Timeless economics

Still makes sense.. and we’ll always have Paris..

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Milton Friedman : The Man Who Always Had Something To Say!

with one comment

Milton Friedman was one of the most influential economist of the 2the 20thcentury.He was born July 31, 1912 in BroolynNew York of Russian-Jew parents. He finished his college degree in Rutgers University majoring in mathemetics and economics. He took up masters in economics at University of Chicago and his Phd at Columbia University.

Early in his career he held various positions in the government, working at the Bureau of Economic research, the US Treasury Department, and the National resources committee, while at the same time teaching at University of Chicago. These stints in various areas of economics are influential in his works and books on economics.

Friedman was widely regarded as the leader of the Chicago School of Monetary Economics, which stresses the importance of the quantity of money supply as an instrument of government policy and as a determinant of bussiness cycles and inflation. Before Friedman’s monetary theory, government is willing to have a little more inflation as long as there is a reduction in unemployment. Friedman said this is an illusion. Pumping up demand (by hiring more workers who now have wages to purhcase goods) pushed down unemployment, only by fooling workers into thinking that wages had risen relative to prices making them more willing to offer their labor.

Once truth dawned (prices have increased because many are now chasing the same goods) they will demand more pay and unemployment would rise back to its “natural” rate. If government tried to push unemployment below this “natural” rate, in the long run they would suceed only in pushing inflation even higher.

Mr. Friedman also conceptualize the theory of permanent income hypothesis. This theory set forth that people do not spend on basis of what their income happened to be that year but according to their “permanent income” – what they expected to have year in and year out. In a bad year they will dip into their savings, when they had a surplus they would save. This idea together with his work on monetary analysis and stabilization policy earned him a nobel prize in 1976.

One of his economic ideas, a product of the conditon of his era, the NEW Deal era, is that the market is always rational and efficient. Perhaps repelled by the heavy government oversight of financial markets imposed during the new deal era and by the evidence of wide spread irrational behavior by paticipants in the financial markets. He believed that the market will be the one to correct and cure itself and not some form of regulation and legistlation. But today it would seem that the idea is on the wrong side ofeconomic history. To qoute one writer, “The financial crisis that has engulfed the world in the past two years is not just or perhaps even mainly a tale of greed run riot IT IS THE RESULT of an IDEA that failed. The IDEA which over the past four decades become the dominant belief among those generally regarded as the savviest participants in the financial system, was that the market is always rational and efficient. So much for that.

But this does not diminished the standing of Milton Friedman as a giant in the dismal Science of Econimics. His ideas and contribution remains to the day as influential, powerful, profound and relevant.






Ricardo’s Hit [Comparative Advantage] and Miss [Labor Theory of Value]

leave a comment »

(1772 - 1823)

David Ricardo was born in 1772 and was the 3rd of 17 children. He belonged to a family of Dutch Jews that migrated to England. He entered his father’s business at 14 years old, but eventually left the Jewish faith to become a Unitarian at 21 years old and married a Quaker.  Because he was disowned by his family, he became a stock broker on his own and in a few years, became richer than his Father.

At 27 years old, he came across Smith’s Wealth of Nations and became more interested in economics. His first published work was a letter to a newspaper on currency problems. James Mill, a good friend of his, urged him to produce more works (he didn’t like writing that much). In 1817, he came out with Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, which became his most famous work.

The Bullion Controversy

Ricardo was first noticed by economists over the “bullion controversy.” In 1809, he wrote that England’s inflation was brought about by the Bank of England’s propensity to issue excess banknotes, because it was no longer a requirement to pay in gold on demand. The remedy Ricardo called for was to return to the gold standard. Then if the price of gold in the market rose, every over-issue of bank notes would be cancelled automatically by the flow of paper back to the Bank. The restoration of the gold standard would then curb inflation.

Ricardo’s plan was adopted by Parliament in 1819, and the gold standard worked for over a century thereafter, except during major wars and financial crises.

Production to Distribution

Ricardo changed the emphasis of economic analysis from production to distribution. Adam Smith stated that the well-being of a nation depends on the total production and the number of people who must share it. In contrast, Ricardo’s Principles of Political Economy and Taxation raised as the key problem the division of the produce of the earth among three classes: land owners, capitalists, and laborers. He emphasized the division of income rather than the growth of income because of his pessimism.

Labor Theory of Value

Ricardo was concerned with relative values, not with absolute value. Utility, he said, is not the measure of exchangeable value, although it is absolutely essential to it. Possessing utility, commodities derive their exchangeable value from two sources: from their scarcity, and from the quantity of labor required to obtain them. Ricardo was unconditionally committed to his labor theory value. The exchange value of a commodity depends on the labor time necessary to produce it.

The simple form of labor theory of value would be logical (although not necessarily correct) under two conditions: if all industries had the same ratios of capital to labor, and if the capital investments in all industries had the same durability. As these conditions are hard to obtain, if not, non-existent, if all commodities sold at their value as measured by labor time, the consequences would be unequal rates of return in different industries.

Examine this situation then. A sports apparel company hires 100 workers to cut and sew 1,000 basketball shorts in a day. A communications company hires 100 workers to assemble 1,000 mobile phones a day. Both companies give the workers 8 hours a day to work on these products. If we apply Ricardo’s labor theory of value, then a basketball shorts’ value would be equal to that of a mobile phone’s value, which means that the selling price of these two different products should be equal as well. And we all know that in reality, this cannot be true.

The problem with Ricardo’s theory is it does not take into consideration the capital of the industries, the costs of raw materials and other factors that influence the price of the commodities (competition, brand, etc.) Labor cannot alone determine the value of a product, especially in this age where technology actually lessens the needed physical input from laborers.

Theory of Comparative Advantage

According to Ricardo, if one country is more efficient than another in producing all commodities, trade between the two nevertheless would be of mutual advantage. The more efficient country should export those commodities in which her comparative cost is lowest, and she should import those whose comparative cost is highest. This is the basis for Ricardo’s free trade policy for manufactured goods.

The theory of comparative advantage, as he described it, seems to be that both those rich in ability and the poor alike concentrate each their own analytical powers on meeting the needs and abilities of the richer, more skillful party to an otherwise unequal exchange and thereby both benefit. Ideas often extrapolated are: that both benefit equally; and that somehow in such exchange each nation, or person, is enabled to focus on its own area of real specialization in a bi-directional equal trade — but we only start with an idea of purely comparative specialization in one direction.

A modern example would be an exchange of commodities between the United States and the Philippines. For the sake of example, let’s momentarily consider nurses as ‘commodities’ and somehow equate them with mobile phones. The US of course, produces more mobile phones than nurses. The Philippines, on the other hand, produces more nurses than mobile phones. So if we consider these two commodities in a trade, comparative advantage comes in when the US trades more of their mobile phones  and less of nurses and the Philippines trades more nurses than mobile phones. This is because US, of course, is one of the leading countries in telecommunications technology, with multi-national corporations continuously advancing and improving the industry. Meanwhile, the Philippines produces quite a number of trained and qualified nurses more than willing to work in the United States. And since the ‘Filipino care’ is world-renowned, there’s actually a demand for more nurses.

In this way, both countries — the Philippines and the US — benefit from each other by exporting more of their strong commodities, and importing those products that are scarce in their own country. And these two countries found exactly that in their trade of nurses and mobile phones. They make use of their strengths and weaknesses to benefit each other. Comparative advantage.

This theory by Ricardo became one of the foundations of global trade as we know it today.

Oh, and for those of you who would like to read the original text, Ricardo’s Principles of Political Economy and Taxation can be found online. =)

Written by zequeenbee

May 15, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Posted in Uncategorized