Arquivo da categoria ‘Desenvolvimento Mundial’

Qual recessão? Qual amasso do crédito?

Maio 14, 2008

Mais um post do blog do Prof. Mark J. Perry sobre a capacidade da economia americana! Cadê os catastrofistas?

What Recession? What Credit Crunch?

 

The chart above (click to enlarge) shows the annual percentage growth rate of the series “Commercial and Industrial Loans at All Commercial Banks,” from the Fed, data available here at the St. Louis Fed. For the last 5 months through April 2008, the growth in business loans has been above 20%, the strongest period of growth in commercial loans since 1973.

Ford na Bahia: admirada e invejada!

Maio 11, 2008

Vejam só este post de hoje do blog do Prof. Mark J. Perry!  E imaginem se a GM vem mesmo para Pernambuco!

==========

Ford’s State-of-the-Art Factory in Camaçari, Brazil: A Model for Ford’s Future. But The UAW Hates It.

 

DETROIT NEWSThis state-of-the-art manufacturing complex in the northeastern Brazilian state of Bahia is not only the centerpiece of Ford’s Brazilian turnaround plan, it is also one of the most advanced automobile plants in the world. It is more automated than many of Ford’s U.S. factories, and leaner and more flexible than any other Ford facility. It can produce five different vehicle platforms at the same time and on the same line.

Watch a fascinating video here of Ford’s Camaçari plant.

So who could possibly object to having the most advanced, leanest, most flexible, state-of-the-art Ford facilities like the Camaçari plant built here in the U.S., especially if it will help Ford survive and become more profitable?

Ford sources said it is the sort of plant the company wants in the United States, were it not for the United Auto Workers, which has historically opposed such extensive supplier integration on the factory floor.

Sucesso alimenta fracasso

Maio 6, 2008

Artigo do Prof. Paul Krugman em sua coluna de 05/05 em The New York Times:

Success breeds failure

Cross your fingers, knock on wood: it’s possible, though by no means certain, that the worst of the financial crisis is over. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that as markets stabilize, chances for fundamental financial reform may be slipping away. As a result, the next crisis will probably be worse than this one.

Let’s look at the story so far.

After the financial crisis that ushered in the Great Depression, New Deal reformers regulated the banking system, with the goal of protecting the economy from future crises. The new system worked well for half a century.

Eventually, however, Wall Street did an end run around regulation, using complex financial arrangements to put most of the business of banking outside the regulators’ reach. Washington could have revised the rules to cover this new “shadow banking system” — but that would have run counter to the market-worshiping ideology of the times.

Instead, key officials, from Alan Greenspan on down, sang the praises of financial innovation and pooh-poohed warnings about the growing risks.

And then the crisis came. Last August, as investors began to realize the scope of the mortgage mess, confidence in the financial system collapsed.

I believe we’ve been lucky to have Ben Bernanke as Federal Reserve chairman during these trying times. He may lack Mr. Greenspan’s talent for impersonating the Wizard of Oz, but he’s an economist who has thought long and hard about both the Great Depression and Japan’s lost decade in the 1990s, and he understands what’s at stake.

Mr. Bernanke recognized, more quickly than others might have, that we were in a situation bearing a family resemblance to the great banking crisis of 1930-31. His first priority, overriding every other concern, had to be preventing a cascade of financial failures that would cripple the economy.

The Fed’s efforts these past nine months remind me of the old TV series “MacGyver,” whose ingenious hero would always get out of difficult situations by assembling clever devices out of household objects and duct tape.

Because the institutions in trouble weren’t called banks, the Fed’s usual tools for dealing with financial trouble, designed for a system centered on traditional banks, were largely useless. So the Fed has cobbled together makeshift arrangements to save the day. There was the TAF and the TSLF (don’t ask), there were credit lines to investment banks, and the whole thing culminated in March’s unprecedented, barely legal Bear Stearns rescue — a rescue not of Bear itself, but of its “counterparties,” those who were on the other side of its financial bets.

It’s still far from certain whether all this improvisation has resolved the crisis. But it was the right thing to do, and for the moment things seem to be calming down.

So two cheers for Mr. Bernanke. Unfortunately, his very success — if he has succeeded — poses another problem: it gives the financial industry a chance to block reform.

We now know that things that aren’t called banks can nonetheless generate banking crises, and that the Fed needs to carry out bank-type rescues on their behalf. It follows that hedge funds, special investment vehicles and so on need bank-type regulation. In particular, they need to be required to have adequate capital.

But while our out-of-control financial system has been bad for the country, it has been very good for wheeler-dealers, who collect huge fees when things seem to be going well, then get to walk away unscathed — indeed, often with large severance packages — when things go wrong. They don’t want regulations that would stabilize the economy but cramp their style.

And now that the financial clouds have lifted a bit, the pushback against sensible regulation is in full swing. Even the Fed’s very modest proposal to curb abusive mortgage lending with new standards is under fire, and there are worrying signs that the Fed may back down.

Maybe a Democratic sweep in November can revive the cause of financial reform, but right now it looks as if we’ll soon return to business as usual.

The parallel that worries me is what happened a decade ago, after the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management failed, temporarily causing the whole financial system to freeze up.

Through luck and skill, that crisis was contained — but rather than serving as a warning, the episode nurtured the false belief that the Fed had all the tools it needed to deal with financial shocks. So nothing was done to remedy the vulnerabilities the L.T.C.M. crisis revealed — the same vulnerabilities that are at the heart of today’s much bigger crisis.

And if we don’t fix the system now, there’s every reason to believe that the next crisis will be bigger still — and that the Fed won’t have enough duct tape to hold things together.

 

Mesmo os com seguro-saúde estão sentindo o peso dos custos de saúde (nos EUA)

Maio 4, 2008

Artigo de hoje do New York Times revela o peso dos custos da saúde, mesmo para os assegurados!

Even the Insured Feel the Strain of Health Costs

 

By REED ABELSON and MILT FREUDENHEIM

Published: May 4, 2008

The economic slowdown has swelled the ranks of people without health insurance. But now it is also threatening millions of people who have insurance but find that the coverage is too limited or that they cannot afford their own share of medical costs.

Many of the 158 million people covered by employer health insurance are struggling to meet medical expenses that are much higher than they used to be — often because of some combination of higher premiums, less extensive coverage, and bigger out-of-pocket deductibles and co-payments.

With medical costs soaring, the coverage many people have may not adequately protect them from the financial shock of an emergency room visit or a major surgery. For some, even routine doctor visits might now take a back seat to basic expenses like food and gasoline.

“It just keeps eating into people’s income,” said James Corbin, a former union official who works for the local utility in Tucson.

Mr. Corbin said that under their employer’s health plan, he and his co-workers are now obliged to pay up to $4,000 of their families’ annual medical bills, on top of about $1,600 a year in premiums. Five years ago, they paid no premiums and were responsible for only about $2,000 of their families’ medical bills.

“That’s a big jump,” Mr. Corbin said. “You’ve just lost a month’s pay.”

Already, many doctors say, the soft economy is making some insured people hesitant to get care they need, reluctant to spend a $50 co-payment for an office visit. Parents “are waiting longer to bring in their children,” said Dr. Richard Lander, a pediatrician in Livingston, N.J. “They say, ‘The kid isn’t that sick; her temperature is only 102.’ ”

The problem of affording health care is most acute for people with no insurance, a group expected to soon exceed 48 million, but those with insurance say they too are feeling the pain.

Since the recession of 2001, the employee’s average cost of an annual health care premium for family coverage has nearly doubled — to $3,300, up from $1,800 — while incomes have come nowhere close to keeping up. Factor in other out-of-pocket medical costs, and the portion of the average American household’s income that goes toward health care has risen about 12 percent, according to the consulting and accounting firm Deloitte, and is now approaching one-fifth of the average household’s spending.

In a recent survey by Deloitte’s health research center, only 7 percent of people said they felt financially prepared for their future health care needs.

Shirley Giarde of Walla Walla, Wash., was not prepared when her husband, Raymond, suddenly developed congestive heart failure last year and needed a pacemaker and defibrillator. Because his job did not provide health benefits, she has covered them both through a policy for the self-employed, which she obtained as the proprietor of a bridal and formal-wear store, the Purple Parasol.

But when Raymond had his medical problems, Ms. Giarde discovered that her insurance would cover only $22,000, leaving them with about $100,000 in unpaid hospital bills.

Even though the hospital agreed to reduce that debt to about $50,000, Ms. Giarde is still struggling to pay it — in part because the poor economy has meant slumping sales at the Purple Parasol. Her husband, now disabled and unable to work, will not qualify for Medicare for another year, and she cannot afford the $758 a month it would cost to enroll him in a state-run insurance plan for individuals who cannot find private insurance.

She recently refinanced her car, a 2002 Toyota Highlander, to help pay for her husband’s heart medicines, which cost some $400 a month.

Experts say that too often for the underinsured, coverage can seem like health insurance in name only — adequate only as long as they have no medical problems.

“There’s a real shift in the burden of health care to people who happen to be sick,” said Paul B. Ginsburg, the president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a research group in Washington.

Companies and policy makers have yet to focus on what the faltering economy means for employees’ medical care, said Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, a Washington association of about 200 large employers.

“It’s a bad-news situation when an individual or household has to pay out-of-pocket three, four or five times as much for their health plan as they would have at the time of the last recession,” she said. “Americans have been giving their pay raise to the health care system.”

Sage Holben, a 62-year-old library technician with diabetes who is active in her local union in St. Paul, says that in 2003 union members agreed to a two-year freeze on wages to protect their health care coverage. But for the union, which will begin talks on the next contract this fall, it may be difficult to continue that trade-off, Ms. Holben said. “It’s at the point where we’re losing, anyway,” she said.

“I live paycheck to paycheck,” said Ms. Holben, who makes close to $40,000 a year at Metropolitan State University.

When she took the job in 1999, she says, the health benefits required no co-payments for doctor visits. Now, her out-of-pocket cost per visit is $25, and she pays $38 a month for her diabetes medicine. She has not been to the eye doctor in two years, even though eye exams are crucial for people with diabetes and she knows she needs new glasses. Nor does she monitor her blood sugar as regularly as she should because of the cost of the supplies.

“It’s not an extravagant expense,” she said. “It just adds up.” And it comes atop the increasing cost of utilities, gasoline and food — and the few hundred dollars of repairs her 1994 Chevrolet Cavalier needs.

Many employers do recognize that their workers are struggling financially even as they are asking them to pick up more of their health-care bills.

“It makes the work we have to do even more challenging,” said Anne Silverman, the vice president in charge of benefits in North America for the publishing company Reed Elsevier. “Employees are being stretched in terms of their disposable income.”

Even so, more companies may see themselves as having little choice but to require employees to pay even more of their health expenses, said Ted Nussbaum, a benefits consultant at the firm Watson Wyatt Worldwide. And when a weak economy undermines job security, he said, workers may simply have to accept reduced benefits.

While Mr. Nussbaum and other consultants say it is unlikely that significant numbers of employers will simply drop coverage for their workers, the weak economy could prompt more of them to push for so-called consumer-driven plans. Such plans tend to offset lower premiums with higher annual deductibles.

And while these plans often allow employees to put pre-tax savings into special health care accounts, they typically end up forcing the worker to assume a bigger share of overall medical costs. About six million people are now enrolled in these medical plans.

Among employers, the hardest pressed may be small businesses. Their insurance premiums tend to be proportionately higher than ones paid by large employers, because small companies have little bargaining clout with insurers.

Health costs are “burying small business,” said Mike Roach, who owns a small clothing store in Portland, Ore. He recently testified on health coverage at a Senate hearing led by Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon.

Last year, Mr. Roach paid about $27,000 in health premiums for his eight employees. “It’s a huge chunk of change,” he said, noting that he was forced to raise his employees’ yearly deductible by 50 percent, to $750.

Around the nation, some workers are simply priced out of their employee health plans.

After Brian Falacienski of Milton, Fla., was laid off last year from his job as a surveyor for a construction company, he found another position. But the cost of his new health plan — $800 a month for coverage with a $1,000 annual deductible — was beyond the means of Mr. Falacienski, 38, who is married and has a 2-year-old daughter.

His wife, Marianne, started researching individual insurance policies and was able to find policies for her husband and daughter offering basic, if minimal, coverage, costing $161 a month for father and daughter. But Ms. Falacienski, 32, who has arthritis and the severe digestive disorder Crohn’s disease, is now uninsured. Because of her conditions, she said, four major insurers rejected her.

“I even applied for Medicaid,” she said, “but I wasn’t low-income enough.”

 

Migração de talentos favorece inovação

Maio 4, 2008

Um artigo recente de  Jennifer Hunt , da McGill University, EUA, para o NBER-National Bureau of Economic Research pergunta se o aumento nos pós-graduados estrangeiros em território americano contribuiu para a inovação naquele país. Seu artigo, intitulado How Much Does Immigration Boost Innovation? (Quanto a migração incrementa inovação?) encontrou o seguinte:

In this paper I have demonstrated the important boost to innovation per capita provided by skilled immigration to the United States in 1950-2000. A calculation of the effect of immigration in the 1990-2000 period puts the magnitudes of the effects in context.

The 1990-2000 increase from 2.2% to 3.5% in the share of the population composed of immigrant college graduates increased patenting by at least 81:3 = 10:4%, and perhaps by as much as 18%. The increase in the share of post-college immigrants from 0.9% to 1.6% increased patenting by at least 10.5% and perhaps by as much as 24%. The increase from 0.30% to 0.55% in the share of workers who are immigrant scientists and engineers increased patenting by at least 13% but probably by less than 23%.

While I find evidence for the crowding-out of natives in the short run, in the long run there is evidence for the reverse: that skilled natives are attracted to states or occupations with skilled immigrants. The results hint that skilled immigrants innovate more than their native counterparts, especially if they are scientists or engineers. If correct, the result could reflect higher education of immigrants within skill categories, or positive selection of immigrants in terms of ability to innovate. However, the effect of natives is not as well identified econometrically as the effect of immigrants.

Estes resultados sugerem que há méritos claros na adoção de políticas para atrair alunos estrangeiros, e retê-los, uma vez que eles completem seus estudos (como a Grã-Bretanha e Austrália, entre outros, fazem atualmente).

No Brasil esta migração de talentos há muito é desejada!

Mais indicativos da resiliência da economia americana

Maio 2, 2008

Mais informações vindas hoje do blog do Prof. Mark J. Perry:

Household Survey: 362,000 Jobs Added in April

 

From today’s BLS employment report, here’s what probably won’t get reported:

According to the more comprehensive Household Survey Data (which unlike the establishment data, includes the self-employed, unpaid family workers, agricultural workers, and private household workers), there were 146.331 million Americans employed in April (see chart above), which is: a) 618,000 higher than April of last year (145.733 million jobs), and b) 362,000 higher than March of 2008 (145.969 million).

Note also what happened to employment levels for both measures during the 2001 recession. Much different than 2008. No recession.
Update: Also, as Brian Wesbury points out, the actual, unrounded unemployment rate is only 4.952%, very, very close to being reported as 4.9% instead of 5%!

 

Veneráveis jornais americanos à beira de extinção; a não ser que evoluam

Maio 1, 2008

Este é o recado de um instigante artigo da nova The Economist sobre a mídia americana.  Vejam a matéria abaixo!

American media

On the brink

May 1st 2008 | NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition

Some of America’s most venerable newspapers face extinction, unless they evolve

THE New York Times once epitomised all that was great about American newspapers; now it symbolises its industry’s deep malaise. The Grey Lady’s circulation is tumbling, down another 3.9% in the latest data from America’s Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC). Its advertising revenues are down, too (12.5% lower in March than a year earlier), as is the share price of its owner, the New York Times Company, up from its January low but still over 20% below what it was last July. On April 29th Standard & Poor’s cut the firm’s debt rating to one notch above junk.

At the company’s annual meeting a week earlier, its embattled publisher, Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger, attempted to quash rumours that his family is preparing to jettison the firm it has owned since 1896. Carnage is expected soon as dozens of what were once the safest jobs in journalism are axed, since too few of the staff have accepted a generous offer of voluntary redundancy.

Pick almost any American newspaper company and you can tell a similar story. The ABC reported that for the 530 biggest dailies, average circulation in the past six months was 3.6% lower than in the same period a year earlier; for Sunday papers, it was 4.6% lower. Ad revenues are plunging across the board: by 22.3% at Media General, for example. In 2007 total newspaper revenues fell to $42.2 billion, not to be sniffed at, certainly, but a lot less than the peak of $48.7 billion in 2000.

Much of this decline is being blamed on the rise of the internet, which offers free, round-the-clock coverage, and which has provided a new, better home for classified advertising, once the bedrock of most newspapers’ revenue. But some of the fall in revenues is actually due to the economic slowdown in America, and especially in the housing market, which contributes a large slice of classified advertising.

The credit crunch has also come at a bad time for a group of new newspaper owners, who used loans that were readily available until last summer to buy their way into the business, but must now be having second thoughts. Sam Zell, a property tycoon who bought the Tribune Company, the owner of papers such as the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times, is finding the going harder than expected. He is trying to sell assets such Newsday, a New York tabloid that is the subject of a bidding war between two other moguls, Mort Zuckerman and Rupert Murdoch, and perhaps other firms.

Mr Murdoch’s enthusiasm is a reminder that not all newspapers are suffering. He bought the Wall Street Journal last year, and is investing in a vigorous expansion of its political coverage and international news. This foray on to the traditional turf of the Times seems to be working: the Journal’s circulation is rising. Another flourishing outlet is the web-only Huffington Post, which is fast evolving beyond a series of political blogs into a fully fledged online newspaper with liberal sensibilities close to those of the New York Times.

Industry experts such as Lauren Rich Fine of Kent State University do not think that the Times is responding forcefully enough. “Now is the time to beef up its business section,” she says. Ms Fine also points out that although all newspapers are being buffeted by the internet, their ability to respond will probably depend on whether their audiences are national, metropolitan or local. The first category can afford to invest in distinctive international or business coverage, while the last can prosper by becoming “more intensely local”. But she fears for the big metropolitan newspapers, which may find themselves trapped in the middle.

Not all is lost, however. Plenty of innovation is taking place, particularly at local papers, as the latest “Newspaper Next” report from the American Press Institute, an industry group, makes clear. It quotes 24 examples of newspapers becoming “information and connection utilities”, through such offerings as local internet forums.

The hero for industry optimists is Brian Tierney, a former public-relations executive who led a group of investors that borrowed heavily to buy Philadelphia’s two main dailies. He has since revived them with a vigorous marketing drive. He is also finding new ways to drum up advertising, such as introducing a business column sponsored by a local bank. People said pigs will fly before our circulation rises, Mr Tierney recalled in a recent speech, before recounting how he celebrated a rise in circulation by projecting flying pigs onto the walls of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Nenhuma recessão (nos EUA)

Maio 1, 2008

Mais um post (de 30/04) do blog do Prof. Mark J. Perry acerca da recessão nos EUA.  Desta feita os números do PIB americano.

NO RECESSION

 

According to today’s Bureau of Economic Analysis report, “Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — increased at an annual rate of 0.6% in the first quarter of 2008, according to advance estimates. In the fourth quarter, real GDP also increased 0.6%.”

A subida do Golfo

Abril 25, 2008

A nova The Economist saiu com uma matéria líder sobre a região do Golfo Árabe.  Segundo a revista,  o Golfo está administrando sua riqueza melhor neste boom (de subida de preços do petróleo) do que o fez durante o último.

==========

MOST countries earn their keep through effort and ingenuity. Those of the Gulf owe their living to geological serendipity. The harder China works, the faster India grows, the higher oil prices climb.

The Gulf swells with confidence or despair depending on the price of “Arabian light” or “Oman blend”. Five years ago, though up from its $9 low in the 1990s, the oil price stood at a mere $26 a barrel. Many of the Gulf’s governments were indebted and insecure. Saudi Arabia was facing an al-Qaeda insurgency. Expatriates, used to a secure if sequestered life, tried not to think about the tanks parked outside their compounds. Now the same oil fetches over $100 a barrel and confidence has returned. The insurgency in Saudi Arabia has been quashed. The Gulf is once again a source of envy more than concern (see article).

Surely only good can come from so much cash? Hardly. In the 1970s the Gulf’s money was a disaster for Latin America, for, recycled through Western banks, it caused a decade-long debt crisis. The Gulf itself suffered by inflicting stagflation on the West, thus causing a 20-year-long slump in oil prices. They built white elephants such as the King Khalid airport in Riyadh, one of whose terminals has been mothballed since the airport opened in 1983. They allowed a greedy few, many of them arms dealers, to pocket huge fortunes. They distorted their economies in the name of diversification, for example by growing wheat in the desert.

A better Xanadu

Are the Gulf countries handling their windfall any better this time? The sheer quantity of cash is hard to manage. It is too plentiful for small economies to spend, and has therefore added to the glut of global saving that is in part responsible for the financial excesses of recent years. Indeed, some economists see an analogy with the 1970s. Gulf petrodollars have been recycled not to improvident governments in Latin America but instead to improvident homebuyers in the uncreditworthy fringes of America.

The Gulf is doing its best to spend its windfall. Stately pleasure domes are springing up all along the coast. Saudi Arabia announces six, no seven!, new economic cities, which it hopes will create millions of jobs for its restive, youthful population. There are worrying echoes of the wasteful 1970s. But this time round, more of the spending is being done by private companies, with an eye to consumer demand, rather than by states.

Awash with capital, the Gulf countries need labour. Thanks to a liberal attitude to guest workers, in the UAE, for instance, over 90% of the private labour force is made up of foreigners. Some of the follies these Indians, Bangladeshis, Chinese and Filipinos build will not earn much return, but at least they help spread the wealth around. And now that American spending is faltering, a splurge is welcome. As Adam Smith said, outlays on “trinkets of frivolous utility” are what “keeps in continual motion the industry of mankind.”

Still, the Gulf’s splurge might be better spent if governments were doing even less of the splurging. Despite tentative reforms, too much money remains in state hands. The Saudis have become friendlier to business, taking steps to liberalise the financial system, airlines and telecommunications. But the government is still too fond of its grandiose projects and too slow to get unglamorous things right. It takes an age, for example, to enforce a contract in the country’s courts.

By the same token, it would help if local currencies were allowed to strengthen. Currency reform is not just a way to constrain inflation, but also a means of redistributing spending. At present, the petrodollars are converted into local money at a fixed rate and doled out as governments see fit. With stronger local currencies the state would get fewer dirhams, dinars or riyals for every petrodollar. But Gulf residents would be able to buy more with their money, and guest workers could send more rupees home to families in Kerala.

There is another way to transfer economic initiative from governments to people. At present the Gulf states buy social peace by doling out generous benefits and subsidies, such as cheap housing and medical care, expanding the public payroll and forcing private companies to hire locals in the name of Omanisation or Saudi-isation. Too many Gulf nationals receive a government pay cheque for a meaningless job, or owe their jobs in private firms to a hiring quota. They pretend to work and have neither the time nor the incentive to start businesses or acquire skills.

Could there be a better way? Last winter, 604,000 Alaskans each pocketed a $1,654 cheque from the state’s Permanent Fund, which invests Alaska’s oil revenues on their behalf. Each year, the fund distributes a fraction of its profits, averaged over five years, to every resident. They do not have to work for it, and are free to spend it as they wish. This notion is as foreign to the Gulf as a glacier to the desert. But in a region that likes to impress people with outlandish projects, paying a simple dividend cheque to every Gulf national would be a more audacious venture than the tallest new tower.

Buy some insurance, while you’re at it

Given the impressive levels of spending on education in the Gulf, it is hard to imagine that its middle classes will put up with so little control over their countries’ wealth—or, indeed, their governments—for long. There are some signs of change, but they are small. By Saudi standards, King Abdullah is a reformer; by any other standards, he moves exceedingly slowly. There is external danger, too. When Saddam Hussein sent his tanks streaming into Kuwait, he was cheered on by many Arabs whose own countries never won a geological lottery and who continue to resent the undeserving fat cats with oil.

Today’s dangers are different. Saddam is gone. But the Gulf states are threatened by the chaotic politics in Iraq and by the rivalry between America and Iran for influence in the region. In their volatile part of the planet, the sheikhs cannot buy perfect security. But they might consider investing a bit more of their windfall in stabilising Iraq and the broader Middle East, not just in their fabulous pleasure domes.

 

Reinventando energia

Abril 24, 2008

Artigo do Prof. Jeffrey Sachs no Yemen Times de hoje!

Reinventing energy

The world economy is being battered by sharply higher energy prices. While a few energy-exporting countries in the Middle East and elsewhere reap huge profits, the rest of the world is suffering as the price of oil has topped $110 per barrel and that of coal has doubled.Without plentiful and low-cost energy, every aspect of the global economy is threatened. For example, food prices are increasing alongside soaring oil prices, partly because of increased production costs, but also because farmland in the United States and elsewhere is being converted from food production to bio-fuel production.

No quick fix exists for oil prices. Higher prices reflect basic conditions of supply and demand. The world economy – especially China, India and elsewhere in Asia – has been growing rapidly, leading to a steep increase in global demand for energy, notably for electricity and transport. Yet global supplies of oil, natural gas and coal can’t keep up easily, even with new discoveries. And, in many places, oil supplies are declining as old oil fields are depleted.

Coal is in somewhat larger supply and can be turned into liquid fuels for transport. Yet coal is an inadequate substitute, partly because of limited supplies and partly because coal emits large amounts of carbon dioxide per unit of energy, making it a dangerous source of man-made climate change.

In order for developing countries to continue enjoying rapid economic growth and for rich nations to avoid a slump, it is necessary to develop new energy technologies. Three objectives should be targeted: low-cost alternatives to fossil fuels, greater energy efficiency and reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

The most promising technology in the long term is solar power. Total solar radiation hitting the Earth is about 1,000 times the world’s commercial energy use. This means that even a small part of the earth’s land surface, notably in desert regions, which receive massive solar radiation, can supply large amounts of electricity for much of the rest of the world.

For example, solar power plants in America’s Mohave Desert could supply more than half of that nation’s electricity needs. Solar power plants in Northern Africa could supply power to Western Europe, while solar power plants in the Sahel of Africa, just south of the vast Sahara, could power much of West, East and Central Africa.

Perhaps the single most promising development in terms of energy efficiency is plug-in hybrid technology for automobiles, which may be able to triple the fuel efficiency of new automobiles within the next decade.

The idea is that vehicles would run mainly on batteries recharged nightly on the electricity grid, with a gasoline-hybrid engine as a backup to the battery. General Motors may have an early version of this by 2010.

The most important technology for the safe environmental use of coal is the capture and geological storage of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants. Such carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS, is needed urgently in major coal-consuming nations, especially China, India, Australia and the U.S. As key CCS technologies already have been developed, it’s time to move from engineering blueprints to actual demonstration power plants.

For all of these promising technologies, governments should be investing in the science and high costs of early-stage testing. Without at least partial public financing, the uptake for these new technologies will be slow and uneven. Indeed, most major technologies that we now take for granted – airplanes, computers, the internet and new medicines, to name just a few – received crucial public financing in their early stages of development and deployment.

It’s shocking and worrisome that public financing remains slight because these technologies’ success could translate into literally trillions of dollars of economic output.

For example, according to the most recent data in 2006 from the International Energy Agency, the U.S. government annually invested a meager $3 billion in energy research and development. In inflation-adjusted dollars, this represents a decline of roughly 40 percent since the early 1980s and now equals what the U.S. spends on its military in just a day and a half. The situation is even more discouraging when we look at the particulars. U.S. government funding for renewable energy technologies (solar, wind, geothermal, ocean and bio-energy) was a meager $239 million – or just three hours of defense spending. Likewise, spending on carbon capture and sequestration was just $67 million, while spending for energy efficiency of all types (buildings, transport and industry) was $352 million.

Of course, developing new energy technologies isn’t America’s responsibility alone. Global cooperation on energy technologies is needed to increase supplies and ensure that energy use is environmentally safe, especially to head off man-made climate change from using fossil fuels.

This not only is good economics, but also good politics, as it can unite the world in our common interests, rather than dividing it in a bitter struggle over diminishing oil, gas and coal reserves.

Jeffrey Sachs is an economics professor and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2008.