This podcast episode was originally posted on March 24th, 2017.
Returning to the podcast is Vincent Geloso of Texas Tech University.
Our topic for this episode is anthropometric history, the study of history by means of measuring humans. Doing serious historical research into the distant past is difficult work, because the further you look back in time, the less information you can access. For the 20th century we have wonderful thing like chain-weighted real GDP. Going back further, we have some statistics, lots of surviving physical evidence, and loads of documents and writings. Going further than that, we’re left with the odd scrap of thrice-copied surviving manuscripts and second-hand accounts from people who lived centuries after the events they describe. And going even further than that, we have just bones and dilapidated temples with the occasional inscription.
Anthropometric history allows us to look into the distant past at what economic historians like Vincent hope might be a good measure of different populations’ health and standards of living: their heights. People who have healthy upbringings with lots of access to food tend to be taller than people who don’t; that’s why modern humans are much taller than they were a thousand or even a hundred years ago.
Vincent has contributed to this literature with his latest co-authored paper, The Heights of French-Canadian Convicts, 1780s to 1820s. The abstract reads as follows:
This paper uses a novel dataset of heights collected from the records of the Quebec City prison between 1813 and 1847 to survey the French-Canadian population of Quebec?which was then known either as Lower Canada or Canada East. Using a birth-cohort approach with 10 year birth cohorts from the 1780s to the 1820s, we find that French-Canadian prisoners grew shorter over the period. Through the whole sample period, they were short compared to Americans. However, French-Canadians were taller either than their cousins in France or the inhabitants of Latin America (except Argentinians). In addition to extending anthropometric data in Canada to the 1780s, we are able to extend comparisons between the Old and New Worlds as well as comparisons between North America and Latin America. We highlight the key structural economic changes and shocks and discuss their possible impact on the anthropometric data.
Listen to the full episode for our fascinating discussion of this branch of historical research, including the so-called “Antebellum puzzle,” the anomalous observation that American heights decreased in the years prior to the Civil War even though the economy was apparently growing rapidly. We also discuss the heights of slaves in the American South, who were taller than their white counterparts despite being oppress
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEJGJ0YBfq4
This podcast episode was originally released on August 29, 2014.
A key difference between Austrian economics and the neoclassical-mathematical economics developed in the mid-twentieth century by Paul Samuelson and others is the assumption by the latter that people are essentially omniscient. What neoclassical economists call “rationality” effectively means omniscience. When the agents in neoclassical models face any uncertainty, the uncertainty is always fully understood in advance; for instance, a stock’s value tomorrow might be drawn from a normal distribution with a known mean and variance. Without the assumption of omniscience, the Austrian school faces the important question of how people can make economic decisions in a complex, uncertain world.
Ludwig von Mises’ answer (see his 1920 essay, Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth) was that capitalist entrepreneurs calculate in monetary terms. That is, they use the prices of the immediate past as their starting data, and attempt to direct factors of production in such a way as to maximize the spread between costs and revenues. If their predictions of price changes are good, they earn profits. If their predictions are bad, they earn losses. Thus, their direction of scarce resources is subject to immediate and consequential feedback allowing a selective process for only the best entrepreneurial forecasting methods. Without monetary exchange and prices, the problem of directing factors of production to their highest uses becomes intractable.
An interesting thing about Mises’ calculation argument is that it does not only relate to socialism, but to free, capitalist societies also. Mises states that, “Economic goods only have part in this system [of monetary calculation] in proportion to the extent to which they may be exchanged for money.” Thus, when a good cannot be exchanged for money, for any reason, it is subject to a Misesian calculation problem.
One type of capital good that I have identified as facing a calculation problem is education. The present value of an education is nowhere represented as a market price. The rental rate of the education is represented in the price spread between educated and uneducated labour, but the present value of the education is not a price because the education itself cannot be exchanged.
The present value of the education would correspond to the expected discounted stream of income generated by the education, but this income is not represented in prices until years after the education is complete. Thus, students cannot use monetary calculation to allocate their time, funds, and efforts to being educated. They cannot refer to the present value price of the education in their initial estimation of the education’s value, nor can the
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmUbkxglQsU
A recent change.org petition, signed by over 20,000 people, is calling for the Premier of British Columbia to restrict foreign investment in Vancouver's super-hot real estate market. But will restricting investment really help the people who want to live in Vancouver? I tackle this tough question in this video.
Original Petition: https://www.change.org/p/premier-christy-clark-mayor-gregor-robertson-mayors-and-city-councillors-of-the-gvrd-restrict-foreign-investment-in-greater-vancouver-s-residential-real-estate-market
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h7qqsXPx2I
Originally released on July 10, 2018.
Could cultural attitudes about gender reflect economic conditions hundreds of years ago? My guest today says they do!
Melanie Meng Xue of Northwestern University has shown that China’s cotton revolution had far-reaching consequences extending even to the modern day:
The cotton revolution (1300-1840 AD) in imperial China constituted a substantial shock to the value of women’s work. Using historical gazetteers, I exploit variation in cotton textile production across 1,489 counties and establish a robust negative relationship between high-value work opport
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PR_RrtfgXg
My guest today is Kevin Erdmann, he blogs about economics and finance at Idiosyncratic Whisk.
Kevin has written a ton about housing, as evidenced by the titles of his blog posts. A recent one is labeled Housing: Part 239. This series is part of a larger book project that Kevin is publically drafting on his blog.
We discuss the housing bubble of the 2000s and the post-2008 housing market. I took my first undergraduate economics class in 2008, just as the financial crisis was beginning, so there’s never been a time in my economics career when people weren’t talking about this. And yet, I still have so much to learn!
Kevin makes an interesting distinction between “open-access cities” and “closed-access cities.” Closed-access cities are places like San Francisco, New York, and San Jose that have restricted their housing supplies. Open-access cities are places like Houston and Phoenix with more elastic housing supplies. We talk about these factors and how they relate to the housing boom and bust, liquidity, and central bank policy.
Kevin points out that supply-side restrictions on housing construction are necessary for demand-side factors to cause housing bubbles. That’s because in a market with an elastic housing supply, more demand doesn’t result in higher prices, it just causes more homes to be built.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKxUj4m4WA0
http://economicsdetective.com/
Suppose we have an economy with only two people and two commodities. Maybe they're living on an otherwise deserted island somewhere, and they can spend their time either picking bananas or catching fish.
The first person, let's call her Jane, can pick 100 bananas if she spends 100% of her week picking bananas, or she can catch 50 fish if she spends 100% of her week fishing. She can also choose to spend part of her time catching fish and part of her time picking bananas. If we graph all the possible combinations of bananas and fish she could get, we get her feasible set.
The second person on the island, let's call him Gilberto-Rahoule, has different skills from Jane. He can pick 50 bananas if he spends 100% of his week picking bananas, or he can catch 100 fish if he spends 100% of his week catching fish.
Since Jane is better at picking bananas and Gilberto-Rahoule is better at catching fish, they can each be better off if they specialize in what they're good at, and trade for what they're not. For example, if Jane picks 100 bananas and Gilberto-Rahoule catches 100 fish, and they trade 50 bananas for 50 fish, they'll each have more than they could have got alone. 50 bananas and 50 fish is outside both individuals' feasible sets, and yet they can achieve it through trade.
Let's say Jane hurts her leg, and has to spend half her time resting it. Now her feasible set has shrunk, so she can pick at most 50 bananas and catch at most 25 fish. Now Jane isn't any better than Gilberto-Rahoule at picking bananas. Can Jane and Gilberto-Rahoule still have gains from trade? Yes, they can.
What matters is not whether either of them has an absolute advantage in fishing or banana picking, but whether they have a relative advantage. Jane would still have to sacrifice 2 bananas to catch one fish herself, and Gilberto-Rahoule would still have to sacrifice 2 fish to pick one banana himself, so trading one banana for one fish is still beneficial to both.
In this simple economy, trade allowed each person to consume a little more than they could have alone. In a bigger economy with more people and more commodities to trade, the benefits are many hundreds of times larger.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L90IsEykPfU
Originally released on September 20, 2019. Full title:
Cotton, Slavery, and the New History of Capitalism with Alan Olmstead and Paul Rhode
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqCdPH-MNLI