The Duke Room Draw

I will give the administration the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that though they may not have taken specific issue with the dorm trade that is cited in the post, they did not want to encourage a market centered around buying and selling assigned rooms. The administration's main argument would likely center around the idea of fairness and the worry that money would become an overly coercive factor.

Is this argument valid?

Is trading in this case unfair? The author of the blog makes the case that the administration is being ridiculous, and I would tend to agree, though he is a little too abrasive and sarcastic. Why would the administration complain about fairness? The fear would probably stem from a situation where the richer students offered overly coercive sums of money to buy the rooms that they wanted, which would likely be the highest quality rooms. Those who couldn't afford to buy a room would be relegated to the left-overs. Freshman who didn't know any better may also sell their room due to the offer of money and then later regret it, another issue the administration probably feared. An interesting question arises: are there situations where trade is immoral? Though the temptation is to say yes, I would argue that in this case and in most room trades, there has been nothing immoral. Take the example that large sums of money overly-coercive and therefore immoral in room trading. If I was the student selling the room, I would love the extra money, especially if I did not have too much preference for which room I was in. The money could be spent on books, food, and other needs. It would be great! Ironically, the more money I get, which is to my benefit, the stronger the argument gets that the money traded is overly coercive. I would not complain if somebody tomorrow offered me $15,000 for my room. It's a lot of money, and like most college students, I could certainly use it! On the side of the supplier, is it immoral for them to offer it? No. If the student with the room does not want to sell their room, they may say no. A room, in my opinion, is not such a key good as to validate the overly-coercive argument. Even in extreme examples where massive sums were offered, I can see no reason why that would be to the detriment of the seller. Surely one college dorm cannot be that different from the next.

And here is the kicker. The only way one college dorm can be that different in value from another is if one group truly values it highly or really does not like where they are at currently. In this example, the frat in the quiet part of campus would have a strong interest in moving. And here is where markets succeed. By offering money, the frat would be able to acquire a better place to live, and the seller would be compensated for the inconvenience of moving their room. Everybody benefits: the frat has the location they want, and the seller has more money. If money wasn't offered formally, a black market would likely develop anyway, since the frat would have a large incentive to acquire a different dorm. Side payments would inevitably be made and then hidden. An even worse outcome could also be overly coercive, and could come in the form of bullying, harassing, or using other means to virtually force people out of their room. A money currency is certainly more desirable.

If they do not object to a voluntary trade system, there is no valid reason why the Duke administration should prevent money from playing a part.

The Thanksgiving Holiday

Thanksgiving is here again, and I was lucky enough to see my family and friends after traveling home for the first time in months for a much needed break. To get home, I flew out from the Rochester airport to LaGuardia and from there took a shuttle home. The flight was delayed for four hours, and a little turbulent, especially when landing, but it was great to be home. Flying above NYC is an amazing experience, seeing the sheer size of the city and how complex it must have been to build is not a sight that I hope to ever take for granted. It is truly a testament to human ability. Seeing random lights from cars or houses in the darkness is always welcome and gives me a sort of vicarious experience as I try to place myself in the position of whomever I am observing from way above, and wonder what it must be like to be where they are. I would comment on the shuttle ride too, but traffic isn't quite as appealing. Still, I made it home, and I was glad to be there. 

Now, over the break my parents gave me a curfew (which in my mind was absolutely ridiculous, and embarrassing I might add), and thinking economically, I decided to counter with the argument that they were only incentivizing me to drive faster, and that if I really wanted to stay out I would anyway. Of course, this argument was entirely bogus, but I thought it would be funny to make. Well, as you would expect, it got a chuckle but no sympathy. Their argument for a curfew was that if I stayed out late,  I tended to sleep in during the day. Aha! To this, I can make a much better economic argument. So I did. I explained how I valued staying out late more than I valued waking up early, since my evening hours are often more productive than my morning hours. At night, I can stay up late hanging out with friends, and on Thanksgiving I even stayed up late to do work. How responsible! On the flip side, in the mornings I am usually at a loss for what to do: my friends are asleep, plans always occur in the afternoon, and I usually do not have the drive to work. So of course I want to sleep in! I get more sleep and get to use the time I value more in the evening. Who are they to tell me what time to get home? 

Well, unfortunately, it didn't take long for them to counter that too. I wake them up when I come home late, and typically my dog starts barking, which potentially wakes up the whole house. And they also worry more when I am out late, finding it difficult to sleep if they know that I am not home. Oh well, it appears that they have a point. Still, I thought my argument was good.

Class Notes 11/23

1. Change in prices DOES NOT change demand, it only changes quantity demanded
2. Prices demanders who cannot afford the good and suppliers who cannot produce it cheaply enough are forced out of the market
3. Changing this equilibrium arbitrarily leaves money on the table, incentivizing black market deals and other corrupt transactions

Equilibrium and The Price System 11/21

1. Money reduces exchange/transaction costs and helps facilitate trade by encompassing the value of goods
2. Surplus - At that price, quantity supplied is higher than quantity demanded
3. Shortage - At that price, quantity demanded is higher than quantity supplied
4. Double-Coincidence of Wants - Have to find someone with good you want who is willing to trade for what you have

Rationing Continued 11/18

Two Major Things to Consider

1. How will rationing determine competition?
• Constructive?
• Destructive?
2. Long-term consequences of rationing?
• How does rationing alter incentives?

• "Need" system incentivizes need, not production
• People can cheat "need" system by hiding income, assets, etc...
• Will moral people claim "need"?
• Price system allows for Consumer Choice
• Other systems claim to be better for poor but are often worse
• Needs no policing, since consumers determine distribution and price organically
• Other policing systems often fail and are cheated because there are no true incentives, only negative threats
• If a shortage is threatening, people's consumption will increase to prepare
• worsens shortage by immediately decreasing supply
• EXPECTATIONS
• Price system raises price in a shortage, decreasing consumption and forcing efficiency
• Forces Cost-Benefit analysis
• Consumers have to find out best way to use good
• Automatically makes consumer consider value of water to others, conveying needs honestly and organically
• Allows mobilization of goods to areas that need it
• Saying "You Must" does not work nearly as effectively
• Markets allow for long-term planning, an advantage no other system has

Posters and Propaganda

Each of these posters deals with the rationing that occurred to World War II. At the time, supplies for the average domestic citizen were very limited, as much was sent overseas for the soldiers. To encourage the citizenry and boost morale, the government attempted to portray frugality as a sign of patriotism. Conserving resources made one patriotic, since it helped keep demand down and increased supply, and consuming resources in excess was unpatriotic, as it increased demand and limited the supply available for other citizens and the soldiers who were fighting for liberty. By simply shifting the connotation of rationalization, associating it with patriotism and glory rather than limitation, the government's stream of propaganda sought to encourage thrift and discourage waste during the national supply crisis that was World War II.

Due to the limited supplies and need to conserve resources, this seems like a viable marketing campaign. In most cases, self-sufficiency is the road to poverty, but due to the short term nature of the crisis, conserving the readily available resources was a necessary step. In the long-term, more resources may be discovered, but until then, the US had to work with what it had. In terms of supply and demand, the lesson here is simple: diminished supply with a constant demand leads to rationing. This is the raison d'être of economics. What this did to the market is probably more interesting. Prices were probably very high, due  to the disparity between demand and supply. Market inefficiencies were probably huge, as nobody was well-off enough to predict into the future. People had to live by the moment and had much less expendable income. Trade likely became much less frequent, which would have depressed the economy. Generally, the posters were right in the need to conserve, but the effects of rationing were certainly not a sign of increased economic growth.

On this note, Keynesians like to say that war spending boosted GDP. A large portion of the population stood in lines waiting for food and other needs, due to high backlogs and limited quantities. Imagine all the cumulative time spent in lines. What else could the time have been used for? Imagine how much of it was spent idle in line, rather than producing, or at the very least doing something. How it could be argued that this boosts economic activity is beyond me. High unemployment, rationed supplies, soldiers fighting and dying overseas, where is the prosperity? Where is the greater economic activity? Any production that went into GDP was likely formed from the concessions of the citizenry, as these posters clearly illuminate. Arguing that WWII ended the Great Depression by boosting the economy is one of the most heinous of all applications of the broken-window fallacy. These posters clearly show the damage to the wealth of each and every citizen, who were forced to make sacrifices for the greater good. May these posters serve as a reminder of that which is not seen.

Rationing 11/16

• Need for rationing arises when you have too few goods for too many people
• Examples of rationing mechanisms
• Need
• Queues
• Lottery system
• Equal shares
• "Kickin' Ass!"
• Merit -> "beauty", "smarts"?
• etc...
• How much other people are willing to pay impacts price
• Not taking higher offer is a real opportunity cost for the business, which raises prices
• Lower supply = Higher Prices; scarcity increases
• Businesses respond rationally to demand and expected willingness of consumers to pay
• If one tries the "need" metric, which is hard to define in itself, Rizzo claims that neither the neediest nor the people who want the good the most will receive it
• This is why you need prices
• Lottery system may be "fair", but it does not guarantee that the neediest or those who value the good the most and can use it best will get the good
• Inefficient in outcome
• May be rigged
• Equal shares mechanism dilutes value to the point of worthlessness
• Some goods can't divide well
• "Kickin' Ass!" is destructive competition and does not allow for planning
• We compete because of scarcity, not "capitalism"
• Capitalism doesn't create competition, it deals with it; competition is inevitable

Theory of Supply 11/14

TODAY IS MY BIRTHDAY!

Theory of Supply

• What changes supply?
• Own Price ("Quantity Supplied")
• Something else ("Supply shifts")
• Supply Elasticities
• = % change in quantity supplied / % change in price
• < 1 = "inelastic"
• > 1 = "elastic"
• Supply cost is the opportunity cost of not using the materials for a different good
• Leads to differences in prices
• Low Wages may be caused by a lack of other potential or real employers
• Lack of competition among employers
• Lack of demand for workers
• Lack of choice among employees to find other work
• Supply and demand are very similar in their trends and analysis
• "Law" of Supply, NOT "Law of Supply" -> first is indefinite, second is definite; supply is not truly a law
• As the price a consumer is willing to pay increases, supply increases
• If a future price increase is expected, short-term supply will decrease since suppliers will pull back in expectation of greater future profits
• The opposite occurs if price in the future is expected to drop
• Each point on a supply curve represents the marginal opportunity cost of making the product
• Other things to learn from a supply curve
• Total Revenues = Price sold x Quantity (P x Q)
• Consumer surplus / producer surplus
• If there is a supply curve in any factor market, attached goods will have a supply curve, even when they are otherwise "perfectly inelastic", though this is impossible
• Change in input (factor) price will change supply
• When input prices fall, supply increases
• When input prices rise, supply decreases
• Technology can shift supply curves out (increase supply)
• Substitutes can shift supply curves in (decrease supply)
• Expectations matter a great deal in shifting supply curves

Keystone XL Pipeline

There recently has been a lot of controversy over a proposed oil pipeline running from Canada to Texas. Coverage of the movements against the pipeline have been smothered by Occupy Wall Street, which is a seemingly indomitable media force. Regardless, the resistance has been fierce - at one point protestors circled the White House, demanding that the project be scrapped - and the White House and Obama recently caved, calling for the State Department to further investigate the proposed pipeline before approving it. It is a controversial issue, and one that features two typical combatants in today's economy: environmentalists vs. businessmen. Which side are you on?

At first, I was skeptical of the public outrage, fearing that it was a product of misplaced passion which lacked full knowledge of the details of the pipeline. The clear benefits of the pipeline also made it difficult for me to comprehend why anyone would fight its development. For an opening point, the pipeline would help provide a significant and consistent source of oil from a friendly, neighboring country, rather than the often semi-hostile Mid-Eastern countries. Valid theories abound that our wars in the Middle-East are motivated at least in part by oil interests. Building a pipeline would help the US withdraw from foreign oil investments, disentangling us from messy middle-eastern governments and insurgency groups. And what about high oil prices? Gas is very expensive, and its rising prices are oft-quoted as a rising problem for middle to low income families, who cannot afford to spend more at the pump. In addition, high oil prices have been cited as an element which could damage our economy and dampen the already slow, if not non-existent, recovery. (On a side note, maybe environmentalists should desire high oil prices. This would shift consumers towards more eco-friendly and environmentally sustainable resources, and away from dirty fossil fuels.) This spike in price has been caused by a spike in demand and a constant supply curve. In short, the scarcity of oil has increased, due to an increased disparity between demand and supply. If all goes well, the Keystone XL pipeline would drastically increase our oil supply, and in doing so would drop the price of gas. As an added perk, a pipeline is one of the more effecient and cheap ways to transport oil.  The last benefit is the most over-used term in all of economics: "job-creation". So in short, allowing the pipeline to continue would increase our supply of oil, drop oil prices by increasing supply, increase our energy security, saving lives by decreasing our foreign interests, and create American, yes, American, jobs while simultaneously boosting Canada's export economy and providing them jobs. 

Now for the counter-argument. The company running the pipeline has a terrible spill record, with something around 12 spills attributed to them over the past year. This is inexcusable, especially given that the pipeline will run directly underneath one of the main fresh-water reservoirs in the United States. In the event of a spill, adding more chemicals to neutralize other chemicals and clean the water is unappealing at best. But didn't an independent third-party company review the project and its safety merits, and approve it? Unfortunately, a little research into this statement and you will find that the company hired by the US government to assess the project is basically a subsidiary of the company building the Keystone pipeline. The conflict of interest is immense, almost entirely discrediting the "objective" analysis which legitimized this project. The final point is that tar sands extraction releases 19 percent more carbon emissions into the air than Mid-Eastern crude oil, contributing to global climate change. To be honest, this side has a more compelling argument than I would have expected. The risk of contaminating a major US aquifer is the most worrying aspect to consider. 

Should we build it? 

Despite the draw-backs, which are both legitimate and great, the Keystone XL pipeline should be allowed to continue, though only after further investigation and effective regulation to mitigate dangers. I support its final construction, but currently find it hard to support because of the compromised analysis of its safety and the company's record of spills. I support the pipeline, but the protestors have a valid point. Let's wait for a more comprehensive analysis, then build. 

The Theory of the Leisure Class

As the title would suggest, this article is an exploration of the culture of the leisure class. In the first excerpt, the author examines how the existence of a leisure class affects working attitudes. In the second excerpt, the author theorizes on how the members of the leisure class distinguish themselves through their dietary preferences. And finally, the third excerpt the author dissects the relationship between classes and employment. 

First, does the existence of a leisure class encourage effort in the lower classes? If the first excerpt is to be trusted, that answer is yes. However, the author is quick to qualify that the incentive only applies to the lower half of the middle class, since this is how they acquire status and move up The upper half actually absorbs more of the attitudes of leisure, and as a result is incentivized to work less, for to work is to associate with inferiority. This victimization of work especially impacts the "dirty jobs", as Mike Rowe explored in his Ted Talk. To do these jobs is repugnant, for the enlightened do not deal with that which is unclean or "unenlightened. Therefore, the dichotomy created by the leisure class is both beneficial and detrimental. Some are inspired to work more, others to work less. I agree with the author's assessment in this case. There is little to dispute.

Moving on to the second excerpt, a new question arises: How do the leisure class distinguish themselves through their dietary choices? The author's hypothesis here was that in the base classes, women are more likely to prepare, and men more likely to consume. Even states like drunkenness have become associated with being "manly" and indicative of class, since it shows that the drunk person has the ability to afford alcohol. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to show restraint in these areas. Personally, I think this a valid hypothesis, but am skeptical of how influential class is on consumption. I suspect it is less than what the author would suppose. There are probably other factors, primarily those that are biological, evolutionary, or cultural imbedded by elements other than wealth. Proving causation here would be extraordinarily difficult. Freudian theories about consumption are hard to assess without objective data, and the author does not offer any. 

Now, does the existence of a leisure class lead to the victimization of blue-collar labor? This is the truest of the author's hypotheses.  Our American culture is a prime example of this. Watching the Mike Rowe talk on this exact topic made it clear that we have shifted towards a culture of idealism and dreaming rather than what is practical. Instead of being instructed to "make a living", kids are told to follow the vague, amorphous concept that is their "dreams". This is admirable, but often is mis-interpreted, especially if the dream becomes unattainable. At this point, people often refuse to fall back to Earth and find pleasure in more simple living. Instead of approaching work with a top-down approach of dreams first, employment later, we should approach it with the mentality that through hard-work we should create our dreams. In short, we should let our means build our end, rather than our end build our means.

Risk-Taking with my Math Homework

Every Sunday night, I have webwork due for my math class. Typically, I am done with the homework with a comfortable amount of time left-over. This week was different. Between three midterms and other work, I did not have the time or energy to make a solid crack at the homework. Instead of forcing it, I decided to take a risk, and give myself a break to recover. Waiting until Sunday was a good idea, right? I thought so. So, there I found myself, Sunday afternoon in the lounge, working on my webwork. By four, I had finished 5 of the 14 problems. Not bad, but at 4:30 I was going to celebrate my birthday and the birthday of someone else on the hall. We were going to "The Cheesecake Factory" and I was not about to miss it. And besides, I needed a break, right? I went, planning on getting back with at least two hours left to complete my work. Then, on the way over, I found out that we were taking the 7:29 bus back, placing us back on campus around 8:05. That would give me 55 minutes. By then, I was on the bus and it was too late. Regardless, I threw regret aside and had a good time at dinner with my hall mates.

Then I returned to the dorm, with 55 minutes and around 10 problems left. Doing the math, that gave me 5 and a half minutes per problem. Not a great time cushion, especially considering it had taken me an hour to do 5 problems before I left. Uh-oh. I grabbed my computer, rushed to the lounge, and started frantically working away. Minute by minute, I got closer and closer to finishing. In fact, by 8:40, I had one problem left. And at 8:59, I kid you not, I finished the last problem, one minute before it was due. 

Was it worth it to wait? In most cases, probably not. But in this case? Yes, it definitely was. I went out, celebrated and had a phenomenal dinner at "The Cheesecake Factory", and still completed my webwork. I don't know what the economic term is for "stress-induced efficiency", but I would be interested in finding out, because it worked for me. 

However, for all those seeking to emulate my gargantuan accomplishment, I offer a disclaimer: I do not know how to replicate any of the problems and would not say with confidence that I truly learned how to do any of them. I moved too quickly to absorb what I was doing, and often times would get it correct through a combination of luck, guessing, and yes, mathematical intuition. This was the cost of rushing through the homework at the last minute. I also may have a stress-induced headache.

To mitigate this cost, I intend to look back at all the problems an go over how to do them. Except now, I will be able to review with a 100% grade on the webwork assignment. In this case, the risk paid off, but it will not be one I continue to make.

Elasticity and Total Revenues 11/11/11

• Higher prices do not necessarily lead to higher total revenue
• "Perfectly inelastic" - No change in Quantity Demanded regardless of price (impossible)
• No alternatives?
• No opportunity costs?
• "Income Elasticity of Demand" - % change in Quantity Demanded / % Change in income
• > 0 means the good is normal (as income increases, the quantity demanded of the good goes up)
• < 0 means the good is inferior (as income increases, the quantity demanded of the good goes down)
• How does income affect consumption?
• Quantity of goods
• Type of goods
• Cost - Something that consumes resources
• Must be an action
• To whom?

Elasticity 11/9/11

• Elasticity - % change in quantity demanded / % change in whatever you are interested in
• > 1 means demand at that point is "elastic" (quantity demanded is sensitive to price changes)
• = 1 means demand at the point is "unit elastic"
• < 1 means demand at that point is "inelastic" (quantity demanded is insensitive to price changes)
• What impacts Elasticity?
• Time
• Budgets
• Substitutes
• Elasticity of 2: Change in quantity demanded is double the change in prices
• Changes in the market may take time to occur and become apparent
• Elasticity is not constant along a demand curve

Market Demand 11/7/11

• The more aggregated we get, the flatter the demand curve gets
• If prices go up with wages at a similar rate, the change in demand will be minimal
• What changes consumption?
• Income
• Substitutes and relative convenience
• Expectations
• Tastes, individual preferences
• # of individuals in the market
• INCOME NOT PRICES IN ANALYZING ECONOMIC GROWTH
• What affects demand
• Income
• "Normal" - When income goes up, quantity demanded goes up
• "Inferior" - When incomes goes up, quantity demanded goes down
• Normal and inferior goods are subjective and relative

"Job Creation" in New Jersey

I had almost forgotten this ridiculous law, but it was recently brought back to my attention. In New Jersey, you are not allowed to pump your own gas. Why not? Because it creates jobs of course! What kind of crazy economist would criticize this law? It creates jobs, which must be a good thing, right? Don't you care about the jobs?

Let me begin by explaining the mentality that leads to the belief that this is good for the economy. Self-sufficiency is bad for the economy (only when it prevents specialization of labor, comparative advantages, etc...but let's ignore those for now). Jobs are good for the economy (again there are constraints to this and this overgeneralizes and assumes a contextual vacuum, but again let's move on). Therefore, we should prevent people from being self-sufficient to then create jobs, which are good for the economy.

This is entirely backwards, and I cannot believe this law hasn't been repealed. If I pull up to a gas station, get out of the car and pump my own gas (imagine!), I will be fined. Implicit here is the concept that pumping your own gas is damaging to the economy. Really? Does this make any sense? Think about it. If this were true, why should we do anything ourselves? Here's an illustrative challenge: Take everything you do during the day, and break it into its smallest components. Now imagine you had to pay someone else to do each individual job, one person per component. Would this help or hurt the economy? More specifically, would this make you better or worse off? Now imagine everyone had to do this. Would we have time to do anything? Or any money left to spend? NO! The cost of doing anything would rise significantly, since the costs would be spread over a larger population. Efficiency would become non-existent.

Here's another illustration. When I go to Danforth, I should sit down at a table and have people serve me. If I want water, I pay someone to do it for me. If I want to get food, I don't have to leave my chair, I just pay someone to do that too. Voila! I have created two jobs. Forget the fact that the jobs are useless, isn't this good for the economy? As Rizzo mentioned, jobs are a cost, not a benefit! It is now harder for me to acquire water and food. Where there was previously minimal cost for getting my own food and water, there is now a real, tangible cost. I have to pay people to walk for me. Water and food are now less available to me.  I have just wasted money paying someone to do something I could easily do myself without paying anything. Instead of spending the money on a more useful endeavor, I have just put it towards having a servant.  What an awful concept. There is no benefit here.

Markets in Prison

This article explored the spontaneous formation of a market within a criminal system, in the absence of any planning. A new money system evolved, centered around cigarettes.

What is Demand? 11/2

1. Demand is NOT an all or nothing concept, it is a Marginal Concept


2. Demand - The relationship between the amount of something you wish to obtain and the sacrifices required to get it

3. "Quantity Demanded" - Amount of a good that buyers are willing and able to purchase at a particular price


Willing - Subjective Preferences
Able - Concept of whether you have enough income to purchase the things you want

4. "Law of Demand" - Given other factors held constant ("ceteris paribus"), the quantity demanded of a good falls when the price ("cost") rises; essentially, that cost and demand are inversely related

5. "Law of Demand" describes human nature and applies to any trade-off we must face; not just a theoretical economic concept

6. Be wary of "helium balloon" paradoxes which seem to violate the "Law of Demand"; instead, ask "How can this be reconciled with what we know about the 'Law of Demand'?"

7. Money prices in trade-off analysis and demand curves stand in for the goods given up due to opportunity costs

8. $0 does not equal infinite demand, due to other costs and varying preferences among the population

Theory of Supply and Demand 11/4

1. Transaction Costs - The cost of arranging and negotiating contracts and agreements, may include:

• time
• physical costs
• "ignorance" or a knowledge problem
• interference (social norms, religious values, cultural institutions)

2. Transaction costs are essentially limiting factors that inhibit trade

3. Great entrepreneurs know how to minimize transaction costs

4. Middleman - Anyone who gets buyer and seller together by removing transaction costs

5. There can be comparative advantages in reducing transaction costs

6. Small groups have less of a knowledge problem and can more easily overcome them, in addition to having more responsive feedback loops and less of an incentive problem.

7. Prices - Allow each of us to act on information, acquire knowledge about value, and make informed decisions about goods

8. High price signals value and scarcity (high demand and low supply); you can't have scarcity without demand

What is a market?

• Collection of (potential) buyers and sellers 
• Can be a physical market or a virtual market
• Any decentralized, unorganized interaction between potential buyers and sellers

Order - "Stuff's there"; equilibrium between demand and supply

Class Notes 10/31

1. There is no such thing as a positive or negative trade balance -> the balance is always 0.

2. Trade deficits often lead to an increase in economic growth and employment, or at least there is a correlation

3. Buying "local" leads to significantly higher costs in both money and time by preventing specialization

4. Economics does not change across geographical or political borders

5. Definition of "local" is often arbitrary

6. Why do we care about American poor, yet ignore world poor?

7. Often we only see who is hurt by outsourcing and job displacement, and ignore who it benefits

8. Concentrated damages and spread benefits are no excuse for preventing economic change

9. The concept of "Race to the Bottom" is laughable when you look at the data

10. FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) often flocks to more environmental, humanitarian, etc... countries