Paul Krugman writes:

You might say that this is my answer to those who cheerfully assert that human ingenuity and technological progress will solve all our problems. For the last 35 years, progress on energy technologies has consistently fallen below expectations.

It’s worth noting that if we had to build today’s energy infrastructure working under the current regulatory and NIMBY burden, it probably could not be done.  So it shouldn’t be surprising that building a new energy infrastructure is proving so hard.  There’s a reason why many of us think deregulation is a big issue and it’s not because we want to see people poisoned by Chinese botchagaloop.

Megan McArdle gives one bottom line, referring to Paul Krugman’s somewhat pessimistic column.  I would say that China has been massively productive but not so much in producing commodities.  That means the demand for commodities has gone up much more rapidly than the supply.  You could imagine an alternative universe in which China grew by figuring out ways to produce oil, copper, and rice much more cheaply.  Of course that’s not what happened and it is relatively easy to see why not.  Following some good policy changes, Chinese growth has been driven by a massive rural to urban migration and yes we are talking about hundreds of millions of people.  It’s plastic basketballs that have become cheaper, not the products of farms.

The mere addition of labor inputs to urban areas doesn’t, in the short run, help you produce commodities more cheaply.  Think of the Solow model where K and L have gone up lots but the rate of generating new ideas is only slightly higher.

When all those new Chinese engineers and scientists are at the peak of their creative powers, this relationship will reverse itself and commodities prices will plunge.  But it’s quicker to produce another toy than to bring about a new Green Revolution, so in the meantime commodity prices are very high.  I give the current price trend another ten or fifteen years or so to run.  Eventually high commodity prices will seem permanent and then the bottom will drop out.

We’ve never had a rapid and successful migration of hundreds of millions before, ever.

Who knows, maybe I’ll try to get to them all.  Here’s the first:

What impact will algorithmic game theory have on economics?

I’d start by asking: will game theory pure and simple have (further) impact on economics?  And I’d say basically "no."  The common concepts and tricks of game theory are invaluable but we already have those and I don’t see any more coming down the pike.  Algorithmic game theory will address problems internal to game theory and within that context it will flourish.  Finding equilibria, and discriminating among multiple equilibria, are otherwise very difficult problems and AGT is a natural way to crack those nuts.  So AGT will have continued practical applications in computer science and problems of engineering.  But it won’t much affect how most economists think about the world or do their research.

As for NBA analysis, I’ll just say that a) Boston is still an odds-on favorite, b) No one ever really told us what happened to Andrew Bynum, and c) Even though Phoenix probably won’t make it, the Shaq trade was very clearly a good idea and all you doubters should offer up mea culpas.

At Bet2give, an online electronic prediction market, anyone can “bet”
real money on the outcome of these events but with a twist – the
“winnings” go to a charity of the person’s choice.

Here is the full article, and here is Bet2give.com.  One of the "problems" with prediction markets is that they are zero-sum investments and traders cannot on average hope to come out ahead.  So why trade?  If only people really "in the know" trade liquidity will be low.  If too many "betting for fun" fools trade, the prices don’t mean that much.  You might get the right mix of informed and uninformed but who knows?  So the idea of doing these in charitable form might make some sense.