I recently started studying for the second (in a series of three) CFA® examinations (I passed the first one last June.) The CFA charter is a credential often used by stock analysts and money managers. In addition to an industry work requirement, there are 3 tests, which are administered once a year, covering a curriculum including Statistics, Economics, Financial Theory, Ethical standards, markets and the like.
I expect to study about 200 hours for the exam, which is in June. By the way, if there is anyone reading this in Denver who also is studying for the Level II exam, I’d be interested in getting together to work through some of the problems and share study materials.
I just finished a reading on theories of economic growth, a chapter from Economics by Michael Parkin, which is probably one of the best basic Economics text books out there. It’s been a long time since I took an Economics course, and so I had forgotten how economic growth theory is taught.
I was disappointed.
Why? Because the role of energy use in labor productivity is almost completely ignored. (Labor productivity is simply the sum of all economic activity divided by the number of hours worked. Since the number of hours worked is relatively easy to measure, growth in labor productivity is the key factor which needs to be understood in order to understand economic growth.) All three theories covered attempt to explain labor productivity through the interaction of two factors: the ratio of capital to labor employed, and technological change. As a short aside, the role of energy use is given a slight nod, because the drop in productivity growth in the United States in the 1970s is attributed to the Energy Price Shocks of ’73-4 and ’79-80, in addition to a diversion of effort for coping with environmental problems. To me, that sounds eerily familiar. Those are precisely the same problems I expect the world will be trying to cope with for the next decade and beyond. It’s not that economists as a whole fail to recognize the role of energy use in keeping our economy going. For example, the effects of the recent rise in energy prices have been widely discussed, and many pessimists (myself among them) have been surprised at how little effect rising energy prices have had on the economy. The explanation for the lesser effect on economic growth is that our economy has become (partly as the result of the ‘70s price shocks) much more efficient, requiring less energy per unit of GDP. What bothers me is that energy is dealt with as an aside, not as one of the major factors in determining economic growth. For most of the 20th century, we were blessed with energy supplies which we could increase at will to meet increasing demand, so supply constraints were seldom a factor in determining the growth rate. In a sense, economist theory is like military strategy: there is too much emphasis on figuring out how to win yesterday’s battles, not tomorrow’s. Tomorrow’s economic battles, as I see them, will be learning to cope with diminishing supplies of fossil fuels. Economists, who are the ones who will be helping society plan those battles, should be taught the role of energy in economic growth as part of their framework of understanding, not as an aside or afterthought. This brings to mind the other aside in the chapter: The other cause given for the slowing of productivity growth in the 1970s was due to the expansion of laws and resources devoted to protecting the environment. This is perhaps a graver weakness of economic dogma than the minor role for energy. Because we measure only economic growth, and do not count natural resources like clean air and water among our assets, destruction of those assets is much more likely to be overlooked or minimized by policy makers than it would be otherwise. This concept is known as Green GDP, and is still very much a fringe theory in economics, in large part because it is fiendishly tricky to measure accurately. Unfortunately, what isn’t measured is usually ignored, and, like the unmeasured risk of terrorists flying airplanes in to skyscrapers, is likely to come back to haunt us in time.