skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Krugman's Misleading Post on Coal
By David Henderson of EconLog.
"There used to be a lot of coal miners, but not any more --
strip mines and machinery in general have allowed us to produce more
coal with very few miners. Basically, it's a job that was destroyed by
technology long ago, with only a relative handful of workers -- 0.06
percent of the US work force -- still engaged in mining
So what is this fight about? There's capital invested in coal and
coal-related stuff, hiding behind the pretense of caring about the
workers. And there's also ideology, of which more soon. But the war on
coal already happened, it had nothing to do with liberals and
environmentalists, and coal lost.
This is from Paul Krugman, "The War on Coal Has Already Happened," June 7, 2014.
As I've noted earlier,
Paul Krugman is clever and crafty. He will write something that, if
you read quickly, you will take one way and think he made a mistake.
But if you read it more carefully, you will see that he covered himself
and simply wrote something that misleads the majority of his readers.
The quote above is such an example. A reader reading quickly might
think that it's no big deal for Obama to restrict coal-fired utilities
because there are so few jobs at stake in coal mining. But Krugman has
covered himself by pointing out that there is capital invested in coal
and owners of capital have a stake in producing coal.
But wait. Isn't there another important player in the coal market,
namely utilities that buy coal and will now need to turn to a
more-expensive fuel? Don't they stand to lose and lose big time?
Potentially, yes. So why didn't Krugman talk about them? Actually, he
did. At least, I think he did. I think he was getting at coal-burning
utilities when he referred to capital invested in "coal-related stuff."
"Coal-related stuff" is not exactly a technical term. A reader would
have to pause over that term before figuring out that it means
coal-burning power plants.
And there definitely is one group that Krugman does leave out that
many readers of his blog and of Econlog are probably in: namely, people
who get electricity from utilities that burn coal. Isn't it interesting
that this economist, who won his Nobel Prize for his contributions to
understanding free trade, left out from his analysis a large group of
beneficiaries of free trade, namely consumers?
The number of jobs in the coal industry is not the crucial variable.
To see why, imagine that one person, working one very complex
configuration of capital, could produce all the coal from one huge mine.
Imagine that there are 500 such huge mines. Now imagine that the
government bans use of coal. 500 people lose their jobs. Even if each
of them is making a producer surplus of $20,000 a year, that's only a
$10 million a year loss of producer surplus. But a huge amount of
producer surplus, mainly in the form of gains to capital and gains to
owners of the coal, would be lost and a huge amount of consumer surplus
would be lost. This is what I'm getting at with Pillar of Economic Wisdom #8: "Creating jobs is not the same as creating wealth."
Note: I'm assuming, in the paragraph directly above, that when the
government bans the use of coal, it doesn't get produced. In fact, of
course, much of it would still be produced--and shipped to Germany or
China or somewhere else"
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.