Evening Must-Read: Nauro Campos: The Riddle of Argentina

Nauro Campos:
The Riddle of Argentina:
“Argentina is the only country in the world that was…

…’developed’ in 1900 and ‘developing’ in 2000…. Financial development and institutional change are [probably] two main factors behind the unusual growth trajectory of Argentina over the last century…. Some argue that the decline started with the Great Depression (e.g. Diaz-Alejandro 1985)… Taylor (1992) argues for 1913…. Yet by 1947 Argentina was still ranked 10th in the world in terms of per capita income and della Paolera and Taylor (2003) estimate that the ratio of Argentina’s to the OECD’s income declined to 84% in 1950, to 65% in 1973, and then to 43% in 1987. It rebounded in the 1990s but with the run-up to the 2001 crisis again reverted….

The PGARCH multivariate analysis reveals a robust positive effect of the development of domestic financial institutions (private and savings bank deposits to GDP) as well as a negative growth effect from the instability of informal institutions (chiefly general strikes and guerilla warfare). As for the indirect effects on economic growth (through growth volatility), the results support negative roles for formal political instability (constitutional changes) and trade openness….

The main lesson… is one that economic historians already knew… institutions do matter but among them, political institutions and financial institutions seem fulcral…

Morning Must-Read: Heather Boushey: You Can’t Help Today’s Middle Class with 1930s-Era Policies

Heather Boushey:
You can’t help today’s middle class with 1930s-era policies:
“America’s families look very different today…

…than a generation or two ago. Too many families fear they are falling out of the middle class or will never get there due to a combination of stagnating wages, rising and high levels of income and wealth inequality, and an increase in jobs with unpredictable schedules and too few benefits. Yet, our workplaces are matched to a very different time. The foundation for labor standards in the United States are grounded in a set of policies implemented in the 1930s. They include the minimum wage, overtime provisions and unemployment insurance. This basket of social insurance programs presumes a specific kind of work and family structure that was prevalent then, but is not the norm now…

Morning Must-Read: Nick Bunker: Weekend Reading

Nick Bunker:
Weekend reading:
“Cardiff Garcia asks whether household formation…

…will pick up…. Matt O’Brien argues that the bad news [for the Russian economy] won’t end any time soon…. Paul Krugman points to the large private-sector debts that Russia ran up…. Neil Irwin… countries with large social insurance states have the highest employment rates. Danielle Kurtzleben… the stark gender divide in low-wage work…. Dietz Vollrath… [on] the difficulty of calculating productivity growth in the service sector…

Things to Read at Night on December 19, 2014

Must- and Shall-Reads:

 

  1. Paul Krugman:
    Switzerland and the Inflation Hawks:
    “A lot of people have been predicting soaring inflation since 2009 if not earlier, and have refused to change their views…. Inflation truthers insist that the government is hiding the real numbers…. Normally sensible conservative economists… see the non-inflationary story as somehow the result of very special circumstances…. Martin Feldstein and others have claimed that it’s all about the 0.25 percent… interest rate the Fed has been paying on excess reserves. Without that… quantitative easing would indeed have produced… big inflation…. So, can we talk about Switzerland?… Never paid interest on reserves… [now] charging banks 0.25 percent…. So has the Swiss National Bank’s huge increase in the monetary base, which dwarfs what the Fed has done, produced inflation?… Monetary base up by a factor of eight. Money supply up by much less, because banks didn’t lend the funds out. And consumer prices flat, indeed flirting with deflation. This is all exactly what a basic liquidity trap model–the one I laid out in 1998–predicted…”

  2. David Jolly:
    Swiss National Bank to Adopt a Negative Interest Rate:
    “Switzerland is introducing a negative interest rate on deposits held by lenders at its central bank, moving to hold down the value of the Swiss franc amid turmoil in global currency markets and expectations that deflation is at hand. The Swiss National Bank said in a statement from Zurich on Thursday that it would begin charging banks 0.25 percent interest on bank deposits exceeding a certain threshold, effective Jan. 22…”

  3. Alan Blinder:
    ‘What’s the Matter with Economics?’: An Exchange:
    According to both Jeff Madrick and Arnie Packer, I claim ‘that except for some right-wingers outside the ‘mainstream’…little is the matter’ with economics…. But it’s not true. I think there is lots wrong…. My review explicitly agreed with Madrick that (a) ideological predispositions infect economists’ conclusions far too much; (b) economics has drifted to the right… and (c) some economists got carried away by the allure of the efficient markets hypothesis. I also added a few… we economists have failed to convey even the most basic economic principles to the public; and that some of our students turned Adam Smith’s invisible hand into Gordon Gekko’s ‘greed is good.’… the propensity to elevate modeling technique over substance… [and others that] (a) are not germane to policy, (b) are only slightly related to Madrick’s complaints, and (c) are very much ‘inside baseball’ stuff—and hence boring to readers of this Review…”

  4. Edward Luce:
    Too big to resist: Wall Street’s comeback – FT.com:
    “It was right to let Citigroup stay in business in 2009, even though it was effectively bankrupt. But should it be so much larger than it was six years ago? Is it healthy that Citi lobbyists wrote the clause, almost word for word, that was tucked into last week’s spending bill? The question answers itself. It also points to two glaring deficiencies that will come back to haunt Washington when the next crisis strikes…. There has been no improvement in Wall Street’s culture–or in Washington’s revolving door habits. Bankers dismiss Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic senator from Massachusetts, as a populist. Perhaps they should listen to Bill Dudley, president of the New York Federal Reserve and a former Goldman Sachs partner…. At some point there will be another Wall Street crisis. It could be a decade away, or maybe next year. Markets run in psychological cycles in which fear gives way to greed and then hangover. Greed is once more in the ascendant. No law can stop the next bomb from detonating. No regulator can foresee it. But they could do much more to be ready for it when it comes. Here Mr Geithner’s moral fundamentalists have a point…”

  5. Jim O’Neill:
    The Economic Consequences of Drug Resistance:
    “By 2020, if we allow resistance to rise by 40%, global GDP will be 0.5% smaller than it otherwise would have been. By 2030, it will be 1.4% smaller. By 2050, the economic shortfall will reach 3%. The accumulated loss of global output over the next 35 years will total $100 trillion…. Already, 60,000 people die every year from causes related to antimicrobial resistance in the United States and Europe…. By 2050, if the problem is allowed to continue to grow, antimicrobial resistance will kill more than ten million people per year…”

Should Be Aware of:

 

  1. Ryan Gantz:
    Bad community is worse than no community:
    “All the best conversation is happening in GroupMe, Slack, WhatsApp, private email lists, or over drinks after work. People feel comfortable analyzing, debating, and joking in these places, where they can express themselves without fear of judgment, unwanted notifications, or death threats. We can’t say the same about many discussion platforms or public comment sections…. Medium fights Godwin’s Law by rethinking comments as something closer to distributed annotations…. Reddit’s upvoting system gives its most engaged users control over what’s amplified. Metafilter reinforces community guidelines and cultural norms thanks to a highly engaged readership, 24-hour moderator coverage, and tools developed over 15 years. On most Vox Media sites, authors and moderators regularly stay engaged…. That’s the sort of work required to keep those spaces respectful, safe, and rewarding for participants, and it’s not always easy or successful. In a year when Pacific Standard and Popular Science shuttered their comments, Vox.com launched with none…. Twitter is broken and downright toxic…. By coupling a format that encourages intimacy with a network design that encourages out-of-context amplification, Twitter has evolved into something fundamentally volatile. It’s fun, fast and powerful, but remains highly risky for anything approaching honest conversation, or even satire…”

  2. James Pethokoukis:
    The oil price collapse may end the ‘Texas Miracle’:
    “The energy sector gives, and the energy sector takes. The stunning drop in oil prices looks like bad news for the ‘Texas Miracle’…. Michael Feroli: ‘As we weigh the evidence, we think Texas will, at the least, have a rough 2015 ahead, and is at risk of slipping into a regional recession’. So perhaps a minor key replay of what happened in the Lone Star State back in 1986…. The oil patch bust caused Texas unemployment to rise, housing prices to fall, and, eventually, a nasty banking crisis…”

  3. Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig:
    Property Theories & the Buffered Self:
    “The ‘buffered self’ is a form of identity which is closed off from other persons…. Proprietary theories that view justice as a matter of your personal, individual rights being fulfilled play into this isolated self by remaining totally agnostic to the good of the community… do not view justice as a matter of total community outcomes, only individual ones, and only in terms of particular discrete rights…. Property theories that view property as an instrument for the communal good militate against this ‘buffered identity’ by contextualizing individual actions and procedures… in the impact on the community…. It’s pretty hard… to think to yourself, ‘doesn’t matter if I wind up with 500 million times the wealth of everyone else in my county due to this transaction, because I did it fair and square, and it’s my right.’ Instead you think, ‘so long as there are a lot of people without much who aren’t able to live good lives because I’ve got all this money to myself, I’m not actually entitled to all of it.’… [The] liber[tarian] property rights theories you hear… are not only bad because of what they produce materially (see: inequality), but also because of the ideology they factor so seamlessly into: namely, the idea that justice is merely a matter of individual procedural rights and protections, and that we have no need to factor the flourishing of our communities into the question of justice…”

Weekend reading

This is a weekly post we publish every Friday with links to articles we think anyone interested in equitable growth should read. We won’t be the first to share these articles, but we hope by taking a look back at the whole week we can put them in context.

Household formation

Cardiff Garcia asks whether household formation growth, and therefore the prospects for strong growth, will pick up in 2015. [ft alphaville]

From Russia, with falling rubles

The last week hasn’t been kind to the Russian economy. Matt O’Brien argues that the bad news won’t end any time soon. [wonkblog]

How did this crisis arise? Paul Krugman points to the large private-sector debts that Russia ran up despite being a net creditor. [nytimes]

Employment and wages

Neil Irwin on research that shows how countries with large social insurance states have the highest employment rates. [the upshot]

Danielle Kurtzleben has charts showing the stark gender divide in low-wage work across the United States. [vox]

Productivity growth

Dietz Vollrath writes about the difficulty of calculating productivity growth in the service sector. [growth economics]

Qualitative editing

When you learn about the Federal Reserve in an introductory economics course, you’re told the central bank conducts monetary policy by buying and selling bonds. So a new student of economics could be forgiven for being confused by the reaction to this week’s meeting of the Federal Open Markets Committee, the Fed’s policymaking committee. No new purchases or sales of government bonds were announced. Rather the big news was the shuffling around of words. And at a deeper level, this proverbial new student should be confused because what this editing signaled is that it’s okay to raise interest rates next year even though inflation is not a serious threat and unemployment remains too high.

The statement released by the committee and Chairmen Janet Yellen’s press conference contained no news of an imminent increase in the federal funds rates. Instead, the committee changed the wording so the statement no longer stated that the committee would keep its interest target rate at 0 percent for a “considerable time.” Instead, the committee would be “patient” before starting to increase interest rates.

To an observer uninitiated in the verbal machinations of the Federal Reserve, the change in language might seem like a difference without a distinction. But as Tim Duy, an economist at the University of Oregon, argues, all the signs are now pointing toward an increase in interest rates somewhere in the middle of 2015.

Yellen has been at pains to emphasize that the FOMC’s future policy is data-dependent. If a global recession suddenly happens or if inflation suddenly spikes, monetary policy will change given the circumstances. But given the situation right now and the current trends, does the prospect of increasing interest rates in six or so months make sense?

The most common way to judge the Federal Reserve’s movements is to see how well it is fulfilling its dual mandate: price stability and promoting maximum employment. On the first front, the Fed has explicitly stated that it shoots for a 2 percent annual inflation rate. In other words, prices are stable, according to the Fed, if the price index for Personal Consumption Expenditures is expected to increase 2 percent every year. What’s interesting, or rather concerning, is that the economic projections released by the FOMC yesterday show the committee projecting inflation, based on its Personal Consumption Expenditures index, to be somewhere between 1.0 and 1.6 percent during 2015. To put it bluntly: the Fed is saying that it will raise interest rates while inflation is below its target.

The economic projections also contain the Fed’s projections for the unemployment rate. They show a central tendency for that rate of between 5.2 and 5.3 percent. That measure is close to many estimates of the natural rate of unemployment, also known as the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. Yet the labor market remains very weak, as current employment-to-population rates are still relatively low and wages are not growing at a healthy rate.

And therein lies the puzzle: the Federal Reserve is projecting inflation to be below target while unemployment is at what some analysts think is its natural level. So, the Federal Open Market Committee seems willing to be happy with 5.2 percent unemployment rate while its inflation projections seem to indicate they could push unemployment even lower.

Letting unemployment remain higher than it could be would have real ramifications. The result will be slow wage growth and higher levels of income inequality. Those outcomes would be the price for an impatient return to normalcy.

 

Lunchtime Must-Read: Paul Krugman: Switzerland and the Inflation Hawks

Paul Krugman:
Switzerland and the Inflation Hawks:
“A lot of people have been predicting soaring inflation…

…since 2009 if not earlier, and have refused to change their views…. Inflation truthers insist that the government is hiding the real numbers…. Normally sensible conservative economists… see the non-inflationary story as somehow the result of very special circumstances…. Martin Feldstein and others have claimed that it’s all about the 0.25 percent… interest rate the Fed has been paying on excess reserves. Without that… quantitative easing would indeed have produced… big inflation….

So, can we talk about Switzerland?… Never paid interest on reserves… [now] charging banks 0.25 percent…. So has the Swiss National Bank’s huge increase in the monetary base, which dwarfs what the Fed has done, produced inflation?… Monetary base up by a factor of eight. Money supply up by much less, because banks didn’t lend the funds out. And consumer prices flat, indeed flirting with deflation. This is all exactly what a basic liquidity trap model–the one I laid out in 1998–predicted…

NewImage

Over at Grasping Reality: Hoisted from 2010: David Blanchflower: Welcome Back to 1930s Britain

Over at Grasping Reality:

David Blanchflower:
[Hoisted from Other People’s Archives from 2010: David Blanchflower: Welcome Back to 1930s Britain:
“I am writing this from beautiful Hong Kong…

…having arrived here late at night on a flight from Beijing. It was a pleasant shock to wake this morning to see double-decker buses driving on the left-hand side of the road so far from home.

I came to Beijing for the launch of Bloomberg’s Chinese-language service and to sit on a panel to discuss China’s role in the new world order. The throng of Chinese tourists at the Forbidden City somehow made it more real to us that China is a country of 1.3 billion people. The highlight of the trip so far was a visit to the Great Wall – something I have always wanted to do. The most comprehensive archaeological survey has recently concluded that the entire Great Wall, with all of its branches, stretches for 5,500 miles. We didn’t walk all of it… READ MOAR

Morning Must-Read: David Jolly: Swiss National Bank to Adopt a Negative Interest Rate

David Jolly:
Swiss National Bank to Adopt a Negative Interest Rate:
“Switzerland is introducing a negative interest rate…

…on deposits held by lenders at its central bank, moving to hold down the value of the Swiss franc amid turmoil in global currency markets and expectations that deflation is at hand. The Swiss National Bank said in a statement from Zurich on Thursday that it would begin charging banks 0.25 percent interest on bank deposits exceeding a certain threshold, effective Jan. 22…

Afternoon Must-Read: Alan Blinder: ‘What’s the Matter with Economics?’

As I see it, the real point at issue here is that Alan Blinder on the one hand and Jeff Madrick and Arnold Packer on the other have very different ideas of what the “mainstream” of modern American economics is.

Alan Blinder believes that the “mainstream” is his brand of economics–MIT-Princeton-Berkeley. That economics is, in my view, very sensible about both market failure and government failure, and somewhat sensible (we here at Berkeley being most so) about long-run intellectual strategy. We also have–as the past ten years have taught us–remarkably little influence on policy, either macroprudential or macroeconomic, considering how smart and right we are.

Jeff Madrick and Arnold Packer, on the other hand, believe that the “mainstream” is Chicago-Minnesota-Stanford economics, which is not sensible about market failure, extremely wrongheaded about long-run intellectual strategy, and distressingly influential on issues of economic policy, especially considering how wrong and unwilling to do their proper homework they are.

I guess the next twenty years will show whether we or they were the true mainstream today…

Alan Blinder:
‘What’s the Matter with Economics?’: An Exchange:
“According to both Jeff Madrick and Arnie Packer…

…I claim ‘that except for some right-wingers outside the ‘mainstream’…little is the matter’ with economics…. But it’s not true. I think there is lots wrong…. My review explicitly agreed with Madrick that (a) ideological predispositions infect economists’ conclusions far too much; (b) economics has drifted to the right… and (c) some economists got carried away by the allure of the efficient markets hypothesis.

I also added a few… we economists have failed to convey even the most basic economic principles to the public; and that some of our students turned Adam Smith’s invisible hand into Gordon Gekko’s ‘greed is good.’… the propensity to elevate modeling technique over substance… [and others that] (a) are not germane to policy, (b) are only slightly related to Madrick’s complaints, and (c) are very much ‘inside baseball’ stuff—and hence boring to readers of this Review….

Both Madrick and Queen Elizabeth are right that hardly any economists saw the financial crisis and the ensuing Great Recession coming… not realizing how large the subprime mortgage market had grown… how dodgy the mortgages packaged into mortgage-backed securities were… the crazy quilt of exotic derivatives… not believing that house prices would fall as far as they did…. However, faulty macroeconomic management was not among the causes of the horrors. That… does not exonerate the Fed, whose supervisory and regulatory performance was dreadful. My point is that the Great Moderation… ended because of… an overleveraged, overly complex, and underregulated financial system.

Yes, underregulated—which brings me back to the invisible hand. I thought I had laid this issue to rest by agreeing with Madrick that ‘the Invisible Hand is an approximation, usually not applicable in the real world without significant modification’… [like] antitrust laws, consumer protection, fair labor standards, health and safety regulation, financial regulation, and much more…. Yet Madrick still insists that ‘economists rely on a fairly pure version of the invisible hand most of the time.’ Not us mainstreamers….

Packer’s letter begins, and Madrick’s concludes, by disputing my claim that economists’ influence on policy decisions is greatly exaggerated…. [But] ven today, seventy-eight years after Keynes taught the world how to end recessions, many politicians in many countries refuse to follow his (now very mainstream) advice. That’s not a good show for what Packer calls ‘a powerful force in policy circles.’