There’s justifiable controversy surrounding TikTok, the social media app. I find much to dislike about TikTok but also much to dislike about the solutions some have proposed, such as a complete ban on the app in the United States. Such proposals would grant the federal executive branch powers that most of us wouldn’t grant to our worst enemy (i.e., they fail the “Munger test”).
Congressional Activity
The proposed RESTRICT Act (Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology) is a bipartisan effort to eliminate the perceived threats to national security posed by technologies like TikTok. That would include a ban on the app. Proponents of a ban go further than national security concerns, arguing that TikTok represents a threat to the health and productivity of users. However, an outright ban on the app would be a drastic abridgment of free speech rights, and it would limit Americans’ access to a popular platform for creativity and entertainment. In addition, the proposed legislation would authorize intrusions into the privacy of Americans and extend new executive authority into the private sphere, such as tampering with trade and commerce in ways that could facilitate protectionist actions. In fact, so intrusive is the RESTRICT Act that it’s been called a “Patriot Act for the digital age.” From Scott Lincicome and several coauthors at CATO:
“… the proposal—at least as currently written—raises troubling and far‐reaching concerns for the First Amendment, international commerce, technology, privacy, and separation of powers.”
Bad Company
TikTok is owned by a Chinese company, ByteDance, and there is understandable concern about the app’s data collection practices and the potential for the Chinese government to access user data for nefarious purposes. The Trump administration cited these concerns when it attempted to ban TikTok in 2020, and while the ban was ultimately blocked by a federal judge, the Biden administration has also expressed concerns about the app’s data security.
TikTok has also been accused of promoting harmful content, including hate speech, misinformation, and sexually explicit material. Critics argue that the app’s algorithm rewards provocative and controversial content, which can lead to the spread of harmful messages and the normalization of inappropriate behavior. Of course, those are largely value judgements, including labels like “provocative”, “inappropriate”, and many interpretations of content as “hate speech”. With narrow exceptions, such content is protected under the First Amendment.
Unlike L. Frank Baum’s Tik-Tok machine in the land of Oz, the TikTok app might not always qualify as a “faithful servant”. There are some well-founded health and performance concerns related to TikTok, however. Some experts have expressed reservations about the effects of the app on attention span. The short-form videos typical of TikTok, and endless scrolling, suggest that the app is designed to be addictive, though I’m not aware of studies that purport to prove its “addictive nature. Of course, it can easily become a time sink for users, but so can almost all social media platforms. Nevertheless, some experts contend that heavy use of TikTok may lead to a decrease in attention span and an increase in distraction, which can have negative implications for productivity, learning, and mental health.
Bad Government
The RESTRICT Act, or a ban on TikTok, would drastically violate free speech rights and limit Americans’ access to a popular platform for creativity and self-expression. TikTok has become a cultural phenomenon, with millions of users creating and sharing content on the app every day. This is particularly true of more youthful individuals, who are less likely to be persuaded by their elders’ claims that the content available on TikTok is “inappropriate”. And they’re right! At the very least, “appropriateness” depends on an individual’s age, and it is generally not an area over which government should have censorship authority, “community standards” arguments notwithstanding. Furthermore, allowing access for children is a responsibility best left in the hands of parents, not government.
Likewise, businesses should be free to operate without undue interference from government. The RESTRICT Act would violate these principles, as it would limit individual choice and potentially harm innovation within the U.S. tech industry.
A less compelling argument against banning TikTok is that it could harm U.S.-China relations and have broader economic consequences. China has already warned that a TikTok ban could prompt retaliation, and such a move could escalate tensions between the two countries. That’s all true to one degree or another, but China has already demonstrated a willingness and intention to harm U.S.-China relations. As for economic repercussions, do business with China at your own risk. According to this piece, U.S. investment in the PRC’s tech industry has fallen by almost 80% since 2018, so the private sector is already taking strong steps to reduce that risk.
Like it or not, however, many software companies are subject to at least partial Chinese jurisdiction. The means the RESTRICT Act would do far more than simply banning TikTok in the U.S. First, it would subject on-line activity to much greater scrutiny. Second, it would threaten users of a variety of information or communications products and services with severe penalties for speech deemed to be “unsafe”. According to Columbia Law Professor Philip Hamburger:
“Under the proposed statute, the commerce secretary could therefore take ‘any mitigation measure to address any risk’ arising from the use of the relevant communications products or services, if the secretary determines there is an ‘undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the safety of United States persons.’
We live in an era in which dissenting speech is said to be violence. In recent years, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has classified concerned parents and conservative Catholics as violent extremists. So when the TikTok bill authorizes the commerce secretary to mitigate communications risks to ‘national security’ or ‘safety,’ that means she can demand censorship.”
A Lighter Touch
The RESTRICT Act is unreasonably broad and intrusive and an outright ban of TikTok is unnecessarily extreme. There are less draconian alternatives, though all may involve some degree of intrusion. For example, TikTok could be compelled to allow users to opt out of certain types of data collection, and to allow independent audits of its data handling practices. TikTok could also be required to store user data within the U.S. or in other countries that have strong data privacy laws. While this option would represent stronger regulation of TikTok, it could also be construed as strengthening the property rights of users.
To address concerns about TikTok’s ownership by a Chinese company, its U.S. operations could be required to partner with a U.S. company. Perhaps this could satisfied by allowing a U.S. company to acquire a stake in TikTok, or by having TikTok spin off its U.S. operations into a separate company that is majority-owned by a U.S. entity.
Finally, perhaps political or regulatory pressure could persuade TikTok to switch to using open-source software, as Elon Musk has done with Twitter. Then, independent developers would have the ability to audit code and identify security vulnerabilities or suspicious data handling practices. From there, it’s a matter of caveat emptor.
Restrain the Restrictive Impulse
The TikTok debate raises important questions about the role of government in regulating technology and free speech. Rather than impulsively harsh legislation like the RESTRICT Act or an outright ban on TikTok, an enlightened approach would encourage transparency and competition in the tech industry. That, in turn, could help address concerns about data security and promote innovation. Additionally, individuals should take personal responsibility for their use of technology by being mindful of the content they consume and what they reveal about themselves on social media. That includes parental responsibility and supervision of the use of social media by children. Ultimately, the TikTok debate highlights tensions between national security, technological innovation, and individual liberty. and it’s important to find a balance that protects all three.
Note: The first draft of this post was written by ChatGPT, based on an initial prompt and sequential follow-ups. It was intended as an experiment in preparation for a future post on artificial intelligence (AI). While several vestiges of the first draft remain, what appears above bears little resemblance to what ChatGPT produced. There were many deletions, rewrites, and supplements in arriving at the final draft.
My first impression of the ChatGPT output was favorable. It delineated a few of the major issues surrounding a TikTok ban, but later I was struck by its repetition of bland generalities and its lack of information on more recent developments like the RESTRICT Act. The latter shortfall was probably due to my use of ChatGPT 3.5 rather than 4.0. On the whole, the exercise was fascinating, but I will limit my use of AI tools like ChatGPT to investigation of background on certain questions.
To the great chagrin of some market watchers, the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) increased its target for the federal funds rate in March by 0.25 points, to range of 4.75 – 5%. This was pretty much in line with plans the FOMC made plain in the fall. The “surprise” was that this increase took place against a backdrop of liquidity shortfalls in the banking system, which also had taken many by surprise. Perhaps a further surprise was that after a few days of reflection, the market didn’t seem to mind the rate hike all that much.
Switchman Sleeping
There’s plenty of blame to go around for bank liquidity problems. Certain banks and their regulators (including the Fed) somehow failed to anticipate that carrying large, unhedged positions in low-rate, long-term bonds might at some point alarm large depositors as interest rates rose. Those banks found themselves way short of funds needed to satisfy justifiably skittish account holders. A couple of banks were closed, but the FDIC agreed to insure all of their depositors. As the lender of last resort, the Fed provided banks with “credit facilities” to ease the liquidity crunch. In a matter of days, the fresh credit expanded the Fed’s balance sheet, offsetting months of “quantitative tightening” that had taken place since last June.
Of course, the Fed is no stranger to dozing at the switch. Historically, the central bank has failed to anticipate changes wrought by its own policy actions. Today’s inflation is a prime example. That kind of difficulty is to be expected given the “long and variable lags” in the effects of monetary policy on the economy. It makes activist policy all the more hazardous, leading to the kinds of “boom and bust” cycles described in Austrian business cycle theory.
Persistent Inflation
When the Fed went forward with the 25 basis point hike in the funds rate target in March, it was greeted with dismay by those still hopeful for a “soft landing”. In the Fed’s defense, one could say the continued effort to tighten policy is an attempt to make up for past sins, namely the Fed’s monetary profligacy during the pandemic.
The Fed’s rationale for this latest rate hike was that inflation remains persistent. Here are four CPI measures from the Cleveland Fed, which show some recent tapering of price pressures. Perhaps “flattening” would be a better description, at least for the median CPI:
Those are 12-month changes, and just in case you’ve heard that month-to-month changes have tapered more sharply, that really wasn’t the case in January and February:
Jason Furman notedin a series of tweets that the prices of services are driving recent inflation, while goods prices have been flat:
A compelling argument is that the shelter component of the CPI is overstating services inflation, and it’s weighted at more than one-third of the overall index. CPI shelter costs are known as “owner’s equivalent rent” (OER), which is based on a survey question of homeowners as to the rents they think they could command, and it is subject to a fairly long lag. Actual rent inflation has slowed sharply since last summer, so the shelter component is likely to relieve pressure on CPI inflation (and the Fed) in coming months. Nevertheless, Furman points out that CPI inflation over the past 3 -4 months was up even when housing is excluded. Substituting a private “new rent” measure of housing costs for OER would bring measured inflation in services closer the Fed’s comfort zone, however.
The Fed’s preferred measure of inflation, the deflator for personal consumption expenditures (PCE), uses a much lower weight on housing costs, though it might also overstate inflation within that component. Here’s another chart from the Cleveland Fed:
Inflation in the Core PCE deflator, which excludes food and energy prices, looks as if it’s “flattened” as well. This persistence is worrisome because inflation is difficult to stop once it becomes embedded in expectations. That’s exactly what the Fed says it’s trying to prevent.
Rate Targets and Money Growth
Targeting the federal funds rate (FFR) is the Fed’s primary operational method of conducting monetary policy. The FFR is the rate at which banks borrow from one another overnight to meet short-term needs for reserves. In order to achieve price stability, the Fed would do better to focus directly on controlling the money supply. Nevertheless, it has successfully engineered a decline in the money supply beginning last April, and recently the money supply posted year-over-year negative growth.
That doesn’t mean money growth has been “optimized” in any sense, but a slowdown in money growth was way overdue after the pandemic money creation binge. You might not like the way the Fed executed the reversal or its operating policy in general, and neither do I, but it did restrain money growth. In that sense, I applaud the Fed for exercising its independence, standing up to the Treasury rather than continuing to monetize yawning federal deficits. That’s encouraging, but at some point the Fed will reverse course and ease policy. We’ll probably hope in vain that the Fed can avoid sending us once again along the path of boom and bust cycles.
In effect, the FFR target is a price control with a dynamic element: the master fiddles with the target whenever economic conditions are deemed to suggest a change. This “controlled” rate has a strong influence on other short-term interest rates. The farther out one goes on the maturity spectrum, however, the weaker is the association between changes in the funds rate and other interest rates. The Fed doesn’t truly “control” those rates of most importance to consumers, corporate borrowers, government borrowers, and investors. It definitely influences those rates, but credit risk, business opportunities, and long-term expectations are often dominant.
The FOMC’s latest rate increase suggests its members don’t expect an immediate downturn in economic activity or a definitive near-term drop in inflation. The Committee may, however, be willing to pause for a period of several meeting cycles (every six weeks) to see whether the “long and variable lags” in the transmission of tighter monetary policy might begin to kick-in. As always, the FOMC’s next step will be “data dependent”, as Chairman Powell likes to say. In the meantime, the economic response to earlier tightening moves is likely to strengthen. Lenders are responding to the earlier rate hikes and reduced lending margins by curtailing credit and attempting to rebuild their own liquidity.
Is It Supply Or Demand?
There’s an ongoing debate about whether monetary policy is appropriate for fighting this episode of inflation. It’s true that monetary policy is ill-suited to addressing supply disruptions, though it can help to stem expectations that might cause supply-side price pressures to feed upon themselves (and prevent them from becoming demand-side pressures). However, profligate fiscal and monetary policy did much to create the current inflation, which is pressure on the demand-side. On that point, David Beckworth leaves little doubt as to where he stands:
“The real world is nominal. And nominal PCE was about $1.6 trillion above trend thru February. Unless one believes in immaculate above-trend spending, this huge surge could 𝙣𝙤𝙩 have happened without support from fiscal and monetary policy.”
In reality, this inflationary episode was borne of a mix of demand and supply-side pressures, and policy either caused or accommodated all of it. Nevertheless, it’s interesting to consider efforts to decompose these forces. This NBER paper attributed about 2/3 of inflation from December 2019 – June 2022 to the demand-side. Given the ongoing tenor of fiscal policy and the typical policy lags, it’s likely that the effects of fiscal and monetary stimulus have persisted well beyond that point. Here is a page from the San Francisco Fed’s site that gives an edge to supply-side factors, as reflected in this breakdown of the Fed’s favorite inflation gauge:
Of course, all of these decompositions are based on assumptions and are, at best, model-based. Nevertheless, to the extent that we still face supply constraints, they would impose limits to the Fed’s ability to manage inflation downward without a “hard landing”.
There’s also no doubt that supply side policies would reduce the kinds of price pressures we’re now experiencing. Regulation and restrictive energy policies under the Biden Administration have eroded productive capacity. These policies could be reversed if political leaders were serious about improving the nation’s economic health.
The Dark Runway Ahead
Will we have a recession? And when? There are no definite signs of an approaching downturn in the real economy just yet. Inventories of goods did account for more than half of the fourth quarter gain in GDP, which may now be discouraging production. There are layoffs in some critical industries such as tech, but we’ll have to see whether there is new evidence of overall weakness in next Friday’s employment report. Real wages have been a little down to flat over the past year, while consumer debt is climbing and real retail sales have trended slightly downward since last spring. Many firms will experience higher debt servicing costs going forward. So it’s not clear that the onset of recession is close at hand, but the odds are good that we’ll see a downturn as the year wears on, especially with credit increasingly scarce in the wake of the liquidity pinch at banks. But no one knows for sure, including the Fed.
Government budget negotiations never fail to frustrate anyone of a small-government persuasion. We have a huge, ongoing federal budget deficit. Spending’s gone bat-shit out of control over the past several years and too few in Congress are willing to do anything about it. Democrats would rather see politically-targeted tax increases. While some Republicans advocate spending cuts, the focus is almost entirely on discretionary spending. Meanwhile, the entitlement state is off the table, including Social Security reform.
Fiscal Indiscretion
Sadly, non-discretionary outlays (entitlements) today make a much larger contribution to the deficit than discretionary spending. That includes the programs like Social Security (SS) and Medicare, in which spending levels are programmatic and not subject to annual appropriations by Congress. When these programs were instituted there were a large number of workers relative to retirees, so tax contributions exceeded benefit levels for many decades. The revenue excesses were placed into “trust funds” and invested in Treasury debt. In other words, surpluses under non-discretionary SS and Medicare programs were used to finance discretionary spending!
The aging of Baby Boomers ultimately led to a reversal in the condition of the trust funds. Fewer workers relative to retirees meant that annual payroll tax collections were not adequate to cover annual benefits, and that meant drawing down the trust funds. Current projections by the system trustees call for the SS Trust Fund to be exhausted by 2035. Once that occurs, benefits will automatically be reduced by roughly 20% unless Congress acts to shore up the system before then.
A Few Proposals
I’ve written about the need for SS reform on several occasions (though the first article at that link is not germane here). It seems imperative for Congress and the President to address these shortfalls. By all appearances, however, many Republicans have put the issue aside. For his part, Joe Biden has apparently accepted the prospect of an automatic reduction in benefits in 2035, or at least he’s willing to kick that can down the road. He has, however, endorsed taxes on high earners to fund Medicare. Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) suggests raising the retirement age, or at least raise the minimum age at which one may claim benefits (now 62). Senators Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Angus King (I-Maine) were working on a compromise that would create an investment fund to fortify the system, but the specifics are unclear, as well as how much that would accomplish.
Meanwhile, Senator Bernie Sanders (S-VT) proposes to expand SS benefits by $2,400 a year and add funding by extending payroll taxes to earners above the current limit of $160,000. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) has endorsed the latter as a “quick fix”.
There is also at least oneproposal in Congress to end the practice of taxing a portion of SS benefits as income. I have trouble believing it will gain wide support, despite the clear double-taxation involved.
Then there are always discussions of reducing benefits at higher income levels or even means-testing benefits. In fact, it would be interesting to know what proportion of current benefits actually function as social insurance, as opposed to a universal entitlement. The answer, at least, could serve as a baseline for more fundamental reforms, including changes in the structure of payroll taxes, voluntary lump-sum payouts, and private accounts.
More Radical Views
There are a few prominent voices who claim that SS is sustainable in its current form, but perhaps with a few “no big deal” tax increases. Oh, that’s only about a $1 trillion “deal”, at least for both Medicare and SS. More offensive still are the scare tactics used by opponents of SS reform any time the subject comes up. I’m not aware of any serious reform proposal made over the past two decades that would have affected the benefits of anyone over the age of 55, and certainly no one then-eligible for benefits. Yet that charge is always made: they want to cut your SS benefits! The Democrats made that claim against George W. Bush, torpedoing what might have been a great accomplishment for all. And now, apparently Donald Trump is willing to use such accusations to damage any rival who has ever mentioned reform, including Mike Pence. Will you please cut the crap?
The System
The thing to remember about SS is that it is currently structured as a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) system, despite the fact that benefits are defined like many creaky private pensions of old. SS benefits in each period are paid out of current “contributions” (i.e., FICO payroll taxes) plus redemptions of government bonds held in the Trust Fund. Contributions today are not “invested” anywhere because they are not enough to pay for current benefits under PAYGO.
The Trust Fund was accumulated during the years when favorable demographics led to greater FICO contributions than benefit payouts. The excess revenue was “invested” in Treasury bonds, which meant it was used to fund deficits in the general budget. It’s been about 15 years since the Trust Fund entered a “draw-down” status, and again, it will be exhausted by 2035.
SSA Says It’s a Good Deal
A participant’s expected “rate of return” on lifetime payroll tax payments depends on several things: lifetime earnings, age at which benefits are first claimed, life expectancy at that time, marital status, relative earning levels within two-earner couples, and the “full retirement age” for the individual’s birth year. Payroll tax payments, by the way, include the employer’s share because that is one of the terms of a hire. A high rate of return is not the same as a high level of benefits, however. In fact, relative to career income, SS has a great deal of progressivity in terms of rates of return, but not much in terms of benefit levels.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) has calculated illustrative real internal rates of return (IRR) for many categories of earners given certain assumptions. (An IRR is a discount rate that equalizes the present value (PV) of a stream of payments and the PV of a stream of payoffs.) The SSA’s most recent update of this exercise was in April 2022. The report references Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI), but the focus is exclusively on seniors.
Three basic scenarios were considered: 1) current law, as scheduled, despite its unsustainability; 2) a payroll tax increase from 12.4% (not including the Medicare tax) to 15.96% starting in 2035, when the Trust Fund is exhausted; and 3) a reduction in benefits of 22% starting in 2035.
The authors of the report concludethat “… the real value of OASDI benefits is extraordinarily high.” This theme has been echoed by several other writers, such as here and here. This conclusion is based on a comparison to returns earned by investments that SSA judges to have comparably low risk.
I note here that I’ve made assertions in the past about relative SS returns based on nominal benefits, rather than inflation-adjusted values. Those comparisons to private returns might have seemed drastic because they were expressed in terms of hypothetical future nominal values at the point of retirement. The gaps are not as large in real terms or if we consider SS returns broadly to include those accruing to low career earners. Medium and high earners tend to earn lower hypothetical returns from SS.
A Mixed Bag
SSA’s calculated IRRs are highest for one-earner couples followed by two-earner couples. Single males do relatively poorly due to their higher mortality rates. Low earners do very well relative to higher earners. Earlier birth years are associated with higher IRRs, but these are not as impressive for cohorts who have not yet claimed benefits. The ranges of birth years provided in the report make this a little imprecise, but I’ll focus on those born in 1955 and later.
Of course the returns are highest under the current law hypothetical than for the scenarios involving a benefit reduction or a payroll tax hike. The current law IRRs can be viewed as baselines for other calculations, but otherwise they are irrelevant. The system is technically insolvent and the scheduled benefits under current law can’t be maintained beyond 2034 without steps to generate more revenue or cut benefits. Those steps will reduce IRRs earned by hypothetical SS “assets” whether they take the form of higher payroll taxes, lower benefits, a greater full retirement age, or other measures.
The tax hike doesn’t have much impact on the IRRs of near-term retirees. It falls instead on younger cohorts with some years of employment (and payroll tax payments) remaining. The effect of a cut in benefits is spread more evenly across age cohorts and the reductions in IRRs is somewhat larger.
With higher payroll taxes after 2034, the average IRRs for birth years of 1955+ range from about 0.5% up to about 6.25%. The returns for single females and two-earner couples are roughly similar and fall between those for single males on the low end and one-earner couples on the high end. In all cases, low earners have much higher IRRs than others.
The reduction in benefits produces returns for the 1955+ age cohorts averaging small, negative values for high-earning single men up to 5.5% to 6% for low-earning, one-earner couples.
But On the Whole…
The IRR values reported by SSA are quite variable across cohorts. Individuals or couples with low earnings can usually expect to “earn” real IRRs on their contributions of better than 3% (and above 5% in a few cases). Medium earners can expect real returns from 1% to 3% (and in some cases above 4%). Many of the returns are quite good for a safe “asset”, but not for high earners.
Again, SSA states that these are real returns, though they provide no detail on the ways in which they adjust the components used in their IRR formula to arrive at real returns. Granting the benefit of the doubt, we saw persistently negative real returns on a range of safe assets in the not-very-distant past, so the IRRs are respectable by comparison.
Qualifications
There are many assumptions in the SSA’s analysis that might be construed as drastic simplifications, such as no divorce and remarriage, uniform career duration, and no relationship between earnings and mortality. But it’s easy to be picky. Many of the assumptions discernible from the report seem to be reasonable simplifications in what could otherwise be an unruly analysis. Nonetheless, there are a few assumptions that I believe bias the IRRs upward (and perhaps a few in the other direction).
In fact, SSA is remarkably non-transparent in their explanation of the details. Repeated checking of SSA’s document for clear answers is mostly futile. Be that as it may, I’m forced to give SSA the benefit of the doubt in several respects. One is the reinvestment of cumulative remaining contributions at the IRR throughout the earning career and retirement. A detailed formula with all components and time subscripts would have been nice.
… And Major Doubts
As to my misgivings, first, the IRRs reported by SSA are based on earners who all reach the age of 65. However, roughly 14% – 15% of individuals who live to be of working age die before they reach the age of 65. Most of those deaths occur in the latter part of that range, after many years of contributions and hypothetical compounding. That means the dollar impact of contributions forfeited at death before age 65 is probably larger than the unweighted share of individuals. These individuals pay-in but receive no retirement benefit in SSA’s IRR framework, although some receive disability benefits for a period of time prior to death. It wouldn’t bother my conscience to knock off at least a tenth of the quoted returns for this consideration alone.
A second major concern surrounds the method of calculating benefits and discounted benefits. SSA assumes that benefits continue for the expected life of the claimant as of age 65. If life expectancy is 19 years at age 65, then “expected” benefits are a flat stream of benefit payments for 19 years. Discounting each payment back to age 65 at the IRR yields one side of the present value equality. This constant cash flow (CCF) treatment is likely to overstate the present value of benefits. Instead of CCFs, each payment should be weighted by the probability that the claimant will be alive to receive it with a limit at some advanced age like 100. CCF overcounts present values up to the expected life, but it undercounts present values beyond the expected life because the assumed CCF benefits then are zero!! Weighting benefit payments by the probability of survival to each age produces continuing additions to the PV, but increasing mortality and decaying discount factors become quite substantial beyond expected life, leading to relatively minor additions to PV over that range. The upshot is that the CCFs employed by SSA overstate PVs by front-loading all benefits earlier in retirement. For a given PV of contributions, an overstated PV of benefits requires a higher (and overstated) IRR to restore the PV equality, and this might be a substantial source of upward bias in SSA’s calculations.
Third, when comparing an SS “asset” to private returns, a big difference is that private balances remaining at death become assets of the earner’s estate. Meanwhile, a single beneficiary forfeits their SS benefits at death (except for a small death benefit), while a surviving spouse having lower benefits receives ongoing payments of the decedent’s benefits for life. This consideration, however, in and of itself, means that private plans have a substantial advantage: the “expected” residual at death can be “optimized” at zero or some higher balance, depending on the strength of the earner’s bequest motive.
Finally, in a footnote, the SSA report notes that their treatment of income taxes on Social Security benefits for claimants with higher incomes might bias some of the IRRs upward. That seems quite likely.
It would be difficult to recast SSA’s report based on adjustments for all of these qualifications. However, it’s likely that the IRRs in the SSA report are sharply overstated. That means many more beneficiaries with medium and higher earnings records would have returns in the 0% to 2% range, with more IRRs in the negative range for singles. Low earners, however, might still get returns in a range of 3% to 5%.
The SSA analysis attempts to demonstrate some limits to the risks faced by participants, given the scenarios involving a payroll tax increase or a benefits reduction in 2035. Nevertheless, there are additional political risks to the returns of certain classes of current and future retirees. For example, payroll taxes could be made much more progressive, benefits could be made subject to means testing, or indexing of benefits could be reduced. In fact, there are additional demographic risks that might confront retirees several decades ahead. Continued declines in fertility could further undermine the system’s solvency, requiring more drastic steps to shore up the system. As a hypothetical asset, by no means is SS “risk-free”.
Better Returns
Now let’s consider returns earned by private assets, which represent investments in productive capital. For stocks, these include the sum of all dividends and capital gains (growth in value). For compounding purposes, we assume that all returns are reinvested until retirement. Remember that private returns are much less variable over spans of decades than over durations of a few years. Over the course of 40 year spans (SSA’s career assumption), private returns have been fairly stable historically, and have been high enough to cushion investors from setbacks. Here is Seeking Alpha on annualized returns on the basket of stocks in the S&P 500:
“… the return on the S&P 500 since the beginning of valuation in 1928, is 10.22%, whereas the inflation-adjusted return on the market since that time is 7.01%…”
That real return would generate benefits far in excess of SS for most participants, but it’s not an adequate historical perspective on market performance. A more complete picture of real returns on the S&P, though one that is still potentially flawed, emerges from this calculator, which relies on data from Robert Shiller. The returns extend back to 1871, but the index as we know it today has existed only since 1957. The earlier returns tend to be lower, so these values may be biased:
Real stock market returns over rolling 40-year time spans varied considerably over this longer period. Still, those kind of stock returns would be superior to the IRRs in the SSA report going forward in all but a few cases (and then only for low and very low earners).
Most workers facing a choice between investing at these rates for 40 years, with market risk, and accepting standard SS benefits, uncertain as they are, couldn’t be blamed for choosing stocks. In fact, if we think of contributions to either type of plan as compounding to a hypothetical sum at retirement, the stock investments would produce a “pot of gold” several times greater in magnitude than SS.
However, we still don’t have a fair comparison because workers choosing a stock plan would essentially engage in a kind of dollar-cost averaging over 40 years, meaning that investments would be made in relatively small amounts over time, rather than investing a lump-sum at the beginning. This helps to smooth returns because purchases are made throughout the range of market prices over time, but it also means that returns tend to be lower than the 40-year rolling returns shown above. That’s because the average contribution is invested for only half the time.
To be very conservative, if we assume that real stock returns average between 5% and 6% annually, $1 invested every year would grow to between $131 – $155 after 40 years in constant dollars. At returns of 1% to 2% from SS, which I believe are typical of the IRRs for many medium earners, the cumulative “pot” would grow to $49 – $60. Assuming that the tax treatment of the stock plan was the same as contributions and benefits under SS, the stock plan almost triples your money.
Dealing With the Transition
Privatization covers a range of possible alternatives, all of which would require federal borrowing to pay transition costs. Unfortunately, the Achilles heel in all this is that now is a bad time to propose more federal borrowing, even if it has clear long-term benefits to future retirees.
Todd Henderson in the Wall Street Journal suggests a seeding of capital provided by government at birth along with an insurance program to smooth returns. Another idea is to offer an inducement to delay retirement claims by allowing at least a portion of future benefits to be taken as a lump sum. If retirees can privately invest at a more advantageous return, they might be willing to accept a substantial discount on the actuarial value of their benefits.
In fact, there is evidence that a majority of participants seem to prefer distributions of lump sums because they don’t value their future benefits at anything like that suggested by the SSA analysis. In fact, many participants would defer retirement by 1 – 2 years given a lump sum payment. Discounts and/or delayed claims would reduce the ultimate funding shortfall, but it would require substantial federal borrowing up front.
Additional federal borrowing would also be required under a private option for investing one’s own contributions for future dispersal. The impact of this change on the system’s long-term imbalances would depend on the share of earners willing to opt-out of the traditional SS program in whole or in part. More opt-outs would mean a smaller long-term obligations for the traditional system, but it would be hampered by a costly transition over a number of years. Starting from today’s PAYGO system, someone still has to pay the benefits of current retirees. This would almost certainly mean federal borrowing. Spreading the transition over a lengthy period of time would reduce the impact on credit markets, but the borrowing would still be substantial.
For example, perhaps earners under 35 years of age could begin opting out of a portion or all of the traditional program at their discretion, investing contributions for their own future use. Thus, only a small portion of contributions would be diverted in the beginning, and amounts diverted would contribute to the nation’s available pool of saving, helping to keep borrowing costs in check. By the time these younger earners reach retirement age, nearly all of today’s retirees will have passed on. Ultimately, the average retiree will benefit from higher returns than under the traditional program, but since they won’t be (fully) paying the benefits of current or near-term retirees, the public must come to grips with the bad promises of the past and fund those obligations in some other way: reduced benefits, taxes, or borrowing.
Another objection to privatization is financial risk, particularly for lower-income beneficiaries. Limiting opt-outs to younger earners with adequate time for growth would mitigate this risk, along with a reversion to the traditional program after age 45, for example. Some have proposed limiting opt-outs to higher earners. Bear in mind, however, that the financial risk of private accounts should be weighed against the political and demographic risk already inherent in the existing system.
One more possibility for bridging the transition to private, individually-controlled accounts is to sell federal assets. I have discussed this before in the context of funding a universal basic income (which I oppose). The proceeds of such sales could be used to pay the benefits of current and near-term retirees so as to allow the opt-out for younger workers. Or it could be used to pay off federal debt accumulated in the process. The asset sales would have to proceed at a careful and deliberate pace, perhaps stretching over several decades, but those sales could include everything from the huge number of unoccupied federal buildings to vast tracts of public lands in the west, student loans, oil and gas reserves, and airports and infrastructure such as interstate highways and bridges. Of course, these assets would be more productive in private hands anyway.
The Likely Outcome
Will any such privatization plan ever see the light of day? Probably not, and it’s hard to guess when anything will be done in Washington to address the insolvency we already face. Instead, we’ll see some combination of higher payroll taxes, higher payroll taxes on high earners through graduated payroll tax rates or by lifting the earnings cap, reduced benefits on further retirees, limits on COLAs to low career earners, and means-tested benefits. Some have mentioned funding Social Security shortfalls with income taxes. All of these proposals, with the exception of automatic benefit cuts in 2035, would require acts of Congress.
If there’s one simple lesson in economics that’s hard to get across it’s the destructive nature of protectionism. The economics aren’t hard to explain, but for many, the lessons of protectionist failure just don’t want to sink in. Putting aside matters of national security, the harms of protectionism to the domestic economy are greater than any gains that might inure to protected firms and workers. Shielding home industries and workers from foreign competition is generally not smart nor an act of patriotism, but that sentiment seems fairly common nonetheless.
The Pathology of Protectionism
Jingoistic slogans like “Buy American” are a pitch for voluntary loyalty to American brands. I’m all for voluntary action. Still, that propaganda relies on shaming those who find certain foreign products to have superior attributes or to be more economical. This feeds a psychology of economic insularity and encourages those who favors trade barriers, which is one of the earliest species of failed central planning.
The cognitive resistance to a liberal trade regime might have to do with the concentrated benefits of protectionist measures relative to the more diffuse (but high) costs it imposes on society. Some of the costs of protectionism manifest only with time, which makes the connection to policy less obvious to observers. Or again, obstructing trade and taxing “others” in the hope of helping ourselves may simply inflame nationalist passions.
Both Democrats and Republicans rally around policy measures that tilt the playing field in favor of domestic producers, often severely. And again, this near unanimity exists despite innumerable bouts with the laws of economics. I mean, how many times do you have to be beaten over the head to realize that this is a mistake? Unfortunately, politicians just don’t live in the long-term, they leap to defend powerful interests, and they seldom pay the long-term consequences of their mistakes.
Joe Biden’s “Buy American”
The Biden Administration has pushed a “Made In America” agenda since the President took office, It’s partly a sop to unions for their election support. Much of it had to do with tightening waivers granted under made-in-America laws (dating back to 1933) governing foreign content in goods procured by the federal government. The most recent change by Biden is an increase in the requirement for domestic content to 60% immediately and gradually to 75% from there. Also, “price preferences” will be granted to domestic producers of goods to strengthen supply chains identified as “critical”, including active pharmaceutical ingredients, certain minerals including rare earths and carbon fibers, semiconductors and their advanced packaging, and large capacity batteries such as those used in EVs.
There’s a strong case to be made for developing domestic supplies of certain goods based on national security considerations. That can play a legitimate role where defense goods or even some kinds of civilian infrastructure are involved, but Biden’s order applies much more broadly, including protections for industries that are already heavily subsidized by taxpayers. For example, the CHIPS Act of 2022 included $76 billion of subsidies and tax credits to the semiconductor industry.
“‘Buy American,’ like protectionism generally, can protect some blue-collar jobs — but at a steep price: A Peterson Institute for International Economics study concludes that it costs taxpayers $250,000 annually for each job saved in a protected industry. And lots of white-collar jobs are created for lawyers seeking waivers from the rules. And for accountants tabulating U.S. content in this and that, when, say, an auto component might cross international borders (U.S., Canadian, Mexican) five times before it is ready for installation in a vehicle.”
Biden’s new rules will increase the cost of federal procurement. They will squeeze out contracts with foreign suppliers whose wares are sometimes the most price-competitive or best-suited to a project. This is not a prescription for spending restraint, and it comes at a time when the federal budget is under severe strain. Here’s George Will again:
“This will mean more borrowing, not fewer projects. Federal spending is not constrained by a mere shortage of revenue. So, Biden was promising to increase the deficit. And this policy, which elicited red-and-blue bonhomie in the State of the Union audience, also will give other nations an excuse to retaliate (often doing what they want to do anyway) by penalizing U.S. exporters of manufactured goods. ….. Washington lobbyists for both will prosper.”
Domestic manufacturers who find their contracting status “protected” from foreign competition will face less incentive to perform efficiently. They can relax, rather than improve or even maintain productivity levels, and they’ll feel less pressure to price competitively. Those domestic firms providing goods designated by the government as “critical” will be advantaged by the “price preferences” granted in the rules, leading to a less competitive landscape and higher prices. Thus, Biden’s “Buy American” order is likely to mean higher prices and more federal spending. This is destructive and counter to our national interests.
Donald Trump’s Tariffs
In a recent set of proposals trialed for his presidential election campaign, Donald Trump called for “Universal Baseline Tariffs” on imported goods. In a testament to how far Trump has stumbled down the path of economic ignorance, his campaign mentions “patriotic protectionism” and “mercantilism for the 21st century”. Good God! Trump might be worse than Biden!
This isn’t just about China, though there are some specific sanctions against China in the proposal. After all, these new tariffs would be “universal”. Nevertheless, the Trump campaign took great pains to cloak the tariffs in anti-China rhetoric. Now, I’m very unfavorably disposed to the CCP and to businesses who serve or rely on China and (by implication) the CCP. Certainly, in the case of China, national security may dictate the imposition of certain forms of protectionism, slippery slope though it might be. Nevertheless, that is not what universal tariffs are about.
One destructive consequence of imposing tariffs or import quotas is that foreign governments are usually quick to retaliate with tariffs and quotas of their own. Thus, export markets are shut off to American producers in an escalating trade conflict. That creates serious recession risks or might reinforce other recessionary forces. Lost production for foreign markets and job losses in the affected export industries are the most obvious examples of protectionist harm.
Then consider what happens in protected industries in the U.S. and the negative repercussions in other sectors. The prices charged for protected goods by domestic producers rise for two reasons: more output is demanded of them, and protected firms have less incentive to restrain pricing. Just what the protectionists wanted! In turn, with their new-found, government-granted market power, protected firms will compete more aggressively for workers and other inputs. That puts non-protected firms in a bind, as they’ll be forced to pay higher wages to compete with protected firms for labor. Other inputs may be more costly as well, particularly if they are imported. These distortions lead to reduced output and jobs in non-protected industries. It also means American consumers pay higher prices for both protected and unprotected goods.
Consumers not only lose on price. They also suffer a loss of consumer sovereignty to a government wishing to manipulate their choices. When choices are curtailed, consumers typically lose on other product attributes they value. It also curtails capital inflows to the U.S. from abroad, which can have further negative repercussions for U.S. productivity growth.
When imports constitute a large share of a particular market, it implies that foreign nations have a comparative advantage in producing the good in question. In other words, they sacrifice less to produce the good than we would sacrifice to produce it in the U.S. But if country X has a comparative advantage in producing good X, it means it must have a comparative disadvantage in producing certain other goods, let’s say good Y. (That is, positive tradeoffs in one direction necessarily imply negative tradeoffs in the other.) It makes more economic sense for other countries (country Y, or perhaps the U.S.) to produce good Y, rather than country X, since country Y sacrifices less to do so. And that is why countries engage in trade with each other, or allow their free citizens to do so. It is mutually beneficial. It makes economic sense!
To outlaw or penalize opportunities for mutually beneficial trade will only bring harm to both erstwhile trading partners, though it might well benefit specific interests, including some third parties. Those third parties include opportunistic politicians wishing to leverage nationalist sentiments, their cronies in protected industries, and the bureaucrats, attorneys, and bean counters who manage compliance.
When Is Trade Problematic?
Protectionists often accuse other nations of subsidizing their export industries, giving them unfair advantages or dumping their exports below cost on the U.S. market. There are cases in which this happens, but all such self-interested claims should be approached with a degree of skepticism. There are established channels for filing complaints (and see here) with government agencies and trade organizations, and specific instances often prompt penalties or formal retaliatory actions.
There are frequently claims that foreign producers and even prominent American businesses are beneficiaries of foreign slave labor. A prominent example is the enslavement of Uyghur Muslims in China, who reportedly have been used in the manufacture of goods sold by a number of big-name American companies. This should not be tolerated by these American firms, their customers, or by the U.S. government. Unfortunately, there is a notable lack of responsiveness among many of these parties.
Much less compelling are assertions of slave labor based on low foreign wage rates without actual evidence of compulsion. This is a case of severely misplaced righteousness. Foreign wage rates may be very low by American standards, but they typically provide for a standard of living in the workers’ home country that is better than average. There is no sin in providing jobs to foreign workers at a local wage premium or even a discount, depending on the job. In fact, a foreign wage that is low relative to American wages is often the basis for their comparative advantage in producing certain goods. Under these innocent circumstances, there is no rational argument for producing those goods at much higher cost in the U.S.
Very troublesome are the national security risks that are sometimes attendant to foreign trade. When dealing with a clear adversary nation, there is no easy “free trade” answer. It is not always clear or agreed, however, when international relations have become truly adversarial, and whether trade can be usefully leveraged in diplomacy.
Conclusion
As I noted earlier, protectionism has appeal from a nationalist perspective, but it is seldom a legitimate form of patriotism. It’s not patriotic to limit the choices and sovereignty of the individual, nor to favor certain firms or workers by shielding them from competition while penalizing firms requiring inputs from abroad. We want our domestic industries to be healthy and competitive. Shielding them from competition is the wrong approach.
So much of the “problem” we have with trade is the infatuation with goals tied to jobs and production. Those things are good, but protectionists focus primarily on first-order effects without considering the damaging second-order consequences. And of course, jobs and production are not the ultimate goals of economic activity. In the end, we engage in economic activity in order to consume. We are a rich nation, and we can afford to consume what we like from abroad. It satisfies wants, it brings market discipline, and it leads to foreign investment in the American economy.
Biden and Trump share the misplaced objectives of mercantilism. They are both salesmen in the end, though with strikingly different personas. Salesmen want to sell, and I’m almost tempted to say that their compulsion causes them see trade as a one-way street. Biden is selling his newest “Buy American” rules not only as patriotic, but as a national security imperative. The former is false and the latter is largely false. In fact, obstructions to trade make us weaker. They will also contribute to our fiscal imbalances, and that contributes to monetary and price instability.
Like “Buy American”, Trump’s tariffs are misguided. Apparently, Trump and other protectionists wish to tax the purchases of foreign goods by American consumers and businesses. In fact, they fail to recognize tariffs as the taxes on Americans that they are! And tariffs represent a pointed invitation to foreign trading partners to impose tariffs of their own on American goods. You really can’t maximize anything by foreclosing opportunities for gain, but that’s what protectionism does. It’s astonishing that such a distorted perspective sells so well.
It doesn’t take much due diligence to reveal that certain green “commitments” are flimsy gestures at best. I discussed the poor economics of recycling mandates in a post a few days ago. Here I discuss two other prominent examples of fake virtue: so-called carbon offsets and green bonds. These are devices often utilized by private actors to assuage activists, gain favor with public policymakers., or simply to claim and promote themselves as “zero-footprint”. No doubt many well-intentioned people believe in the goodness of these instruments, blissfully ignorant of the underlying fakery. Of course, this is dwarfed by the broad flimsiness (and cost implications) of claims about climate catastrophe, which is what motivates carbon credits and most green bonds in the first place. The includes “commitments” made by various nations under the Paris Climate Accords, but that is a subject for another day.
Climate Credits
I mentioned Blake Lovewall’s interesting commentary on carbon credits recently. Purchasing these credits is a way of “greenwashing” activities that emit carbon dioxide. Also known as carbon offsets, this is a $2 billion market with growth fueled by a desire by businesses to appeal to environmental activists and “green” investors, and to boost their ESG scores. I’ll quote here from my own piece, which had as it’s main thrust the waste inherent in wind and solar projects (Lovewall quotes are in blue type):
“The resulting carbon emissions are, in reality, unlikely to be offset by any quantity of carbon credits these firms might purchase, which allow them to claim a ‘zero footprint’. Blake Lovewall describes the sham in play here:
‘The biggest and most common Carbon offset schemes are simply forests. Most of the offerings in Carbon marketplaces are forests, particularly in East Asian, African and South American nations. …
The only value being packaged and sold on these marketplaces is not cutting down the trees. Therefore, by not cutting down a forest, the company is maintaining a ‘Carbon sink’ …. One is paying the landowner for doing nothing. This logic has an acronym, and it is slapped all over these heralded offset projects: REDD. That is a UN scheme called “Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation”. I would re-name it to, “Sell off indigenous forests to global investors”.’
Lovewall goes on to explain that these carbon offset investments do not ensure that forests remain pristine by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing, the requirements for managing these ‘preserves’ are often subject to manipulation by investors working with government; as such, the credits are often vehicles for graft. In Indonesia, for example, carbon credited forests have been converted to palm oil plantations without any loss of value to the credits! Lovewall also cites a story about carbon offset investments in Brazil, where the credits provided capital for a massive dam in the middle of the rainforest. This had severe environmental and social consequences for indigenous peoples. It’s also worth noting that planting trees, wherever that might occur under carbon credits, takes many years to become a real carbon sink.”
Lovewall makes a strong case that carbon credits are a huge fraud. This was reinforced by a recent investigation conducted by the Guardian, Die Zeit and SourceMaterial, a “non-profit investigative journalism organization”, according to the Guardian. The investigation was based on independent research studies as well as interviews with various parties. They found that at least 90% of “rainforest credits” do not represent carbon reductions. Two studies found no abatement whatsoever in deforestation under the credits. Furthermore, the deforestation threats (absent credits) had been overstated by some 400%. The investigation also noted serious human rights violations associated with the offset projects. Rainforest credits are only one kind of carbon offset, but similar problems plague other types of credits as well, such as those earned by shuttering fossil fuel plants in developing countries desperately short on power generation.
That so much of the carbon credit market is fraudulent should infuriate climate change radicals. The findings also are a disgrace to participants in these markets, revealing that much of the “net zero” propaganda trumpeted by corporate PR organizations is a charade. Regrettably, it is motivated by an unnecessary panic over carbon dioxide emissions and their presumed role in global warming. Spending on environmental initiatives should be a warning flag for investors. The resources firms dedicate to those credits deserve careful scrutiny. The fascination with ESG scores is another sign that corporate managers have lost sight of their fundamental mission: to maximize shareholder value by serving their customers well.
Green Bonds
Another suspicious form of “commitment” is embodied in the issuance of so-called “green bonds” to raise funds for environmental initiatives. This form of investing is so ostensibly “virtuous” that these bonds are demanded even with specific commitments that are quite “soft”. This just released study finds that green bonds offer little assurance of any positive environmental impact:
“… we find a concerning lack of enforceability of green promises. Moreover, these promises have been getting weaker over time. Green bonds often make vague commitments, exclude failures to live up to those commitments from default events, and disclaim an obligation to perform in other parts of the document. These shortcomings are known to market participants. Yet, demand for these instruments has been growing. We ask why green bond promises are so weak, while the same investors demand strong promises from the same issuers in other settings.”
Green bonds are “virtue ornaments” typically purchased by institutional investors with some sort of environmental or ESG objective. Apparently, earning returns is an afterthought. Unfortunately, these funds managers are usually investing on behalf of other people. While some of those clients might wholly support the environmental objectives, many others have no clue.
Fortunately, there are alternatives, and I’m tempted to say caveat emptor applies here. However, it really is a remarkable breach of fiduciary duty to manage funds based on objectives other than maximizing expected returns, or to in any way sacrifice returns in favor of “green” objectives. That is happening before our very eyes. Even clients who wish to invest funds for green objectives are being shaken down here. According to the research cited above, the green bond “commitments” are hardly worth the paper they’re written on.
Institutional investors go right along, scrambling to add green bonds to their portfolios. This helps drive down the effective cost of funds to the green bond issuers. Thus, highly speculative climate or environmental initiatives can be funded on the cheap. They do, however, produce lucrative opportunities for the climate crisis industry.
One More Time
People save to build wealth, typically for their retirement years. If that’s your objective, you probably shouldn’t invest in firms expending their resources on carbon credits. At best, the credits are a buy-off to activists. who are just as ignorant of the whole sham.
One might plausibly ask whether I should love carbon credits because they allow, at least, certain forms of beneficial economic activity to avoid challenge by crazies. Perhaps that’s true taking the world as it is, but my hope is that exposing various layers of climate hysteria and craziness is one way to change the world. The whole carbon credit enterprise enables extraction of still greater rents by climate change opportunists, to say nothing of human rights abuses taking place under the guise of these credits.
Like carbon offsets, green bonds promote fictitious virtue, They are another way in which green profiteers extract rents from well-meaning savers and investors, some of whom are unaware that ESG objectives are undermining their returns. Even if investors prefer to sacrifice returns in the pursuit of green goals, the initiatives thus funded often have no environmental merit, particularly when it comes to reducing carbon emissions. Despite the efforts of these bonds issuers to convince us of their green bona fides, their “commitments” to green results are usually flimsy.
Materials recycling has been practiced for thousands of years, but typically only when it has made economic sense to do so. Thomas J. Bruno mentions several cases in which recycled inputs have been heavily relied upon, not because of mandates, but because of demand for reuse or as inputs to various kinds of production. For example, the “rag trade” provided an important input to “new” clothing till about 1900, and the trade still exists today. Here’s Bruno on some other prominent examples:
“Steel is highly recycled already, with structural steel being 93% recycled. Currently, 97% of discarded automotive steel is used in new cars and other products. The market position for aluminum is also good; 75% of all aluminum ever produced is still in use today.”
Bruno’s key point is that recycling anything is a process that uses resources. It involves fixed costs of plant and variable costs for other inputs like water, energy, various chemicals, and labor. Thus, recycling makes economic sense and is efficient only when the private demand for recycled end-products justifies the costs of processing the used materials. Otherwise, on balance recycling is a waste of scarce resources.
Yet recycling enthusiasts and too many policymakers proceed under the misapprehension that recycling anything always makes sense! This is blind recycling! They approach the question with a certain religious fervor, rather than sharp pencils and the minds to wield them effectively. The resource costs are borne by local taxpayers, and they are not insignificant. These include the cost of additional facilities, running multiple trucks, and further sorting. If industrial buyers of these materials fail in their assessment of demand for goods with recycled content, then they bear the cost of any additional transport, processing, and disposal. Recycling shouldn’t salve the guilt that anyone associates with producing waste when, as is so often the case, nobody wants that shit! It ends up in the landfill and the effort to reuse ends up as waste as well. But still, the green public veneer of recycling programs remains in place.
Plastics recycling has proven to be perhaps the greatest disappointment to recycling enthusiasts. According to Bruno:
“Mechanical recycling involves grinding and remelting the plastic into a stream suitable for molding, but only a few types (out of thousands) of plastics can be so reprocessed. … Chemically recycling waste plastics has been an unmitigated disaster, resulting in product streams with far worse properties than virgin feedstocks.”
Those difficulties might be surmounted with improved technology or novel uses for plastic waste. Read this for an interesting discussion of using plastic in roads in place of bitumen for binding asphalt, or as modular panels in forming road base, but there is a long way to go before these are viable and economic alternatives.
Regulating products to require recycled content is just as harmful an intrusion as mandates on consumers and businesses to recycle used materials having little or no value. Predictably, it leads to degradations in quality and/or higher processing costs, with the ultimate burden shared by producers and users of end products. If it made economic sense, producers would already use more recycled inputs, but that is often out of the question. Mandates only bring more harm.
Despite constant handwringing in the media and among environmentalists, landfill capacity in the U.S. is adequate. Landfill space is priced based on scarcity, like any other resource. More landfill space will be brought on-line when market prices signal its profitability, despite the power of NIMBY-ism even in desolate lands. That usually can be overcome by compensatory arrangements. Landfills are far better managed and sealed today than in the past. Meanwhile, solid waste compression and techniques that speed the process of decomposition are stretching the capacity of existing landfills.
Once again, this is all a matter of economics. The value of avoiding the use of landfills via recycling is often just not there. Uneconomic recycling is simply a waste of scarce resources.
Investments in “green energy” create jobs, just like any other form of investment in physical assets. We’re told, however, that the transition to renewable energy sources will create a veritable jobs bonanza! Apparently, this is believed to be a great selling point for everyone to get behind. Sure, promoting job creation is always popular with politicians, and it is very popular with private actors seeking to win public funding of one kind or another.
The heavy emphasis on jobs creation brings to mind an old Milton Friedman story about a visit to China during which dignitaries brought him to a construction site, no doubt thinking he’d be impressed with their progressive investments in infrastructure. At the site, Friedman noticed workers digging a large trench or arroyo with shovels. When he asked why bulldozers or backhoes weren’t used, he was told that the jobs were too valuable. His response was something like, “Then have them use spoons!” The lesson, of course, is that merely creating jobs is not a prescription for building wealth and prosperity. But there is more at stake here than the low productivity of construction workers who lack the best tools.
There are some bad rationales for heavy investment in renewable energy sources, and I’ve addressed those at length previously. The appeal to job creation, however, is awful on simple economic grounds. It emphasizes a thing that is easily counted while ignoring massive costs that are generally untallied.
In the U.S. we have a huge base of productive capital that meets our energy needs, the bulk of which is built to utilize fossil fuels. That plant constitutes wealth to society, and not just to those with an ownership interest. Dispatchable power is available to the public at a rate below that at which they value the power. That ability to deliver consumer surplus on demand is a major aspect qualifying power capacity as societal wealth. The push for renewables, if wholly successful, would make the existing base of generating capacity redundant. There is no doubt that the ultimate goal of renewable energy advocates is to destroy existing capacity reliant on fossil fuels. They simply have not come to grips with the reality that it meets energy needs far more efficiently than intermittent renewables like wind and solar power. In spirit, the effort bears a strong similarity to destroying bulldozers to replace them with shovels, or spoons!
Recently, Michael Munger discussed the mistaken notion that renewable investments are justified based on job creation. He noted that with a coincident dismantling of the existing base of power generation, it amounts to exactly what Frederic Bastiat called thebroken window fallacy, which insists that breaking windows is a great way to keep glaziers fully employed. There are many examples and variations on this idea, including so-called “planned obsolescence”.
Bastiat poked fun at an elite French government official who had marveled at the economic gains reaped in England with the rebuilding of London following the “Great Fire” of 1666. Bastiat engaged in some satire by suggesting that France could greatly benefit from burning Paris to the ground. But his point was serious: we often hear that reconstruction provides a silver lining for workers following hurricanes or other disasters. Fair enough: rebuild we must. The Keynesians among us would say it works out well for workers who are otherwise unemployed. Disasters destroy wealth, however, and often lives, not to mention opportunities for incremental wealth creation that are lost forever. The reconstruction jobs are not “good news”!
Unfortunately, people get carried away with broken windows arguments, using them to justify their own pet projects. The addition of new competing products and technologies is unquestionably healthy, but not when one side enlists the state as a partner in destroying viable incumbents and existing public or private wealth. For that matter, the state and its allies seem intent on destroying invested physical capital even before it’s services can come on line… if it’s viewed as the “wrong” kind of capital.
The costs of a transition to renewables is massive. The “big ask” for green energy involves not just taxpayer support for the build and usage, with all the inefficiencies endemic to taxation and market interventions. So-called green energy also entails huge environmental costs, and it calls for the wholesale destruction of an embedded industry. That means decommissioning invested assets having many years of useful life. And that goes for physical plant all the way from the wellhead to final use, including the destruction of stoves, cars, and other machines too numerous to mention. Those machines, by the way, still account for roughly 80% of our power use.
I leave you with part of Munger’s closing:
“Once you are duped into believing destruction is productive, almost everything that a rational public policy would label as a cost becomes, by some judo move of seraphic intuition, a benefit. … The problem is that jobs are not wealth. Wealth is access to the goods, products, and services that make our lives better. It is true that ‘studies show’ that wiping out all our productive wealth based on fossil fuels … would create jobs. Those ‘studies’ are among the best arguments against doing anything of the sort.”
Despite evidence to the contrary, there’s one thing climate change alarmists seem to consider a clincher. Well… their stylized account has the seas absorbing heat from our warming atmosphere as human activity forces carbon emissions into the air. That notion seems to be reinforced, at least in the popular imagination, by the fact that the sea is a “carbon sink”, but that is a matter of carbon sequestration and not a mechanism of ocean warming. While ocean temperatures have warmed slightly over the past few decades, it is almost entirely coincidental, rather than a result of slightly warmer air temperatures.
Heat and the Hydrosphere
There is no doubt that the oceans store heat very efficiently, but that heat comes primarily from solar radiation and geothermal sources underseas. In fact, water stores heat far more efficiently than the atmosphere. According to Paul Homewood, a given cross section of sea water to a depth of just 2.6 meters is capable of holding as much heat as a column of air of the same width extending from the ocean surface to the outermost layers of the atmosphere! (See here for an earlier reference.) However, that does not imply that the oceans are very effective at drawing heat from warmer air or particularlycarbon back-radiation. Both the air and water draw heat from solar radiation, and how much in any given location depends on the Sun’s angle in the sky.
A solid guide is that air temperatures are heavily influenced by water temperatures, but not as much vice versa. When temperatures in the upper layers of the ocean rise from natural forces, including reduced upward circulation from greater depths, evaporation causes this heat to radiate into the atmosphere along with evaporation of water vapor. Homewood notes that El Niño patterns make the influence of the Pacific Ocean waters on climate pretty obvious. The impact of the Gulf Stream on European climates is also instructive.
The Indian Ocean accounted for about half of the sea warming that occurred within the globe’s top 700 meters of waters over the years 2000 – 2019, though the Indian Ocean represents only about 20% of the world’s sea surface. The authors of that research found that the warming was not caused by trends in surface forcing of any kind, including warmer air temperatures. They said the ocean warming:
“… has been driven by significant changes in oceanic fluxes and not by surface forcing. … the ocean has been driving a rapid increase in Indian Ocean heat content.”
This was consistent with an earlier study of global sea temperatures covering the period 1984 – 2006 that found:
“… diminished ocean cooling due to vertical ocean processes … A conclusion is that natural variability, rather than long-term climate change, dominates the SST [sea surface temperature] and heat flux changes over this 23-yr period.”
It’s a Water World
Heat released by the oceans tends to dominate variations in global temperatures. A 2018 study found that evaporative heat transfer to the atmosphere from the oceans was closely associated with variations in air temperatures:
“When the atmosphere gets extra warm it receives more heat from the ocean, when it is extra cool it receives less heat from the ocean, making it clear that the ocean is the driving force behind these variations. …
The changes in solar radiation received at the Earth’s surface are clearly a trigger for these variations in global mean temperature, but the mechanisms by which these changes occur are a bit more complex and depend on the time-scale of the changes.”
Measurement
Willis Eschenbach reviewed a prominent study of ocean temperature changes and noted that the authors’ estimate of total warming of the oceans was quite small:
“… over the last sixty years, the ocean has warmed a little over a tenth of one measly degree … now you can understand why they put it in zettajoules—it’s far more alarming that way.”
Eschenbach goes on to discuss the massive uncertainty underlying measurements of ocean temperatures, particularly below a depth of 2,000 meters, but even well above that depth given the extremely wide spacing of so-called ARGO floats. However, the relative stability of the point estimates over 60 years is noteworthy, not to mention the “cold water” doused on alarmist claims about ocean overheating.
Sun Engine
Ocean warmth begins with energy from the Sun and from the deep interior of the Earth. The force of solar energy is greatest in the tropics, where sunlight is perpendicular to the surface of the Earth and is least dispersed by the thickness of the atmosphere. The sun’s radiative force is smallest in the polar regions, where the angle of its light is acute. As Anthony Watts says:
“All elements of Earth’s weather, storm fronts, hurricanes, the jet stream, and even ocean currents, are driven to redistribute energy from the tropics to the poles.”
Both land and sea absorb heat from the Sun and from volcanic activity, though the heat is moderated by the sea. That moderation is especially impactful in the Southern Hemisphere, which has far less land area, greater exposure of sea surface to the Sun, and about half of the average ocean temperature variation experienced in the North.
Ultimately, the importance of natural sunlight on air and sea temperatures can’t be overemphasized. Henrik Svensmark and some co-authors have estimated that a cosmic ray flux of 15% from a coronal mass ejection leads to a reduction in cloud cover within roughly 9 – 12 days. The ultimate increase in the Earth’s “energy budget” over about a week’s time is about the same size as a doubling of CO2, which certainly puts things in perspective. However, the oceans, and hence cloud cover, moderate the impact of the Sun, with or without the presence of additional greenhouse gases forced by human activity.
Vapors
The importance of evaporation from bodies of water also deserves great emphasis. No one doubts the massive influence of greenhouse gases (GHGs) on the climate. Water vapor accountsfor about 90% of GHGs, and it originates predominantly from oceans. Meanwhile, carbon dioxide accounts for less than 4% of GHGs, and it appears that only a small part is from anthropogenic sources (and see here and below).
The impact of changing levels of water vapor dominates GHG levels. They are also a critical input to cloud formation, a phenomenon that climate models are generally ill-equipped to explain. Clouds reflect solar radiation back into space, reducing the Sun’s net contribution to the Earth’s energy budget. On the other hand, clouds can trap heat in the lower layers of the atmosphere. The globe has an average of 60 – 70% cloud cover, and most of that is over the oceans. Increased cloud cover generally leads to declines in temperature.
A 2015 study identified a process through which the sea surface has an unexpectedly large impact on climate. This was from the formation of isoprene, a film on the ocean surface, which leads to more cloud formation. In addition to biological sources, isoprene was found to originate, surprisingly, from the effect of sunlight.
The Big Sink
Man-made emissions of CO2 constitute only about 5% of naturally discharged CO2, which is roughly matched by natural removal. CO2 is absorbed, dissolved, or transformed in a variety of ways on both land and sea, but the oceans collectively represent the world’s largest carbon sink. They hold about 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. Carbon is stored in sea water at great depths, and it enhances undersea vegetation just as it does on land. It is sequestered in a variety of sea organisms as calcium carbonate and is locked in sediments as well. A longstanding question is whether there is some limit on the capacity of the oceans and other sinks to store carbon, but apparently the uptake over time has remained roughly constant at just under 50% of all natural and man-made CO2 emissions (also see here). So far, we don’t appear to be approaching any sort of “saturation point”.
One claim about the rising carbon stored undersea is that it will drive down the oceans’ pH levels. In other words, it will lead to “ocean acidification” and harm a variety of marine life. Rud István has ridiculed that term (quite rightly) because slightly less alkaline sea water does not make it “acidic”. More substantively, he notes the huge natural variations in ocean pH levels across different marine environments, the exaggeration inherent in some estimates of pH changes that do not account for physical buffering, and the fact that the impact on many organisms is inconsistent with the presumed harms of reduced pH. In fact, errors in some of the research pointing to those harms has been acknowledged. In addition, the much feared “coral crisis” seems to have been a myth.
Conclusion
The upper layers of the oceans have warmed somewhat over the past 60 years, but the warming had natural causes. Heat transfer from the atmosphere to the hydrosphere is relatively minor compared to the absorption of heat by oceans via solar forcings. It is also minor compared to the transfer of temperature from oceans to surface air. As Jim Steele has explained it:
“Greenhouse longwave energy penetrates only a few microns into the ocean surface and even less into most soils, but the sun’s shortwave energy passes much more deeply into the ocean.”
It’s reasonable to concede that warmer air temperatures via man-made GHGs might be a minor reinforcement to natural sources of ocean warming, or it might slightly moderate ocean cooling. However, measuring that contribution would be difficult against the massive background of natural forcings on ocean temperatures.
Oceans are dominant in terms of heat storage from natural forcings and in terms of carbon sequestration. In fact, the oceans have thoroughly outperformed alarmist projections as a carbon sink. Dire prognostications of the effect of carbon dioxide on marine life have been drastically over-emphasized as well.
A copy of a post from last week appears below. This was necessary because two of the sites to which I cross-post required a revised link. I don’t know why, but they did.
A few weeks ago I argued that raising living standards and eliminating poverty are human imperatives, and therefore growth is an imperative. Growth is a natural process for a free and creative people, and the alternative to growth is not zero growth. The coercion necessary to “achieve” a static economic environment would invariably lead to decline. It would be impossible to maintain average living standards while attempting a coerced leveling of those standards.
People have a notion, however, that it’s impossible to sustain growth due to the planet’s finite base of resources. If that is the case, we have available a mechanism to warn us as the time of hard limits approaches, which I’ll discuss below. So far, that signal hasn’t been activated. Moreover, the claim that growth is unsustainable can be challenged on several levels, which I’ll also address.
Effective Resources
First, a word about what I mean by the “accretion of resources”. The phrase refers to growth in the total effectiveness or productive potential of known resources given the rate of discovery and improvements in extraction and production technologies. Of course, if these discoveries and efficiencies are exceeded by current use, then there is no accretion, but depletion.
So let’s say we have a particular known stock of a resource we can readily draw on, so many pounds of resource X. In addition, we might know of the existence of another equally large quantity that can’t be readily drawn upon. Those are additional known (or proved) but undeveloped reserves. They might be difficult to exploit except at high cost, but we know they exist. We’d want to get on with the business of developing those reserves for extraction if they were needed any time soon, and we might want to begin prospecting for new reserves as well. As we’ve learned over the years. discoveries of previously unknown reserves of resources can be quite large. Prospectors are willing to bet that more resources exist, and they’ll undertake the risks of exploration if the potential rewards are adequate.
All of those concepts are straightforward. However, suppose we discover ways in which resource X can be used more efficiently, making things stronger or run longer or harder with less X. If we double the efficiency with which X is used, we have doubled the effective known reserves of X and, at least theoretically, unknown reserves as well. We’d have witnessed a doubling in the years that resource X can last. This is a form of resource accretion. Improvements in extraction or purification methods are also examples. Technological leaps like this, not to mention untold small increments in the efficiency of practices, have made economic growth possible in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Our effective resources seem to keep expanding. Accretion has occurred even with respect to resources like land as the world urbanized and the efficiency of farming advanced many-fold.
Growth In Real Time
Perceptions of growth are sometimes shaped by graphic depictions that some parties find alarming, so it might be helpful to take a quick look at some growth curves. First is an oldie-but-goodie chart showing GDP per capita taken from “Statistics on World Population, GDP, and Per Capital GDP, 1- 2008 AD” by Angus Maddison of the IMF:
This shows the explosion in the value of production that occurred during and after the industrial revolution, in contrast to very slow progress before that. The point I want to make here is how dramatic growth can look on a broad but visually compressed time scale. OMG! Look what we’ve done! How can we go on like this??? Often, the crux of the limits to growth argument is that such growth seems impossible assuming that we face fixed resource limits.
In fact, we experience growth in a very “local” way with respect to the passage of time. The two charts below illustrate a difference in perspectives using a hypothetically constant annual growth rate of 2.5%. The first chart shows 200 periods of growth, while the second expands only the last 20 periods of that time frame.
There is a great difference in the way the two vertical axes are scaled, which is important, but the second chart conveys that a respectable growth rate doesn’t really feel extreme when you’re in the middle of it, or, that is, in real time. It can look very extreme at the end of a long interval, depending on how severely the time axis is compressed. That’s not to discount the reality of much larger levels of activity (the vertical axes) and demands for resources as time goes on. However, those levels, and growth from those levels, is not at all alarming if our ability to achieve them has kept pace. So how can we know when we’re approaching a point at which resource limits will make it impossible to achieve those levels of activity? Market prices are the key signals, and they are the key to resource accretion.
Market Signals Light the Way
The market price is the best gauge of the scarcity of a resource. When resources become especially scarce, higher prices tell us so. That leads to conservation, which obviously extends the availability of those resources. Prices also function as an incentive for sellers to exploit new or harder-to-reach stores of a resource. That kind of resource accretion is one of the lessens the oil market has taught us again and again: oil exploration and known reserves tend to expand as the price rises, such that the prospect of oil depletion moves out to ever more distant horizons. There are certain minerals, elements, or isotopes (tritium?) that seem to be quite rare on Earth, but our ability to find them or extract them often improves with time. Space mining, which would vastly reduce the scarcity of resources like platinum, iron, nickel, cobalt, and many others, may become a reality in the near future. Interestingly, much of that activity could be in private hands. Space mining would lead to resource accretion on a whole new scale, and if we aspire to be a “grabby” civilization, it is a logical next step. So let’s go grab an asteroid!
When a price spikes due to greater scarcity, opportunities for substitution, exploration, and new efficiencies arise because the higher price justifies the cost of exploiting them. In addition to more difficult or costly extraction, a higher price encourages the use of close and even novel substitutes that may involve new technologies. In turn, that substitution reduces the relative scarcity of the original resource in question. And finally, back to conservation, users respond to price increases by finding their own innovative efficiencies in how a resource is utilized. The price response to scarcity is a channel through which much technological progress is encouraged.
While our earth-bound resources or even our star-system’s resources are finite, their effective quantity is highly flexible. Their potential at any time depends on our stage of discovery and the state of technology. Human ingenuity is a marvel at stretching the effective quantity of resources, and the greatest gains always occur when market forces are unleashed.
Thus, we see that prices, markets, and capitalism itself enable rational and sustainable responses to scarcity. Yet too often we hear claims that capitalism must be destroyed in order to save humanity. In fact, capitalism itself is the one system of social organization capable of achieving resource accretion, sustained growth, and lifting mankind from poverty. In fact, growth might well be an insurmountable problem without the dynamic energies of capitalism. Government planners are incapable of gathering and processing the vast information that markets process each and every day. Planners must substitute their own weak judgements, which prove flawed again and again.
Scarcity of the Commons
The environmental Left is quick to marshal a different kind of limits-to-growth argument. This one has to do with the scarcity of non-priced common resources and their overuse in production. For example, if a certain activity degrades the environment and those costs are not internalized by producers, they will tend to produce “too much”, leading to some degree of deterioration in human living conditions or the natural quality of the environment. In that case, we might not notice the limits to growth bearing down on us before corrective action is taken. Or so goes the theory that accumulating externalities lead to catastrophe. This is another front along which the limits to growth are asserted, particularly by climate alarmists and the environmental Left. Most prominently today, they contend that increases in atmospheric carbon concentration will lead to an unlivable warming of Earth’s climate.
Sense and Nonsense
The most glaring shortcoming of climate change advocacy is that the trends it decries are exaggerated. I’ve discussed the absurdly brief climate record cited by alarmists in several past posts (many of which appear here). We can start with the contention that carbon emissions are “poison”. In fact, carbon is life nourishing, as we’ve witnessed with the “greening” of the planet at current carbon concentrations of 4 parts per 10,000 of atmospheric gas. Furthermore, a longer historical temperature record using paleoclimate data shows that we are well within the range of past variation, even with the huge distortions to the record caused by urban heat islands and questionable downward adjustments to records of five to 15 decades ago.
The alarmist perspective is also inflamed by simplistic models of carbon forcing that ignore the impact of solar radiation, volcanic activity, and the behavior of aerosols in the atmosphere. Those models have consistently over-predicted temperature trends for decades. Equally troubling is that these models promote the fiction that mankind can control global temperatures by a little fiddling with a “carbon dial”, as if such fiddling could be accomplished without a massive centralization of political and economic power. The panicked narratives related to sea level increases and alleged increases in violent weather are equally flawed.
Growth Can Cure It
Another compelling response to climate arguments against growth is that technological advances have already enabled us to produce power without carbon emissions. Unfortunately, as a matter of public policy (regulation and bad choices by government industrial planners), we have increasingly failed to avail ourselves of these opportunities, instead choosing extremely wasteful methods of generating power. These are the windmill and solar “renewables”, which are resource-intensive, intermittent, low utilization, non-dispatchable, lacking storage for excess generation, intensive in land use (reversing prior accretions), and environmentally disastrous in fabrication, operation, and at disposal. Nuclear power is a far superior technology, especially with the advent of small, modular reactors and potential breakthroughs in fusion energy. These might help to rescue us from the spectacle of bone-headed industrial planning and greedy, renewable-energy rent seekers, but regulators have done seemingly all they can to prevent nuclear facilities from being built.
Just as human ingenuity is capable of expanding the exploitable stock of tradable, priced resources, it is also capable of inventing non-carbon power technologies that are more efficient and less environmentally destructive than ground-based solar and wind. Collection of non-intermittent solar energy in space arrays with wireless transmission to Earth is another promising alternative, as is geothermal energy. And carbon capture technologies show promise for neutralizing emissions or perhaps even reversing carbon concentrations one day, if that is deemed necessary. Much of this development work is in private hands, but barring drastic reductions in scale, the bulk of these efforts are (or will be) dependent on government funding.
It’s worth acknowledging here that resource accretion has a safety component in an expected value sense. Sometimes those risks can be internalized if risk reduction is of value to buyers. But the costs of “reasonable” risk mitigation cannot always be internalized without government action. For example, deflecting asteroid threats to the planet might be done best by private actors, but paying for that activity is a worthy application of public finance. The ability to deflect incoming asteroids is a noteworthy example of resource accretion via risk reduction.
Somehow, governments must be convinced to begin dedicating a larger share of the vast sums they spend on misguided climate interventions (including renewable technologies) to more sensible innovations. We might then benefit from accelerated breakthroughs that would settle not only our energy future, but a great deal of political strife as well. Like the market response to changes in scarcity, creative entrepreneurs will always step forward to compete for government funding. But if you pay them for crap, you’ll get a lot of crap!
Growth Once More
One day we might learn we are reaching the top of an s-curve. We aren’t there yet, if our ongoing accretion of resources is any guide, and there are new frontiers of space and technology to explore. The primary obstacles we face are not natural, but political and regulatory.
One area neglected above is the accretion of human capital. Certainly education is another way to expand our boundaries. However, population growth (and therefore labor force growth) tends to slow as living standards rise, and many argue that demographics have already become a drag on growth. A shrinking and aging population places a tremendous burden on young workers, making other sources of growth and productivity all the more critical. But new physical capital, resource development (including education), and new technologies can all continue to drive productivity and growth.
Growth depends on resource accretion, and there are many ways in which our effective stock of resources can be expanded. That includes enhancements in quantities, efficiencies, and safety. Private investment should be the primary avenue through which these are accomplished, which in turn requires flows of saving. Those flows are much more difficult to conjure without growth, so we have a chicken and egg cross-dependency. But chickens will lay eggs, just as saving and all kinds of investment will take place given the right incentives. Those would promote expansion in our effective stock of resources, improved adaptation to change, and enhanced well being. In the end, the rationale is simple: ending poverty requires growth.
Addendum: I just noticed that Don Boudreaux posted (and beautifully elaborated upon) this great Julian Simon quote:
“The quantity of a natural resource that might be available to us – and even more important the quantity of the services that can eventually be rendered to us by that natural resource – can never be known even in principle, just as the number of points in a one-inch line can never be counted even in principle.”
A few weeks ago I argued that raising living standards and eliminating poverty are human imperatives, and therefore growth is an imperative. Growth is a natural process for a free and creative people, and the alternative to growth is not zero growth. The coercion necessary to “achieve” a static economic environment would invariably lead to decline. It would be impossible to maintain average living standards while attempting a coerced leveling of those standards.
People have a notion, however, that it’s impossible to sustain growth due to the planet’s finite base of resources. If that is the case, we have available a mechanism to warn us as the time of hard limits approaches, which I’ll discuss below. So far, that signal hasn’t been activated. Moreover, the claim that growth is unsustainable can be challenged on several levels, which I’ll also address.
Effective Resources
First, a word about what I mean by the “accretion of resources”. The phrase refers to growth in the total effectiveness or productive potential of known resources given the rate of discovery and improvements in extraction and production technologies. Of course, if these discoveries and efficiencies are exceeded by current use, then there is no accretion, but depletion.
So let’s say we have a particular known stock of a resource we can readily draw on, so many pounds of resource X. In addition, we might know of the existence of another equally large quantity that can’t be readily drawn upon. Those are additional known (or proved) but undeveloped reserves. They might be difficult to exploit except at high cost, but we know they exist. We’d want to get on with the business of developing those reserves for extraction if they were needed any time soon, and we might want to begin prospecting for new reserves as well. As we’ve learned over the years. discoveries of previously unknown reserves of resources can be quite large. Prospectors are willing to bet that more resources exist, and they’ll undertake the risks of exploration if the potential rewards are adequate.
All of those concepts are straightforward. However, suppose we discover ways in which resource X can be used more efficiently, making things stronger or run longer or harder with less X. If we double the efficiency with which X is used, we have doubled the effective known reserves of X and, at least theoretically, unknown reserves as well. We’d have witnessed a doubling in the years that resource X can last. This is a form of resource accretion. Improvements in extraction or purification methods are also examples. Technological leaps like this, not to mention untold small increments in the efficiency of practices, have made economic growth possible in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Our effective resources seem to keep expanding. Accretion has occurred even with respect to resources like land as the world urbanized and the efficiency of farming advanced many-fold.
Growth In Real Time
Perceptions of growth are sometimes shaped by graphic depictions that some parties find alarming, so it might be helpful to take a quick look at some growth curves. First is an oldie-but-goodie chart showing GDP per capita taken from “Statistics on World Population, GDP, and Per Capital GDP, 1- 2008 AD” by Angus Maddison of the IMF:
This shows the explosion in the value of production that occurred during and after the industrial revolution, in contrast to very slow progress before that. The point I want to make here is how dramatic growth can look on a broad but visually compressed time scale. OMG! Look what we’ve done! How can we go on like this??? Often, the crux of the limits to growth argument is that such growth seems impossible assuming that we face fixed resource limits.
In fact, we experience growth in a very “local” way with respect to the passage of time. The two charts below illustrate a difference in perspectives using a hypothetically constant annual growth rate of 2.5%. The first chart shows 200 periods of growth, while the second expands only the last 20 periods of that time frame.
There is a great difference in the way the two vertical axes are scaled, which is important, but the second chart conveys that a respectable growth rate doesn’t really feel extreme when you’re in the middle of it, or, that is, in real time. It can look very extreme at the end of a long interval, depending on how severely the time axis is compressed. That’s not to discount the reality of much larger levels of activity (the vertical axes) and demands for resources as time goes on. However, those levels, and growth from those levels, is not at all alarming if our ability to achieve them has kept pace. So how can we know when we’re approaching a point at which resource limits will make it impossible to achieve those levels of activity? Market prices are the key signals, and they are the key to resource accretion.
Market Signals Light the Way
The market price is the best gauge of the scarcity of a resource. When resources become especially scarce, higher prices tell us so. That leads to conservation, which obviously extends the availability of those resources. Prices also function as an incentive for sellers to exploit new or harder-to-reach stores of a resource. That kind of resource accretion is one of the lessens the oil market has taught us again and again: oil exploration and known reserves tend to expand as the price rises, such that the prospect of oil depletion moves out to ever more distant horizons. There are certain minerals, elements, or isotopes (tritium?) that seem to be quite rare on Earth, but our ability to find them or extract them often improves with time. Space mining, which would vastly reduce the scarcity of resources like platinum, iron, nickel, cobalt, and many others, may become a reality in the near future. Interestingly, much of that activity could be in private hands. Space mining would lead to resource accretion on a whole new scale, and if we aspire to be a “grabby” civilization, it is a logical next step. So let’s go grab an asteroid!
When a price spikes due to greater scarcity, opportunities for substitution, exploration, and new efficiencies arise because the higher price justifies the cost of exploiting them. In addition to more difficult or costly extraction, a higher price encourages the use of close and even novel substitutes that may involve new technologies. In turn, that substitution reduces the relative scarcity of the original resource in question. And finally, back to conservation, users respond to price increases by finding their own innovative efficiencies in how a resource is utilized. The price response to scarcity is a channel through which much technological progress is encouraged.
While our earth-bound resources or even our star-system’s resources are finite, their effective quantity is highly flexible. Their potential at any time depends on our stage of discovery and the state of technology. Human ingenuity is a marvel at stretching the effective quantity of resources, and the greatest gains always occur when market forces are unleashed.
Thus, we see that prices, markets, and capitalism itself enable rational and sustainable responses to scarcity. Yet too often we hear claims that capitalism must be destroyed in order to save humanity. In fact, capitalism itself is the one system of social organization capable of achieving resource accretion, sustained growth, and lifting mankind from poverty. In fact, growth might well be an insurmountable problem without the dynamic energies of capitalism. Government planners are incapable of gathering and processing the vast information that markets process each and every day. Planners must substitute their own weak judgements, which prove flawed again and again.
Scarcity of the Commons
The environmental Left is quick to marshal a different kind of limits-to-growth argument. This one has to do with the scarcity of non-priced common resources and their overuse in production. For example, if a certain activity degrades the environment and those costs are not internalized by producers, they will tend to produce “too much”, leading to some degree of deterioration in human living conditions or the natural quality of the environment. In that case, we might not notice the limits to growth bearing down on us before corrective action is taken. Or so goes the theory that accumulating externalities lead to catastrophe. This is another front along which the limits to growth are asserted, particularly by climate alarmists and the environmental Left. Most prominently today, they contend that increases in atmospheric carbon concentration will lead to an unlivable warming of Earth’s climate.
Sense and Nonsense
The most glaring shortcoming of climate change advocacy is that the trends it decries are exaggerated. I’ve discussed the absurdly brief climate record cited by alarmists in several past posts (many of which appear here). We can start with the contention that carbon emissions are “poison”. In fact, carbon is life nourishing, as we’ve witnessed with the “greening” of the planet at current carbon concentrations of 4 parts per 10,000 of atmospheric gas. Furthermore, a longer historical temperature record using paleoclimate data shows that we are well within the range of past variation, even with the huge distortions to the record caused by urban heat islands and questionable downward adjustments to records of five to 15 decades ago.
The alarmist perspective is also inflamed by simplistic models of carbon forcing that ignore the impact of solar radiation, volcanic activity, and the behavior of aerosols in the atmosphere. Those models have consistently over-predicted temperature trends for decades. Equally troubling is that these models promote the fiction that mankind can control global temperatures by a little fiddling with a “carbon dial”, as if such fiddling could be accomplished without a massive centralization of political and economic power. The panicked narratives related to sea level increases and alleged increases in violent weather are equally flawed.
Growth Can Cure It
Another compelling response to climate arguments against growth is that technological advances have already enabled us to produce power without carbon emissions. Unfortunately, as a matter of public policy (regulation and bad choices by government industrial planners), we have increasingly failed to avail ourselves of these opportunities, instead choosing extremely wasteful methods of generating power. These are the windmill and solar “renewables”, which are resource-intensive, intermittent, low utilization, non-dispatchable, lacking storage for excess generation, intensive in land use (reversing prior accretions), and environmentally disastrous in fabrication, operation, and at disposal. Nuclear power is a far superior technology, especially with the advent of small, modular reactors and potential breakthroughs in fusion energy. These might help to rescue us from the spectacle of bone-headed industrial planning and greedy, renewable-energy rent seekers, but regulators have done seemingly all they can to prevent nuclear facilities from being built.
Just as human ingenuity is capable of expanding the exploitable stock of tradable, priced resources, it is also capable of inventing non-carbon power technologies that are more efficient and less environmentally destructive than ground-based solar and wind. Collection of non-intermittent solar energy in space arrays with wireless transmission to Earth is another promising alternative, as is geothermal energy. And carbon capture technologies show promise for neutralizing emissions or perhaps even reversing carbon concentrations one day, if that is deemed necessary. Much of this development work is in private hands, but barring drastic reductions in scale, the bulk of these efforts are (or will be) dependent on government funding.
It’s worth acknowledging here that resource accretion has a safety component in an expected value sense. Sometimes those risks can be internalized if risk reduction is of value to buyers. But the costs of “reasonable” risk mitigation cannot always be internalized without government action. For example, deflecting asteroid threats to the planet might be done best by private actors, but paying for that activity is a worthy application of public finance. The ability to deflect incoming asteroids is a noteworthy example of resource accretion via risk reduction.
Somehow, governments must be convinced to begin dedicating a larger share of the vast sums they spend on misguided climate interventions (including renewable technologies) to more sensible innovations. We might then benefit from accelerated breakthroughs that would settle not only our energy future, but a great deal of political strife as well. Like the market response to changes in scarcity, creative entrepreneurs will always step forward to compete for government funding. But if you pay them for crap, you’ll get a lot of crap!
Growth Once More
One day we might learn we are reaching the top of an s-curve. We aren’t there yet, if our ongoing accretion of resources is any guide, and there are new frontiers of space and technology to explore. The primary obstacles we face are not natural, but political and regulatory.
One area neglected above is the accretion of human capital. Certainly education is another way to expand our boundaries. However, population growth (and therefore labor force growth) tends to slow as living standards rise, and many argue that demographics have already become a drag on growth. A shrinking and aging population places a tremendous burden on young workers, making other sources of growth and productivity all the more critical. But new physical capital, resource development (including education), and new technologies can all continue to drive productivity and growth.
Growth depends on resource accretion, and there are many ways in which our effective stock of resources can be expanded. That includes enhancements in quantities, efficiencies, and safety. Private investment should be the primary avenue through which these are accomplished, which in turn requires flows of saving. Those flows are much more difficult to conjure without growth, so we have a chicken and egg cross-dependency. But chickens will lay eggs, just as saving and all kinds of investment will take place given the right incentives. Those would promote expansion in our effective stock of resources, improved adaptation to change, and enhanced well being. In the end, the rationale is simple: ending poverty requires growth.
Addendum: I just noticed that Don Boudreaux posted (and beautifully elaborated upon) this great Julian Simon quote:
“The quantity of a natural resource that might be available to us – and even more important the quantity of the services that can eventually be rendered to us by that natural resource – can never be known even in principle, just as the number of points in a one-inch line can never be counted even in principle.”
In advanced civilizations the period loosely called Alexandrian is usually associated with flexible morals, perfunctory religion, populist standards and cosmopolitan tastes, feminism, exotic cults, and the rapid turnover of high and low fads---in short, a falling away (which is all that decadence means) from the strictness of traditional rules, embodied in character and inforced from within. -- Jacques Barzun
Sacred Cow Chips 