Archive for September 21st, 2009

h1

Grant McCracken: Concatenating capitalism

September 21, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

Grant McCracken always has insightful interpretations of various human/social phenomena, and in this recent post he offers one that he calls “concatenating capitalism“. In discussing “eco-entrepreneur” Joshua Onysko and his work developing his Pangea Organics products, Grant makes a decidedly beyond-Schumpeterian observation about the role of entrepreneurs in transforming the economy and the daily lives of consumers:

But Joshua is not interested in the usual life trajectory of the entrepreneur.  No, he is intent on the reformation of capitalism.  He wants to change the way we think about products, packaging, manufacture, retail, consumption, and the planet.  (Some Pangea products have seeds embedded in the packaging…to make the garbage bloom.)

In a sense, Joshua is exercising the advantage of his generation.  My generation (boomers) tend to see the world as a series of discrete episodes.  What happens here doesn’t have any necessary connection there.  My generation can see consequences but we tend to think of them as capital letters joined by little arrows: A > B.  It’s clear that Joshua thinks more in terms of concatenation, where events run in all directions at once.

I think this deceptively simple insight is profound because it illuminates the inherent non-linearity and complexity that characterize the aggregation of real interactions in real markets, a connection that Grant goes on to make in his characteristic thought-provoking way:

It is the genius of capitalism that it is so very pliable.  It doesn’t really care about the details, just so long as interested parties can engage in transactions that work to their respective advantage.  Indeed, it has conventionally preserved that brilliant act of reduction that Adam Smith accomplished in Wealth of Nations.  It removes from consideration everything extra-transactional, all the cultural, social, political, ecological factors coming in and going out of the transaction.  All of these were, in Kuhnian terms, extra-paradigmatic.  The model didn’t include them.  It didn’t need to know about them.  Onyesko and the double entrepreneurs appear now to be reinstalling these factors, making them visible, thinkable, calculable, perhaps even manageable.

I’ve left out quite a bit, so do go read his whole post, and more of his work.

h1

IEA: Recession => lower carbon emissions

September 21, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

The International Energy Agency has put a quantitative estimate on an effect that we all suspected — this year’s economic recession is contributing to a reduction in global carbon emissions. They estimate that 2009 carbon emissions will be 2 percent lower than 2008, with 75% of the reduction attributable to the economic slowdown and 25% attributable to carbon-reduction policies:

The close relationship between GDP and carbon emissions is well documented, so many commentators were expecting that the recession might cause emissions to drop.

But the size of the fall has come as something of a surprise.

The IEA estimates that the recession is responsible for about three-quarters of the fall.

As well as curtailing the business sector’s energy use by applying a general economic brake, the straitened circumstances have reportedly led to deferments on investment in new fossil fuel plants.

The remaining quarter of the reduction comes from policies designed to curb CO2 production, according to the IEA.

The BBC article also points out that compared with the recession of the early 1980s, which was a biggie, this one is likely to lead to larger carbon emission reductions. This is interesting, because it highlights the fact that the relationship between GDP and carbon emissions is 1. nonlinear and 2. not constant. Technology changes, policy changes, and they change the relationship between CDP and CO2.

It’s also interesting that the magnitude of the effects of economic drivers is so much larger than the effects of policy drivers.

h1

Justice, promoting virtue and price gouging

September 21, 2009

Michael Giberson

Michael Sandel appeared on the Today show last week promoting his new book, Justice: what is the right thing to do? The book and a related public television series this fall are based on Sandel’s course on justice taught at Harvard. (The television series episodes are online at the link just cited.)

The msnbc.com website provides an excerpt from the book in which Sandel discusses price gouging after an emergency.  He discusses the post-Hurricane Charley (2004) debate over price gouging in Florida, drawing on commentary by then-Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist, economist Thomas Sowell, and others.  Sandel identifies three sometimes competing values that seem to motivate the discussion: maximizing welfare, respecting freedom, and promoting virtue.

The excerpt appears to be from an introductory chapter, Sandel is framing the issue rather than pushing a conclusion. From what little I know about Sandel, I assume he will end up leaning on the “promoting virtue” value and conclude that price gouging should be penalized by the government because it violates an ideal (held by some people) about how people ought to treat each other.  This introductory excerpt does a reasonable job of laying out competing positions, but given the breadth of issues addressed in the book I wonder how deeply Sandel goes into the issue.

Surely an ideal that says a merchant should not raise prices after an emergency would also say that merchants should not take useful goods off of the market after an emergency (by closing shop, by refusing to restock at available wholesale prices). If we should, under a conception of virtue  to be promoted by government activity, penalize price gouging, then why don’t we penalize these actions which are necessarily more damaging to the community?  It is increasingly becoming clear that penalties for price gouging are encouraging these more harmful reactions by merchants, so it appears that “promoting virtue” may require more forceful government intervention in post-disaster markets.

I don’t know whether Sandel does, in fact, make the “promoting virtue” value central to resolution of conflict over price gouging.  Maybe he leans towards maximizing welfare or respecting freedom, or maybe he uncovers some framework which neatly sorts out the competing virtue claims.  In any case, the excerpt seems to have done its job, because now I am interested in how Sandel handles the issue and may go buy the book.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers