Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Economists’ flawed gravity model

One of the arguments put up for the UK’s membership of the EU is the gravity model - that trade depends on proximity.

However, trade also depends on factors such as the presence of intervening oceans and the effects of language, legal systems, traditions, cultural and family ties. Members of ethnic groups eg Jews, Chinese, Indians - can easily trade with their friends and family half way round the world.

The gravity model also denies comparative advantage. If you want grapes in January you have to get them from somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere. Comparative advantage also works against the UK in regard to trade with continental Europe, due to the costs of transport. A manufacturer in Germany is perfectly placed for overland delivery to half a billion customers. The UK producer has sixty million within overland delivery range. To reach the rest, the goods must be sent over the sea.

Only the south-east corner of the UK is geographically close to continental Europe. Most of the country is a long drive to Dover or Cheriton, including around the congested M25 or M27. Otherwise, a long ferry crossing must be used: from Hull, Immingham, Harwich or Tilbury, to one of the continental ports between Gothenburg and Zeebrugge, depending on the destination.

Once goods are put in a container and loaded onto a ship, the economics of the logistic operation changes, as the cost of distance becomes trivial. Ports on the UK’s west coast are poorly placed for freight movement to continental Europe. From Liverpool, for instance, it takes little longer to send goods across the Atlantic than it does to send them to Hamburg.

People should look more critically at the over-simplified models that apply in economic theory.

Kommentarer

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...