Population control

A friend of mine has been banging on about population control as a way of curbing environmental harm for a while now, which has forced me to come up with some sort of opinion. I’m not persuaded by arguments that it is inherently abhorrent to restrict reproduction, or that people have a right to reproduce. Indeed I’m open to the idea that some controls on reproduction might increase welfare.

Far more persuasive to me is the point that George Monbiot makes: over-population isn’t a direct strain on the planet’s resources, over-consumption is. Read more

Uni Enrolments and the recession

Reading this article saying that in New Zealand as the economy is going down university enrolments are going up reminded me of a cartoon Matt emailed me last year:)

Hat tip: www.phdcomics.com

Environmental economists unite!

I get called a rampant greenie/hippie by other economists for my interest in environmental issues. On the other hand, environmental activist types tell me I’m a brainwashed tool of the capitalist hegemony. For a long time I’ve been wracked with insecurity, but now John Whitehead assured me I’m not alone and explains why he thinks nobody understands environmental economists Read more

Where is the outcry/defence?

Given the relatively unimportant issues that get wide coverage in the blogsphere I am very surprised not to see many people ranting about the possible “revoking of visas” for temporary workers in New Zealand.

Now, we (well mainly me – I don’t want to put words in the other authors mouths) have ranted a lot – and will rant at least a little bit more – about how this seems wrong headed.

However, when I went across the top 50 blogs according to the Tumeke rankings yesterday there were no posts on the issue. Looking at my regular reading today, I noticed a post by Not PC, and I know Anti-Dismal has covered the issue in the past (Paul, if you have a link to the post where you called this National’s buy NZ made campaign could you tell me so I can link to it 🙂 ).

Does no one else have an opinion on the issue – either for or against? Revoking someones visa on nationality grounds because of a recession is quite a big, loaded, move – it seems like the thing you are either against or for, not neutral about.

If anyone has written on the issue, put a link in the comments and I’ll link here …

Update: Eric Crampton has written about the issue, looking at data to work out the attitude of NZer’s – it is an excellent post, I suggest you read it right now. Brad Taylor comes out as well. Paul Walker discusses here.  Nigel Kearney represented his frustration before all of us here.  Bill Bennett discusses here.

Update 2: Casey Mulligan on the issue in the US (ht Eric Crampton)

The lump of labour fallacy

I have noticed that there is a belief out in New Zealand that there is a set “lump” of jobs – and if foriegn people come in they take them, and “New Zealander’s miss out”.

Now if this matters to us this may be concerning – however, we have been talking about migrants “creating work” and saying that they do “different jobs” than the New Zealand trained workers.

The idea that there is a fixed lump of jobs does not fit this description. However, the idea has a name: The lump of labour fallacy.

The confusion stems from a fundamental misunderstanding surround what labour is. Labour is an input to production. However, as people (who we value in society) get their income by acting as an input we sometimes view work as income. From this step – we end up saying that other people are “stealing our income” by doing this work.

However, what this argument ignores is that labour is an input to production – if you bring in more people, more stuff can be produced. If the addition person is really productive (skilled labour, or domestic poorly provided unskilled labour) then when they come in to society they quickly help everyone else.

As a result, policies to kick current skilled labour out of the country will be counter-productive. Even if we didn’t care about the welfare of foreign people (which of course we do – and really should equally, but oww well) we are effectively cutting off our nose to spite our face. Keep that in mind.

Unintended consequences: Sanlu poisoned milk

The Sanlu poisoned milk saga was extremely sad, no-one likes to hear of deaths caused by products.

Beyond the tragic deaths, the saga was expected to hurt Fonterra heavily – they had a large stake in Sanlu, and it was expected to sully their reputation in China.  However, this wasn’t the case.

After the crisis became public in September, Chinese dairy companies started buying milk from overseas rather than sourcing it locally, he said.

That was the largest of three drivers of the increase in Asian revenues.

It appears that the Chinese public still trusted Fonterra – but did not trust domestically made milk at all.  As a result, Fonterra ended up with a huge boost to sales.  A surprising result.