The Changing Distribution of Income

Click on graphic to enlarge. 



Mark Perry points out: "Yes, the middle class has been disappearing, but they haven’t fallen into the lower class, they’ve risen into the upper class."

Observations on the Great Gatsby Curve

In recent years, some economists have drawn attention to a correlation that has been dubbed the Great Gatsby curve.  In particular, countries that have more inequality in income also have less economic mobility.  (By the way, the curve seems misnamed: Jay Gatsby lived in a time a great inequality and managed to move from being very poor to being very rich.  But never mind that.)

My own view is that this correlation is not particularly surprising.  Let me give you an analogy to explain why.

Suppose we collected data on various chess clubs (nations).  In every club, we have data on each member's win-loss record over the year (income).  We can then measure the variance of individuals' win-loss records (inequality).  We can also measure how a person's win-loss record in one year predicts his win-loss record in the subsequent year (mobility).

Some clubs have a bunch of players with similar levels of skill at chess.  In this case, everyone would have a win-lose record that is close to each other, and a person's club ranking one year would not have a lot of predictive value for his ranking the next.  That is, we would have small inequality and substantial mobility.

Other clubs are more heterogeneous.  They have some masters and some novices.  The masters have much better records than the novices, and their better records tend to persist year to year.  That is, we would have substantial inequality and little mobility.

If we put all these clubs together in a scatterplot, we would get something close to the Great Gatsby curve.

Notice a corollary: Suppose we combined two clubs, one that with mostly masters and one with mostly novices.  The new combined club would be more heterogeneous and, therefore, would exhibit more inequality and less mobility than either of the clubs separately.

The application of this corollary to the Great Gatsby curve is that if we looked at Europe as a whole, rather than each nation separately, we would find that Europe as a whole has more inequality and less mobility than the individual countries.  That is, Germans are richer on average than Greeks, and that difference in income tends to persist from generation to generation.  When people look at the Great Gatsby curve, they omit this fact, because the nation is the unit of analysis.  But it is not obvious that the political divisions that divide people are the right ones for economic analysis.  We combine the persistently rich Connecticut with the persistently poor Mississippi, so why not combine Germany with Greece?

The bottom line for me that the Great Gatsby curve is a bit interesting, but neither particularly surprising nor suggestive of any specific conclusions or policy recommendations.

Badluck Shinawatra's Failed Global Thai Rice Empire

I suppose that Thai PM Yingluck Shinawatra has received as much grief over her first name as Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan. But oh, Yingluck, how your name has proven to be unworthy of your fate as of late! Let me explain...

Since her election, Yingluck Shinawatra has continued to court populist support from more receptive constituencies of her brother, the controversial exile Thaksin--folks in rural areas as opposed to the snooty Bangkok city slickers who have long been the most vicious Shinawatra haters. Given the need to enlist their support, what better way is there than to guarantee that the government would purchase agricultural produce at well above market prices? Thinking that they were smarter than your average global rice producer, Yingluck's advisers came up with a grand strategy whose logic went like this:

1. Thailand is the world's largest rice exporter, therefore its price-setting power is unmatched;
2. To court rural votes, the government would subsidize above-market purchases of rice;
3. Thailand would then hoard rice by not exporting it;
4. By withholding Thai rice from world markets, global prices commanded would increase significantly;
5. When a certain price level was reached, the Thai government would then be able to recoup earlier losses from buying farmers' rice at above-market prices (and even make a tidy profit).

As it turns out, Thailand vastly overestimated its influence on global prices since the slack was easily picked up by other producers. Further, India ruined Thailand's grand plans by re-entering the global market just as Thailand was hatching its plans. So, the Thai government is now sitting on a huge unrealized loss in the form of an estimated 17 million tonnes worth of rice reserves purchased at above-market cost:

The plan was simple: Thailand’s government would buy rice from local farmers at a generous price, some 50 percent above the market rates. It would hold the rice in warehouses, cutting off exports to the rest of the world. The sudden shortage from the world’s heavyweight champion of rice exports would cause a spike in global prices. Then, payday for the government as it swung open the warehouse doors and sold its stockpile to the world at a premium. Farmers win, the government wins, foreign consumers lose, but then they don’t vote in Thai elections, so what do they matter? The plan was a political no-brainer, except for one problem: Thailand’s government underestimated how quickly the market can kick back at any would-be puppeteers...

And it was Thailand’s great misfortune that exactly one week after it slashed exports, India lifted its export ban, flooding the market with 10 millions tons of rice. Rather than orchestrate a price hike, Thailand helplessly stood by as global prices sank.

All credit to a rating agency (yes, it is surprising) for noting the true cost of Thai shenanigans and calling them out. But still, the farmers have seemingly gotten used to selling at these ridiculously high prices so there's little turning back:

For a year, the government has shied away from public scrutiny of the program, but Moody’s, the credit rating agency, blew the lid off of the story last month when it warned that the program could swallow up an astonishing 8 percent of the national budget, forcing the agency to reevaluate the government’s credit rating. For a government already mired in debt, the warning shot from Moody’s “crystallized their thinking,” Dawe says.

Yingluck, whose Pheu Thai Party draws its support from the country’s rural northeast, has said the program has achieved its goal of boosting incomes for poor, rural farmers. She has now urged them to now give her administration the flexibility to modify the program. In a public address on a local television series, “Yingluck Government Meets the People,” she said the program would remain in place, and that the government would continue to purchase rice, but it may have to reduce its purchase price to make the program sustainable.  As for the Moody’s report, she has promised to rebut the findings with a government investigation into the true cost of the program.

Thai politics remain as contentious as ever, with Thaksinite "red shirts" alike sister Yingluck & company still slugging it out with royalist "yellow shirts." I shudder to think what the backlash from the opposition will be once those losses are realized given that Yingluck vows the programme will continue. I suppose Thais have gotten used to perpetual regime change by now, so what else is new?

Markets are already on alert that Thai rice dumping on world markets may occur as soon as next week in preparation for the government having to buy the upcoming harvest:

Bangkok’s rice buying policy, designed to boost farmers’ incomes, has led to a stockpile of 17m-18m tonnes. With the new crop set to be harvested in October, the Thai government needs to dispose of its existing inventory to raise money for the new purchases. 

Rice market experts are on high alert as Bangkok could issue tenders for about 350,000 tonnes of its rice as early as next week. Concepción Calpe, senior rice analyst at the Food and Agriculture Organisation in Rome, warns the effects on world prices could be serious if Thailand floods the market with its rice. “It could potentially have catastrophic consequences,” she said.

 At any rate, damage control is already underway to minimize the financial fallout--including a mooted ratings downgrade.

7/31 UPDATE: Thai authorities tried selling some of the stockpiles this week, but bidders are few since there are doubts about the quality of rice that has been stored for quite some time now:

The commerce ministry said Monday that the government's first sale from its stockpile this year is likely to move less than 100,000 tons, compared with a goal of 350,000 tons, as most offers to buy were too low. Traders said market prices are about $480 a ton, while bids for government sales are coming in at about $380 a ton because of concerns over quality.

Meet America's #2 Jetliner Company...Airbus S.A.S.

Mas oui! There's an old joke that the best car made in America is the (Ohio-made) Honda Accord. Similarly, we may soon hear that the best jetliner made in America is the (Alabama-made) Airbus A320. Following the lead of Mercedes-Benz, the multinational European concern has decided to set up shop in the land of the Crimson Tide to meet US demand for its bread-and-butter Boeing 737 competitor. The post below talks about how the Chinese have been continually frozen out of investing in the US over increasingly dubious "national security" grounds. Yes, there remains that brouhaha over it being forced out of a contract to make the US Air Force's next generation air tankers, but that was not really over "national security" but over "buy American" objections. The Europeans being Europeans, there are no such concerns with Airbus investment in the commercial sector despite its long-running WTO dispute with Boeing. Speaking of whom, unfavourable attention regarding the 787 Dreamliner's design faults may, by default, work in the European consortium's favour insofar as there are only two real players in this industry at present.

There is now an MSN contribution from Allan McArtor, chairman of Airbus Americas, about the consortium's selection of Mobile, Alabama as the site of forthcoming A320 manufacture after originally selecting it to build the shelved tankers:

It's the same with our relationships with the people of Alabama. When our team first started looking for an industrial base to manufacture a refueling tanker for the U.S. Air Force, hundreds of cities stepped forward. After an exhaustive evaluation process, Mobile emerged as the obvious choice.

Sure, it met our technical requirements. But so did others. A differentiator for Alabama was the unity and supportive purpose shown by every entity in the state supporting Mobile. City, state and federal representatives (Republicans and Democrats alike) came together with one goal: Show the Airbus team that Alabama would be its partner for the long term.

They spoke with one voice, which impressed our selection committees. And when the U.S. tanker project was lost, instead of hanging their heads and walking away, they said, "What else could we do?" It was indicative of the good relationship Airbus has with Mobile and Alabama—instead of giving up, we found another way to make it work. As a result, Alabama got an even better, larger-impact project.

Infrastructure was another key factor: The site was perfect, with an airport and ocean port, and adequate land at Brookley Aeroplex. Workforce was also vital. We were encouraged by the auto industry's success in Alabama because its manufacturing aspect is a trained skill similar to that of aircraft assembly. 

All's well and good, but an unspoken reason here regarding human capital is that foreign investors prefer investing in the American South--the Sun Belt--is because of its largely non-unionized workforce compared to the Rust Belt. I was struck how Alabama's officialdom explicitly mentions this selling point that Mercedes-Benz there has little use for unions:

Alabama's Mercedes-Benz plant, the subject of an active organizing campaign by the United Auto Workers, doesn't need a union, Gov. Robert Bentley said. The governor was at the Tuscaloosa County plant last week to participate in a sendoff for its president and chief executive, Markus Schaefer, who is taking an executive role at the automaker's headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany.
After the event, Bentley said the plant is a close-knit organization that works well together as a team."I really don't believe they have any need for unionization and an intermediary between them and management," he said in an interview in response to a reporter's question about the UAW campaign. "I don't think it's going to happen."

The governor added that Alabama's status as a right-to-work state helps him recruit new business. Bentley's comments are the most pointed public ones to date from a state official about the UAW's latest campaign at the Mercedes plant, which launched Alabama's auto industry in the 1990s. Previous organizing attempts there have failed.

Having escaped the clutches of European unions, you'd hardly think they'd be enthusiastic about setting up shop in America only to find that it too is thick with them. Hence the continuing popularity of Southern right-to-work states; keep the unionized whingers in the Midwest (and Western Europe too for that matter).

Who will the next Fed chair be?

Janet Yellen is the odds-on favorite.

Latest US China-Bashing: Hog Farm Protectionism

I am a true connoisseur of all sorts of protectionism: the more obscure and inscrutable the justifications for it, the more I savour the hypocrisy. Free trade? Get outta here! In recent years, the United States has served up some of the more ridiculous examples of what is, at heart, unvarnished racism on the part of American lawmakers. (You don't see them block European foreign investment on a regular basis, do you?) When the purchase of minor American producer Unocal by Chinese SOE CNOOC, "national security" concerns were raised. There was also the matter of 3Leaf, a minor player in the server market, being subject to Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS) harassment over interest from Huawei. Nevermind that 3Leaf was a marginal player in the server market in the same way UNOCAL was in energy, but rampant and rather irrational fears of Chinese snooping on US data were in play. After the Snowden incident, Xinhua correctly described the utter hypocrisy behind American data security concerns with the US being "the biggest villain of our age" in cyber-snooping activities.

 More recently, we have had the latest twist on American "national security" concerns regarding the Chinese. It doesn't really matter that the suitor in question isn't an SOE; I guess Yanks believe once you've seen one of them you've seen them all. I am thus wryly amused by this latest form of "hog farm protectionism" as China's Shuanghui International attempts to purchase America's Smithfield International.

A Senate committee on Wednesday criticized a major merger of U.S. and Chinese agricultural interests, saying the combination of two major pork producers could have negative impacts on U.S. food and economic security.

The hearing before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry was exploring the impact of a proposed merger between Smithfield Foods, the leading pork producer in the U.S., and Shuanghui, China’s largest pork producer.

The $7.1 billion acquisition is the largest purchase of a U.S. company by Chinese business interests. The merger sparked skepticism from committee members who were concerned about Smithfield’s ability to maintain compliance with food-safety standards expected in the U.S.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/10/196351/senate-committee-wary-of-us-china.html#.UeFeNKxjuSo#storylink=cpy

A former US trade official, Robert Herztein, added fuel to the fire by tortuously describing this "hog farm protectionism" in terms of the Chinese unleashing tainted food products on an unaware American public:

It could, of course, be a stretch to conclude that Chinese ownership of Smithfield, the world’s largest pork producer, might impair U.S. national security...Reports of egregious food adulteration in China suggest a culture where companies have little concern for safety and health standards.

While there has been an episode of a supplier providing tainted meat to Shuanghui, it has since increased its monitoring of its supply chain. (I invite Shuanghui's critics to find the smoking gun that indicates Shuanghui promoted the use of chemicals hazardous to human health instead of implying this to be the case. Moreover, Herzstein conveniently ignores that Smithfield has been scaling back use of the controversial drug ractopamine in order to meet Chinese demands to be free of this feed additive. In the last year, Smithfield has lessened ractopamine usage in half--presumably in expectation of a China deal: 

This March, China began requiring third-party verification that U.S. pork products were ractopamine-free. Russia, the sixth-largest buyer of U.S. pork, had blocked imports of U.S. meat using ractopamine weeks before...The measures highlighted a sharp contrast with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which approved ractopamine for use in commercially-raised swine in 1999 and stands by that decision, saying its safety has been corroborated four times. It is used in more than half of the U.S. hog herd, analysts estimate.

By early May [2013], Smithfield already had moved two of its plants - including Tar Heel, North Carolina, the world's largest pork-processing facility - off ractopamine. When the third plant converts on June 1, "over 50 percent of our operations will have no ractopamine as part of their feed rations," CEO Pope said.

Shuanghui also has its own rather self-serving FAQ, but nevermind: I am honestly at a loss as to why Americans always ascribe the worst to the Chinese. Given such intense scrutiny, how likely would it be that they would (a) divert fuel supplies meant for the US to China, (b) build routers to deliberately spy on American communications or (c) risk a mass poisoning of American pork consumers? It makes no sense. Not only would they lock out other Chinese firms from investing in the US for years and years, but the ferocious backlash would ensure that their days of doing business Stateside are numbered. Forced divestiture or a massive public boycott; the result would be the same.

As a more pragmatic, less ideological sort, here's my suggestion to the Yanks: Why don't you let the Chinese invest and see what happens instead of pigging out on racist protectionism all the time? I truly doubt that egregious violations of public safety on a massive scale would occur, Snowden-style. For aforementioned reasons, getting rid of "national security" transgressors would be so very easy and set an example besides.

Is the 2013 US Farm Bill "WTO Legal"? Nope

Ho hum--another US Farm Bill, another round of fat agricultural subsidies for American producers that hurt farmers in the developing world. Just as Brazil successfully sued the US for its cotton subsidies a couple of years back [DS 267], the 2013 Farm Bill under consideration does not do away with actionable subsidies in the form of price supports if crop prices drop significantly. Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) recognizes this, although it should be pointed out that his state is not a major producer of the most-contested crops--rice and peanuts:

I also have longstanding WTO concerns. The United States lost the cotton WTO case to Brazil in part because of the decoupled target price program. It simply isn’t right to force that same risk onto other commodities when we already know the potential pitfalls. The WTO stove is hot. We should not reach out to touch it again.

The domestic debate over the inclusion of food stamps aside that is still holding up the Farm Bill, the bone of contention with America's international critics remains. Sure they may have renamed the price supports, but in this case it truly is a case of old wine in new bottles:

Both bills retain a counter-cyclical price program that makes a farm payment when prices for covered crops decline below certain levels.It is renamed Adverse Market Payments or AMP in S. 954 and Price Loss Coverage or PLC in H.R. 1947. To better protect producers in a market downturn, the price guarantees (called “reference prices” in both bills) that determine payment levels are set in statute and increased relative to current parameters (called “target prices”). 

To be fair, there was some effort made last year in the Senate to remove such subsidies on all but the most sensitive agricultural products, but it all came to naught and either Senate of House versions will now retain them:

The [stillborn] 2012 Senate-passed farm bill (S. 3240) did not provide for a counter-cyclical price program, and an amendment to eliminate AMP for crops other than rice and peanuts failed during committee mark-up of S. 954. S. 954 continues current policy by making payments on 85% of historical plantings (or “base acres”), a provision designed to minimize the program’s effect on planting decisions. In contrast, the House bill pays on 85% of planted acreage to better align payments with producer risk.

All in all, the US is still living dangerously with regard to WTO-actionable subsidies. It remains a case of putting a large "KICK ME IN THE WTO" sign on yourself and hoping you avoid a swift one in the hiney.

Given how the US further disadvantages already disadvantaged farmers in the developing world while claiming it's "free trade," somebody should really make a WTO case against it soon.