really live. In an unequal society there will be more people below that (mean) average and thus the real average (ie median) living standard is lower than in a more equal society. Which could even be true but it's not all that large an influence. After we account for all of the taxes and benefits then everyone from Sweden to the US is in a gini (the way we measure inequalty) range of 0.25 to 0.38 or so. And the scale does run from 0.01 to 1.00.

More importantly perhaps we do have some evidence of what actual living standards are at the bottom of the pile in a number of different societies. This chart:

These are the incomes at PPP (so adjusting for price differences) after taxes and benefits. And the comparison is to US median income: so, the bottom 10% in Sweden get 38% of US median income. The bottom 10% in Finland get 38% of US median income. And the bottom 10% in the US get 39% of median income.

Hmm, I think our contention that the US higher average income isn't really valid because the poor get less than the average....thus the greater inequality means that the lives of the poor in the US are worse off than the poor in other countries....doesn't really stand, does it?

The US is definitely a more unequal country. But the poor seem to be about as well (or badly) off as the poor elsewhere.

The other trump that Chang plays is to point out that Americans have longer working hours than people in most other countries. Given that slaving away over a hot desk isn't what life is all about then perhaps we shouldn't all attempt to emulate this US lifestyle then? And while it's true that money isn't everything and that very few of us go into that long dark night bemoaning the paucity of hours we spent working for The Man, Chang has committed a terrible error here. He has assumed that the only form of work we do is paid working hours.

The actual division made is between personal time (we cannot get someone else to sleep for us, take our shower for us), paid working time, household production time and the balance left over is leisure time. The important point to note here is that there is that unpaid working time: that time spent in household production. We might think of digging the allotment to feed the family, childcare time, cooking time, washing and cleaning, repairing the car. It is this time plus paid working time for The Man which produces total working time. And when we look at this total working hours it isn't obviously true that Americans do work more hours than, say, Europeans. It is also possible to substitute household production for paid working time and vice versa. Once can slave over the hot desk to buy a takeaway, or slave over a hot stove to make up for the lack of income from the time not spent at the desk.

In fact, when people actually study exaclty this question (ie, here) they find that the opposite is true, Americans don't work longer hours. For example, the average German woman is working an hour and a half a week more than her US equivalent. And for the men the working hours are almost exactly the same. The German woman might be making sauerkraut at home (I know, terribly culturalist of me) while her American sister goes out to work, earns the money and they buys it: in the process the American sister gaining more leisure time than the German.

It is indeed true, as Chang states, that Americans do more paid working hours per year than Europeans. It is also true that the US is a more unequal society than most of Europe (Italy is actually more so than the US). However, the American poor have incomes around and about the same as the European poor. Americans work fewer unpaid, household production, hours leading to equal or greater leisure time. And as Chang has already admitted, the Americans do indeed, on average have both higher incomes and greater command over consumption opportunities as a result of those higher incomes.

The poor get about the same: the regular guy is both richer and has equal or greater leisure time? Perhaps there is something to say for this free market capitalism stuff they have in the US then?

Footnote. For those who think we shouldn't be talking about household production, please read the Stiglitz Report. The entire issue is well explained there.

On Friday the AA hit the newspapers with the allegation that there are shadowy companies in the petrol market. Speculators even: they buy up petrol, sit on it until the price rises and then, horrors, make a profit!

Few of the traders’ names – including Glencore, Cargill, Gunvor and Trafigura – are known to consumers outside the oil industry, but their effect on Britain’s 33million motorists and the wider economy is profound. They buy huge quantities of petroleum on the open market and store it until the price goes high enough to make them a handsome profit, at which point they sell.

It's an interesting contention, isn't it? That future prices are well enough known that you can make sure and certain profits just by storing something for a little bit. I'm particularly suspicious of the allegation in that at least some of those companies are wholesalers of petrol: the people who buy the tanker loads that the oil majors like to sell and split it up into the truck loads that petrol stations like to buy. And yes, there are more such companies these days as the oil majors pull back from their downstream activities.

The allegation then goes on that consumers are losing out as a result of the actions of these companies. Something which is by no means certain as, yes, it's Adam Smith time at the ASI once again, points out in WoN, Book IV, Chapter 5 para 40 and following. Smith is talking about wheat but the same basic concept applies to petrol.

The speculator at least attempts to purchase in a time of plenty, when prices are low, then sell in a time of dearth when prices are high. By doing so he raises prices when they were cheap: yes, indeed he does. But he also lowers them in time of dearth by releasing produce onto the market when it is expensive. So the net effect on hte consumer might well be nothing at all: the price has been moved through time but total expenditure on wheat (or petrol) remains the same.

Our speculators have made their profit: and if the consumers are paying the same total amount that profit cannot be coming from them. No, instead, it's coming from the original sellers: in this petrol case that's the oil majors and their refineries.

Which really rather changes this story, doesn't it? Even if the AA is right here, "Speculators rip off motorists" and "Speculators rip off oil companies" will play rather differently in the public press. And it's very likely indeed that the story is actually the second one.

A few days back I mused, almost as an afterthought, on whether the ultimatum game would be played the same way in all human societies. This is the game where player 1 gets to split $100, player 2 decidding whether or not to accept the split. If the division, 50/50, 60/40, 99/1, whatever, is accepted then both players get their money. If it's rejected, then neither gets any.

The importance of this game is that it shows that we'll actually harm ourselves in order to punish someone we think is acting unfairly. Humans thus have a deep and innate sense of fairness: or do they? For Luis Rooney (a reader here) has pointed me to this article which explains that the results of the ultimatum game are very much not consistent over human societies. There are those where people do act as that entirely rational consumer beloved of certain economists: they'll take a 99/1 split for who wants to leave a dollar on the table? There are even those where the offer starts out at 40/60 and player 2 will still reject it. These are the so called "gift" societies (historicaly, some Amerindian ones, today some Papua New Guinea for example), where acceptance of something leads to larger and more onerous burdens and obligations in the future.

This has really rather large implications for market economics. For it is that punishment of the transgressor, the unfair person trying to take advantage, which is one of the things that makes said market economies work. It's one of the things that regulates said markets: and do recall, regulation is often by social factors, not by legislation.

These differences, they believed, were not genetic. The distinct ways Americans and Machiguengans played the ultimatum game, for instance, wasn’t because they had differently evolved brains. Rather, Americans, without fully realizing it, were manifesting a psychological tendency shared with people in other industrialized countries that had been refined and handed down through thousands of generations in ever more complex market economies. When people are constantly doing business with strangers, it helps when they have the desire to go out of their way (with a lawsuit, a call to the Better Business Bureau, or a bad Yelp review) when they feel cheated. Because Machiguengan culture had a different history, their gut feeling about what was fair was distinctly their own. In the small-scale societies with a strong culture of gift-giving, yet another conception of fairness prevailed. There, generous financial offers were turned down because people’s minds had been shaped by a cultural norm that taught them that the acceptance of generous gifts brought burdensome obligations. Our economies hadn’t been shaped by our sense of fairness; it was the other way around.

Assume they're right about that causation (the piece doesn't explain how they reach that conclusion, instead of the idea that such markets thrive where the behaviour is already prevalent) and we actually find a good reason for why economic development is so hard. Why it's really very damn difficult to reach that first lift off stage. Because we're not just trying to get people to act in a particular manner, trade with people, divide labour and so on. We need to have, or the system needs to have, got into peoples' heads and changed the way they actually think before it can all happen. It's only with that change that the self-reinforcing feedbacks come into play and the economy as a whole takes off.

Which does rather put a different gloss on why some parts of the world are developed and some aren't, doesn't it? It's not because of what we've been doing to them but because, at least in part, of what is going on in both our and their heads.

We might even muse that this just reinforces the necessity of starting with markets, not with central direction, as a means of development. For it's only as the influence of the markets changes those thoughts that that lift off occurs.....

The ninth thing we're told is that even though manufacturing is becoming a smaller part of our economy, of all economies, it's still very important oh yes indeed it is! There's a certain sadness in watching the argument develop in this chapter in fact.

Chang is quite right on his facts: it isn't that manufacturing output has shrunk at all. In the UK that was rising until 2007 (and we don't know how much of the subsequent fall is recession related or structural) and it's still rising in the US. It's just been rising less than the growth of the rest of the economy: thus falling as a proportion but not absolutely. Manufacturing employment has been falling substantially: a small part of this is simple reclassifcation. The graphic designers who used to work at the factory were counted as manufacturing workers: now they take their cocaine in Soho lofts they're service workers. The majority of that workforce fall is because of rising productivity: we simply need fewer people to make ever more stuff as we become more efficient at using labour to make things.

Chang gets all of this right: then he makes something of an intellectual leap and it's sad to see the tumble into the chasm of illogicality.

Given all of the above he says that manufacturing is still important and we should work to increase the portion of the economy that is such. The argument being that as productivity is easier to increase in manufacturing than it is in services, as manufacturing becomes an ever smaller part of the economy then total productivity growth will fall. Well, yes, it will, undoubtedly (and there's rather a clue as to why productivity growth has been falling in rich societies in recent decades: because that manufacturing where productivity growth is faster has been becoming an ever smaller part of the economy).

But to then insist that we must have more manufacturing in order to improve productivity growth is most odd. For we don't desire productivity growth per se. It's nice to have, for sure, it means we can make more stuff with fewer inputs. But even with that we only actually want to make more stuff, become more efficient at making stuff, that we actually want. There's no point in becoming more efficient at making Simon Cowell for example, as we've all got a surfeit already. And so it is with things that are manufactured. We don't want to simply become more productive: we want to have more of the things that we want with the resources we've got available, not more things that are manufactured just because it improves average productivity.

It's also true that manufacturing (yes, output is rising, but as a portion) of the global economy is falling. So the advice that every country whould focus more on manufacturing is ridiculous. Manufacturing what for whom? If manufacturing is carriages and services are cars (bear with me) Chang's insistence here is like saying we should all be making more buggy whips. Sure, no one particularly wants them but we're getting ever so much better at making them that average productivity would rise as a result of doing so.

The point here being that "productivity" isn't some thing that we should reify. It is indeed the secret to rising living standards: as Paul Krugman has said productivity isn't everything but in the long run it's almost everything. What Chang's missed though is that the output is measured at market prices: if we overproduce manufactures simply because this will raise the productivity number then their market price will fall: and productivity won't in fact increase at that point, will it?

So even though his basic facts are right here his prescription still fails. For while we would like rising productivity and it's easier to raise productivity in manufacturing than servicves this does not then mean that we want to throw resources at manufacturing.

Another way of clarifying this point is that, as we said yesterday, the purpose of all production is consumption. Sure, it would be nice to be more efficient at production: but only of things that people want to consume. And as it happens, it appears that further units of services produce greater consumer surplus than further units of manufactures.

Chang also goes on to point out that developing countries must concentrate on manufactures as this is the only way to raise their general productivity, that productivity increase that by definition leads to becoming a developed country. And I'd agree that it's highly likely that the developing countries will go through their own industrial revolutions. But not for this particular reason:

"If you base your development largely upon services from early on, your long term productivity rate is going to be much slower than when you base it on manufacturing."

The confusion here is that yes, when you're at the technological frontier then improving manufacturing productivity is easier than service productivity. For when you're at that frontier there's an awful lot of head scratching and pondering about what to do next. When you're well behind that frontier then there's no particular reason to think that this is so: indeed, we might think that services are easier. Take, just as an example, retailing in India and the computer hardware industry in India. In which do we think it would be easier to improve productivity?

I'd argue in retailing, the service, rather than computing, the manufacture. To improve the productivity of retailing all we've got to allow (or, err, the Government of India has to allow) is WalMart and Tesco in to start building the standard retailing logistics chain. That's going to be far easier (and cheaper!) than trying to build silicon fab plants (and all the rest) in a country without reliable electricity supplies. Or we might argue that we could improve the various state bureaucracies by computerising them away from the current quill pen and parchment systems.

That it is more difficult for us rich world people to improve services productivity than manufacturing such is entirely true. That the same is true of those places mired in seventeenth century services productivity is not. And what's really interesting about this argument is that if services are 70% of the economy (as they are, UK and US alike) and current poor world services became as productive and efficient as ours, then we'd see those poor countries become vastly richer whatever they do about their manufacturing. Simply because they'll be getting more services for the same as the current input: that's what increasing productivity means you see?

What Chang wants us to understand is that because we used to have protectionism and we still had economic growth and development then therefore we should have protectionism in those places where we want to have economic growth. In other words the poor countries should throw up trade barriers so that all the rich world megacorps cannot supply the people of those countries. Thus will industry develop and in the long term, wealth will be created.

There are a few problems with this argument. One of the most glaring is that he takes historical levels of tariffs as evidence of levels of historical protectionism. Which is an absurdity: until well into the 20th century transport costs were more important than whatever tariff levels were as a barrier to trade. Just as an example, it is true that US tariffs near doubled post Civil War. But actual trade barriers fell as transport prices (essentially, the ocean going steam ship) fell by more than that doubling of the tariffs. His historical evidence of tariff barriers is thus highly suspect. The reason that most countries developed their own industries is precisely because non tariff barriers, those high transport costs, were more important.

Another problem is that, as he actually points out but doesn't make the connection with, all of his examples who developed behind such tariff barriers and with infant industry protection etc simply were not democracies in any modern sense. Even the countries that developed behind them in the 20th century like Taiwan (or his native Korea) were not. Semi-fascist military dictatorships would be a more useful description of the political systems actually. And don't forget what the sort of planning that he's advocating means: not just that government should encourage certain industries but also that local people must be actively prevented from wasting their energies in things which are not part of the plan. It's extraordinarily difficult to think of a way in which a free and liberal democracy could do such things. Force some companies to enter ship building, yes, perhaps that could be done with carrots and not with sticks, but how would one, in any semblance of a liberal society, prevent someone from setting up to build ships if that's how they desired to waste their money? This is the sort of thing that did actually happen in those planned economies too.

Even if we grant him his thesis, that such planned and directed industry, protected by trade barriers, did lead to industrial development, I can't actually see how anything like it could be done in anything close to a free society. Indeed, I'd even be willing to consider the idea that the reason this "worked" in certain societies (like parts of East Asia) and did not work at all in others (parts of Latin American and Africa) was precisely that those two latter sets of societies were not authoritarian enough to allow it to work. People had enough freedom to be able to ignore the plan.

One further very important point from Chang's own argument. He does insist that only those countries that have got to the technological leading edge benefit from free trade. His argument is absolutely not that the rich countries of today, those on that leading edge, would benefit from restrictions on trade: quite the contrary. His argument, such as it is, applies only to developing, not developed, nations. So don't allow anyone to start using his arguments, faulty even as they are, to propose that the UK or the US, EU, should retreat behind tariff barriers. That's not what even he is saying.

We might also mention that historical evidence of restricted trade areas is interesting in an historical sense: but it's not really of any relevance today. This is becasue of the sheer scale of modern industry. Perhaps, maybe, it made sense for the US to build a steel industry behind barriers. There were a number of companies in it and between them they created a market, however protected it was. These days, even the EU isn't a large enough market, all 500 million of us, to produce, say, a viable computer industry. The idea that Tanzania (just as an example)  should have tariff barriers in order to encourage an indigenous computer industry is therefore ridiculous. Or a car industry: it costs $1 billion just to plan out a major new car platform these days, let alone tool up to manufacture it.

The scale of modern industry is simply such that anyone trying to recreate any substantial part of it behind tariff barriers is just going to be making shoddy goods, very expensively, for no very good reason. You might, just about, get away with a little bit of restriction with the billion and more in China and or India. But the idea that Somalia will, with the appropriate planning and protection, ever have a viable steel, car, chemicals or comuter industry is simply nonsense. It might well end up producing firms in an interesting niche or other: but the creation of an entire industry for such a small number of people just isn't ever going to happen.

And there's one final overarching reason why this autarkic route to development is undesirable: it's immoral. Building up infant industries behind tariff barriers is very much a case of jam tomorrow, not jam today. The idea is to deliberately remove from the inhabitants of the country concerned the ability to consume the delights of the current world. So as to enrich those who own the industry within those tariff barriers. That populace is subjected to decades of worse consumption goods than they could have had. Even if this does, in the end, lead to development we've still impoverished the people in favour of the capitalists of that society. Not that I think it does lead to such development: but even if it did that's what is being urged.

Which rather brings us back to why I don't think this will work in a democracy, or in anything even vaguely approaching a free and liberal society. Yes, sure, economic growth is important but not at the cost of deliberately impoverishing this generation. And that's what infant industry protection does and not only do the voters appear not to be willing to sit still for that (and thus it only, if at all, succeeding under authoritarian regimes) I very seriously doubt that it's moral for us to go around insisting that they should.

Our fifth thing is this insistence that free market economists claim that everyone is greedy, therefore untrustworthy. But a market economy wouldn't actually work if this were true. Chang then goes on to point out that there are many more motivations to human action than simple greed: in which statement he is obviously correct. Risking your life to save that of a stranger is clearly not motivated by economic greed.

However, he's rather misrepresenting that free marketeer's insistence upon greed being a motivating force. We do indeed insist that most people are greedy and most people are also lazy. They'd like to have as much as they can (or wish) of whatever it is with the least effort required in getting it. This does not rule out there being other motivating forces of course. But more than that, we're insisting that it is "enlightened self interest". That is, looking at rather more than the immediate future, thinking about reputation in general and so on. All of which is pretty much the standard argument. We'd also try to limit pure self interest to being an economic motivation, perhaps not a general one for the entirety of life.

However, there's something that Chang has entirely missed here and that's the implications of the ultimatum game.

Going back to our examples above, if you, as a taxi driver, want to chase and beat up a runaway customer, you may have to risk getting fined for illegal parking or even having your taxi broken into. But what is the chance of you benefiting from an improved standard of behaviour by that passenger, who you may not meet ever again? It would cost you time and energy to spread the good word about that Turkish garage, but why would you do that if you will probably never visit that part of the world again? So, as a self-seeking individual, you wait for someone foolish enough to spend his time and energy in adminstering private justice to wayward taxi-passengers or honest out-of-the-way garages, rather than paying the costs yourself. However, if everyone were a self-interested individual like you, everyone would do as you do. As a result, no one would reward and punish others for their good and bad behaviour. In other words, those invisible reward/sanction mechanisms that free-market economists say create the optical illusion of morality can exist only because we are not the selfish, amoral agents that these economists say we are.

Which brings us to the ultimatum game. In this, player one is given $100. Told to split it between herself and player two, she can choose any split she likes. $99 for her, $1 for the poor second. Or $50/$50, whatever. Player two gets to decide whether the split stands. If it does then the money is divided as was decided upon by player one. If the second player rejects the split then the money is confiscated and no one gets anything.

The results of this rather astonished the people who first performed it. Once the split starts to look "unfair" (roughly, when it passes through $60/$40 or so) then player two starts to reject it more often. Being entirely rational one should accept any split at all: better to have $1 from an unfair split than no dollars from confiscated money. But that's just not what people do. People will harm their own immediate economic interests in order to punish those they see as acting unfairly.

And it is this very ultimatum game that gives us the answer to whether we're all greedy or not. The answer being, yes, we are: for almost no one at all ever offers a $40/$60 split or better than that. The player one offers always start at 50/50 and get worse. That is, we're greedy in our own motivations and actions if we can get away with it. However, in observing (or having influence over) the actions of others we seem to turn on that fairness switch.

That is, human interaction seems to have within it, as the very basis of how we interact, a mechanism to curb and revise the inherent greediness of others. That willingness to punish our own economic interest to punish those we think are taking a liberty. Now why would have such a mechanism have arisen if it were not true that people are indeed greedy in their own actions? We don't protect the virginity of our daughters because we think it's unnecessary to do so: we protect the virginity of our daughters precisely because we know there's great interest in relieving them of it. The existence of a powerful social force to punish greed insists that greed is prevalent.

You could indeed say that player two's reaction is altruism. But even if you do want to say that it's still altruism from the second actor, not the first. The reaction clearly exists in the first place in order to curb that greed we all expect from player one,. And that's what brings us back to enlightened self interest. Such social interactions are not one time games. Indeed, the way to play the closely related prisoners' dilemma game is tit for tat. That is, if the game is to be played through many iterations. As most social life actually is. We have in our most basic reactions something that curbs that innate greed. Which is a pretty good indication that that greed really does exist in the first place.

An interesting little aside. The ultimatum game has really only been played with rich world students. There are those who wonder (and I'm one of them) whether the results would be the same in every society. I'm willing to agree with Chang that an entirely selfish society would not work well as a market economy. He is saying that because market economies do work therefore we cannot all be selfish. I'm claiming that we know that there's a very powerful force that curbs that selfishness. But the results of the ultimatum game from other societies would be incredibly interesting.

For there's the possibility that in societies that are not functional market ones then that willingness to punish, at one's own economic cost, might not be there. Which would, of course, be further proof that my contention is correct. It isn't that we're not all greedy: it's that in some societies there is a countervailing force. A countervailing force that must be there for markets to work. Or at least, one that we consistently find is not there where markets do not work very well at present.

The bottom line is that we cannot go around claiming that humans aren't, in their own motivations and actions, inherently greedy when we can observe such a powerful social force to curb the greed in the motivations and actions of others. The results of the ultimatum game prove that force exists: therefore people must be inherently greedy.

I'm afraid that this little piece from The Independent did make me smile:

It leads to two broad questions. Why is it happening? And what might be done about it? On the first, we can see some obvious points. A globalising world economy needs an English-speaking hub in this time zone. So London has become a magnet for wealth and talent, reinforcing its hub status. More people fly into its airports than into any other place on earth. There are more non-national professionals living in the commuter region than any other, more international phone calls, more cross-border money managed – the litany goes on.

Recently its status, or at least its property, has been bolstered by the UK’s role as a “safe haven” for eurozone money seeking a home, and its young people seeking a job. But to say all that is more to observe what is happening than to explain why. You can say that success breeds success, that we are in a winner-take-all world, and London currently has critical mass in that amorphous mix of money, style, creativity, intellect, whatever.

But things did not look like that 40 years ago when its population was falling and it seemed locked into inexorable, if gradual, decline. If it is hard to identify the reasons behind the success, it becomes impossible to replicate them elsewhere.

Eh? If you've already correctly identified the reason for what is happening then why ignore your own answer later?

Yes, London is indeed booming as one of the Great Cities of the current round of globalisation. Very much as it did from 1880 to 1914 in fact in the last round. And in very much the same industries too: banking, finance, law, shipping.

As to why it was different 40 years ago, well, 40 years ago we didn't have the current round of globalisation. There was most certainly no free movement of capital, currencies were restricted, international trade was a great deal lower than it is. Which is why London wasn't booming 40 years ago: because the great strengths of the economy of the place, that international finance, banking, law and shipping, just weren't being used as they are now.

This really is just straight David Ricardo: the employment of comparative advantage. One way of thinking about globalisation is that it is simply the international division and specialisation of labour. As Adam Smith pointed out, such division and specialisation being something that creates wealth. For all who take part in it please note. As it happens, what we in London seem to do well (and do again note that we've specialised in these things twice, both times there have been bursts of globalisation, just as Germany has done heavy industry and machine tools both times) is that banking, finance and law stuff.

Quite why is something that people can and will continue to argue about. I'm sure language has something to do with it. There could well be some vestigial hangover of Empire. My own feeling is that it depends, at root, upon the Common Law. With many fewer restrictions than in other places you can write a contract in English law that states pretty much whatever you want. Sure, there are limitations, but many fewer than in many to most other jurisdictions. England (or more formally, England and Wales) thus offers the flexibility of agreements that the fast moving world of business desires and requires. Thus everyone doing their business in a place that offers exactly these attributes.

Now, I might well be wrong about the why here but that's OK. Wouldn't be the first time (and certainly won't be the last) that I am wrong. But the basic observation about London still is just too obvious for words. So obvious indeed that the Independent entirely misses it. London has boomed over the past 40 years because of globalisation. It's part of that global economy in a manner which the rest of England (or Britain) simply isn't. Before globalisation London was shrinking and failing: with it it's booming.

This will surprise some but council housing causes unemployment. No, really, it does.

Dartmouth College’s David Blanchflower (best known for being the Bank of England member who first pressed for interest rate cuts after the onset of the financial crisis) and Andrew Oswald of the University of Warwick find that a doubling of the rate of home ownership in any U.S. state is followed in the longer run by more than a doubling of the unemployment rate. The authors stress that they are not arguing that the owners themselves are disproportionately unemployed. They suggest that lower levels of labor mobility, greater commuting times and fewer new businesses all combine to hurt the labor market.

Yes that's for the US and no, it's not a new finding in general. Several studies here in the UK have shown the same thing. Higher (or perhaps "too high" where the "too" is somewhat subjective) rates of home ownership do indeed lead to higher levels of unemployment. The reason is that owning a home makes one less geographically mobile than renting one. If you lose a job you're more likely to stay in the area where you own a home than you are to pack up and move to where the jobs are if you rent. Given the large regional differences in the economy in the UK this does indeed mean that high levels of home ownership will lead to higher unemployment than if more rented.

To which we will hear the cry: build more council houses then!

But this does not work as an answer. Moving a secure and subsidised tenancy (housing association or council) is vastly harder and takes much longer than selling a house and buying anew. Moving across local council boundaries is near impossible: although there is a system that supposedly enables it. Once councillor (and director of a housing charity) that I asked about this a few years ago said that it might take as long as 5 years to be able to move from one subsidised tenancy to another in another council area.

Thus, whatever problems are caused by labour immobility through house ownership are worse with those council and housing association tenancies. Because people with such tenancies are even more immobile than those who own their own homes.

So, yes, it's true: council houses cause unemployment.

In our fourth chapter we get told that the washing machine has changed the world more than the internet. Something which we can all actually agree upon as long as we accept the conceit that the washing machine is standing in for domestic labour saving technology in general. We might quibble with the example of email not being much of an advance upon the telegraph: email allows you to broadcast to 5,000 or more which the telegraph certainly didn't. And I've run a software business that simply couldn't have happened without being able to send files and graphics. But Chang is correct that the development of domestic labour saving technology has, so far at least, had more effect. 

It has, for example, liberated half the rich world human race and allowed them to join the paid, market, economy. It really wasn't all that long ago that women simply could not do this, given the pressures of domestic labour: and it's still true that many women in many poorer countries cannot do so yet.

However, yes, again, we find Chang being extremely partial in his discussion of how all this happened. As someone who once owned a Soviet washing machine (no, really) I'm sure that this capitalism and free markets thing had a hand in it all. Firstly, in the invention, production and distribution of those devices: the route from carpet beaters through Spangler to Hoover was indeed the usual market style chaos of no one at all understanding what they were doing (certain early models blew dust around rather than sucked for example). Similarly the route from washing stone through washtub to mangle and finally washing machine was not a planned excursion. It was driven by incremental steps the users of which could see the advantages on offer. Capitalism meeting the market and then further innovation taking place.

What annoys to some extent is that Chang actually mentions a point about servants:

The main reason why there are so much fewer (of course, in proportional terms) domestic servants in the rich countries- (...) - is the higher price of labour. With economic development, people (or rather the labour services they offer) become more expensive in relative terms than "things".

Which is entirely true and this is known as Baumol's Cost Disease. The annoyance is that the other half of William Baumol's work is about how invention and innovation happens. What socio-economic system leads to all these wondrous things like a machine that washes clothes without effort or much time expenditure? And the answer to that is that innovation works vastly better in a free market socio-economic system. As Baumol points out, the planned Soviet system invented some pretty cool stuff: but I as the past owner (user would not be the correct word) of a Soviet washing machine that planned economy most certainly did not come up with successful labour saving domestic devices.

Which leaves the final line of his "what they tell you part" looking a little strange:

We- as individuals, firms or nations- will have to become ever more flexible, which requires greater liberalisation of the markets.

Err, yes, yes this is true, despite Chang using the rest of the chapter to argue against the idea. The reason why we do want that greater liberalisation of markets is precisely because it is this, this very thing as Baumol tells us, that produces those innovations like domestic labour saving technology. This is the very point: we want to encourage, continue, the replacement of grunt human labour with machines. Which does indeed require those free markets - or at the very least benefits hugely from them.

I do agree that so far the washing machine has changed the world more than the internet. Which is really rather why we want to be promoting that socio-economic system that came up with that very washing machine, no?

In the third chapter of the report from the Cambridge Economics Department Chang tells us that people are not in fact paid according to their individual productivity. He uses the examples of Sven and Ram, Swedish and Indian bus drivers respectively, the first getting some 50 times the annual wage of the second.

Of course Chang is correct in that the individual does not get paid the value of their own productivity. No, even if we consider the time value of the people on the bus, which will indeed be much higher for Sven than Ram, that isn't the reason for the higher income. Nor, actually, is it the barriers to immigration which explain it all: that being what Chang blames it all upon. 

The average wages in any economy will be determined by the average productivity in that economy. Another way of putting very much the same point is that wages are determined by not the job that is actually being done by the worker, but by the next one that could possibly be done by that worker. Ram may indeed drive just as well as Sven. But if Ram's alternative employment is peasant destitution then he'll be paid like a destitute peasant for driving. If Sven can go to Ericsson (or Nokia) and make gumboots (or phones) then he'll be paid to drive a bus very much like a phone maker.

And I'm afraid that it's this very point that Chang gets so horrendously wrong. He does in fact say this:

"It is not simply, or even mainly, because they are cleverer and better educated that some people in rich countries are hundreds of times more productive than their counterparties in poor countries. They achieve this because they live in economies that have better technologies, better organised firms, better institutions and better physical infrastructure - all things that are in large part products of collective action taken over generations."

A point with which I would most certainly agree. But don't forget, Chang is writing a book about how capitalism and the free market just aren't all they're cracked up to be: if so, then how did we end up with the better technologies, better institutions, better firms and infrastucture? Could it, possibly, have anything to do with the fact that we've been largely capitalist and free market for a couple of centuries?

We should be rather harsher than that too. Everywhere, anywhere, that has been roughly free market, roughly capitalist, for the past century is so stinking rich that the bus driver does get paid 50 times what a better one in India gets paid. That's actually the point of the entire socio-economic structure: it makes even bus drivers rich by any global or historical standard.

This isn't confined to any one group or set of countries either. Just since WWII, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea have all joined the nations that enjoy that distinction. China is catching up fast. Those countries that haven't haven't: like, for example, the bureaucratic and planned Licence Raj in India which still impoverishes Ram.

This is why the lucky people like us at the ASI, born into a rich country and gloriously happy that this did happen to us, argue so strongly that everywhere else should embrace the joys of free market capitalism. Precisely and exactly because it's the only way anyone has as yet found to make bus drivers gloriously rich.

Perhaps Cambridge just doesn't do irony: or they push all those capable of it off into Footlights or something. For here's what Chang's actual argument in this chapter is. The average person in rich countries is rich because of the institutions, infrastructure and better organised firms in rich countries. This shows that capitalism and free markets don't work because those institutions have been formed by capitalism and free markets. We'll be proving that black equals white next and get ourselves killed on the next zebra crossing.