Over the 13 years from 1979 to 1992, India’s per capita GDP (PPP) roughly doubled from $480 to $972, at an annualized per-capita GDP growth rate of 5% for the period. China’s economy averaged 10% growth over this same period! Since 2002, India’s per-capita GDP growth has averaged 9.5% on a PPP basis [1]. If India had grown at its more recent average of 9.5% per year over that period, per capita GDP would have risen to $1562 by 1992 – and India’s economy would be over double the size that it is today [2]. Fast-forward to the present, and this earlier liberalization would have led to a current per-capita GDP of $6000 in India, almost double current levels and in the same range (of middle income nations) as China [3]. One effect experienced in China has been an acceleration of growth post-liberalization – economic growth accelerated as reforms took hold. Had this occurred earlier in India as well, it’s possible that the 90′s and 00′s in India would have benefited from 9.5% GDP growth as well. If we use a 9.5% assumption for India’s growth from 1979 to present, then we get a present-day per-capita GDP in India of $8000 – not substantially different from China [4]!

Despite their huge differences, with China as an autocratic capitalist state and India as the world’s largest democracy, the two nations’ growth paths have not really been that different. All of the differences in government, corruption, infrastructure don’t really seem to have mattered that much, as a simple head start of 13 years drowns it all out. What a difference 13 years makes! The good news: India’s development was unnecessarily delayed, but is now well underway.

[0] All of this is based on the World Bank’s purchasing-power parity GDP per-capita data, as provided by Google’s public data service. This is GDP divided by mid-year population and adjusted for the difference in purchasing power in each country (normalized to US prices and quoted in dollars – this gives you a sense for how poor people in these nations really are).

[1] From the Google chart, 3582/1723 = India’s economy grew 2.08 times from 2002 through 2010. This equals a compound annual rate of growth of 9.57%.

[2] Take the 9.5% growth rate post-2002, and apply it to the 13-year period starting in 1979 at $480 GDP/capita (PPP). This gives you $1562 by 1992.

[3] If we then assume that India’s economy grew exactly as it did historically from  1992 – 2011 (growing 3.8x), and multiply this by 1562 (the new starting point in 1992), then we get a 2011 GDP/capita of $5946.

[4] Now assume that India simply grew at a 9.5% rate from 1979 on – the rate that it has managed from 2002-2011 (a period which includes the financial crisis). This would 1.095 ^ 31 = 16.67x growth. From a starting point of $480 GDP/capita, this would leave India at $8000 GDP/capita (PPP) by year end 2011.

P.S. In researching this post, I noticed that India’s growth rates compare much more favorably in PPP terms than they do in exchange rate terms. This might be explained in part by the fact that the Rupee has been much more volatile than the Yuan over time. While inflation is now rising quickly in both countries, particularly in metro areas, perhaps India has remained less expensive than China over time. Comparing these two graphs shows the difference when comparing unadjusted $ GDP/capita to PPP GDP / capita. I use the PPP measure as it more accurately reflects the quality of life experienced by someone living in either country, since cost matters just as much as income.

The answer lies in Modern Monetary Theory. In brief:

1. If all of a nation’s debt is denominated in its sovereign fiat currency, it cannot default. The fundamental point here is that the US can always print its way out of default, and so insolvency is never an issue.

2. This is totally different from Europe, in which individual nations do not have sovereign control over their currencies.

3. The only risk of printing money is inflation. This threat must be respected, but it is fundamentally different from a debt default.

While MMT is not yet in the academic mainstream (taught only at University of Missouri-Kansas City), it is the only theory that explains why Japan has yet to default on its debt, why the US can never default on its debt (except by choice), and why the Euro Zone is so screwed.

In future posts I’ll likely dive deeper into MMT, but let me first reference some great resources from around the web on the topic:

http://pragcap.com/where-does-the-money-come-from

http://agonist.org/bolo/20100426/modern_monetary_theory_an_overview

http://pragcap.com/warren-buffett-does-mmt

This analysis shows that since 2009, a considerably larger proportion of the world’s total oil production is occurring in countries that may be at or past peak production. Only 12 countries are definitely still pushing oil production past previous highs. Saudi Arabia is a bit of a question mark – it produced 10% less than its peak year (2005) in 2010, but claims that it has ample spare capacity and reserves to push beyond the old highs.  The 2010 data may also suffer from the after-effects of the financial crisis, although world oil prices and production did rebound sharply in late 2009 and 2010. While the 2012 data will show higher total world production, will they show increasing reliance on a shrinking number of growing producers?

[1] Here is my spreadsheet, based on the BP data. All production numbers in the table above are expressed in thousands of barrels of oil per day.

[2] The original 2011 BP Statistical Review of World Energy spreadsheet can be found here.

[3] As in the first version of this list, a country must be 10% below peak production, and its peak must have occurred more than five years in the past, to be considered as having peaked.

[4] The notes in the original list still apply for the following countries: Russia, Malaysia, Other Africa, Nigeria, Chad, and Ecuador.

The rankings show, unsurprisingly, that states riding the commodity boom (the Dakotas, Wyoming, etc) and states riding the government boom (Virginia, Maryland) have performed well over the last decade. But other high-performers like Arizona, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Colorado defy easy categorization. The low performers are predominantly found in the Southeast and Midwest.

The raw data used in the rankings is provided below. Here is a link to the actual excel spreadsheet containing all data for those interested.

Notes on ranking construction:

• If it’s not obvious, the total ranking for each state was determined by simply summing its rank in each category, and then ranking the states by total score, with lowest being best. While this method weights each category ranking equally, it may penalize some states which perform as numerical outliers in certain categories but not in others. On the other hand, the overall rankings pass the smell test – if anyone sees an egregious error caused by the methodology, let me know. This is V1!
• The GDP growth data used the period from 1997-2010, which was the best data set easily available from the BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). The employment data used the period from Jan. 2001 through October 2011. These periods obviously don’t align exactly – but given the nature of the analysis (heterogenous ranking), I chose to go with best available data rather than with exactly matching time periods. Matching the time periods would have reduced the data available to 2001-2010, eliminating both some of the late 90′s boom and the current recovery.
• Even given the caveats above, all states (plus DC) were ranked using the exact same data sets, and the combination of categories prevents (in my view) bias towards either a growth orientation, an income orientation, or an employment orientation. Others may disagree – heterogenous ranking systems are by nature somewhat subjective (in the choice and weighting of data used), and I thus provide all the raw data so that you can draw your own conclusions.

The passage of time has brought much ridicule to the Cash For Clunkers program, which was intended to boost auto sales and raise the average fuel efficiency of American vehicles. The data show that the program led to a temporary spike in automobile purchases, prompted by a subsequent decline. This has led most to conclude that the program was a failure, as it did little to jump-start economic recovery.

But what about the other goal? Did Cash For Clunkers raise the average fuel efficiency of the American auto fleet? How much less gasoline have Americans purchased as a result of the program, and does this savings outweigh the program’s cost?

Here are some statistics from the Department of Transportation’s CARS Report to Congress:

• 677,842 vehicles were turned in under the CARS program
• $2.85 Billion was paid out in rebates for these vehicles
• New vehicles purchased had an average MPG of 24.9
• Old vehicles turned in had an average MPG of 15.7
• $2.8 Billion in fuel savings based on the early retirement of less efficient vehicles

The report also estimates that roughly half of the sales spurred by the program were incremental sales that would not have occurred otherwise. Edmunds.com performed a more conservative analysis showing that only 125,000 incremental sales occurred as a result of the program.

Using Edmunds’ more conservative 125k number, and an average sales price (after rebate) of roughly $25,000, Cash for Clunkers generated $3.125 Billion in incremental vehicle sales. These incremental sales added directly to US GDP, and this more conservative analysis shows less than half the economic impact of $7 Billion estimated by DOT.

Combining the fuel savings and GDP benefit yields a total benefit to American taxpayers of roughly $6 Billion for a program that cost the government roughly $3 Billion to operate! If only more government programs could fail like this!  Even using the more conservative fuel savings calculations provided below, the program would have provided over $5.5 Billion in benefit against a $3B investment. Far from being shut down, the Cash for Clunkers program should have been expanded.

Alternate calculation of fuel savings from junking old vehicles:

0. By junking an old vehicle and taking it off the road, you are permanently increasing the fuel economy of the American vehicle fleet – this is the source of savings for the American economy. Since 100% of marginal US oil consumption is provided by foreign sources, a dollar of oil saved is a dollar added to GDP (since imports actually subtract from GDP as we send money overseas).

1. Assume that the old vehicle would be driven for an additional 50,000 miles over its lifetime (CARS survey respondents said they averaged 10k miles per year on their old vehicles, so even with gradual declines this is reasonable).

2. The old vehicles got an average of 15.7 MPG, requiring roughly 3200 gallons of gasoline over that 50k miles.

3. The new vehicle got an average of 24.9 MPG, requiring 2000 gallons of gasoline over the 50k miles that they replaced.

4. The difference of roughly 1200 gallons of gasoline equates to roughly $3600 per vehicle (assuming $3 per gallon excluding taxes). With roughly 680k vehicles in the program, this equals a fuel cost savings of $2.5 Billion – a slightly more conservative estimate than that computed by DOT.

Medicare should continue to pay 80% of health care costs for recipients’ care below $40,000 per calendar year, but should pay only 50% of health care costs above $40,000 per calendar year.

With the ongoing debt-ceiling debate and political discussions over how to cut spending dominating discourse, I thought I’d chime in with a simple plan to fix America’s long term budget crisis. The majority of America’s future budget deficits are a result of runaway growth in health care spending, despite reductions in Medicare spending put in place with the recently passed health care reform. Paul Ryan and other conservatives propose to fix this by ending the Medicare program, and replacing it with an insurance-voucher scheme. President Obama proposes to control cost growth through the IPAB, a board with the power to control Medicare reimbursement policies.

My plan is far simpler than either, and will preserve Medicare as it exists today for 90% of recipients. How does this plan work? Kaiser Foundation research shows that 90% of Medicare recipients receive less than 40k per year in health care. The remaining 10% of recipients actually spend 60% of the Medicare budget. The proposed change would require these recipients to either shoulder more of the cost of expensive treatments, or to utilize less expensive treatments. Note that Medicare would not leave any recipient high-and-dry, but it would require even cost sharing for expensive treatments.

When faced with higher cost-sharing, many Medicare recipients would opt not to receive the newest cancer drugs, or the latest titanium hip replacement. It’s also quite likely that when faced with this two tier reimbursement structure, many health care providers would change treatments and pricing to stay competitive within the new structure – there’s evidence that today, health care providers charge Medicare what they do simply because Medicare will pay.

How much money would the proposed change save? Assuming that most spending above the $40k mark is eliminated [1], then Medicare and Medicaid might save $200B in the first year alone. This kind of change would also reduce health care cost inflation, since high-cost care would be curtailed significantly. It’s quite likely that this change would completely eliminate Medicare’s unfunded liability, without changing the program significantly for the majority of beneficiaries. But clearly this is too simple and non-ideological a change to stand a chance [2]!

[1] According to CMS, in 2011 total Medicare and Medicaid spending will total $1 Trillion. If my proposal to cut government cost sharing to 50% above 40k eliminated most spending above the 40k line (since many Medicare patients would not be able to pay their increased share above 40k), then the federal government would save half of the money expended above the 40k line. In 2006 the average expenditure for the high spenders in Medicare was $48k – in 2011 this would likely be over $60k per year with inflation and cost growth totaling 5% per year. Assume that the entire 20k per year above the 40 line were saved – that would mean that the high spenders’ health care expenditures would be reduced by 33%, reducing total government health care expenditure by 20% (one-third of the 60% spend on these expensive patients).

[2] I should note that this plan would leave some patients with expensive conditions to make difficult choices. By ending the endless spigot of government health care money, 10% of current beneficiaries would have to decide whether they could afford to have certain expensive procedures. But patients, not regulators, would be able to decide – the patients would simply be required to pay an even share for expensive treatment.

[3] In actual implementation, such a plan would have to be phased in. For instance, Medicare could initiate a 1 percentage point reduction in cost-sharing for each of the next thirty years, gradually moving from 80% to 50% for expenditures over the threshold.

It has become fashionable in conservative circles of late to use Texas as a glowing example of the success of conservative economic policy, and to use California as an example of the failures of liberal economic policy. Texas has indeed recorded faster GDP growth and lower unemployment than California in recent years. Texas has also experienced rapid population growth of late. Its core industry (energy) has boomed with global oil prices, but Texas’ diversified economy has performed well across multiple sectors. Conservative politicians in Texas and nationwide point to low taxes and a friendly regulatory environments as the reasons for success.

Let’s look at some numbers to get a clearer comparison [1]:

While raw GDP growth is important, per capita GDP and per capita GDP growth are much more important to the well-being of citizens (Luxembourg is a nicer place to live than China). On both these measures, California is significantly ahead of Texas. Since 1997, California’s per capita GDP growth has exceeded Texas growth – while California and Texas were once similar in per-capita GDP, the gap is now widening in California’s favor, not shrinking! If Texas is doing everything right, and California everything wrong, then why is California’s economy becoming wealthier relative to Texas?

The answer to this question isn’t simple – California’s dominance in high tech, media, and other high-paying industries may be partly responsible. While California’s state government is near paralysis, and its referendum system has complicated governance, it possesses perhaps the finest public academic institutions in the world in the University of California system. California’s government may be dysfunctional, but it’s inaccurate to describe the state in the same terms.

Conservatives and Texas politicians should take note – if the Texas way is better, why is California still pulling away? The reality is that the best economic model is somewhere in-between – but what politician would support both strategic public investment and leaner public spending? That’s too complicated for a sound bite.

[1] Download the data used in this analysis at the BEA. From the download page, select Per Capita Real GDP by State, All states and regions, All industry total, and All years from the respective drop-downs.

[2] Per-capita GDP for 2010 was calculated by taking the data from step [1], which is expressed in terms of 2005 dollars, and adjusting it to 2010 values using CPI as indicated on measuringworth.com (multiplying the 2005 values by 1.12).

Total solar power capacity continues to grow at 20-25% per year, a rate of growth it has maintained for decades. It’s not surprising that solar photovoltaic technology is advancing rapidly, as it is a cousin of traditional semiconductor technology. For almost four decades semiconductor technology advanced according to Moore’s Law, with chips roughly doubling in transistor density (and speed) every 18 months. At a 20% annual rate of growth, installed solar capacity would rise from 21 GW in 2009 to almost 6000 GW by 2040. This install base could generate 12 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, or two-thirds of today’s worldwide electricity consumption [2]. However, the EIA estimates that by 2040 worldwide electricity demand will hit 35 trillion kilowatt-hours!

Even assuming that solar energy installations grow at a 20% clip for three decades, the total install base will not be sufficient to meet world energy demands. Despite the industry’s rapid growth, replacing a hundred years of fossil-fuel based generation capacity by mid-century may be close to impossible. Nonetheless, if solar energy manages to scale on this trajectory, its contribution would still be enormous, and would likely bring total renewable generation to over 50% of all electricity.

Can it be done? Did anyone in the 1960′s believe that a 2010 phone would have more processing capacity than all the world’s computers combined?

[1] From Without The Hot Air – all wind power resources worldwide could supply a significant fraction of total power needs, while solar energy in the Sahara alone could theoretically supply all world energy needs.

[2] The EIA International Energy Outlook shows current worldwide electrical demand of roughly 18 trillion kilowatt-hours, with this figure growing to 35 trillion kWh by 2035.

On one hand, Superbowl ad inventory consistently sells out, and the market thus speaks to the ads’ value. But what about a comparison with other TV ad time? How do Superbowl ads compare on a CPM basis?

Here are the statistics from a 2007 blog post entitled The Ad Man Answers #4:

Super Bowl TV:  $2,600,000 per spot / 93,890,400 x 1,000 = $27 CPM
Columbus newspaper: $6,680 per insertion / 231,881 x 1,000 = $29 CPM
San Fran KFOG radio: $900 per spot / 104,864 x 1,000 = $9 CPM
Ent Weekly magazine: $72,025 per week/ 6,162,853 x 1,000 = $12 CPM
LA freeway billboard: $20,000 per month / 5,640,000 x 1,000 = $4 CPM

This year’s Superbowl was priced similarly, with 111 million views for $3 million, or a CPM of $27.02.

The Ad Man also provides the following general CPM statistics:

Typical Advertising CPMs
Outdoor = $1-5 CPM
Cable TV = $5-8 CPM
Radio = $8 CPM
Online = $5-30 CPM
Network/Local TV = $20 CPM
Magazine = $10-30 CPM
Newspaper = $30-35 CPM
Direct Mail = $250 CPM

Based on these metrics, Superbowl ads look to be quite a reasonable buy, particularly for advertisers that want to reach a broad swath of American consumers. With the NFL at an all-time high in ratings and interest, and Superbowl ads having become their own phenomenon, it’s no wonder that advertisers line up to take part!

First, the spreadsheet model.

To recap, here are the variables included in the model, with the default assumptions made:

• Price of gasoline = $3/gallon
• Annual mileage driven = 12k/year
• Standard-car MPG (mileage of the same car or similar car without hybrid technology) = 20mpg
• Hybrid MPG / electric MPGe = 100 mpge
• Risk-free discount rate = 3%
• Projected annual increase in gasoline prices = 5%
• Hybrid price premium = $18k
• Length of car ownership = 8 years

There’s one more important variable to add to this list:

• Time savings from reducing gas station stops = 300 minutes, or 5 hours per year

Time savings can be a huge hidden savings for upper-middle class and wealthy Americans (those able to afford a car like the Chevy Volt). If the value of a Volt driver’s time is $50/hour (equivalent to a 100k/yr salary), then eliminating a single gas station stop of 10 minutes is worth over $8. Ten minutes may sound long for a stop at the gas station, but is not unrealistic when considering total time lost leaving and re-entering a normal commute.

Using the assumptions provided above, we find that the total fuel and time cost savings of driving a Chevy Volt for eight years are around $9000. Since the Chevy Volt costs $18,000 more than a comparable loaded Chevy Cruze, it’s not yet cost competitive, even with government tax credits and with time savings taken into account.

Key Conclusions:

• Gas prices of $7 per gallon are required to make the Chevy Volt cost-effective at current prices (without the government tax credit)
• Once plugin hybrid premiums drop to $9000, they will be cost-competitive.
• The Nissan Leaf currently offers buyers significant savings WITH the $7500 tax credit, as the total savings of $16,500 exceeds the $12,000 price premium. Even without the tax credit, the Leaf is very close to being cost-competitive at current pricing.