Stay informed with free updates
Simply sign up for the Economy myFT Digest, delivered straight to your inbox.
I grew up in the land of eucalypts and had never even seen a pitchfork until I moved to England. Now I live in the country and every time a leaf falls on the grass I curse like an Anzac. You can keep the divine colors this fall as well.
But let’s be honest, it’s not the endless scraping and riding to the tip that’s frustrating. The words of my former boss ring in my ears every time I do physical labor. He always said it made more sense to pay someone else. You should strive to receive big bonuses.
Too true. So instead of enjoying the outdoors and getting some much-needed exercise, you’re just worrying about the books you need to write and the projects that remain unfinished. If I hadn’t always been cooped up outside, I’m sure I would be a millionaire by now.
The economic theory of comparative advantage was sensational when it emerged in the early 19th century. Previously, countries were thought to trade based on their own production costs. David Ricardo has proven that it is the relative domestic costs that matter.
In other words, do what you do best. So it doesn’t matter if it’s cheaper than paying a gardener £20 an hour. I should only provide services that give me the greatest return on my efforts. Have you heard of Mrs. Kirk?
That’s why COP29 participants are right to agree on new joint quantitative targets for climate finance next week. Rich countries should provide funding to poor countries to support their economic transition.
But the reason for doing so has nothing to do with fairness. A common justification is that developed countries have benefited from emissions in the past and should compensate developing countries that have not. In reality, the case is simpler.
Developed countries have a comparative advantage in wealth creation and decarbonization and need to be proactive. Developing countries should receive the funding because almost 65 percent of current emissions come from developing countries.
But extending this logic also means that the “ambitious” climate targets promised by some rich countries are counterproductive. On Tuesday, for example, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledged to cut emissions by a (hilariously accurate) 81 percent by 2035.
That’s wrong. The UK produces just 1% of the world’s carbon dioxide, but its economy is the sixth largest on the planet. It’s much better to focus on growth and maximizing tax revenue to send more cash where it’s needed.
Going green is costly and burdensome. However, some emitters are an environmental sideshow. Why would someone who lays golden eggs take the risk? Indonesia emits almost twice as much carbon as the UK, but has around two-thirds less GDP. We should decarbonise and give Starmer the bill.
Three other news stories this week also require a comparative advantage lens. While still in Baku, Azerbaijan’s president first called oil and gas a “gift of God.” He added that petrostates cannot be blamed for the fact that the world still needs both.
surely. The most efficient way to transition is for consumers to reduce their use of fossil fuels. Demand is our comparative advantage. It is Azerbaijan’s job to find and supply the materials that still meet 80% of the world’s energy needs.
Similarly, Shell won a legal victory on Tuesday. It was madness to impose reduction targets that included emissions from customers. Compared to cleaning up their act, oil companies have no power when it comes to making us take buses instead of cars.
As seen in all the examples above, opportunity cost is a key principle of comparative advantage theory. That’s certainly what popped into my head when Elon Musk’s new job tackling US bureaucracy was announced. Should he really do this?
Sure, he’s got a knack for cutting costs. But while my resume is only marginally better than someone who mows lawns for a living, Musk has already said that ensuring our survival through the colonization of Mars is Needless to say, we are passionate about revolutionizing transportation and communications.
That’s the kind of guy you don’t want to spend your day hunched over PowerPoint slides with Vivek Ramaswamy. The opportunity cost is too high. Save humanity, Elon! It’s even more important than eliminating bureaucracy.
Taken together, the headlines of the past five days seem to suggest that many of our policy failures stem from the loss of our comparative advantage as our North Star. Free trade has long taken a clear toll, but it will likely get worse under Donald Trump.
On the other hand, the new president-elect’s administration will suffer from one of the most egregious forms of comparative disadvantage: pressuring companies to drive social and cultural change at a time when they should be focused on making money and inventing. , some hope it will at least deter them. great product. Quiet leaf blowers that actually work.
stuart.kirk@ft.com
