« Schelling and Aumann! | Main | Robert Aumann, one of two new Nobel Laureates »

Thomas Schelling, new Nobel Laureate

Note my biases, Schelling was my mentor at Harvard.

Tom is an unassuming guy, who looks as if he sells Hush Puppies at the local mall.  But he is one of the sharpest people you will meet.  He delivers the killer point, argument, or anecdote with striking regularity.  Even in his eighties he is sharp as a tack.  He has a deeply philosophical and humanistic approach to economics.  What are his contributions?

1. The idea of precommitment.  You can be better off, either individually, or institutionally, if your choices are limited in advance.  This is a key idea in monetary policy (many governments seek to tie the hands of their central banks), the theory of bargaining (try buying a used car, and see if the salesman doesn't talk about "the boss upstairs"), and industrial organization (firms may invest in capacity to precommit a market position and deter rivals).  You find the precommitment frequently in movies as well, especially where kidnapping is involved; what is that Mel Gibson flick again?  Here is an excellent Jon Elster piece on the ambiguities of precommitment.  Here is my piece on similar themes.

2. The paradox of nuclear deterrence.  Ever see Dr. Strangelove?  Tom developed the idea that deterrence is never fully credible (why retaliate once you are wiped out?).  The best deterrent might involve precommitment, some element of randomness, or a partly crazy leader.  I recall Tom telling me he was briefly an advisor to Kubrick.  Here is someone else's essay on the paradox of deterrence.

3. Focal points.  People coordinate by directing their attention to commonly recognized points of importance.  If a meeting time for lunch is not specified, you might assume 12 noon.  If someone mentions "economics blog," of course MarginalRevolution.com comes to mind.  And so on.  Much social coordination occurs in this manner.  I once asked me class: "If you had to hide a one hundred dollar bill in a book, so that your friend would find it, but you could not announce the book, which volume should you choose?"  Many said The Bible but of course the game theorist picks Schelling's The Strategy of Conflict.

4. Behavioral economics and the theory of self-constraint.  One of Tom's best pieces is "The Mind as a Consuming Organ," American Economics Review, 1984. Here is a lecture of his on self control.  Will Wilkinson cites a bit of that essay.  Tom made it respectable for economists to talk once again about happiness.

Tom has been an underrecognized father of behavioral economics.  His work on addiction, memory, and personal control was pathbreaking and came nearly twenty years before the "behavioral revolution" in economics.  He analyses the tricks people use to control their wills.  For Tom, self-control is often a more important determinant of happiness than is wealth.  Tom once told me his work sprung from his own attempts to quit smoking, which he did finally manage.  Several times.

5. The economics of segregation. Tom showed how communities can end up segregated even when no single individual cares to live in a segregated neighborhood.  Under the right conditions, it only need be the case that the person does not want to live as a minority in the neighborhood, and will move to a neighborhood where the family can be in the majority.  Try playing this game with white and black chess pieces, I bet you will get to segregation pretty quickly.  Here is a demo model for playing the game.

6. Later in his life Tom turned his attention to issues of global warming.  He has been skeptical of the idea that global warming involves insuperably high economic costs.  Here is a short essay by Tom on the topic.  Here is his excellent AER piece on the same topic.

Tom is not well-represented on the web, here is one photo, but the associated links are mostly broken.  Here is Tom's piece on Hiroshima.  Here is the Wikipedia bio, note Wikipedia already reports he won the prize.  Here is a great interview with Tom.  Here is Tom's work on the Copenhagen Consensus.

A few bio facts: Like so many other prestigious American economists, Tom worked for the Marshall Plan in its early stages.  He spent most of his career at Harvard, first in the economics department, later in the Kennedy School.  He had close ties with the Rand Corporation.  He was an advisor to Kissinger during the Vietnam War but quit in disgust.  He is now emeritus at University of Maryland.  I have always interpreted Tom's political views as those of a conservative Democrat.

Here is a piece I wrote with Dan Klein and Timur Kuran, Salute to Schelling: Keeping it Human.  In this piece, recently published, we asked the Committee to give the Prize to Tom.  Here are Tom's books, they are all worth reading.

Comments are open, you can add more; Tom could have won more than one Nobel Prize for all his contributions.

Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 10, 2005 at 08:16 AM in Economics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c66b253ef00e5509790c58834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Thomas Schelling, new Nobel Laureate:

» Nobel Prize Goes to Game Theorists from The Club for Growth Blog
Tyler Cowen has good coverage of the new Nobel laureates in economics Israels Robert Aumann and American Thomas Schelling.... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 10, 2005 8:57:56 AM

» HERE'S TO THE WINNERS from MaxSpeak, You Listen!
Thomas Schelling and Robert Aumann have won the Nobel Prize for Economics. I don't know anything about Aumann or game theory. I think "game theory" is too narrow a rubric under which to define Schelling, a very kool economist, untypical... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 10, 2005 9:18:45 AM

» Economics Nobel for Schelling and Aumann from Crooked Timber
Tom Schelling and Robert Aumann have been awarded this years Bank of Sweden Memorial Prize. Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution provides some information about both of them (Schelling, Aumann). Schellings work is probably the better known... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 10, 2005 9:34:18 AM

» Schelling! from Will Wilkinson / The Fly Bottle
I'm just thrilled that Thomas Schelling will share with Robert Aumann a piece of this year's Nobel Prize in economics. I had the opportunity to meet Schelling at a conference on self-deception I helped organize for Mercatus. I believe he... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 10, 2005 9:38:19 AM

» Schelling! from Will Wilkinson / The Fly Bottle
I'm just thrilled that Thomas Schelling will share with Robert Aumann a piece of this year's Nobel Prize in economics. I had the opportunity to meet Schelling at a conference on self-deception I helped organize for Mercatus. I believe he... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 10, 2005 9:39:27 AM

» HERE'S TO THE WINNERS from MaxSpeak, You Listen!
Thomas Schelling and Robert Aumann have won the Nobel Prize for Economics. I don't know anything about Aumann or game theory. I think "game theory" is too narrow a rubric under which to define Schelling, a very kool economist, untypical... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 10, 2005 9:43:46 AM

» Schelling and Aumann from Knowledge Problem
Lynne Kiesling Congratulations to Thomas Schelling and Robert Aumann on receiving this year's Nobel Prize in Economics! I have profited from the work of both, and think this is a great award. Tyler Cowen has informative posts on both Schelling... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 10, 2005 10:34:25 AM

» Go Schelling, It's Your Birthday... from The Reconstruction
I actually gasped when I awakened this morning and saw this. Thomas Schelling, winner of half of this year's Nobel Prize in Economics (note to the sticklers: yes, it is technically the "Bank of... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 10, 2005 11:01:36 AM

» Schelling Shares Nobel Prize from PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science
Via the AP/NYT: Game Theorists Win Nobel Prize for Economics Robert J. Aumann and Thomas C. Schelling won the 2005 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences on Monday for their work in game theory that explains political and economic conflicts, arms ... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 10, 2005 11:07:02 AM

» games people play from South(west)paw
I have to confess, I’m a little disappointed about the BS Prize in Economic Sciences this year being awarded to Thomas Schelling and Robert Aumann for their work on game theory. I’d really been rooting for Fama and Thaler. If... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 10, 2005 12:21:58 PM

» Nobel Prize from The Filter^
Winners: Thomas Schelling and Robert Aumannfor having enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysisThe decision has made heterodox economists very happy - see Tyler Cowen and Pete Boetkke's comments on Schelling, a... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 10, 2005 12:43:27 PM

» A nice guy finishes first from Mark A. R. Kleiman
Thomas C. Schelling has won the Nobel Prize in Economics. [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 10, 2005 12:53:08 PM

» The Econ Nobels: from The Volokh Conspiracy
This year's Nobel Prize in Economics has been awarded to Thomas Schelling and Robert Aumann for their work on game theory. It's a nice pairing, as Schelling's work is quite accessible and non-technical, whereas Aumann's is more ... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 10, 2005 1:09:28 PM

» Economics Nobel for Schelling and Aumann from Kieran Healy's Weblog
Tom Schelling and Robert Aumann have been awarded this years Bank of Sweden Memorial Prize. Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 10, 2005 1:14:25 PM

» Thomas Schelling, Nobel Laureate from Emergent Chaos
Congratulations to Thomas Schelling, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics (with Robert Aumann). Schelling, amongst many accomplishments which Tyler Cowan discusses here, put forth the notion that there are questions with answers which are corr... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 10, 2005 2:38:20 PM

» Economics Nobel for Schelling and Aumann from Kieran Healy's Weblog
Tom Schelling and Robert Aumann have been awarded this years Bank of Sweden Memorial Prize. Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 10, 2005 4:07:25 PM

» Economics Nobel for Schelling and Aumann from Kieran Healy's Weblog
Tom Schelling and Robert Aumann have been awarded this years Bank of Sweden Memorial Prize. Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 10, 2005 4:09:23 PM

» Schelling and Aumann Win The Nobel Prize in Econo from Financial Rounds
It's official - Thomas Schelling and Robert Aumann win the Nobel Prize in Economics. For some great commentary and links to information on the two latest laureates, Marginal Revolution has good stuff here, here, here, here, and here. [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 10, 2005 8:47:40 PM

» nobel. from Circa CFD
Nobel Économique 2005: Aumann et Schelling. (Merci à Marginal Revolution pour l'approche vulgarisée!)... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 11, 2005 6:56:59 AM

» Nobel Laureate Thomas C. Schelling from Houston's Clear Thinkers
Former University of Maryland economics professor Thomas C. Schelling was named the winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science yesterday along with Israeli economist Robert J. Aumann for their work in game theory, which essentially attempts... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 11, 2005 10:56:46 AM

» Nobel Laureate Thomas C. Schelling from Houston's Clear Thinkers
Former University of Maryland economics professor Thomas C. Schelling was named the winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science yesterday along with Israeli economist Robert J. Aumann for their work in game theory, which essentially attempts... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 11, 2005 11:23:41 AM

» Nobel Laureate Thomas C. Schelling from Houston's Clear Thinkers
Former University of Maryland economics professor Thomas C. Schelling was named the winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science yesterday along with Israeli economist Robert J. Aumann for their work in game theory, which essentially attempts... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 12, 2005 11:10:02 AM

» Nobel prize for game theorists from David Smith's EconomicsUK.com
Thomas Schelling and Robert Aumann have won the Bank of Sweden prize for economics (the economics Nobel) for their work on game theory, an increasingly important branch of the subject. Here is an excellent discussion of their work and its... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 14, 2005 5:33:57 AM

» Tom, Tyler, Bob, and Rob from EconLog
While of course all of George Mason's Department of Economics was once again desperately rooting for Gordon Tullock to win... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 3, 2005 6:37:26 AM

Comments

Strategy of Conflict is one of the most important books ever written in international security. Schelling's ideas about pre-commitment and focal points are pervasive across the social sciences. This is an excellent choice and long overdue.

Posted by: Erik at Oct 10, 2005 8:56:15 AM

The Mel Gibson movie is "Ransom." Not Shakespeare, exactly, but pretty entertaining.

Posted by: Andrew Wise at Oct 10, 2005 10:13:23 AM

Where do you hide the C-note?
"Capital," of course. Or perhaps "The Economic Point of View."

Posted by: Kent Guida at Oct 10, 2005 10:21:48 AM

"It is behaving as if two selves were alternately
in command. A familiar example is someone who cannot
get up when the alarm goes off." This is from Schillings Tanner lecture. See how an MIT students has solved that problem
http://www.clocky.net/

Posted by: Asif Dowla at Oct 10, 2005 10:46:15 AM

For a long time I was hugely underwhelmed by the idea of the focal point. But one of the best pieces on it that I have read changed my mind. It is an essay by Roger Myerson at http://home.uchicago.edu/~rmyerson/research/justice.pdf

Posted by: Tom Slee at Oct 10, 2005 10:52:43 AM

schelling's essay on the economics of segregation or how collective pattern emerges from the aggregation of small individual preferences has been very important for mathematical modeling in the social sciences. It introduced notions of "tipping point," "path dependency," and emergence that both popularizers like Malcolm Gladwell and agent-based modelers like Epstein and Axtel have further applied.
I always found him in writing and in person tremendously creative and ironic, with the latter bent enabling his counter-intuitions. True, his early work on nuclear deterrence (Strategy of Conflict) that conceptually supported MAD was criticized for trivialiing war and amorality. So it should be mentioned that Schelling often said his models descrribed what people would likely do if they did not stop to think.

Posted by: roger hurwitz at Oct 10, 2005 11:08:01 AM

Schelling seems to have done lots of interesting stuff, and is no doubt deserving of the prize, but the essay on global warming contains a stunningly stupid statement:

----

In the developed world hardly any component of the national income is affected by climate. Agriculture is practically the only sector of the economy affected by climate, and it contributes only a small percentage -- three percent in the United States -- of national income. If agricultural productivity were drastically reduced by climate change, the cost of living would rise by one or two percent, and at a time when per capita income will likely have doubled.

----

Of course, if agricultural productivity were drastically reduced by climate change, most of us would die of starvation!

Posted by: Radford Neal at Oct 10, 2005 1:08:25 PM

For those struggling with property rights derived as "natural rights", there's David Friedman's "Positive Account of Property Rights" starts with Schelling.

http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html

Posted by: Eric H at Oct 10, 2005 1:49:47 PM

"Of course, if agricultural productivity were drastically reduced by climate change, most of us would die of starvation!"

Not really. Productivity is a measure of output per unit of input. For example, labor productivity measures production per unit of labor (sometimes per worker, sometimes per hour worked). It's entirely possible for productivity to decline and still get the same output, in this case food, it simply means that you have to devote more resources to that sector. As I understand it, Schelling is arguing that we will in fact have so many more resources that this increase will seem small small.

Posted by: Steven Vickers at Oct 10, 2005 2:19:31 PM

Thank God ! Gordon Tullock did not get it as expected by Tyler Cowen. It would have made the Nobel pretty trivial as Buchanan's and Vernon Smith's ones did. Unfortunately Bob Aumann cannot be hired by George Mason since he is far more abstract, technical and Mathematical than the Public Choice bullocks of Buchanan and Tullock. GMU might try to persuade the Nobel committe to get a prize for Roger Congleton and Charles Rowley instead, for their brilliant joint contribution to the Stupidity of Public Choice.

Posted by: Danny Fischer at Oct 10, 2005 4:52:39 PM

"Of course, if agricultural productivity were drastically reduced by climate change, most of us would die of starvation!"

Steve Vickers responded:

"Not really. Productivity is a measure of output per unit of input. For example, labor productivity measures production per unit of labor (sometimes per worker, sometimes per hour worked). It's entirely possible for productivity to decline and still get the same output, in this case food, it simply means that you have to devote more resources to that sector. As I understand it, Schelling is arguing that we will in fact have so many more resources that this increase will seem small small."

It occurred to me that Schelling might have meant "productivity" in this sense, but if so, how did he conclude that "the cost of living would rise by one or two percent"? Any such calculation would require a detailed analysis of agricultural production, to see how many other resources would need to be deployed to compensate for poorer climate. Since agriculture is probably mostly limited by the amount of arable land, which is not expandable (on the assumption, of course, that climate change turns out to be bad, not good), it's hard to see how such an analysis, if done, would lead to such an optimistic outcome.

Difficult as it may be to believe, it seems that Schelling simply thought that eliminating food production would reduce economic activity by only a few percent of GDP, and so is no big deal. It's stunningly stupid. But it seems it's possible if your economic thinking becomes sufficiently detached from reality.

Posted by: Radford Neal at Oct 10, 2005 5:25:34 PM

Radford Neal-

"Since agriculture is probably mostly limited by the amount of arable land, which is not expandable..."

Whoa! While the total amount of arable land does indeed set an upper limit, it's certainly possible to expand output by increasing agricultural productivity in the land you do farm. From the US Department of Agriculture: "Total U.S. agricultural productivity grew at an annual average rate of 1.89 percent between 1948 and 1996, and was solely responsible for the growth in agricultural output of nearly the same magnitude). Agricultural inputs in total actually declined by a 0.09 percent average rate during this period."*

Unfortunately I won't have access to what seems to be the most relevant article, one Schelling wrote for the American Economic Review, until tomorrow, but I doubt his analysis will prove to be "stunningly stupid."

* Source: www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/ah722/arei5_1/AREI5-1productivity.pdf

Posted by: Steven Vickers at Oct 10, 2005 6:17:49 PM

How exactly did Buchanan's and Smith's Nobels trivialize the prize? Public choice and experimental econ are very important, even if the popularity of the former is decreasing.

Posted by: Lowell R. at Oct 10, 2005 7:02:12 PM

Tyler is wrong above to suggest that " Before The Strategy of Conflict, game theory was for the most part an abstract desert" without concrete economic applications. All sorts of applications had been found by the people who invented it, but in 1960, most of the important practical work on game theory and operations research was being carried out in the RAND corporation and was not part of the public literature. This is all documented in "Machine Dreams" by Philip Mirowski.

Posted by: dsquared at Oct 10, 2005 7:52:15 PM

Even in the early 90s, the assumption that climate change would affect only that proportion of developed-country economic activity that explicitly took place outdoors was a pretty-well-debunked crock. It doesn't speak well for Schelling -- or the economics profession -- that he should have adopted it. He's obviously quite a smart guy, but (in part as a result of that intelligence coupled with superficially good writing skills) not one I'd trust anywhere near an actual policy decision.

Which is of course true of almost all of the best economists and their can-openers.

(By the early 1990s, in addition to the severe-weather predictions, climatologists had already produced detailed maps of coastline changes for various coastal centers, estimates of increases in required local generating capacity for HVAC, and so forth. Of course, for someone who had lived through a worldwide depression and a world war, any dislocations smaller than a complete fall of civilization might have seemed minor...)

Posted by: paul at Oct 11, 2005 12:01:02 PM

Well, actually Schelling is pretty much right about all this. He did not assume that all activity affected by climate takes place outside. For one thing, heating costs are higher than air conditioning costs, a fact we are about to be painfully reminded of soon with super high natural gas prices in place. So, global warming actually improves things in terms of heating/cooling temp activities. There was a big debate between Nordhaus and Mendelsohn over ten years ago about the impact on US agriculture. Nordhaus got a several percent loss from warming by assuming that farmers kept on planting the same crops. Mendelsohn found very little loss because farmers would change their crops to adjust (yes, there are some areas that have been wet/fertile that would go dry/unproductive, but they are offset by others going the other way). Some countries, mostly developed countries in the far north, clearly gain from global warming, e.g. Canada and Russia and Scandinavia.

The countries most hard hit are clearly poorer tropical ones, especially those that are low lying. Small, low-lying, island nations like the Seychelles are clearly the most vulnerable. Of somewhat larger countries the most vulnearable is low-lying, densely populated, and poor Bangladesh. Yes, rising oceans will raise costs for high income countries (check it out, New Orleans), but these costs are much higher in many poorer countries. Schelling was/is basically right on this one

Note. He is not necessarily against fighting global warming. He has argued that the costs of doing so have been exaggerated. But he is also right that it is not entirely unreasonable to have the rich countries pay off the poor ones for what will happen. In a world where we cannot even get a Kyoto Accord seriously agreed to by some of the most important parties (US, China, India), and Kyoto does not seem to do much to seriously slow global warming, we may be having to face up to the Schelling argument in very real terms. The man is very smart and very knowledgeable and very serious. Definitely a worthy recipient for the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Memory of Alfred Nobel for Economics.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Oct 11, 2005 4:07:13 PM

Barkley Rosser writes:

"Well, actually Schelling is pretty much right about all this... There was a big debate between Nordhaus and Mendelsohn over ten years ago about the impact on US agriculture. Nordhaus got a several percent loss from warming by assuming that farmers kept on planting the same crops. Mendelsohn found very little loss because farmers would change their crops to adjust..."

This isn't the issue. Fears of global warming may be exaggerated, and if it does occur, it might well turn out to actually be beneficial to agriculture, or at least not very harmful. However, Schelling's statement ASSUMES that global warming occurs, and that it IS very harmful to agriculture. He then goes on to say that that wouldn't matter much, since agriculture accounts for only three percent of the economy.

The most sense I can make of his statement is that he's thinking that production with the current level of labour and other inputs might decline by, say, a factor of two, so all you need is to increase labour and other inputs by a factor of two to get back to the old level of production. This is naive in the extreme. Even less sensibly, perhaps he just hasn't remembered that unlike DVDs, toilet paper, and flashlights, food is actually essential to life.

Now, one could actually argue that North America could cope with a factor of two reduction in food production, by reducing meat consumption, which is a very inefficient way of feeding humans. That makes strong assumptions about North America managing to isolate itself from the rest of the world, however. In any case, it's not an argument that Schelling makes.

Posted by: Radford Neal at Oct 11, 2005 5:25:51 PM

Radford,

Rather than making baseless statements about what Schelling might have said or might think I suggest you go read his address to the American Economic Association in the American Economic Review on the matter. It is publicly available. Naivete, sloppy statments, and inaccurate calculations are the last things in the world one will find associated with Thomas Schelling.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Oct 11, 2005 7:43:15 PM

As a non-economist, I have little to add to certain discussions above. What I can say is that as a Harvard undergraduate I had Schelling as a professor for what I had (typically, pathetically) enrolled myself in as a gut course: his introduction to game theory.

It turned out to be the most mind-blowing course I took there...and it was a gut! The stuff wasn't hard to understand, but it completely changed my view of the world.

This is simply great news to me. Thos. Schelling was a great teacher and an obviously good man, and the scope of his imagination and the rigor with which he applied it were and continue to be an inspiration to me.

Posted by: John Lilly at Oct 11, 2005 10:06:11 PM

Well, since Tyler is not allowing comments on his Michael Mandel post I'll do it here. I have been mildly dissing Aumann on other blogs, not for the quality of his work, but for the ultimate relevance of what I have been labeling "othodox game theory." Aumann really is its high priest, and he deserved the prize for being so. Nevertheless, Mandel is pretty close to the money on the problems with this approach.

Another reason why this is really (or should be) the Schelling prize is that he pointed a way out of the messes Mandel brings up. Mandel does not mention evolutionary game theory, but one its foci is trying to deal with the problem of equilibrium selection in a world of multiple equilibria. In the end, most of the ways people are suggesting and looking at involve some variation of Schelling's focal point idea ("Schelling points"). How does a group of people coordinate to focus on a particular (hopefully more favorable) outcome? Schelling is the father of this very important idea.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Oct 12, 2005 9:34:17 AM

Barkley Rosser writes:

"Rather than making baseless statements about what Schelling might have said or might think I suggest you go read his address to the American Economic Association in the American Economic Review on the matter. It is publicly available. Naivete, sloppy statments, and inaccurate calculations are the last things in the world one will find associated with Thomas Schelling."

The article you mention does not contain any further technical arguments. In it, Schelling says:

"... even if agricultural productivity [in developed nations] declined by a third over the next half century, the per capita GNP we might have achieved by 2050 we would achive only in 2051."

He goes on to say that productivity might instead continue to increase, climate change might turn out to be beneficial, etc. But that's a different argument. The statement above differs from the one in the essay linked above only in that "drastically reduced" is specified to be by one third, and the time scale is made clear.

It's still a stupid statement. There is no reason to think that the effects of climate change, if they are indeed so bad, are going to be fixable by a proportionate increase in labour or capital inputs, since the constraint may well be the amount of arable land, which you can't just decide to increase. His argument comes down to "agriculture is a trivial part of current GNP, therefore the effect of climate change on agriculture can't be very important". The flaw in this argument should be obvious, but apparently it isn't obvious to everyone.

Posted by: Radford Neal at Oct 12, 2005 1:14:33 PM

Radford,

Well, I really should not waste time on this further, but since the quotes are in the original article, I shall do so. However, this will definitely be my last comment on this here.

You seem to suggest that US arable land is all there is to feeding the world. The US is a big food exporter, but if anything the problem now in the world is overproduction of food. That is why we have the Cairnes group mad as hell, with good reason in my opinion, at the spoiled fat cat rich countries like the US and especially the European Union, who have all kinds of outrageous protectionist barriers up and subsidies in place to keep out imports from the freer market and mostly poorer suppliers around the world, although as the name of the group suggests, one of its members is quite well off Australia.

In short, arguably the US is producing too much food, and causing prices for its consumers to be too high, as are the EU countries. The scary, implicit "what are we going to do?" scenarios you pose are simply no big whoop. We could (and probably should) easily survive a pretty big reduction in agricultural production in the US (another reason for doing so are the ghastly negative externalities arising from our methods of production, partly sustained by all those nasty protectionist-puffed prices). Schelling's perspective and comments are on the money, although as Mendelsohn has argued, even a substantial warming might not have all that much aggregate impact on our agricultural production (his paper came out after Schelling's AER paper).

I do not wish to brag about this too much, but I have been involved with linking economic modeling with global climate modeling for over 30 years, and I have met and discussed these matters with a wide array of people in many disciplines, many of them involved with the highest levels of policymaking and diplomacy on this matter, including both the leading skeptics regarding global warming and many of the strongest advocates of the view that we are really facing a major catastrophe. I can without hesitation say that of all these people, not a single one in any discipline, nationality, or position of power or lack thereof, has even come close to Thomas Schelling in his or her overall knowledge in both depth and breadth about this issue (yes, I have discussed the matter with him in both depth and breadth), however silly or thoughtless you may find some remarks he may have made to be, Radford.

Period.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Oct 12, 2005 4:26:41 PM

On "focal points", I thought unemployment, inflation, GDP, GDP/capita, and GDP growth were the main focal points on which to judge economic performance. Though interest rates and private home ownership rates seem pretty important, too.

I note this because, under Bush, such rates for the USA seem pretty good -- but the Leftist press seems want to change the points (goalposts), so as to make Bush look bad.

If coordination is going to be effective, there needs to be agreement on how to measure results. I also like the precommitment ideas; I'm wondering if there isn't more to Becker's marriage contract with additional precommitment and postcommitment advantages.

Posted by: Tom Grey at Oct 13, 2005 9:44:16 AM

Tom Schelling's Nobel is richly deserved ... and long overdue.

Posted by: Aidan Maconachy at Oct 14, 2005 10:03:45 PM

I had the privilege of taking a course and then have and independent resarch project with Thomas Schelling. Since I went to the first of his classes I knew he was going to get the Nobel prize sooner or later (and as I told everybody I met at Harvard and MIT, I have now dozens of witnesses). It took 23 years to fulfill my prophecy and this is just one of the best news I haver ever gotten. I admire Tom SDchelling and I can only say that this partly compensates for the frustration I have because Joan Robinson never got it.
Hernan Garrido-Lecca, Peru (Harvard MPA 84 and MIT SM 90).

Posted by: Hernan Garrido-Lecca at Oct 18, 2005 9:46:07 PM

Post a comment