Trump, Trade, & Buffalo

During my days as an Econ major, one of my professors used to admonish us that even if an economic doctrine was outdated, if it had any staying power, some part of it most likely was insightful.  That is, don’t be so quick to put it up on a shelf and label as 100% toxic.  In this spirit, I am going to take a look at Donald Trump’s (And taking Trump in this spirit becomes more difficult with each passing day) ideas on trade and how it would apply to my hometown of Buffalo.  While visiting us this summer, Trump promised to bring tons of jobs back to Buffalo by renegotiating international trade treaties.  While most of Trump’s speech was a meandering stream of consciousness, this line resonated with the crowd in a city that is finally starting to turn things around after decades of manufacturing job losses.  Could such a policy bring back jobs to the working class in Buffalo?

It is said that success has many parents while failure is an orphan.  Actually, as we’ll find out, economic successes and failures both have many parents.  Both are a result of several factors coalescing together and it is unlikely a policy fixating on a single issue can change the momentum of one or the other.

In 1954, Buffalo had 152,000 manufacturing jobs.  Prior to the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, Great Lakes freighters unloaded in Buffalo to transfer goods into canal boats and later trains for shipment to the East Coast.  This made Buffalo a strategic spot for manufactures to locate.  In the 1800’s, grain came from the Midwest and was milled into various food products in Buffalo.  To process the large amounts of grain pouring into Buffalo Harbor, Joseph Dart invented the grain elevator.  These large structures remain a prominent feature on the city’s waterfront.

Grain elevators at foot of Main Street in 1900. These first generation wood elevators have been replaced by the modern cement cylindrical elevators. Credit: Detroit Publishing Co./Library of Congress

After the Erie Canal, trains, and grain, came electricity.  Nikola Tesla, leaving the employ of Thomas Edison, built with George Westinghouse the first hydroelectric plant in Niagara Falls.  Using alternating current which, unlike Edison’s direct current, did not require power plants every mile, this electricity could be delivered 20 miles south to Buffalo.  Buffalo became the “City of Light” and this new technology was featured prominently in the 1901 Pan-American Exposition.

https://i0.wp.com/www.buffalorising.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Buffalo-tower.jpg?resize=639%2C678
The Pan-American Expo Electric Tower, 1901. Credit: Buffalo History Museum.

At the same time of the Pan-American Exposition, land was being acquired south of Buffalo by the Lackawanna Steel Corp.  Buffalo was close to ore fields that supplied raw material and with cheap hydroelectricity along with access to Great Lakes shipping and Buffalo’s extensive rail network, this was an ideal spot for steel production.  By World War II, then known as Bethlehem Steel, the plant employed over 20,000 people.  The local steel production capabilities attracted the auto industry.  Some, like Pierce-Arrow did not last past the 1930’s, but Chevrolet and Ford became mainstays and employed thousands in several plants across the region.  In 1916, Glenn Curtiss moved his aviation production plant from Hammondsport in the Finger Lakes to Buffalo.  During the first half of the 20th Century, Buffalo was major hub for aircraft production with employment hitting 70,000 (about the same number Apple employs in the U.S.) during World War II.  Buffalo’s industrial development was a classic case of economic geographical clustering.

https://i0.wp.com/photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/01/93/11/04_big.jpg?resize=660%2C531
Republic Steel, Mobil Oil refinery, Donner Hanna Coke, railroad network all intertwined in Buffalo’s Inner Harbor, 1958. Credit: Wiki Commons.

Geographic clustering of economic activity was addressed by Alfred Marshall in 1890 and as a theory, was dormant for another century until economists, especially Paul Krugman, gave it another look.  In particular, it was found the manufacturing sector benefits greatly from clustering while for the post-industrial economy the effects are more diffuse.  In the case of Buffalo, clustering was caused by access to transportation via canal, trains, and the Great Lakes connecting the Midwest and East Coast.  In 1950, half the population of the United States lived in a 500 mile radius from Buffalo providing a ready market for goods.  Niagara Falls presented a bottleneck that forced shipments to funnel through Buffalo  Being first also counts and the invention of the grain elevator, generation of AC current, and aviation production at the birth of the industry gave Buffalo a jump start.  Labor poured into the region both in the form of immigration and internal migration from rural areas.  The concentration of experienced labor also produces high productivity from knowledge spillovers as less experienced labor benefits from close proximity to more skilled workers.  This in turn can generate high wages when the labor market is competitive and in good bargaining position.

https://i0.wp.com/c1.staticflickr.com/3/2489/4128870663_06739ed860.jpg?resize=500%2C380&ssl=1
Curtiss-Wright plant P-40 production in 1941. Photo: Dmitri Kessel, Life Magazine

In 1951, Fortune featured a cover story titled Made in Buffalo which described a dynamic and diverse manufacturing center.

How did it all unwind?

Again, many factors coalesced to produce Buffalo’s downward spiral.  In 1938, when the local auto industry began shifting from auto to component assembly, Bethlehem Steel would stop investing in its flat rolling capacity due to lack of demand.  After World War II, Curtiss-Wright laid off 35,000 workers and then left Buffalo for good in 1946 for Ohio.  Bell Aircraft also greatly downsized but stuck around long enough to build Chuck Yeager’s X-1 and the Apollo program’s lunar module simulator.  Eventually, Bell left for Texas in the 1960’s.  Other industries, for example, Westinghouse and Western Electric picked up the slack.  That was something Alfred Marshall would have predicted fifty years prior:

“A district which is dependent chiefly on one industry is liable to extreme depression, in case of a falling-off in the demand for its produce, or of a failure in the supply of the raw material which it uses. This evil again is in a great measure avoided by those large towns or large industrial districts in which several distinct industries are strongly developed.”

However, an infrastructure project in the 1950’s removed Buffalo strategic bottleneck location for transportation.

The completion of the St. Lawrence Seaway enabled shipping to bypass Buffalo and head directly to the East Coast or overseas.  Grain shipments dropped dramatically and many of the waterfront elevators were abandoned.  Still, the steel and auto industries were going strong.  Buffalo continued to grow and prosper along with the rest of the nation into the 1960’s, but the reduced diversity of the economy left the region increasingly vulnerable to economic shocks.

Buffalo’s winter grain fleet anchored in outer harbor during winter to supply wheat for milling. This annual sight vanished in the early 1970’s. Credit: https://www.wnyheritagepress.org/content/lake_ice_and_lake_commerce/index.html

The energy crisis during the 1970’s sparked a demand for smaller cars which Japanese auto-makers specialized in.  This reduced demand for products made in Buffalo’s auto plants and in turn, its steel mills.  Bethlehem Steel poured investments into its Indiana plant which was closer to the expanding population westward.  Poor labor relations, outdated production methods, and questionable management practices dropped Bethlehem’s employment from 22,000 in 1969 to 5,000 when finally closed in 1983.  Republic Steel, once home to 5,000 employees followed suit in 1984.  In 1985, Trico moved 1,000 jobs from Buffalo to Mexico where workers made less than $1 an hour.  As manufacturing de-clustered from Buffalo, the region became less and less attractive to locate.

And what is the point of this history?

This all happened before NAFTA went into effect in 1994.  Renegotiating NAFTA will not undo all the factors that drove manufacturing jobs from Buffalo.  This isn’t to say the matter should not be open to debate.  Personally, I do not believe nations with widespread child labor and lax environmental regulation should have unfettered access to American markets.  But a reworking of NAFTA will not magically bring jobs back to Buffalo.  In fact, it would likely hamper access to the 9 million Toronto-Niagara Peninsula market just across the border.  Given that Canada is America’s top trading partner in terms of exports, renegotiating NAFTA would definitely cost jobs in Buffalo while the benefits are at best, uncertain.

Allied Chemical discharging dyes into Buffalo River. Buffalo’s manufacturing legacy did not come without a price. Credit: New York Department of Environmental Conservation.

And this brings up the greatest flaw in the Trump plan, fixating on a single issue as an economic cure.  Typically, you’ll see this with taxes, most recently in Kansas.  Gov. Sam Brownback’s tax cuts were intended to entice business into the state.  Whatever enticement the tax cuts were to bring business in the state have been offset by cuts to education and infrastructure spending.  The latter reduces incentive for business to locate to Kansas.  Or take a look at New York City where residents have had to pay a city income tax in addition to state taxes since 1966.  During this period New York City has experienced a decade (1970’s) where it lost 800,000 residents but also has gained 1.1 million residents since 1990.  Taxes should be considered as a factor in economic policy, but it is not a sole determinant of economic growth.  And neither is trade.

Conversely, economic models tend to smooth over the rocky transition from employment in one economic sector to another.  What is happening to manufacturing in America is to some extent the same thing that happened to farming in the first half of the 20th Century.  In 1920, farmers were 30% of the American population.  Today, that figure is two percent.  Mechanization of farming has reduced the need for labor.  The same is true of manufacturing.  The days when a steel mill required tens of thousands of employees are over, leading to a migration of labor to low paying service sector jobs.  In academia or policy think tanks, this transition is often reduced to a mathematical abstraction.  Hopefully, the work of Angus Deaton, whose research has revealed a decline in life expectancy of working class white Americans, will provide some “ground truth” for economic models.

The cause of that decline in life expectancy is mostly related to alcohol and drug abuse.  For those of us on the ground level have certainly seen this in the struggle of economic transition.  Other parts of the equation are foreclosures, divorce, social isolation, and in the worst case scenario, suicide.  So what is the proper policy response?  You have to try a lot of things across several fronts.  And going into this, an understanding this will be a trial and error process.  Not everything tried will succeed.  Like any sort of forecasting, we are looking at probabilities of success.

On a national level, a fiscal/monetary policy goal of driving unemployment down to 4% should have highest priority.  This will make local efforts more manageable.  Pragmatism should have a priority over ideology in policy making.  The private and public sector are like air and gas in an auto engine.  An optimal mixture provides best performance.  On a state level, stop the starvation of public funding for state universities.  For those who do not go to college, open up access to skilled trade/technical training.  While the labor market has improved significantly since 2008, those who were ejected from the workforce have had difficulty with re-entry and unemployment duration remains at post-war highs.  Individuals who have lost jobs due to a financial crisis not of their making should not be treated as pariahs in the job market.  This will not remove from the political process the more unseemly aspects of the Trump campaign, but will ideally push it off to the sidelines where it belongs.

Over the past few years, Buffalo has undergone something of a renaissance.  The University of Buffalo’s new medical campus is spurring development in the city.  Immigrants and refugees are infusing new life to old neighborhoods while Elon Musk’s SolarCity is building the Western Hemisphere’s largest solar panel plant on the site where Republic Steel once resided.  Hopefully, this can give the region a jump start in an emergent industry and begin a clustering effect anew.  Although manufacturing has declined to 50,000 jobs in the area, ghosts of Buffalo’s past can still be seen.  The steel mills are gone but Chevy and Ford still employ thousands, if you hang out in Canalside long enough, eventually you’ll see a 700-foot lake freighter making a visit to one of the grain elevators still in operation, no longer the second largest rail center in the nation, on a quiet weekend morning I can still hear train activity in the Frontier Yard.  Powerful reminders of Buffalo’s past, but as an individuals, we need to look towards the future.  To quote an old Clint Eastwood character:

You improvise, you adapt, you overcome.”

It’s as good advice as any.

*Photo atop post is 2010 aerial view of Buffalo.  Credit:  Doc Searls/Wiki Commons.

The Vastness of the Universe

Maps of the universe can understate the sheer vastness of space.  Even when distances are to scale, the size of celestial bodies are overly large and for good reason.  If the size of the objects were true to scale, they would be too small to see.  To get a grasp of the true nature of space, I am going to scale various systems using 10 miles as a base.  This is still pretty large but as the average commute in the United States is about 10 miles, this is a scale that is familiar in our day-to-day lives.

We’ll start with the Earth-Moon system.  The Moon is on average 238,855 miles from Earth.  Here, we’ll put the scale at 1 mile = 24,000 miles.  So, if we shrink the Earth and Moon to this scale, Earth will sit in the center while the Moon resides 9.95 miles away.  How big is the Earth?  The diameter of the Earth would be 1741 feet, about 100 feet less than the CN Tower in Toronto.  The troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere where weather occurs and humans live, would only extend about 20 inches above the surface.  Here, you can see why astronauts comment on how from space, the atmosphere appears as a fragile protective layer that just hugs the Earth’s surface.  The upper layers of the atmosphere extend out 66 feet above the surface.  Also at 66 feet, you’ll find the Hubble Space Telescope.  The drag from the tenuous upper atmosphere will be enough to bring the Hubble down to Earth in the 2020’s just as happened to Skylab in 1979.  Here, you can appreciate the accomplishment of the Apollo program which traveled, on this scale, 9.95 miles to the Moon as opposed to 66 feet to reach Earth orbit.

Next up is the Solar System.  We’ll change the scale to 1 mile = 1 billion miles.  At this scale, the distance from the Earth to the Moon shrinks to 15 inches.  The Earth itself is half an inch or about the size of a marble.  In this model, we’ll put the Sun at the center and the table below will show what the Solar System looks like at this scale.

Object Diameter Distance from Sun
Sun 4.75 feet
Mercury 0.19 inch 190 feet
Venus 0.48 inch 354 feet
Earth 0.50 inch 491 feet
Mars 0.27 inch 748 feet
Asteroid Belt 0.01 – 0.03 inches 1080 to 1570 feet
Jupiter 5.50 inches 0.48 miles or 2,550 feet
Saturn 4.59 inches 0.89 miles or 4,688 feet
Uranus 2 inches 1.8 miles
Neptune 1.94 inches 2.8 miles
Pluto 0.09 inch 3.67 miles
Kuiper Belt 0.001 to 0.09 inches 2.5 to 4.5 miles
Voyager I & II

12.5 & 10.3 miles

On this scale, a trip to the Moon is 15 inches, to Mars some 250 feet.  As NASA people like to say, Mars is hard.  Going from the Moon, to the planets, and as we’ll see, to the stars each involves an exponential leap.  The Voyager missions, in space since 1977, have just reached the outer edges of our 10 mile map.  Note how much more massive the Sun is compared to the planets as it contains 99% of the mass in the Solar System.  Also note how tiny the asteroids are and on this scale, there is an average of 38 inches of separation between the objects in the asteroid belt.  Contrary to what you see in many sci-fi stories, there is plenty of space in an asteroid belt to navigate through.  Beyond the asteroid belt lie the gas giants.  This region was far enough from the Sun and cold enough to allow hydrogen compounds to freeze and utilize the abundant hydrogen in the solar nebula to form these giant planets.  In turn, the gas giant Jupiter’s gravity disrupted the formation of a planet in the asteroid belt.

Now, we’ll examine our neck of the woods in the Milky Way by taking a look at a region 10 light years from the Sun.  On this scale, we’ll put 1 mile = 1 light year.  Maps of our stellar neighborhood are not as ubiquitous in grade school as the Solar System so below is a look at our closest neighbors.

The Closest stars
Stellar Neighborhood 12.5 light years from Sun. Credit: Richard Powell

This region is embedded in what is called the Local Bubble, a peanut shaped area 300 light years across marked by tenuous, hot stellar gas.  It is thought that a series of supernovae 10-20 million years ago cleared out much of the interstellar gas in the Local Bubble.  On this scale, the solar system shrinks to 9 feet and the Sun is the size of a grain of sand.  The nearest star, Proxima Centauri, would be 4.24 miles away.  So, the leap from a Voyager type mission to visiting the nearest star on this scale is 9 feet to 4.24 miles.  The brightest star in the night sky, Sirius, would be 8.6 miles away.  Wolf 359 is not visible to the naked eye, but known to Star Trek fans where Star Fleet is destroyed by the Borg, would lie 7.8 miles away.  Galaxies often collide, but because of the spacing, stars rarely do.  This is key due to an impeding event to occur to the Milky Way in a few billion years.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/5_Local_Galactic_Group_%28ELitU%29.png
Credit: Andrew Z. Colvin/Wiki Commons

The Local Galactic Group consists of some 54 galaxies clustered within 10 million light years.  Most are small, dwarf galaxies.  Here, we’ll use the scale 1 mile = 1 million light years.  The Milky Way would be 1/10th (528 feet) of a mile wide.  The Solar System lies 137 feet from the center of the Milky Way and is 0.0001 inches wide, about 1,000 times thinner than a human hair.  The closest galaxies to the Milky Way, the Magellanic Clouds, lie about 830 feet away.  The Andromeda Galaxy (M31), would be 2.5 miles away.  The Andromeda galaxy is larger than the Milky Way and would span over 1,100 feet across.  Compare this to the size and spacing to stars.  Galaxies are much larger and tend to collide into each other.

Until the 1920’s, the Milky Way was the only known galaxy.  Other galaxies were observed but were thought to be spiral nebulae within the Milky Way.  Edwin Hubble, working at Mt. Wilson, was able to resolve stars within the Andromeda Galaxy and determined it was situated beyond the Milky Way.  Taking measurements of other galaxies, Hubble also discovered the universe was expanding causing galaxies to race away from each other.  When galaxies are close enough, at times the gravitational attraction to each other is greater than the effect of the expansion of the universe.  The result is a collision between galaxies such as below.

https://i0.wp.com/apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1210/NGC2623_HLApugh.jpg?resize=660%2C420
NGC 2623, two colliding spiral galaxies. Credit: Hubble Legacy Archive, ESA, NASA

The same will happen to the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies in a few billion years.  Stars will not collide but some may be ejected in the process.  The end result is the two galaxies will merge to form a giant elliptical galaxy.

Galaxies are not the only objects to collide in the universe, galaxy clusters also can collide.  Some 150 million light years away (or 150 miles using the current scale) lies the Great Attractor.  This region lies behind the center of the Milky Way and thus, is not open to optical observation.  It is hoped that infrared and radio observations, which can peer behind the veil of dust at the galactic center, can someday provide details what the Great Attractor is.

The largest structures in the universe are galactic superclusters.  The Milky Way and Local Group reside in the supercluster Laniakea which is some 520 million light years in length.  Superclusters form filament type structures with large voids in between.

https://i0.wp.com/www.nasa.gov/images/content/228352main_cosmicweb_HI.jpg?resize=660%2C591
Credit: NASA, ESA, and E. Hallman (University of Colorado, Boulder)

To get a proper perspective on our home supercluster, lets use a scale of 1 mile = 50 million light years.  On this scale, Laniakea stretches out the entire 10 miles.  the Local Group of galaxies would be 1/5 of a mile (1,056 feet) wide.  The Milky Way would be about 10 feet across.  And as we can see from the image above, Laniakea is just a small part of the web of superclusters throughout the universe.

I have heard many students after taking an astronomy course say that it made them feel like an ant.  I remind them of what Fritz Zwiky said – each person in this vast universe is unique and thus, irreplaceable.  And that is of no small significance.

*Image atop of post is the Milky Way from the delicate arch in Natural Bridges National Monument in Utah.  Credit:  Jacob W. Frank/National Park Service

No, Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism

Recent misgivings expressed by Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein on the safety of vaccinations has created another round in the vaccine/autism debate.  I use the word debate loosely here as we’ll see, there really should not be a debate at all on this topic.  In all fairness, Stein expressed concerns over potential industry capture of vaccine regulators, but that concern has been shot down effectively and some view this as merely a dog whistle for anti-vaxxers.  To be clear on this, the purported link between vaccines and autism is simply a case of scientific fraud and should be reported as such without mitigation.  However, once an idea, even a fraudulent one is let loose, it is very difficult to dislodge from the public mindset.  And that presents an arduous challenge for educators and policy makers alike.

The case for linking autism with vaccines began with the 1998 paper authored by Andrew Wakefield and 12 others stating their case.  Serious reservations regarding the research was expressed shortly after its publication.  The study had a small sample size and relied too heavily on parents recollections rather than hard data.  As is the case for scientific protocol, attempts were made to replicate the results of the Wakefield study.  In 2004, an extensive report by the National Academy of Sciences refuted any link between vaccines and autism.   The Center for Disease Control has followed up with nine studies confirming the National Academy of Science’s report.  As it turned out, there was a reason the Wakefield study was not confirmed.  The Wakefield report was not just bad science, but a fraud perpetrated to cash in on a potential lawsuit against manufactures of vaccines.

Wakefield
This is how the original paper purporting a link between vaccines and autism now appears on the Lancet website.

In 2011, the medical journal BMJ issued a retraction of the Wakefield study bluntly titled, Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulentAnd the retraction is damming.  Among the charges are:

“Is it possible that he (Wakefield) was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children’s cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross.”

The BMJ also published an article by journalist Brian Deer that exposed Wakefield’s motivation for engaging in the fraud.  As it turned out, the medical records for all 12 children in the study were falsified.  The motive?  Wakefield was receiving compensation by a law firm to provide research that could bring a favorable result in a lawsuit against vaccine manufactures.  The compensation amounted to £435,643 ($700,000 in 1999).  And the damage done?  In the UK, the vaccination rate for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) dropped to 80% by 2003.  Fortunately, that has rebounded back to 92%.  In the United States, vaccination rates held steady between 90-92%, but geographical pockets of low immunization rates put children at risk of acquiring easily avoidable diseases such as the 2015 measles outbreak in Southern California.

So how could such a fraud still be considered a legitimate topic to debate in some quarters?  The answer lies in confirmation bias.  Science works by matching theory with data.  Sometimes, the theory comes first and is later proved by experiment.  This happened with James Clerk Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism developed in 1867 and proved correct with the discovery of radio waves in the late 1880’s.  Sometimes the data comes before a theory is devised to explain it as the case with dark energy discovered in 1998.  Astrophysicists are currently attempting to devise a theory to describe the accelerated expansion of the universe caused by dark energy.  Sometimes both, as in the case of general relativity published by Einstein in 1916.  Einstein’s theory solved the existing problem of Mercury’s orbit that Newton could not, but had to wait until the Eddington Expedition in 1919 to prove space-time could bend light waves.

The key point here is that in science, a theory or model of a physical process must match the experimental data or it is wrong.  If an experiment cannot be devised to prove a theory, such as currently the case with string theory, it is simply unproven until such an experiment is produced.  However, those not trained in science tend to construct understanding via a narrative.  In the case of autism, the vaccine issue fills a gap in the narrative that science presently does not, that being an understanding how to prevent it.  And once a narrative is constructed, confirmation bias develops when facts that go against the narrative are rejected which is the opposite of how science works.  So how to go about getting the facts out?

To begin with, especially in a classroom situation, do not belittle the other person.  Doing so only motivates retrenchment.  This is why arguments are rarely, if ever, resolved on social media.  Once the insults start flying, forget about it.  In the class, it is important for each student to feel they have a fair role in the discussion.  For example, if a student holds creationist beliefs, I point out the father of the Big Bang really was a father, that is, Fr. Georges Lemaitre who was both a Catholic priest and astrophysicist responsible for conceptualizing the Big Bang by analyzing relativity theory.  Holding religious beliefs does not preclude someone from appreciating science and in the case of Lemaitre, performing scientific work at a high level.  In the case of vaccinations, expressing an understanding the other side’s concerns with a serious children’s health issue can go a long way in creating a constructive dialog.  The public generally does not read medical journals and the media, in some quarters, has been irresponsible in its reporting leading to the construction of a false narrative.

Once the student understands you are giving them a place at the table in the debate, go over the scientific method once again.  In a one off argument this is a bit difficult and thus, is something that is to be emphasized throughout the course.  Theory must meet experimental data which must be independently confirmed.  Over the course of time, the goal is to move a student from an ideological to a scientific mindset.  Doing so will open the student up to being more receptive to data that contradicts a previously held belief which in turn can reduce confirmation bias.  And sometimes, it is best to acknowledge science does not currently offer an explanation.  In the case of autism, we have to admit we do not know what its cause is rather than allowing a charlatan to fill a gap in a narrative.

On the other hand, those such as Andrew Wakefield, who have perpetuated this myth with the intent of monetary and/or political gain, simply deserve to be rebuked and marginalized from any policy debate regarding vaccinations.

*Image atop post is polio vaccinations during 1954 in Kansas.  Credit:  March of Dimes.