Subsidies and Tech Deals Don’t Change the Economics of Nuclear Power
by David Kemp, Cato at Liberty, November 4, 2020.
Excerpt:
Despite the flurry of attention, nothing suggests that the underlying economics of nuclear have changed. Nuclear remains expensive, and its costs likely outweigh its benefits as a zero-carbon energy source.
A recent Washington Post editorial, drawing heavily from a Department of Energy (DOE) report on pathways to deploying new nuclear power, summarizes the optimistic view of nuclear’s prospects. But to anyone who has paid attention to the United States’ historic and recent experience with nuclear power, the editorial and report are wildly overconfident.
Study: Mass Deportation Could Put 28 Million People at Risk of Family Separation
by Kevin Garcia Galindo, Reason, November 5, 2024,
A working paper from the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), an economic policy think tank, examines the potential economic effects of mass deportation.
It describes two scenarios: “a low-end estimate based on President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s deportation of 1.3 million persons in 1956 under what was officially called ‘Operation Wetback’ and a high-end count based on a Pew Research Center study that estimated approximately 8.3 million workers in the US were unauthorized in 2022.”
Both would hurt the U.S. economy. The low-end scenario, involving the deportation of 1.3 million undocumented workers by 2028, would lower GDP by 1.2 percent below baseline projections. The high-end scenario, which would see 8.3 million undocumented workers deported, would reduce GDP by 7.4 percent compared to the 2028 baseline.
The Fed’s Climate Research Is Beyond Flawed
by David Barker, The Daily Economy, November 6, 2024.
The Federal Reserve is at it again, publishing bad climate research. Last year in Econ Journal Watch, a peer reviewed academic publication, I criticized a Fed working paper about climate. The author, Fed economist Michael Kiley, never responded, though he was promised space in the journal for a reply. He published his paper in Economic Inquiry. Kiley made a few changes, but did not address my criticisms. I have written a new critique of Kiley’s updated work.
Nobel Prize-winning economist William Nordhaus has made it clear that, compared to future expected economic growth, any effect of warming temperatures would be small. Hence, climate fearmongers try hard to show that warming would reduce the rate of growth of GDP. Kiley’s paper claims that an extra degree of temperature will lower median world GDP growth by 84 percent through the end of the century, with an even larger reduction of growth during bad times.
Kiley’s analysis gives equal weight to 124 countries, including Rwanda, where a genocide in 1994 caused GDP to fall by 64 percent in one year. Blaming the genocide on a slightly higher than average temperature in that year is ridiculous, particularly since the year’s warm weather happened after the genocide took place. Kiley’s data also includes Equatorial Guinea, where, following an oil discovery, GDP rose by 88 percent in one year!
Just Say No to NATO Expansion
by Michael Chapman, Cato at Liberty, November 6, 2024.
Excerpt:
Many Western leaders, such as President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, say NATO expansion, including membership for Ukraine, is vital to Europe’s collective security. But an ever-growing NATO—spearheaded by the United States—seems to contradict what one of its principal architects, Dwight D. Eisenhower, envisioned for the organization. Further, proposed membership for Ukraine helped trigger Russia’s 2022 invasion, a war that has reportedly killed several hundred thousand Ukrainians and cost the US taxpayers $175 billion—so far.
A wiser policy for peace, as Cato and other libertarian scholars have advocated for decades, is to abandon efforts to expand NATO, resume the withdrawal of US troops from Germany, and let Europe take the lead in its own defense.
NATO started off in 1949 primarily to counter the Soviet Union and (in 1955) the Warsaw Pact. The USSR and the pact collapsed in 1991–some 33 years ago. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and a principal architect of NATO, wrote in 1951, “If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project [NATO] will have failed.” Today there are about 100,000 US troops in Europe.
READER COMMENTS
Craig
Nov 10 2024 at 2:18pm
Just Say No to NATO. full stop.
Anonymous
Nov 11 2024 at 11:47am
Why? Scott Sumner suggests continuing to add countries to NATO until most of the world is a member. Any member attacking another member would trigger mutual defense obligations, bringing the chances of conflict to an all-time low.
Ahmed Fares
Nov 10 2024 at 4:23pm
EU’s opening bid to avoid Trump’s tariffs: We could buy more American gas
In other news, new research shows…
Liquefied natural gas carbon footprint is worse than coal
Mactoul
Nov 11 2024 at 12:10am
What credence should be given to macroeconomic forecasts in general? What is their track record?
Also, is it likely that deportation of 2-3 percent population would depress GDP by 7 percent? Those being deported are low-earning people in general.
john hare
Nov 11 2024 at 3:48am
If some of the higher earners are now needed for the “lower earning” jobs, it seems quite feasible. When the $100k+ manager of a store has to clean the bathrooms and mop the floor instead of the $20k+ worker, guess which work is not getting done. I see it in construction a lot where the skilled worker has to also do the non-skilled work for lack of laborers. Those are quite noticeable productivity cuts.
Jon Murphy
Nov 11 2024 at 9:12am
Good point John. I think something that is lost (or outright denied) in most conversations about immigration is that immigrants are complements, not subsitutes, for domestic labor. Reducing immigration does not increase jobs for domestic workers,* but rather makes domestic workers less productive (and thus less wealthy).
*This is true even if we assume the Marxist condition of a “vast army of unemployed.”
David Henderson
Nov 11 2024 at 10:08am
I think the estimate is too high also.
What gave it some credibility to me is that it’s from PIIE. But I haven’t read it. I put in on the list mainly to remind people that there is a cost to mass deportation, whatever the magnitude. The way it’s being talked about by Trump et al is that it’s a clear gain.
Monte
Nov 11 2024 at 1:02pm
Looking at the other side of the equation, funding for illegal immigrants (including humanitarian aid at the border, health care, education, legal services, and emergency assistance) under the Biden administration has cost U.S. taxpayers upwards of $150 billion. Regarding GDP estimates of mass deportation:
Bit this begs the question: Should we only enforce laws that are economically beneficial to the U.S. and ignore those that aren’t? Shouldn’t all laws stand on their own principles, regardless of the economic costs?
For the record, I support targeted deportations (ie. gang members, criminals, non-contributing welfare recipients)
*The Cost of Illegal Immigration to Taxpayers
Jon Murphy
Nov 11 2024 at 1:13pm
I’m not sure that’s the right question to draw. I doubt many would argue so.
Rather, I think the point of these cost-benefit analyses is to look at where legislation can be reformed. Rather than ignore the legislation, let’s repeal it!
Monte
Nov 11 2024 at 4:38pm
OK, but until it’s repealed it should be enforced.
David Henderson
Nov 11 2024 at 1:31pm
You write:
That estimate seems reasonable. Notice, though, that a huge fraction of this aid is due to the fact that people seeking asylum (other than those from Ukraine and a limited number of those from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela) are not allowed to work for the first 180 days. My impression is that asylum seekers from Ukraine, many of whom have settled in the Chicago area, are getting very little aid. I’m open to being shown contrary evidence.
You write:
Do you think the state governments that have laws against adultery on their books should enforce them?
You write:
I support deporting criminals also. I would want to know more about how the government would identify gang members and whether it would need to demonstrate that those gang members committed crimes. If the government demonstrated that, then, of course, they could be put in the criminal category. Re non-contributing welfare recipients, there’s an easy solution that was part of the welfare reform in the mid-1990s: don’t give them welfare. Many illegal immigrants on welfare would take that bargain in a New York minute.
Monte
Nov 11 2024 at 4:53pm
But what of those from South of the border? They’re the primary focus of the study I linked to.
In divorce court, yes.
Couldn’t agree more!
Monte
Nov 11 2024 at 5:38pm
Valid point. The problem is that it could take years, even decades, for them to become net contributers.