Economist's Notebook: Urban and Rural

Two things occurred the other day that got me thinking about the urban and rural divide. First, an old friend of mine (and fellow L&C economics major) called today and mentioned that he took issue with my assertion that we should necessarily give rural residents a break on gas taxes. He thinks we subsidize rural living too much and that urban living is more efficient - and not just in terms of energy usage and environmental harm, but efficiencies in our ability to (in his example) offer more choice to school children. The second thing was my coming across this article by Ed Glaeser that uses The Lorax as a jumping off point to discuss his research on the 'green-ness' of urban living.

First, a digression. I, like Glaeser, think The Lorax is a very good lesson on externalities and public goods and the importance of protecting the environment in the face of market incentives that will not. However, the Once-ler is not an archetypical capitalist as I assume Seuss intended, in fact he is a miserable failure of a capitalist. He fails to replant trees to ensure the future success of the business even though the incentives to do so are clear. However, in his willingness to go after the short-term gain and sacrifice the long-term health of the business, he is perhaps a good model for the bank executives that managed to screw that industry up royally.

Anyway, I believe in density and I believe the future of humanity is largely urban, not rural. I understand urban living has drawbacks: lots of concrete, heat islands, etc. But on balance (and in general) the ability to live efficeintly is greatly enhanced in urban areas and Glaesers research seems to confirm this. So I look very favorably on residential high rise developments in the city center because it is important to have downtown residents that live and work locally.

Personally, I chose to live in my neighborhood in Portland because from my house I can walk a few blocks to the park, the library, a New Seasons and a QFC (this was especially handy during the big snow storm), the bakery, coffee shops, restaurants, the bank, the hardware store and even the river. I am close to a multi-use path that takes my wife and her bike downtown to work most days, I can walk with my children to their schools and there are bus lines a couple of blocks away. I rarely have to get in my car to do anything. When I lived in Corvallis, I was in and out of my car all the time, because though it is a nice bucolic college town it is spread out. I feel my current lifestyle is healthier for me and my environment.

This is not to say that I pass judgement on those that choose to live in rural areas, but as a general trend I hope to see more density in America's urban cores and less sprawl to the exurbs. If you want to see what that is like, visit Denver - though the downtown has come a long way in the last 10 years it is still largely deserted after business hours.

But this vision of an urban ideal does create some conundrums. My wife and I disagree, for example, on agriculture. I tend to think some aspects of large scale agriculture is good. Production happens where it is most viable, economies of scale are large and a relatively small number can support all of the urban residents. My wife is very supportive of local agriculture, the farm-to-table movement and has, as an ideal, small local farms that sell directly to urbanites and do not rely on chemical fertilizers and pesticides. There are valuable aspects to both systems and it is hard to know where the right balance is, but I worry that this local ideal is highly correlated with wealth and it does not provide answers for the poor depend on highly productive agricultural sectors.

Clearly the two sectors, urban and rural, are complementary and we would not be able to live densely without the support of rural agricultural areas. But finding the balance between living efficiency and sustainably on one hand, and being less reliant on industrial agriculture and living 'closer to the earth' is not an easy task - nor is the appropriate balance obvious.

Discussion: Unions?

The debate about the Employee Free Choice Act presents a good opportunity to have a discussion about unions (particularly because OSU does not currently offer a labor economics class - gasp! - something I am actively trying to change). Unions are one of these issues that really divide economists. I am going to try (as I have before) summarize some of the recent economics literature on unions in the coming weeks, but for now a quick synopsis of the pro and con arguments made by economists.

[Full disclosure: I was once a Teamster when I was a UPS delivery person, but OSU faculty are not now represented by a union - though there is a discussion about changing that]

Con: They represent monopsony power that distort labor markets and lead to inefficient outcomes. This leads to higher unemployment and lower mobility.

Pro: Labor markets are asymmetric and employers have undue power over employees who find changing jobs costly - thus they do not necessarily yield efficient outcomes. Unions are an effective way to correct these imbalances.

Now I understand that there are lots of other things that I have not mentioned - but I invite you all to discuss unions and give me your reasons for and against in anticipation of my discussion of the economics literature.

Pay Me for Riding My Bike

Perhaps the stupidest public policy idea I have ever heard of is the proposed bike tax. It is not worth talking about the proposal itself as it is not going anywhere and is, as I think I mentioned, stupid. But what is interesting to me is that, in fact, the appropriate public policy is to subsidize bikes, not tax them.

Why? The negative externalities associated with bike riding: virtually none. Minimal wear and tear on roads, sometimes a slight slowdown in traffic and a extra line of paint for a bike lane. Positive externalities associated with bike riding: lots. Reduced congestion and emissions from those that bike in lieu of taking a car, and better health and fitness of riders reducing the toll on the public health system. Public economic teaches us that to get an efficient amount of economic activity that has externalities you have to get the price to reflect the true cost of the activity. In this case the true cost is less than the price of a bike.

Okay, so this will never happen, but we do get part of the way by providing a better biking infrastructure.

MLS in Portland: Now or Never

A deal has been struck between Merritt Paulson and the city to bring MLS to Portland that addresses all of the community task force's concerns and protects the city against downside risk.  Portland is unlikely to ever have such a deep pocketed, committed investor in sports in the city again.  And it is virtually certain the chance to land MLS will not come around again. It is also pretty much a lock that the city will be awarded a franchise if the city approves the deal. Given the willingness of Merritt Paulson to take on almost all of the risk of the deal, the city should go forward with the deal to bring MLS to Portland.  

The only objection left seems to be the use of urban renewal district money to help fund the projects.  This is a small risk: if these projects do not increase the value of those districts, then this deal will end up being a net diversion of some funds.  However, given the plan now includes a Rose Quarter ballpark, the chance that the deal will substantially increase the value of the that district is very high, especially with the Blazers investing in the area as well.  Though it is unlikely that areas around PGE Park will yield much net revenue, the Rose Quarter drawing thousands of baseball fans all summer long, should provide year-round stability.  And as I have said before, the logic of urban renewal districts has nothing specifically to do with blight, any investment that increases the value of surrounding properties qualifies.  Blighted areas have a greater potential for increased values if the specific investments work, but also include greater risk as the tipping point is farther away.  So, as a whole the deal should provide a lot of positive tangible and intangible benefits to Portland with very little cost and almost no risk.  

Though city councilors suggest the timing is bad given the state of the city budget, I actually think the timing could not be better.  With unemployment rising rapidly and commodities prices at historic lows, the cost of construction should be at a low point, and money borrowed to fund construction projects will stimulate the local economy at a time when we desperately need it and when federal stimulus is not going to do the whole job.  

There are times, and this is one of them, that city leaders need to shed their focus on the day to day business of the city and think about the long-term vitality and livability of the city.  Pioneer Square was a stupid idea - a massive diversion of potential city tax revenue that could have funded schools, essential services, etc.  But looking back it is now seen as a watershed moment in the city's history.  A pivotal decision that created a focal point and revitalized the downtown core.  And even it has had substantial problems.  It took a number of failed businesses before Starbucks became a solid tenant in the restaurant (this was not the original idea) and the former Powell's Travel Bookstore space has been equally problematic.   But would anyone seriously suggest today that the square was a mistake?  Economists understand that we live in a world characterized by scarcity but the fundamental lesson of economic growth is that it takes investment in the future to ensure our prosperity.  Investments necessitate short-term sacrifice for long-term gain.  In this case, thanks to Paulson, the sacrifice is minimal for the city (though large for Mr. Paulson) but the potential gain is huge.  

The city should not look this gift horse in the mouth and made the bold decision to move the city forward even in these difficult times and approve this deal.

Econ 101: Exchange Rates

What determines the exchange rate? The simplest answer is supply and demand. Suppose you are sitting in England and have some savings in pounds and want to buy an asset in the US. To do so, you must sell your pounds for dollars because US based assets are priced in US dollars. This raises the demand for dollars and increases the supply of pounds - leading to an increase in the exchange rate between dollars and pounds. It now takes more pounds to buy dollars than it did before.

The New York Times has a nice article on the rising dollar. In it the author stresses the flight to safety - foreigners are snapping up US Treasuries. This is good for the government, because it keeps the cost of borrowing money low. But the rising dollar is bad for US exporters (and Oregon is one of the states most dependant on exports) because it raises the price of US goods abroad. So people and businesses from all over the world that are worried about loaning money to just about anyone, will still loan to the US government because it has the lowest risk of default of any entity out there. Since it takes dollars to buy treasuries, this raises the demand for dollars and increases the supply of just about every other currency. Voila, a rising dollar.

But it is not just the demand for US treasuries that is causing an appreciation in the dollar (though surely it explains most of the rise), there are also some other anecdotal snippets, like this story about foreigners snapping up houses in Detroit. If Australians and Brits are coming over here to but property, they are bringing with them their own currencies and will have to convert them to actually make a purchase which reinforces the appreciation of the dollar against those currencies. 

MLS in Portland: Can Portland Afford Not To?

The Oregonian once again endorses the idea of bringing an MLS team to Portland. I support it because I am pretty confident that in ten years, it will be seen as one of those brave decisions that ended up being a tremendous boon for Portland. But as always, I am quick to admit that I am a big soccer fan and would benefit from it a lot personally. But MLS is now a solid league with tremendous future potential - there is no other reason franchise fees have increased so dramatically. The market now realizes that the once fledgling league is on solid ground with purpose built stadia and a link to the enormous worldwide soccer market. Portland could very well be the crown jewel franchise - it will, without a doubt, have the very best stadium. Even this stadium being built by Red Bull, while shiny and new, will be in the suburbs. Portland, to go along with its European-like reputation, will have a European-like urban stadium. But caution, Mr. Paulson: it has to be real grass, NO TURF!

However, there does seem to be one thing that has not been discussed much and that is the alternative - where will Portland be in a few years without MLS? Civic Stadium (oops, PGE park) is too big for minor league baseball and it is likely that the Beavers will not be there for long - even if this bid for MLS fails. PSU football brings in a paltry revenue but depends on the stadium. So it is quite probably that in a few years, Portland will have an empty stadium on its hands with debt and no revenue. It seems to me that the city should think hard about what's next if they don't back the MLS.

Oh, and by the way, can anyone tell me what the entirely incoherent column by The O's Ryan White on Sunday was all about? I have read it multiple times and I still can't figure it out.

Gas Tax

The Oregonian focuses today on the gas tax. A gas tax is the right idea, but tying it to road improvements is dumb for two reasons. First, as we have just seen, dedicated funds tie government's hands (well, maybe not so much - see the Cultural Trust - but this just illustrates the point) and make government less effective and efficient. Second, a gas tax is an appropriate tax to address carbon emissions, less so for road wear and tear, so tying it to road maintenance and construction is, well, inappropriate.

I am sure there are lots of political reasons that this makes sense, but sometimes I wonder why legislative leaders don't try and act more boldly. How about instituting a 5% gas tax that goes into the general fund? This is a lot yes, and some mechanism for helping out less wealthy rural residents (who have to drive more) will have to be figured out, but it is a lot less than the $1 a gallon tax James Hansen recommends. Besides, look at the Measure 57 fiasco from the last election: Democrats were so worried about 61 they pushed 57 and now we have a costly mandate in a time when we are cutting essential services (like courts). We now know that 61 would have likely failed on its own.

Oregon wants to be serious about growing a green economy? Let's start be being the first to seriously address the carbon issue. Oh and hey, this is a perfect time to let drivers pump their own. Prices will fall and Dems can show that they are not always 'big government' proponents.

Econ 101: External Economies of Scale

Most people understand internal economies of scale, the reduction in average cost of production that comes from producing in mass quantities. Utilizing machines, specializing tasks, economizing with big shipments all make sense. But economists know that economies of scale can be external as well. These come from the fact that a large industry can create economies of scale in upstream and downstream industries, can promote development of new process innovations and can lead to more efficient distribution networks.

I thought of this when I was listening to a commentator on the radio suggesting that the US automobile industry needs to be much smaller. It is quite possible that he is right, but if the automobile industry shrinks it is likely that producing cars will become more expensive, further hurting the industry that remains. Why? External economies of scale. Producers of components and inputs in general will have fewer customers and thus lower demand meaning that they might not be able to produce at an efficient scale, and the same is potentially true for the suppliers of raw materials.

A local example might be the brewing industry in Oregon. I have no idea how true this is, but one example is the fact that there are now (to my knowledge) two competing mobile bottling firms in the region, up from one a year ago, which is likely to reduce costs for the small brewer. More local breweries might also spur the planting of more hops allowing local cultivators to realize economies of scale and thus reduce input prices.

How does this all relate to the current economic catastrophe? Well at a time when demand is waning, firms might not be able to operate as efficiently as possible due to scaling back of operations and as they fail, supporting firms might also become less efficient. On the other hand, labor costs should be coming down pretty quickly as the demand for jobs skyrockets, so the effect on prices is unclear.

Have a good weekend everyone...

US Unemployment: 8.1%

700,000 was the number I was expecting in terms of job losses, so 651,000 is better than I expected, but still absolutely horrible. US unemployment at 8.1% - given this, I would not be surprised to see Oregon's February unemployment at about 10.8%. This is scary, scary stuff. The point is that we need not only to reverse the job losses to start seeing unemployment go down, but to actually start creating a substantial number of new jobs, and we are so far away from that it is hard to see when we will reverse the downward trend in unemployment.

Economists not generally expect US unemployment to crest at above 10% which is a lot worse than the administration was saying it would get even without the stimulus. Ouch. My hope for Oregon's unemployment avoiding the height of 1982s 12.1% seems misplaced. Now I think we may see 13%. Let's hope not.

[Update: U6 which includes underemployed is at 14.8%. And by the way the 2.6 million jobs lost in the last 4 months is 600,000 more than in the entire state of Oregon at its peak.]

Oregon Homeowners Underwater

From the Calculated Risk Blog comes this interesting graphic constructed from data released today from the First American CoreLogic Negative Equity Report for December 2008.

This shows the proportion of mortgaged properties 'underwater,' or whose value is less than the amount owed on the mortgage. What is comforting is that Oregon is in the bottom few states in terms of negative equity. This could get a lot worse if the job market continues to decline rapidly, but could be helped by the Obama mortgage plan as well as the stimulus and the bailout. The moral for the moment is that we may be one of the worst hit states in terms of unemployment, but at least our housing market is not is complete disarray. Still the number of unsold homes relative to sales is pretty dismal.

Sigh, I'll be so glad when I can start to report actual positive economic news again...

Thank You

The Oregon legislature passed the revised budget for the rest of the fiscal year. The hard truth is that this is a once in a generation (I hope) recession and some very difficult choices had to be made and some unsettling rejiggering of pools of money happened (raiding the cultural trust fund, for example). No one is entirely pleased with the result, but I think they largely got it right. But the bigger truth is that the state government is made up of intelligent, hard working elected officials and career bureaucrats who, for relatively modest compensation, make the very hard choices necessary for the benefit of all of us. And for that they deserve our thanks. This is not a fun time to be doing this job, and I admire them for what they do.

A representative democracy works when those we elect to serve us are allowed to do their jobs without undue constraint. I hope then that people begin to appreciate more the difficulty in having a government work flexibly and efficiently in such times when we continually tie its hands through referenda. I hope as well that the same bureaucrats and elected officials try as much as possible to avoid the plethora of special dedicated taxes that reduces flexibility in times such as these.

But most of all I hope we can get a permanent rainy-day fund passed to ensure the future health and prosperity of all Oregonians.

Economist's Notebook: Enough With the Stock Market Already

I had the misfortune to stumble onto a little CNN the other day and all the talk was all about how "Wall Street" was assessing the Obama performance. I was shocked. The administration even had to defend itself against the stock market performance. Since when is the stock market the indicator of good governance? The stock market skyrocketed during a time of perhaps the worst corporate governance in the history of US capitalism. I know that Wall Street would love a plan that would just hand the banks trillions of US dollars with no stings attached. Imagine how the Dow would respond to that plan.

Wall Street whiners about how the government is not falling over themselves to bail out the banks should be ignored. These fools just don't get it. The reckoning is here, banks are insolvent, and there will be blood - like it or not.

In fact, negative reaction from Wall Street to Obama's plans suggests to me that Obama is not simply kowtowing to the banks and that gives me comfort. Of course, I am years away from retirement...

UPADTE: Jon Stewart beat me to it [HT: Calculated Risk]

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

MLS in Portland: Attacking a Straw Man

Once again this week the MLS to Portland idea is being attacked in an Op-Ed in The Oregonian. Earlier in the week William Glasgow had a thoughtful piece in which he expresses support only if the risk were fully born by Merritt Paulson. In general he was against it but for generally good reasons (he doesn't believe the net social benefit is worth the potential net social cost). Today's opinion, however, is disingenuous and uses a fictitious straw man to attack the proposal. Dave Lister latches on to a comment made by Paulson to the legislature that there would be 600 construction jobs and 300 permanent jobs created by a new MLS franchise in Portland. This was clearly a nod to the fiscal stimulus idea during the current downturn. The 600 are short term jobs during a time of excess unemployment, full stop. Mr. Paulson has been admirable in his restraint from talking about the overall growth enhancing aspect of an MLS team because he knows that the evidence for this is just not there.

Yet Mr. Lister in his opinion chooses to construct out of this a straw man that claims Mr. Paulson was claiming exactly that: the MLS team would be an engine of growth. [He also have some seriously convoluted logic claiming that Sam Adams, an MLS supporter, is weakened by scandal and that makes an MLS deal more likely. Say what?] Claims that saying 'no' to previous public goods projects would have funded the Sellwood Bridge replacement and other more worthy endeavors is simply disingenuous. Bonds used to pay for the PGE park renovation and the Convention Center, for example, are still being serviced in large part by operating revenues. The Sellwood bridge will bring in no revenues, so the two are not comparable.

So what does Mr. Lister's prefer? Well, private enterprise of course. In his mind the city should give the $85 million to small businesses and they would be happy to hire folks. So let's pay small businesses to employ people - that's the free market at its best! Seriously, this plan is not about long term jobs it is about the livability and vibrancy of the city. Small business will thrive in Portland if it is a place people want to be, to spend time and where businesses want to locate. I believe that MLS will help enhance the city. I would, though, I am a huge soccer fan. Those who don't like soccer (and have any idea what they are talking about) will probably disagree and this is where the debate should be, not on tired fallacies of engines of economic growth.

The facts are that the MLS, after some early fits and starts, is now a solid sports league with stable profit-making teams. This is evidenced by the explosion in franchise fees, now at $40 million, up from $20 million a few years ago, the number of purpose built stadia, and the steady rise in the quality of play. Recent franchise additions have thrived - Seattle has already sold 20,000 season tickets before they have even played their firs MLS game - partly because tickets are reasonably priced. Smart business people are investing lots of money because soccer, the most watched sport in the world, has huge growth potential not just in domestic markets (like the NFL, for example) but in worldwide markets.

Anyway, as the least happy city in the US, don't you think we could use some more entertainment around here??

[Note: The Miami bid has been pulled, leaving only four bids left (out of seven initial bids) and few serious contenders. The probability of landing a team if a deal can be reached with the city, therefore, is very high - almost a certainty.]

Oregon's Business Taxes

Chuck Sheketoff of the OCPP writes in the BlueOregon blog about a study commissioned by business interests and conducted by Ernst & Young that compares business taxes across states and finds that Oregon in the bottom 3 in both overall tax burden and in a measure of the ratio of taxes to state spending that directly benefits business.  I agree witch Chuck that the latter is absurd: spending on schools provides a direct benefit to business, for example, and is not included in that ratio.   But as a relative measure, I don't think it is too bad.  

This logic, however, works both ways - Oregon is the second highest income tax state in the nation and this surely represents an indirect tax on businesses who have to compensate workers to maintain a competitive real salary.  This then is a problem with the measure both in absolute terms and in relative terms. 

So while it is true that direct taxes on business are low and could probably be raised without loosing competitiveness as a place to locate business, one must be careful about the direct and indirect effects of the tax structure overall.   

A Permanent Rainy-Day Fund?

The Oregonian is reporting on a plan coming out of the state legislature to put in front of voters a plan to create a permanent rainy day fund. Friend of the blog Fred Thompson and co-authors have looked at this problem in the midst of the last round of budget woes (only a few years ago) and their analysis is interesting and raises some questions:

• Why not also relax fiscal rules and allow borrowing during economic downturns?
• Is $1.5 billion enough? Thompson, et. al., suggest it is in the right ballpark, but given the current revenue gap which might easily eclipse $4 billion over the next two and a half years, it might need to be bigger.
• Why build something on top of this ridiculous rule that depends on an economic forecast (as Paul Krugman says economic forecasting is slightly less respectable than witchcraft)? We are fortunate to have a talented and professional state economist in Tom Potiowsky, but I am sure even Tom would tell you that forecasting is simply very educated guesswork. Why not come up with something new and better?

Still, I am very, very supportive of this initiative, it is the right idea and needs to happen. I think that this puts the emphasis in the right place: spending stability rather than revenue stability (which is unachievable).

Steve Levitt Riding My Coattails Again

Mr. Freakonomics himself on left-handed presidents, something I have already covered. I had looked up the left-handedness of other presidents as well (and some notable competitors) but decided not to try and push it too far. I will say, however, that since left-handedness was something commonly 'corrected' until my generation, it is possible that the left-handed bias of leaders is actually stronger than the numbers suggest.

Economist's Notebook: Happiness and Prosperity

[Photo: Brent Wojahn/Oregonian]

The Oregonian reports on the new Business Week article listing Portland as the 'unhappiest' city in the country. One of the reasons they cite is our high unemployment rate, which begs the question are happiness and economic prosperity linked?

For a long time the thought was that happiness was dependant only on your relative economic position: if you are poor and are surrounded by rich people, you are unhappy. But if you are poor and are surrounded by poor people, you are less unhappy. So as a consequence poor within a society are unhappy, but poor societies are not more unhappy than rich and countries whose wealth grows do not become more happy. This general set of statements was known as the Easterlin paradox.

This view grew, in part, from cross-country evidence that suggested that poor countries as a whole were not more happy than rich. Figures such as this, from a leading development economics textbook, seem to support this view:

But new evidence from Stevenson and Wolfers, who did a comprehensive analysis of the evidence, much of it new and much better than was previously available, suggests that this is not (or is no longer) true. Perhaps this simply comes from the better data (their view) or perhaps is comes from the fact that information technology has made it easier for the poor in poor countries to see how the rich in rich countries live. Whatever the reason, they provide a pretty convincing analysis that happiness and absolute economic status (not just relative) are strongly linked. Here is a nice New York Times graphic from the article about their research that summarizes their findings nicely:

Notice that not only are rich countries happier, but the rich are happier than the poor in most countries and this happiness differential within countries seems most pronounced in the middle income countries, many of which have high income inequality. But Wolfers and Stevenson have also found that happiness inequality has fallen in the US at a time when economic inequality has risen. However, the happiness gap between the highly educated and the less-highly educated has risen, at a time when the return to skilled labor has risen relative to the return to unskilled labor. So the income inequality and happiness inequality link is fuzzy.

Nevertheless it appears that your college degree pays off both economically and in personal happiness, what a deal!

The Unemployment Poll: The Final Results

The poll is now closed and there is a pretty strong focal point: 12%. I voted for 11% at the inception and the optimist in me hopes I am right that it will remain below 12% (I was thinking of 11% as anything under 12%). What is striking is how many voted for 13% to 16%. I consider this people who think we will enter a depression, not just recession. Scary. February will eclipse 10% for sure so it is really a matter of how quickly we can arrest the fall. Each week brings new bad news about the breadth and dept of the downturn making me increasingly pessimistic.

The key to everything is the quick and orderly reorganization of the banking sector. I think the fiscal stimulus is inconsequential without sorting out the credit sector. I wish the Treasury would more faster and in a more comprehensive manner. I am not quite ready to jump on the nationalize now bandwagon (I fear you run the risk of killing solvent banks if you start to nationalize the insolvent ones), but show me the current plan will work - I have yet to see private willingness to take on toxic assets even with government support.

Enrollments in Economics Courses Surge

An NPR story yesterday about how students are flocking to economics classes. I don't know if it is happening here at Oregon State, but it might not matter because we are struggling here in the economics department to even cover the bare bones curriculum we currently offer - an artifact of the university's long and recently renewed underinvestment in core arts and sciences in favor of more applied areas. This is a good strategy for chasing grant money but horrible for undergrads. OSU gets lots of recognition for things like forestry and oceanography, but there is a reason it is the worst ranked school in the Pac 10 - it does not have strength in the areas that are fundamental to undergraduate education.

OSU gets another mention, this time in the New York Times, about a surge in undergraduate applications (up 12 percent and transfer apps up 31 percent). I am sure the temptation is to admit a large freshman and transfer class. But with budgets being slashed one wonders how they are going to find classes to take. Even if we find people to teach the classes we don't have the classroom space to do it in. My spring term International Economics course immediately filled up and I don't have any desks left to add more students. What a shame, has their ever been a better time to understand international economics?

Ah well, the reality is that the economic downturn is comprehensive and we are all going to have to deal with it as best we can. And if anyone out there wants to study economics at OSU, you will find a group of dedicated scholars and educators excited to have you join us. We will make it work, don't worry - if there is one thing economists are good at, it is dealing with scarcity. We are currently undergoing a comprehensive restructuring of the economics major to make it more flexible and to offer more options, so stay tuned, but for a look at what we currently offer, go here.

Don't Cut Schools Short: Oregonian Op-Ed

Here is my Op-Ed on the closing schools early issue published in today's Oregonian