Clinton Plan

The WSJ asked me to review the Hillary Clinton economic plan, motivated by her August 11 speech introducing it.  The Op-Ed is here.

I read a good deal of the "plan" on hillaryclinton.com. What I discovered is that there is so much plan that there really isn't any plan at all.



For example, follow me down to the  Fact sheet at the bottom of the website to figure out just what the "infrastructure" plan is about.  Some snippets:

Clinton will make smart, targeted, and coordinated investments to increase capacity, improve road quality, and reduce congestion 

Clinton will prioritize and increase investments in public transit to connect Americans to jobs, spur economic growth, and improve quality of life in our communities. And she will encourage local governments to work with low-income communities to ensure that these investments are creating transit options that connect the unemployed and underemployed to the jobs they need. She will also support bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure 

Clinton will make smart, coordinated investments that upgrade our aging rail tunnels and bridges, expand congested highway corridors, eliminate dangerous at-grade railway crossings, and build deeper port channels to accommodate the newest and largest cargo ships. Clinton will also focus on vital “intermodal” transfer points between trucks, rail, and ships—including the “last-mile connectors” between different modes, like the local roads that connect highways to ports. She is committed to initiating upgrades of at least the 25 most costly freight bottlenecks by the end of her first term. (bold italics in the original) 

The Federal Aviation Administration is currently pursuing a “NextGen” upgrade program... But these efforts have fallen chronically behind schedule and well short of expectations. Clinton will get this crucial program back on track and ensure that it is managed effectively and with accountability. 

Clinton will also invest in building world-class American airports...with reliable and efficient connections to mass transit. ... 

committing that by 2020, 100 percent of households in America will have access to affordable broadband that delivers world-class speeds sufficient to meet families’ needs.

A wide-ranging system of advanced energy fueling stations for the 21st century fleet. A network of roadway sensors capable of alerting drivers to a dangerous icy patch a mile ahead. 

Clinton will invest in creating a world-leading passenger rail system to meet rapidly growing demand and build a more mobile America. 

...Clinton’s plan will modernize our pipeline system, increase rail safety, and enhance grid security. It will also build new infrastructure to power our economic future and capture America’s clean energy potential. ... 

We need a bold agenda to revitalize our aging water infrastructure and make it more sustainable and energy efficient. Clinton will work to harness both public and private resources to support these efforts. 

Modernizing our dams and levees ...our efforts to maintain these critical structures are haphazard and under-resourced ...We need to substantially increase funding to inspect these structures, bring them into good repair, and remove them where appropriate. ... 

Clinton will support efforts to increase dams’ capacity to deliver affordable and reliable electricity while reducing carbon pollution.

And it goes on like this.

The positive view of all this is  that someone running the vast American bureacracy should have a detailed plan for what they want that bureuacracy to do.  Well, there is plenty of detail here, and it's a good bet that Donald Trump has never thought about traffic jams at intermodal transfer facilities.

So how can I say there is no "plan?"

The other job of an Administration is to set priorities, which means something has to come second. This is what Clinton will propose in her first 100 days, and what she will accomplish in 5 years, with $50 billion a year? You must be kidding. Turning Amtrak alone into a "world-leading passenger rail system" would swallow her $275 billion

There are no numbers here anywhere. The $275 billion is clearly just a made up number that sounds sortof big but not so big as to attract tax-and-spend criticism. Because that is the last number in the whole document. In my rough calculation, she blew $275 billion by the first paragraph. As a consequence,  analysts who calculate how many "jobs" the "Clinton plan" will create are just making it up too.

There is no timeline or process The President of the US is not a King or dictator who waves her hands and upgrades at intermodal transfer facilities just happen. The president appoints cabinet secretaries, who oversee a bureaucracy, which must, by law conducts proper cost benefit analysis, follow the Administrative Procedures Act,  submit plans for EPA review, and so on.

The job of an Administration is also to understand and figure out how to surmount the institutional barriers that have stopped all of these fine and very old ideas from happening before. If Governor Brown and President Obama have not been able to lay a foot of high-speed track in 8 years, how is she going to do so much better?

As I mentioned in the oped, it fails to ask, why are these things problems in the first place? Apparently, traffic jams where trucks unload trains happen when the President is not, herself, there to run things. It's an implicitly damning condemnation of her predecessor -- he was either not studious enough to do his homework to this detail, or insufficiently "committed to initiating upgrades""at  costly freight bottlenecks"

In my world, things go wrong when markets go wrong, or the structures of government fail. In this world, things happen only on the will and attention of the President, including traffic jams. The people in charge now are either idiots, Republicans blocking progress, or just insufficiently guided by the great leader on top.  One need do not analysis of why things are going wrong, just "fight" to fix them. 

This "plan" implies a stinging rebuke of her predecessor, when you think about it. If all it takes is the force of Hllary's will to accomplish all this in 5 years for $275 billion, just why did he fail in 8 years with about $10 trillion? Maybe, just maybe, President Obama was trying darn hard, using the same methods, and came up short for a reason?


There is, literally, no plan. I looked hard through the website, and this "fact sheet" is the bottom level for infrastructure. Yet it keeps referring to what "the plan" will do, with no citations or links. That's all over the website. Thousands of pages talk about the plan, but no pages are, grammatically the plan itself.

Lost in details   And this is just one fact sheet, 6 levels deep in the website.  You get here from (click on bold) 

1) Hllaryclinton.com

2) About / Act / Issues / Shop / More / Español / Donate

3) All Issues / Economy and jobs / Education / Environment / Health / Justice and equality / National security

4) A fair tax system / Jobs and Wages /  Paid family and medical leave .../ Fixing America's infrastructure / ... (17 boxes in all)

5) As president, Hillary will:

• Repair and expand our roads and bridges....
• Lower transportation costs and unlock economic opportunity by expanding public transit options. ...
• Connect all Americans to the internet.... 
• Invest in building world-class American airports and modernize our national airspace system. ..
• Build energy infrastructure for the 21st century. ..

(Looking over all 17 tabs of the "Economy and Jobs" tab, I lost count at 139 such bullet points.)

And finally this  Fact sheet. Transport is actually one of the best thought out of all the tabs.

The point, if each such fact sheet promises that Mrs. Clinton is "committed" to details as fine as solving intermodal freight bottlenecks (the bold italics really got to me), across all 17 tabs of economic policy x 7 tabs of policy areas, she and her administration will get nothing done.

In sum, I think the picture I painted is unavoidable. Clinton and her team are well meaning, but this document (the website) displays an unbelievable naivete about how American government works. Every possible "policy solution" to every perceived problem in America got thrown in, with no thought of where the problems came from, no acknowledgement that good people have been trying hard for years, and that American government has an important set of checks and balances and a policy process. No, she will wave her hand and all will be well. 

Perhaps she and her team are wiser, and this is just a campaign document designed to please media analysts and voters. But if that is the case, it displays an unbelievable disdain for the intelligence of the media and voters she wishes to attract. 

Red Tape 

The thousands of pages of the website do address how Mrs. Clinton will succeed where President Obama failed: She will "break through washington gridlock" and get rid of "red tape." Period. 

This had me guffawing. Really? That's all it takes? Too bad President Obama never had that idea! (He did, and had an office devoted to the project. With little success.) 

Her speech made some progress on just how she will break through "gridlock": 

What we need is serious, steady leadership that can find common ground and build on it based on hard but respectful bargaining. 

Leadership that rises above personal attacks and name calling, not revels in it.... 

ogether, we'll make full use of the White House's power to convene. We'll get everyone at the table – not just Republicans and Democrats, but business and labor leaders...academics and experts... and, most importantly, all of you. I want working people to have a real say in your government again.

That means we have to get unaccountable money out of our politics, overturn Citizens United, and expand voting rights, not restrict them. 

Starting even before the election, we will bring together leaders from across our economy and our communities for meetings on jobs, American competitiveness, and working families. 

I omitted the, well, "personal attacks" on Donald Trump, so we can think about just how plausible this is once he's off the stage. And then it's just roll-your-eyes funny. The major proposal is... more Town Hall meetings and "listening" tours?  I would think, given current scandals, she'd be a little circumspect about "money in politics," and if you want to show your "listening" abilities, perhaps those who think Citizens United was a good idea might be a place to start.

If Mrs. Clinton wants to listen, and reach out to Republicans, she doesn't need to "convene" everyone at the table. And least of all, she doesn't need more policy-wonks stuffing her campaign website with every little idea that public policy schools and liberal think tanks dream up. Paul Ryan's "a better way" plan is right there on the internet. She should get a good glass of wine, sit down with that plan, pick 5 things she can live with, and go with them or see how to meet them half way.

This should be taken as constructive and nonpartisan criticism. Do not mistakenly imply anything about Mr. Trump in here.  Mrs. Clinton is daily more likely to be our next president. I hope dearly that she could make some progress in coming to compromise on some of the simple and obvious steps that our country needs to take, steps pretty much every bipartisan commission agrees on -- tax and immigration reform, yes, infrastructure, reform of much regulatory process, and so on. She doesn't have to agree on policy, but an approach much more like the famous Shultz memo to Reagan -- written in November! -- is much more likely to succeed.

Sadly, though, this seems like a road to four more years of gridlock.

Zoning common sense

Kate Kershaw Downing has posted a worthy letter of resignation from the Palo Alto Housing commission, that seems to be going viral.

Palo Alto is absurdly expensive. People who want to come here for jobs can't afford to live anywhere nearby.  What to do about it?

 I have repeatedly made recommendations to the Council to expand the housing supply in Palo Alto so that together with our neighboring cities who are already adding housing, we can start to make a dent in the jobs-housing imbalance that causes housing prices throughout the Bay Area to spiral out of control. Small steps like allowing 2 floors of housing instead of 1 in mixed use developments, enforcing minimum density requirements so that developers build apartments instead of penthouses, legalizing duplexes, easing restrictions on granny units, leveraging the residential parking permit program to experiment with housing for people who don’t want or need two cars, and allowing single-use areas like the Stanford shopping center to add housing on top of shops (or offices), would go a long way in adding desperately needed housing units while maintaining the character of our neighborhoods and preserving historic structures throughout.

She also warns

 If things keep going as they are, yes, Palo Alto’s streets will look just as they did decades ago, but its inhabitants, spirit, and sense of community will be unrecognizable. A once thriving city will turn into a hollowed out museum.  

I found Ms. Downing's letter noteworthy in that it did not include the usual Bay Area nostrums -- the government must build "affordable housing," freeze rents, ban new construction (yes, this is proposed) or otherwise take counterproductive actions. Those steps can preserve some existing low-income people at high cost -- creating a different kind of museum, really -- but make matters even worse for people who want to move here to work. Few local voices appreciate that expanding supply can do a lot to lower prices, and enhance age and economic diversity.

As the post notes, the coverage and comments in the local newspaper are worth reading as well.  These are local issues, handled by local governments, responsive to the wishes of their local residents. A lot of residents like things just as they are and as they are going, or have quite different views of cause and effect of housing policies.

I'm sorry Ms. Downing is leaving. Good local government depends on hard work by people like her, not crabby bloggers. We all spend too much time focused on Washington and Presidents rather than these kinds of important issues.

Update: Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution on the same letter. Alex points out just how much we have all lost property rights.

Regional price data

Some big news, to me at least: The Bureau of Economic Analysis is now producing "regional price parities" data that allow you to compare the cost of living in one place in the US to another. The BEA news release release is here; coverage from the tax foundation here (HT the always interesting Marginal Revolution). In the past, you could see regional inflation -- changes over time -- but you couldn't compare the level of prices in different places.

The states differ widely. It is in fact as if we live in different countries with different currencies. Hawaii (116.8) vs. Mississippi (86.7) is bigger than paying in dollars vs Euros (118) Yen (times 100, 1.01) and almost as big as pounds (1.30)

The variation across city/country and across cities is even higher:

In 2014, the metropolitan area with the highest RPP was Urban Honolulu, HI (123.5). Metropolitan areas with RPPs above 120.0 also included San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA (122.9), New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA (122.3), Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA (121.8), San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA (121.3), and Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT (120.4). The metropolitan area with the lowest RPP was Beckley, WV (79.7), followed by Rome, GA (80.7), Danville, IL (81.1), Morristown, TN (81.9), and Jonesboro, AR (82.0).

No surprise, much of the variation is due to housing. Breaking it out, (look up your town here!)

San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
All items 121.3
Goods 108.4
Services: Rents 183.9
Services: Other 109.6

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA
All items 122.9
Goods 108.2
Services: Rents 200.7
Services: Other 109.3

Beckley, WV
All items 79.7
Goods 92
Services: Rents 52.8
Services: Other 92.5

There is still a 20% difference in the cost of goods and other services, but the variation in rents is really big. When you consider that the cost of real estate drives up other costs, its effect may be even larger: If the barbershop pays higher rent, and the barber pays higher rent, you're going to pay more for haircuts. And this is just rents. Since houses have thin rental markets, the true difference may be larger still. Also, rents are often controlled or poorly measured. I don't know how BLS deals with that.

You can see many uses for even more granular data. But since house price and rent are easy to get, you might get a good approximation by adding granular housing cost data to regional price data.

There are a lot of interesting issues here.

One question it raises is the true picture of inequality. Poor people, especially those who don't work, tend to live in low-rent areas. Relative to local prices, inequality may not be as bad as it seems. (I presume the BLS does something to adjust rents for quality of housing.)

One can also imagine that congresspeople from high price areas will soon ask for higher cost of living adjustments for benefits to their constituents.

This data ought to focus more attention on housing supply restrictions -- the main reason that rents vary so much.

It raises some puzzles too. I notice that the market for academics gives surprisingly little weight to cost of living variations. If you compare offers from a European and US university, nobody expects you to compare "100,000" in each place without converting currency. But nominal academic salaries are quite similar across chasms of cost of living. To some extent universities make it up with absurdly complex and inefficient housing subsidies, but that doesn't make much sense either.  I'm curious to what extent this phenomenon occurs in other markets.

And... who knows? New data always leads to interesting new research. Kudos to the BEA for making this available.

Comments from people who know how this data is constructed, with good parts and pitfalls, are especially welcome.

Update

A colleague who knows a lot about these issues sent some useful information:

...it’s my understanding from conversations with a few people and brief reading on methodology (https://www.bea.gov/regional/pdf/RPP2015.pdf) that they are actually pretty poor measures of local prices. Essentially all of the variation comes from relatively poorly measured housing prices, almost by construction.

That’s because the only local retail price data going into the BEA indices comes from the BLS CPI data, which covers less than 30 cities (and not even on identical products across locations). They’re extrapolating from this small number of cities to all cities in the US by just taking the nearest city with CPI data and re-weighting it with local expenditures shares. So for example, there is no retail pricing data collected for Columbus, but they show up in the BEA metro area price parities. So where are they getting price data from? They just take the prices collected in Cleveland (where BLS collects data) and assume that are the same in Columbus with potentially slightly different weights in the consumption basket. So even if there is wide heterogeneity across cities in prices... this is for the most part not going to get picked up in their local price measures, since they’re imputing prices in most cities using pricing data from other cities. Since most states have either 0 or 1 BLS price collection cities, this means that close to 100% of the within-state variation in their price levels is coming from housing. So to close to a first approximation, these purchasing power indices are really just house price indices since they basically aren’t using data on local prices for anything except housing.

But the housing price data is coming from ACS with various hedonic adjustment. That is notoriously challenging, especially across locations. It’s much easier but still hard to compute house price changes across time using repeat sales indices like core logic, but the housing stock is fundamentally heterogeneous across space which puts huge standard errors on trying to construct the price for an equivalent unit of housing across space, so I take the exact numbers there with a big grain of salt.

So overall I think these indices basically just tell you that housing is more expensive in san francisco and NYC than in oklahoma, but I think their quantitative usefulness is pretty limited. I think to really measure price level differences across locations, scanner data is much more useful since we can measure identical products as well as product availability and varieties. (A weakness is that this can’t capture differences in service prices across space, but it’s hard to adjust for quality there just like for housing, even if we had a census of all service providers prices everywhere in the country). Jessie Handbury and David Weinstein’s 2014 restud paper is the best study I know of trying to take seriously measuring retail price levels across locations using that kind of data. I have no idea how it lines up with the BEA numbers.

From which I take: 1) This is very important 2) The BLS took a useful stab at it with the numbers they have but 3) understand the large limitations of the BLS numbers before you use them 4) get to work, big-data economists, on using scanner data, twitter feeds, amazon purchases, zillow, and everything else you can get your hands on, to produce 21st century granular price indices!

Update 2:

Enrico Moretti has already written a very nice paper, Real wage inequality (Also here)  adjusting inequality measures for local cost of living.

At least 22% of the documented increase in college premium is accounted for by spatial differences in the cost of living.

He creates local price indices. He also takes on the question whether higher prices in hot cities represent more housing -- better amenities -- or just higher prices which you have to pay in order to work high -productivity jobs.

Summers on growth and stimulus

Larry Summers has an important, and 95% excellent, Financial Times column. Larry is especially worth listening to. I can't imagine that if not a main Hilary Clinton adviser he will surely be an eminence grise on its economic policies. He's saying loud and clear what they are, so far, not: Focus on growth.


The title "the progressive case" for growth, is interesting enough. Perhaps Larry now uses the word "progressive" to describe himself. More importantly, Larry's audience here is the Clinton campaign and the Democratic party. He's saying loud and clear: you're not paying enough attention to growth, and growth ought to be at the center of the party, and the new Administration's, economic plans.

...many people, in their eagerness to focus on fairness, neglect the single most important determinant of almost every aspect of economic performance: the rate of growth of total income,

Hooray. Not only is this vitally important and factually correct, a growth oriented policy, if sold without the usual demonization, could well attract bipartisan support. That sentence could come from Paul Ryan's a better way

Alas, Larry blows that spirit right off the bat with a sentence that take a gold medal for convoluted calumny and bombastic bulverism:

Because those who champion strategies that centre on business tax-cutting and deregulation and favour the wealthy have placed the most emphasis on growth over the past 35 years, the objective of increasing growth has been discredited in the minds of too many progressives.

Translated into something approximating English: because people whose only and base motive was "favoring the wealthy" happened to advocate growth to sell their (as later described) useless tax-cutting and deregulation strategies, the goal of growth has become tarnished in the minds of good progressives.

This is below Larry -- in person I have always known him to recognize that conservatives and free-marketers have exactly the same dispassionate goal, advocate growth primarily to help the less well off, and tax-cutting and deregulation as time-proven policies that improve growth.  But, again, his audience is to the left, so perhaps one can excuse some I-hear-you agreeing with common demonizations.

But then he gets to well written and praiseworthy work, so good I must quote it in entirety:  

It can hardly be an accident that the decades of maximum growth, the 1960s and 1990s, also saw the most rapid job growth and most rapid increase in middle-class living standards.

Growth provides the wherewithal for increased federal revenue and so encourages the protection of vital social insurance programmes such as Social Security and Medicare.... 

Tight labour markets are the best social programme, as they force employers to hire and mentor inexperienced people in order to be adequately staffed. Some years ago, I estimated that for each 1 per cent point increase in adult male employment, the employment of young black men rose 7 per cent. More recent research confirms economic growth has an outsized benefit for younger people and minorities.

Rising growth has other benefits, as well. It strengthens the power of the American example in the world. It obviates the need for desperation monetary policies that risk future financial stability. Greater growth also has historically operated to reduce crime, encourage environmental protection and contributes to public optimism about the country that our children will inherit.

The reality is that if American growth continues to have a 2 per cent ceiling, it is doubtful that we will achieve any of our major national objectives.

If, on the other hand, we can boost growth to 3 per cent, interest rates will normalise, middle-class wages will rise faster than inflation, debt burdens will tend to melt away and the power of the American example will be greatly enhanced.

...the vast majority of job creation and income growth comes from the private sector. If the next president is lucky enough to oversee the creation of 10m jobs from 2017-20, more than 8m of them will surely come from businesses hiring in response to profit opportunities. 

All true, excellent, well-stated, and bipartisan (at least for the pre-Trump era). Jeb Bush's 4%, Paul Ryan's opportunity society agree totally. Heck, even Gary Johnson might find little to quibble with here. If growth could be the mantra for the Hilary Clinton administration, and if Larry can persuade his fellow "progressives," great things could follow.

And now to the remaining 5%:

There is no case for reducing already low corporate taxes or removing regulations unless it can be shown that these have costs in excess of benefits.

What is needed is more demand for the product of business. This is the core of the case for policy approaches to raising public investment, increasing workers’ purchasing power and promoting competitiveness.

No case? Really? The higher taxes, steadily more convoluted tax code, vast expansion of regulation (Dodd-Frank, Obamacare are just the start) that coincided with our epic slow growth, have nothing at all to do with that sorry experience?   There is absolutely nothing wrong with the microeconomics of the American economy and its vast administrative, judicial and regulatory state, we just need a bit more "demand?"

Leave aside the last 30 years of growth theory, which is silent on "demand," we can do nothing better than move around 1970s era IS and LM curves, and revive ideas from the 1930s?

Read the second paragraph carefully. "More demand" is the ""core of the case for policy approaches to raising public investment, increasing workers’ purchasing power and promoting competitiveness."

That "more demand" is the "core of the case" for (The Federal Government to borrow a lot of money and spend it on things labeled as) "public investment" admits up front that the actual value of such investment is at best secondary. Public investment in a great Ice Wall of Westeros on the southern border, or for high-speed trains from Tonopah to Winemucca, do just as well in boosting "demand."

What is needed is a serious negotiation: Fund needed infrastructure investment, but put in serious cost-benefit analysis,  buy it at reasonable prices, and so forth. That negotiation should start by abandoning the whole idea that we're doing it to provide "jobs" and "demand." If you're not wiling to do that, at least be honest and state that Mr. Trump's wall provides the same "demand."

Then explain to us how Japan has been at this for 20 years, producing no great shakes of growth.

"policy-approaches to... increasing worker's purchasing power" is another classic hidden-subject clause. I presume it means [The Federal Government, by legislation, regulation, or threat, will force companies to pay workers more, and then control employment to make sure those companies don't just fire workers or select better ones in order to ] increase [some] worker's purchasing power." Gary Johson's program also increases worker's purchasing power, and I don't think that's what Larry has in mind. I'm also curious where in modern economics forced transfers increase employment and long-run growth.

But in context, this is a small complaint. If Larry can persuade Mrs. Clinton and the "progressives" in the Democratic Party to focus on growth, to state goals for growth, and to hold themselves accountable for growth, then we can have an honest and very productive conversation about what's stopping growth and what steps can further it.

A world without cash

Max Raskin and David Yermack have a nice WSJ OpEd last week, "Preparing for a world without cash." The oped summarizes their related paper.

What would a government-backed digital currency look like? A country’s central bank would need to become a deposit-taking institution and hold accounts on behalf of citizens and businesses. All of their debits would be tracked on the central bank’s blockchain, a digital ledger resistant to tampering. The central bank would pay interest electronically by adjusting the balances of depositor accounts.

I'm a big fan of the idea of abundant interest-bearing electronic money, and that the Fed or Treasury should provide abundant amounts of it. (Some links below.) Two big reasons: First, we then get to live Milton Friedman's optimal quantity of money. If money pays interest, you can hold as much as you'd like. It's like running a car with all the oil it needs. Second, it is a key to financial stability. If all "money" is backed by the Treasury or Fed, financial crises and runs end. As Max and David say,

Depositors would no longer have to rely on commercial banks to hold their checking accounts, and the government could get out of the risky deposit-insurance business. Commercial banks that wished to keep making loans would raise long-term capital in the debt and equity markets, ending the mismatch between demand deposits and long-term loans that can cause liquidity problems.

However, there are different ways to accomplish this larger goal. Do we all need to have accounts directly at the Fed, and is a blockchain the best way for the Fed to handle transfers?


The point of the blockchain, as I understand it, is to demonstrate the validity of each "dollar" by keeping a complete encrypted record of its creation and each person who held it along the way.

Its archival blockchain links together all previous transfers of a given unit of currency as a method of authentication. The blockchain is known as a “shared ledger” or “distributed ledger,” because it is available to all members of the network, any one of whom can see all previous transactions into or out of other digital wallets

That, and a limited supply to control its value, was the basic idea of bitcoin. But when we are clearing transactions by transferring rights to accounts at the Fed, the validity of the "dollar" is not in question. It's at the Fed. And, the big advantage relative to bitcoin as I see it, the value of the dollar comes from monetary policy and ultimately the government's demand for "dollars" to be paid in taxes, not from a fixed supply as was the case with gold.

The blockchain also appears to clear transactions more quickly and offer some security advantages. The latter are very attractive -- in my personal life I've recently had the questionable pleasure of spending days enjoying 19th century finance of multi-day clearing times, obtaining notarized signatures and medallion guarantees, and sending pieces of paper around. But not yet ironclad -- The same week of the WSJ has a string of articles on the security of  Bitcoin following a recent hack.

The biggest stumbling block in my mind is "all members of the network, any one of whom can see all previous transactions into or out of other digital wallets." Per Max and David, this has pluses and minuses:

Tax collection would become much simpler, and tax evasion and money laundering could become prohibitively difficult.

Yet the centralization of banking under this system would also create a Leviathan with the power to monitor and control the personal finances of every citizen in the country. This is one of the chief reasons why many are loath to give up on hard currency. With digital money, the government could view any financial transaction and obtain a flow of information about personal spending that could be used against an individual in a whole host of scenarios. 

This really is a big change in how "money" works. Traditional cash has a lovely property, that it has no memory. Its physical properties determine its value in a way independent of its history. It is incredibly efficient, in a Hayek information sense. The economy does not need the memory of every transaction. Blockchains turn this around.

The anonymity of cash makes it enduringly popular -- cash holdings are up, not down in the digital age. The same week of WSJ reading had articles delving into the continuing popularity of cash, and the mechanics of handling it, the ongoing fury over the planeload of cash delivered by the Obama administration to Iran. It's not hard to figure out why both Iranians and Administration needed to send old-fahshioned bills on an unmarked plane, not a wire transfer.

Indeed creating this Leviathan is a danger, to the economy, and to our political freedom. Our government likes to pass aspirational laws that we don't really mean to enforce. Get rid of cash, and allow the government to see every transaction and enforce every law regarding payment of anything, and 11 million immigrants suddenly can't work at all and become penniless. Rigorous enforcement of all transactions would not only stop your kids lemonade stand and babysitting business, it would wipe out most of the employment opportunities for lower-income America. Many businesses would come to a halt.

The natural response is, well, maybe we shouldn't pass laws we don't really mean to enforce. Good luck with that.

More deeply,  "flow of information about personal spending that could be used against an individual in a whole host of scenarios" is truly frightening. I don't think there is a political candidate in the whole country who could not be embarrassed with one purchase at some point in their lives. Consider the brouhaha now over "disclosure" of political contributions -- there is a real fear that disclosure is a way of setting up hit lists for the administration to go after its political enemies. Multiply that by a thousand. Dissenters could easily be silenced if the government can monitor or block every transaction.

The ability to transact with anonymity and privacy has been a central freedom for hundreds of years. It's largely gone already. Losing it entirely and giving the government huge power to enforce any law it passes is not necessarily a good thing.

Mike and David opine

creating and respecting privacy firewalls and rethinking legal-tender laws could mitigate the dangers of monopoly and stifled competition in currency markets.

[Subject-free sentences (creating?) are always a sign of trouble!] The dangers are not of monopoly and competition, the dangers are in the vast loss of privacy that the government, and its leakers and hackers knowing all our transactions implies.

(Here I'm out on a limb on my blockchain knowledge, but I gather that one does have to wipe the slate clean occasionally. Otherwise, the blockchain gets ridiculously long. Imagine each dollar, a hundred years from now, attached to a list of everyone who has ever held it! That wiping out process could do a lot for privacy.)

So, back to basics. It is not at all clear to me in their analysis why the Fed has to manage all the accounts. The Fed, Treasury, and the government in general are very good at defining the units of a currency, and providing an easy standard of value -- cash, coins, liquid government debt, reserves.  That is their natural monopoly. I don't see that the government has a similar natural advantage in providing low-cost transactions services, especially on monitoring fraud in the use of those services. The Fed got hacked by employees of the central bank of Bangladesh.

So I leave with two big questions -- and these are questions, and this is an invitation to more thought.

Is a blockchain really better than accounts at the Fed, and instructions to flip a switch to send money from my account to your account? What is the best way to get low transactions costs and fraud prevention, given that we don't need authentication of the dollar itself and a supply limitation?

Is it really better for the Fed to handle all transactions directly, rather than for the Fed to provide clearing accounts, and "banks" (narrow!) to provide transactions services between people, using reserves as now for netting and clearing? The latter setup allows competition and innovation in transactions services, and a better hope for an information firewall retaining some privacy and anonymity in transactions.

(Note for readers new to the blog: I've written about some of these issues in  A new structure for US Federal Debt, Toward a run-free financial system, A blueprint for effective financial reform and previous blog posts, such as here.)

A Look in the Mirror

Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok have written a splendid article, "A Skeptical View of the National Science Foundation’s Role in Economic Research" in the summer Journal of Economic Perspectives. Many of their points apply to research support in general.

The article starts with classic Chicago-style microeconomics: What are the opportunity costs -- money may be helpful here, but what else could you do with it? What are the unexpected offsetting forces -- if the government subsidizes more, who subsidizes less? What is the whole picture -- how much public and private subsidy is there to economics research without the NSF? Too many good economists just say "economic research is a public good, the government should subsidize it."

They go on to ask deeper questions, "Are NSF Grants the Best Method of Government Support for Economic Science?" The NSF largely supports mainstream research by established economists at high-prestige universities. Are there better "public goods," undersupported by other means, for it to support?


Yes. Among others, replication and data. There are few current rewards for replication, and much economics research is not replicable. We live in the age of big data, but it's expensive and hard to access. The NSF has done commendable work here -- and other government agencies including the Census, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Federal Reserve, etc. provide huge public goods by collecting and disseminating good data. Without data we would not exist.  That strikes me as the single most underfunded public good in the economics sphere.

I'm less a fan of their proposal to support "far out" research, naming "post-Keynesians, econo-physicists, or the Austrians." While they cite popular authors  and a "gadfly'" sensational claims for the end of macroeconomics in 2009, in fact Macroeconomics is not all that much changed since the crisis and recession, and none of these claims -- nor the wackier approaches -- have in fact borne any fruit.  Yes, it's easy to support mediocre incremental research, but government agency that must appear impartial can too quickly end up subsidizing crank research, of which there is plenty in economics (see my inbox!)

They ask a great question. If the government wants to subsidize economic research, why hand out grants, rather than hire people directly?

I think there are good answers here. Another big subsidy to economics research which they do not mention are the legions of government employees already doing it. The Federal Reserve, Treasury, OFR, CEA, SEC, CFTC, HHS, EPA and hundreds of other agencies employ thousands of PhD economists who spend considerable if not full time on "research," and are expected to write academic journal articles. Make up your own mind about the value of this effort. The success of the research university I think points to an important externality between doing research, teaching it, and evaluating it through service to the profession. Also, research coming out of government agencies always seems to find just how wonderful those agencies' policies are. However, replication and data production, or other more easily guided research seems a good fit.

Also not mentioned is the danger that government subsidized research ends up being politicized, or at least ends up calling for more government.

One of the main methods of NSF support is "summer support." Universities pay academics on a 9 month basis. If you get an NSF grant it pays for 2 months of "summer support."  This is, of course, a fiction. In fact, most universities chop up the "9 month" salary into 12 pieces anyway. And most academics are not about to go work elsewhere in the summer -- it's the only time to really focus on research, and as Alex and Tyler point out the rewards to publishing are huge.  By and large the NSF does not (or did not when I last looked in to it) buy off teaching or other duties, the one thing that might free up some marginal research time. Alex and Tyler mention low labor supply elasticities as a reason to be cautious about the effectiveness of support. They don't mention this system, practically guaranteed to be a pure transfer rather than induce more research.

On the other hand, NSF grants are typically awarded based on a working paper. They already are a "prize" as Tyler and Alex recommend. So perhaps the lump-sum nature of the reward is not such a bad idea, and ends up subsidizing good research rather than more effort.

I stopped applying for NSF grants some time ago. Sometime in the mid-1990s, I was driving through Indiana, and I saw a guy hooking a shiny new boat up to his pickup truck. It occurred to me, my NSF check for that summer was worth about 5 boats. I didn't think I could get out of the car and say with a straight face that he and four neighbors should forego their boats so I could work on unit roots for the summer. I'm not pure either; I still benefit from many government subsidies, not least of which the tax-deductibility of charitable contributions.

Federalization of Labor

We are getting a good hint that a centerpiece of economic policy in the Hillary Clinton administration will be an increase in Federal control over labor markets.

The news here is that serious economists are advocating these policies, not just to transfer income from one to another, reduce inequality, help specific groups, or enhance some sense of social justice, at the expense of dynamism and growth, but that more Federal control of the labor market will increase wages, productivity and economic growth for everyone!

Alan Blinder's cogent Aug 2 Wall Street Journal opinion piece gives a good sense of the language and logic,

... Hillary Clinton has presented an extensive list of policies that would raise wages, starting with a higher minimum wage. ...

Mrs. Clinton also advocates widespread profit-sharing as a way to put more money into workers’ pockets. She would promote that goal both by using the presidential bully pulpit and by providing tax incentives for businesses that share profits. Since the scholarly evidence suggests that profit-sharing raises productivity, such tax breaks will partly pay for themselves.

Increased vocational training and apprenticeships for the non-college-bound are also major Clinton policies....The U.S. can increase its productivity and reduce inequality by ensuring that the right people get vocational training and apprenticeships.

And then there is what may be the surest way to raise wages over the long run: providing pre-K education for all American children....

Labor market intervention is getting wrapped up in "stimulus," as reported in an excellent Bloomberg column by Brendan Greeley here,

 "It’s really simple," she said at a rally in June in Ohio. "Higher wages leads to more demand, which leads to more jobs, which leads to higher wages." ...

When Clinton uses the word "demand" on the stump, she’s blowing a dog whistle. (Economists have them, too.) Increase demand, she’s saying, and you get growth.... 

Bob Gordon signs on reluctantly,  

"I think it’s a very marginal way of promoting economic growth," says Robert Gordon, economist at Northwestern University who specializes in the subject. Like Summers, he prefers a massive investment in infrastructure. But he does agree that a shift in business income away from profits and toward salaries would create growth. Workers are more likely to buy things from their paychecks than businesses are to invest out of their profits.

Alan Krueger ["former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and an informal adviser to the Clinton campaign," and candidate for vice-president of the American Economic Association] agrees wholeheartedly:

... "I think the time could be right for a more virtuous growth model," he said, "which is driven by stronger wage growth...more consumption, more demand, creating more jobs." 

Novel rationalizations for decades-old policies are always suspect. And the usual passive or verb-less sentences hiding the heavy hand of Federal government always invites skepticism.

But let's take it seriously. How much sense do these analyses make?

Without rehashing the whole minimum-wage fight, it is worth asking, if the Federal Government forces businesses to raise some people's wages, but others become unemployed as a result, whether that really count as raising wages overall?

The words "presidential bully pulipit" has poor overtones in the current age. The bully pulpit means the DOJ, EEOC, IRS, NLRB, EPA and who knows even the fish and wildlife service may come calling if you don't do what the president wants. Schoolyard bully, not Teddy Roosevelt's jolly-good pulpit.

"The scholarly evidence indicates that profit-sharing raises productivity.." That's a new twist on the abominable "studies show" argument by reference to vague authority.  But even "scholarly evidence" has to make some sense.

It does make sense that firms which study the question and choose profit-sharing plans can thereby raise productivity, either by giving their employees better incentives or by attracting different and more productive employees. They would not do it otherwise.

But this classic subject-free sentence is about Federal Regulations to force profit-sharing that "puts money into workers' pockets" on all firms. It does not follow that such a mandate will have the same effect. This is the classic, "rich guys drive BMWs, so if we force BMW to give cars away we'll all get rich."

To belabor the obvious, that some firms choose it because they see it will work does not mean that the Federal Government forcing it on all firms will work.  That profit sharing which increases workers' incentives can work does not mean that reducing profits and paying lump sums to workers will work. That profit sharing accompanied by greater selection of productive workers works does not mean that forced profit sharing will work for everyone -- someone employs the less productive, I hope.

If it's about incentives, then there should be a widespread Federal initiative to promote piece-work, commissions rather than salaries, independent contractors rather than employees... Hmm, we're headed the other way.

As economists, we are supposed to start with a problem. What is the market failure that stops companies form putting in productivity enhancing profit sharing programs? Or are they just too dumb and need the benevolent hand of the "bully pulpit" to educate them?

"Increased vocational training and apprenticeships for the non-college-bound," are more Orwellian subject-less sentences. Who is going to do this increasing and how? What is the market failure? Do we need to have triple digit numbers of Federal Job-training programs?

"Providing pre-k education" is another subject-free sentence. I presume he does not mean reducing regulations and union requirements so more pre-k schools can start up! That might actually be effective. But perhaps it is technically correct: a large Federal subsidy for pre-k education, funneled through the public school systems and teacher's unions will raise someone's wages. The "scholarly evidence" is not that it will be the kids.

The idea that forcing companies to pay out greater wages is the key to "stimulus," and that demand-side "stimulus" is the key to long-run growth is...er... even more novel economics.

In classic Keynesian stimulus, there is something about the government borrowing money and spending it, or giving it to consumers to spend, that causes people to forget that the borrowed money must be paid back someday. Not here -- this is directly the claim that taking from Peter and giving to Paul is the key to prosperity. And not just temporary stimulus, but long run growth.

One of many fallacies at work here is the notion that companies face a choice between "paper" investment and "real" investment; that by piling up cash reserves they are somehow diverting resources that could be "real demand" into "paper investments." But every paper asset is a paper liability, so this possible truth about an individual company makes no sense for an economy as a whole.

And let's follow the logic.  If this works for stimulus and growth, force companies to give away cash to consumers. Consumers are, well, people who like to consume. Force them to give cash away to thieves. They consume quickly.  If this is a bad idea.. well then maybe the whole "stimulus" thin is a bit of bunk as well.

Gordon at least has the decency to belittle the idea. And on "a shift in business income [another subjectless sentence -- this shift is forced by the Federal Government!] away from profits and toward salaries would create growth"  because "Workers are more likely to buy things from their paychecks than businesses are to invest out of their profits," one can hope that a statement which violates basic accounting is a misquotation.

 Krueger has less defense: "a more virtuous growth model,...which is driven by stronger wage growth...more consumption, more demand, creating more jobs" is a direct quote. It may be "virtuous" to feel this way, but the classic criticism of Democratic economic policy is doing things that make you feel good but don't work.

Well maybe, maybe not. Economics is a work in progress. But it is certainly brand-new, made-up-on-the spot economics, designed to buttress policies decided on for other reasons.

A last grumpy comment. The WSJ titled Blinder's oped, "Only one candidate can make wages grow again."  Actually I agree with the sentence   Like most media they forgot there are more than two candidates!

Macro-Finance

A new essay "Macro-Finance," based on a talk I gave at the University of Melbourne this Spring. I survey many current frameworks including habits, long run risks, idiosyncratic risks, heterogenous preferences, rare disasters, probability mistakes, and debt or institutional finance. I show how all these approaches produce quite similar results and mechanisms: the market's ability to bear risk varies over time, with business cycles. I speculate with some simple models that time-varying risk premiums can produce a theory of risk-averse recessions, produced by varying risk aversion and precautionary saving, rather than Keynesian flow constraints or new-Keynesian intertemporal substitution.

How to step on a rake

How to step on a rake is a little note on how to solve Chris Sims' stepping on a rake paper.

This is mostly of interest if you want to know how to solve continuous time new-Keneysian (sticky price) models. Chris' model is very interesting, combining fiscal theory, an interest rate rule, habits, long term debt, and it produces a temporary decline in inflation after a rise in nominal interest rates.  

Blueprint for America

"Blueprint for America" is a collection of essays, organized, edited and inspired by George P. Shultz. You can get an overview and chapter by chapter pdfs here. The hardcover will be available from Amazon or Hoover Press October 1.

Some of the inspiration for this project came from the remarkable 1980 memo (here) to President-elect Ronald Reagan from his Coordinating Committee on Economic Policy.

Like that memo, this is a book about governance, not politics.  It's not partisan -- copies are being sent to both campaigns. It's not about choosing or spinning policies to attract voters or win elections.

The book is about long-term policies and policy frameworks -- how policy is made, return to rule of law, is as important as what the policy is --  that can fix America's problems. It focuses on what we think are the important issues as well as policies to address those issues -- it does not address every passion of the latest two-week news cycle.

The book comprises the answers we would give to an incoming Administration of any party, or incoming Congress, if they asked us for a policy package that is best for the long-term welfare of the country.

The chapters, to whet your appetite:

INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1: The Domestic Landscape by Michael J. Boskin
IN BRIEF: Spending by George P. Shultz
CHAPTER 2: Entitlements and the Budget by John F. Cogan
CHAPTER 3: A Blueprint for Tax Reform by Michael J. Boskin
CHAPTER 4: Transformational Health Care Reform by Scott W. Atlas
CHAPTER 5: Reforming Regulation by Michael J. Boskin
CHAPTER 6: National and International Monetary Reform by John B. Taylor
CHAPTER 7: A Blueprint for Effective Financial Reform by John H. Cochrane
IN BRIEF: National Human Resources by George P. Shultz
CHAPTER 8: Education and the Nation’s Future by Eric A. Hanushek
CHAPTER 9: Trade and Immigration by John H. Cochrane
IN BRIEF: A World Awash in Change
CHAPTER 10: Restoring Our National Security by James O. Ellis Jr., James N. Mattis, and Kori Schake
CHAPTER 11: Redefining Energy Security by James O. Ellis Jr.
CHAPTER 12: Diplomacy in a Time of Transition by James E. Goodby
CLOSING NOTE: The Art and Practice of Governance by George P. Shultz

My chapter on a Blueprint for Effective Financial Reform is a better version of the talk on Equity Financed banking which I posted here. (The talk was based on the paper. Now you have the paper.)

My chapter on Trade and Immigration is new, and an uncompromising red-meat free-market view. I don't think one should compromise centuries old economic understanding just because it's not politically popular at the moment.
 
If you got this far, you might also be interested in my Economic Growth essay written for a parallel but similar project.

Immigration sentiment

Above, a lovely graph from The Conversation. A common story says that opposition to immigration comes from people in high-immigrant communities, who suffer externalities from the presence of many immigrants. It is not true.

NYT on zoning

Conor Dougherty in The New York Times has a good article on zoning laws,

a growing body of economic literature suggests that anti-growth sentiment... is a major factor in creating a stagnant and less equal American economy.

...Unlike past decades, when people of different socioeconomic backgrounds tended to move to similar areas, today, less-skilled workers often go where jobs are scarcer but housing is cheap, instead of heading to places with the most promising job opportunities  according to research by Daniel Shoag, a professor of public policy at Harvard, and Peter Ganong, also of Harvard.

One reason they’re not migrating to places with better job prospects is that rich cities like San Francisco and Seattle have gotten so expensive that working-class people cannot afford to move there. Even if they could, there would not be much point, since whatever they gained in pay would be swallowed up by rent. 

Stop and rejoice. This is, after all, the New York Times, not the Cato Review. One might expect high housing prices to get blamed on developers, greed, or something, and the solution to be government-constructed housing, "affordable" housing mandates, rent controls, low-income housing subsidies (which protect incumbent low-income people, not those who want to move in to get better jobs) and even more restrictions.

No. The Times, the Obama Administration, California Governor Gerry Brown, have figured out that zoning laws are to blame, and they're making social stratification and inequality worse.

In response, a group of politicians, including Gov. Jerry Brown of California and President Obama, are joining with developers in trying to get cities to streamline many of the local zoning laws that, they say, make homes more expensive and hold too many newcomers at bay. 

.. laws aimed at things like “maintaining neighborhood character” or limiting how many unrelated people can live together in the same house contribute to racial segregation and deeper class disparities. They also exacerbate inequality by restricting the housing supply in places where demand is greatest. 

“You don’t want rules made entirely for people that have something, at the expense of people who don’t,” said Jason Furman, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. 

This could be a lovely moment in which a bipartisan consensus can get together and fix a real problem.

The article focuses on Boulder Colorado, where

.. the university churns out smart people, the smart people attract employers, and the amenities make everyone want to stay. Twitter is expanding its offices downtown. A few miles away, a big hole full of construction equipment marks a new Google campus that will allow the company to expand its Boulder work force to 1,500 from 400.

Actually, The reason Google and Twitter are in Boulder is that things are much, much worse in Palo Alto! A fate Boulder may soon share:

“We don’t need one more job in Boulder,” Mr. Pomerance said. “We don’t need to grow anymore. Go somewhere else where they need you.”

Brexit or Fixit

Many commenters compare Brexit to the American revolution. I think the constitutional convention is a better analogy for the moment and challenge ahead. A first attempt at union resulted in an unworkable Federal structure. Europe needs a constitutional convention to fix its union.

The EU's first attempt was basically aristocratic/technocratic. Brussels tells the peasants what to do. The EU  needs a hardy dose of accountability, representation, checks and balances -- all the beautiful structures of the US Constitution. What little thought the EU put in to these matters is clearly wanting.

America did not wait for a state to leave. But, though even the Pope admits the EU structure wasn't working, the EU needed this wake up call. Bring the UK to the convention, and bring them back. Fixit. (#Fixit?)


Out of control economic regulation, labor laws, mandated social programs and "60% of British laws are made in Brussels" (I don't know the source of the widely quoted number, but the sentiment is as important as the fact)  are the most sensible arguments I heard for Brexit.

Fraser Nelson's WSJ essay expressed this well

The Brexit campaign started as a cry for liberty, perhaps articulated most clearly by Michael Gove, the British justice secretary... Mr. Gove offered practical examples of the problems of EU membership. As a minister, he said, he deals constantly with edicts and regulations framed at the European level—rules that he doesn’t want and can’t change. These were rules that no one in Britain asked for, rules promulgated by officials whose names Brits don’t know, people whom they never elected and cannot remove from office. Yet they become the law of the land. Much of what we think of as British democracy, Mr. Gove argued, is now no such thing.

The important point, I think, is not the outcome -- too much silly regulation, labor laws, and so on. The process is the important point.

America is, in my opinion, also a victim of stifling economic regulation, job-killing labor laws, incentive-destroying social programs. But, we still have a process in place -- in trouble, creaky, under attack by results-at-any-cost progressivisim.  But we have a process. Regulations are supposed to be authorized by Congress; should follow the Administrative Procedures act, with public comment, cost benefit analysis, and so forth; can be challenged administratively and then in court; and Congress itself can pass laws over-ruling regulators (which the President can veto, as he has).  Europe is missing this process; and european law is even worse than economic regulation here.

Last week's immigration ruling is an example of the same forces under strain in the US. I happen to agree with the Administration on policy grounds: People who have been here their whole lives, parents of US citizen children, should not face the constant risk of deportation, and should be allowed to work legally. (I had no idea there was such a thing as a "work permit" in the US, until President Obama mentioned it.) But, Congress passed silly laws mandating the opposite, and the Administration moved beyond its authority. When States are suing the Administration in the Supreme Court over its actions, we are in danger of Texit. But at least Texas can sue. Britain had no similar way to object to EU edicts.

Process matters, because democracy needs to form consensus and acceptance. When you force things down people's throats, they eventually gag.

Again quoting WSJ

Instead of grumbling about the things we can’t change, Mr. Gove said, it was time to follow “the Americans who declared their independence and never looked back” and “become an exemplar of what an inclusive, open and innovative democracy can achieve.” Many of the Brexiteers think that Britain voted this week to follow a template set in 1776 on the other side of the Atlantic. 

The answer for Europe is that it must allow people the option to change things they don't like. And 1787, not 1776 is the inspiration.

On economics, I think it's overblown.

Will this be a disaster for the British economy? Probably not. Norway, Switzerland, and Japan seem to get along.  If the UK decided to be a free economy free trade and open banking center, it could do wonders.

It is nice to see a consensus (though sometimes implicit) on the advantages of free trade. Leave did not argue for the importance of preserving British jobs with trade restrictions.  Alas, "free trade" now means "access to markets" or managed mercantilism.

The benefits of a continent-wide open labor market are easy to see in my business. As I visit universities around Europe, the typical smart young professor might come from Slovakia, have done an undergraduate degree in Spain, Masters' in the UK, PhD in Italy, is working in Sweden, with spouse working in London. The result is a resurgence of European universities, now dramatically better than they were two decades ago. The irony of Brexit is that English is the common language of Europe, making this integration possible.

So why are markets going so wild? I think political follow-on is very unstable. If Brexit leads to Britain becoming Norway it's not a big deal. If the UK breaks up, and the EU breaks up, we have big trouble ahead. Fixit instead.

Transport innovation

What is it?

I saw this in the parking lot of the hotel where I'm staying. Inspection: yes, it's the chassis of an early 1970s VW, with motor and transmission in place. The motor appears functional. It's connected to the gas cans. Yet, this is a trailer. Why? (Hint: it's parked next to a new Toyota CRV electric car.)

Answer: The owner has a nice new Toyota CRV electric. He extolled the virtues of the electric, its greenness, and the tax breaks and free charging options. But, it only has a 120 mile range, and sometimes he needs to drive longer distances on the freeway. This is Utah, after all.

So... the VW trailer. When in need, he puts the trailer in 4th gear, and turns on its electric system. The throttle is stuck full open. He pulls it to get going put, put put put... Then, the trailer pushes the car along. What if he needs to slow down? No problem, he hits the regenerative brakes on the Toyota, so now the VW is also charging up his batteries!

American ingenuity is still alive!

I did not ask if the highway patrol was aware of just how the trailer functions. Or the DOT, EPA, NHTSA, etc. etc.

Rajan on cash transfers and corruption

Raghu Rajan, who just announced he is stepping down as Governor of the Central Bank of India, gave a very interesting speech, that bears among other things on the question of social programs vs. cash transfers.

A big problem with government provided assistance in India is that the provision is corrupt:

Our [India's] provision of public goods is unfortunately biased against access by the poor. In a number of states, ration shops do not supply what is due, even if one has a ration card – and too many amongst the poor do not have a ration card or a BPL card; Teachers do not show up at schools to teach; The police do not register crimes, or encroachments, especially if committed by the rich and powerful; Public hospitals are not adequately staffed and ostensibly free medicines are not available at the dispensary; …I can go on, but you know the all-too-familiar picture.

Raghu has a thoughtful observation on what keeps this system going:

This is where the crooked but savvy politician fits in. While the poor do not have the money to “purchase” public services that are their right, they have a vote that the politician wants. The politician does a little bit to make life a little more tolerable for his poor constituents – a government job here, an FIR registered there, a land right honoured somewhere else. For this, he gets the gratitude of his voters, and more important, their vote.

...perhaps the system tolerates corruption because the street smart politician is better at making the wheels of the bureaucracy creak, however slowly, in favour of his constituents. And such a system is self-sustaining. An idealist who is unwilling to “work” the system can promise to reform it, but the voters know there is little one person can do. Moreover, who will provide the patronage while the idealist is fighting the system? So why not stay with the fixer you know even if it means the reformist loses his deposit?

So the circle is complete. The poor and the under-privileged need the politician to help them get jobs and public services. The crooked politician needs the businessman to provide the funds that allow him to supply patronage to the poor and fight elections. The corrupt businessman needs the crooked politician to get public resources and contracts cheaply. And the politician needs the votes of the poor and the underprivileged. Every constituency is tied to the other in a cycle of dependence, which ensures that the status quo prevails. 

The Mafia may have had a similar equilibrium

What to do? Cash transfers are an attractive option

... money liberates. Could we not give poor households cash instead of promising them public services? A poor household with cash can patronize whomsoever it wants, and not just the monopolistic government provider. Because the poor can pay for their medicines or their food, they will command respect from the private provider. Not only will a corrupt fair price shop owner not be able to divert the grain he gets since he has to sell at market price, but because he has to compete with the shop across the street, he cannot afford to be surly or lazy. The government can add to the effects of empowering the poor by instilling a genuine cost to being uncompetitive – by shutting down parts of the public delivery systems that do not generate enough custom.

Much of what we need to do is already possible. The government intends to announce a scheme for full financial inclusion on Independence Day. It includes identifying the poor, creating unique biometric identifiers for them, opening linked bank accounts, and making government transfers into those accounts. When fully rolled out, I believe it will give the poor the choice and respect as well as the services they had to beg for in the past. It can break a link between poor public service, patronage, and corruption that is growing more worrisome over time.

...if there is evidence that cash transfers are being misspent – and we should let data rather than pre-conceived notions drive policy -- some portion could be given in the form of electronic coupons that can be spent by the specified recipient only on food, education or healthcare.

 A good summary

 One of the greatest dangers to the growth of developing countries is the middle income trap, where crony capitalism creates oligarchies that slow down growth. [Just developing countries?!] ... To avoid this trap, and to strengthen the independent democracy our leaders won for us sixty seven years ago, we have to improve public services, especially those targeted at the poor. A key mechanism to improve these services is through financial inclusion, which is going to be an important part of the government and the RBI’s plans in the coming years.

Raghu's efforts to reform India's banking and financial system deserve more notice.

(PS: Blogging will be a little spotty for the next week and a half, as I'm off at a glider competition.)

Syverson on the productivity slowdown

Chad Syverson has an interesting new paper on the sources of the productivity slowdown.

Background to wake you up: Long-term US growth is slowing down. This is a (the!) big important issue in economics (one previous post).  And productivity -- how much each person can produce per hour -- is the only source of long-term growth. We are not vastly better off than our grandparents because we negotiated better wages for hacking at coal with pickaxes.

Why is productivity slowing down? Perhaps we've run out of ideas (Gordon). Perhaps a savings glut and the  zero bound drive secular stagnation lack of demand (Summers). Perhaps the out of control regulatory leviathan is killing growth with a thousand cuts (Cochrane).

Or maybe productivity  isn't declining at all, we're just measuring new products badly (Varian; Silicon Valley). Google maps is free! If so, we are living with undiagnosed but healthy deflation, and real GDP growth is actually doing well.

Chad:

First, the productivity slowdown has occurred in dozens of countries, and its size is unrelated to measures of the countries’ consumption or production intensities of information and communication technologies ... Second, estimates... of the surplus created by internet-linked digital technologies fall far short of the $2.7 trillion or more of “missing output” resulting from the productivity growth slowdown...Third, if measurement problems were to account for even a modest share of this missing output, the properly measured output and productivity growth rates of industries that produce and service ICTs [internet] would have to have been multiples of their measured growth in the data. Fourth, while measured gross domestic income has been on average higher than measured gross domestic product since 2004—perhaps indicating workers are being paid to make products that are given away for free or at highly discounted prices—this trend actually began before the productivity slowdown and moreover reflects unusually high capital income rather than labor income (i.e., profits are unusually high). In combination, these complementary facets of evidence suggest that the reasonable prima facie case for the mismeasurement hypothesis faces real hurdles when confronted with the data.

An interesting read throughout. 

[Except for that last sentence, a near parody of academic caution!]  

Financial Choice

If you're interested in policy rather than politics, the package of legislative proposals coming out of Congress are a lot more interesting than the Presidential race at the moment. Speaker Paul Ryan is rolling out "A Better Way" package and Rep. Jeb Hensarling has just announced a "financial CHOICE act" to fundamentally reform Dodd-Frank. (Most quotes are from Jeb Hensarling's speech at the Economic Club of New York. See also  NYT coverage.)

These efforts will, I think, become much more important later on. The presidential race will decide whether this agenda can survive the instant veto that it faces now.  (This is a non-partisan comment. Hilary Clinton could likely assure a landslide by announcing she will work with Paul Ryan to craft and pass it.)

In any case, it defines a clear program that may be the focus of economic policy under a presidency of either party. And I think that's healthy as well.  We are still living in the shadows of Franklin Roosevelt's 100 days, and an increasingly imperial presidency. But the current need is not for a flurry of new legislation and executive orders to address a crisis. We need a steady clean-up of the legal and regulatory mess of the last few decades. For that project, it may be better for policy leadership to come from Congress, and by careful and patient drafting of actual legislation.

The legislation is still being drafted, which is why it would be lovely if more of the media and blogosphere were paying attention rather than to the latest antics of the presidential candidates. The congressional staff writing these things are paying attention and the proposals can be refined!

Today, a look at the Financial CHOICE act.

More capital, and the carrot of less regulation

...there is a growing consensus surrounding the idea of a tradeoff between heightened capital levels and a substantially lower regulatory burden....[We] will relieve financial institutions from regulations that create more burden than benefit in exchange for meeting higher, yet simple, capital requirements...Think of it as a market-based, equity financed Dodd-Frank off- ramp... the option remains with the bank.

How to measure capital? This is a hard nut.

...banks that maintain a simple leverage ratio of at least 10 percent and, at the time of the election, have a composite CAMELS rating of 1 or 2 may elect to be functionally exempt from the post-Dodd-Frank supervisory regime, the Basel III capital and liquidity standards, and a number of other regulatory burdens that pre-date Dodd-Frank. 

This is an element worthy of more discussion. Leverage ratios have problems too, as they do not distinguish the riskiness of assets.  CAMELS ratings have their own problems.

As blog readers know, I think we can keep going well beyond 10% capital. I'd like to see steady incentives for more and more capital, rather than an arbitrary threshold.  My current thinking leads to reducing subsidies for debt, a fee on short term debt, and using ratios of market value of equity to debt. Or a schedule of regulatory reductions: so much for 10% capital, more for 20% capital, do what you want at 100%. But we're in danger here of repeating a Libertarian party sort of fight whether there should be drivers' licenses in Nirvana, so let's leave this as an open question for refinement.

It seems natural to ask for more capital on riskier assets, but a beautiful paragraph on risk-weights explains why that doesn't work.

Risk-weighting is simply not as effective. First, it is far too complex, requiring millions of calculations to measure capital adequacy. Second, it confers a competitive advantage on those large financial institutions that have the resources to navigate its mind-numbing complexity. Third, regulators have managed to get the risk weights tragically wrong, for example, treating toxic mortgage-backed securities and Greek sovereign debt as essentially risk-free. One myopic globally imposed view of risk is itself risky. Finally, risk-weighting places regulators in the position of micro-managing financial institutions, which politicizes credit allocation. Witness the World Bank recently advertising its zero risk rating under the Basel Accords for their “green bonds.”

The regulatory carrot: A bank with enough capital

would be deemed “well capitalized” for prompt corrective action purposes; It would no longer be subject to Basel Committee capital or liquidity requirements as implemented by the U.S. banking regulators;  It would be able to make capital distributions freely; and would additionally be able to consummate transactions without being subject to the regulatory challenge of increasing risk to the stability of our banking or financial system, or on grounds related to capital or liquidity standards of concentrations of deposits or assets. 

... no Federal rule establishing “heightened prudential standards” of the type provided for in Dodd-Frank would apply to qualifying banking organizations, including the living will requirement...In short, a strongly capitalized qualifying bank will be enabled to remove government bureaucrats from its boardroom and lend and invest freely.

From the executive summary,

Exempt banking organizations that have made a qualifying capital election from any federal law, rule, or regulation that permits a banking agency to consider risk “to the stability of the United States banking or financial system,” added to various federal banking laws by Section 604 of the Dodd-Frank Act, when reviewing an application to consummate a transaction or commence an activity.

A linguistic note: Not once in this speech, except while quoting others, does Rep. Hensarling use the phrase "to hold" capital. Every instance is "raise" capital. And explicitly, 

equity capital can be put to work no differently than debt or deposits. It is not money put under a mattress.

And as to the ballyhooed impossibility of raising capital, 

U.S. banks have raised hundreds of billions in new capital

Who says nobody in Congress understands finance!

Bankruptcy; no more "designation"  

The centerpiece of Dodd-Frank is the FSOC (Financial Stability Oversight Council's) ability to "designate" a firm as "systemically important," and then to "resolve" it, in place of bankruptcy.  This will go.

...bankruptcy, not bailouts. Recently the House passed the bipartisan Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act, which creates a new subchapter of the Bankruptcy Code tailored to specifically address the failure of a large, complex financial institution.....

The speech goes on with several good reasons bankruptcy is better than resolution.  I hear cheering from John Taylor's office already.

 Retroactively repeal the authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to designate firms as systematically important financial institutions (SIFIs) 

Fed Lending

...we impose on the Fed Bagehot’s famous dictum: lend freely, but only to solvent institutions, only against sound collateral, and only at interest rates high enough to dissuade those who are not genuinely in need. 

I'm a little leery of this one. Dictums are not analysis. If you want to stop a run, you have to lend pretty freely. Private institutions like a clearinghouse to do that once existed, but they have been put out of business by the Fed.  Nobody knows who is solvent vs. illiquid; the point of a run is that collateral that was "sound" yesterday is not today.  And if you want to stop a run, who cares if it's insolvent or illiquid? The Fed doesn't need quickly salable collateral, being super senior in bankruptcy is enough.  Bagehot's dictum is a great way to run a hedge fund. It's not necessarily the right way to run a central bank.

I worry that we are headed for the worst of all worlds -- people expect bailouts and free fed lending, but the government is legally constrained from doing so. All the moral hazard and none of the crisis mop. If we're going to go in this direction, it has to be crystal clear to people running banks that the government will not be able to step in next time, even stretching laws, and they'd better set things up carefully ahead of time. I'm afraid people are not going to believe any legal restrictions.

Rule of Law

Some of the most interesting parts of this proposal really belong together in "restoring the rule of law to regulation." That's a big project that I hear simmering in much of this Congressional planning. And, based on the daily news (for example the latest on the FCC takeover of the internet) not a minute too soon.

CFPB 

The "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau" is out of control.

fundamentally reforming the CFPB......task it with the dual mission of consumer protection and competitive markets, with a cost-benefit analysis of rules performed by an Office of Economic Analysis. 

 Replace the current single director with a bipartisan, five-member commission which is subject to congressional oversight and appropriations. 

... Repeal authority to ban bank products or services it deems “abusive” and its authority to prohibit arbitration. ... Repeal indirect auto lending guidance.

Federal Reserve 

One of the most thought-provoking proposals splits the Federal Reserve's regulatory power from its monetary policy power. It puts bank regulation, like all regulation, in the rule-of-law framework that is supposed to exist for regulation: cost-benefit analysis, Administrative Procedures Act, Congressional oversight, and so forth. Various quotes: 

Require that the different sets of conditions under which stress tests are evaluated subject to notice and comment period. 

... makes sure every financial regulation passes a rigorous cost-benefit test... 

We will put all the financial regulatory agencies on budget. The bare minimum level of accountability to “We the People” is to have their elected representatives in Congress control the power of the purse, as inscribed in our Constitution. 

But, wisely,

protects the Federal Reserve’s independence in conducting monetary policy by leaving that function off-budget. The Fed’s prudential regulatory and financial supervision activities, however, will now be subject to the normal and transparent congressional appropriations process.

SEC

...due process rights. Too many citizens have been “shook down” or abused by their government. Thus we will provide an immediate right of removal to federal court for respondents in administrative proceedings.  We will ensure that disciplinary proceedings are public, that all fines imposed by regulatory agencies are sent to the Treasury for deficit reduction, that regulatory entities created by Congress are subject to full congressional oversight, and that other due process rights are strengthened.

There is a curious section on increasing the SEC's power:

the Financial CHOICE Act will impose the toughest penalties in history for financial fraud, self- dealing and deception.

We will double the cap for the most serious securities law violations and will allow for triple monetary fines when penalties are tied to illegal profits. We will give the SEC new authority to impose sanctions more closely linked to investor losses – and increase punishments even more for repeat offenders. We will increase the maximum criminal fines for both individuals and firms that engage in insider trading.

I'm not aware of a big problem in the SEC (and DOJ) not being able to ruin people's lives adequately, or extort large enough settlements from banks. Perhaps this is an olive branch, which won't hurt much.

Broader project

A sense of the broader project to restore rule of law in regulation.

Dodd-Frank gives FSOC the ability to designate companies as Too Big to Fail if it “determines that material financial distress” at the company “could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States.” But nowhere in Dodd-Frank, or anywhere else in the U.S. Code for that matter, are these terms defined. So by defining these vague terms in any fashion that pleases them, this “super-group” of regulators can exert ultimate functional control over almost any large financial firm in our economy, and do so with utter disregard for due process. This is not the rule of law; it is the rule of rulers, and it’s an anathema to a free and democratic society.... 

Next, we repeal the Chevron doctrine requiring the judiciary to give deference to financial regulatory agencies’ interpretation of the law. The doctrine is unfair and an affront to due process and justice. 

I've gone on long enough. Legislation needs a public comment mechanism too, as this is  a big package, which though on a very good track can surely be refined a bit.

Lottery Winners Don't Get Healthier

Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution had a great post last week, Lottery Winners Don't get Healthier (also enjoy the url.)

Wealthier people are healthier and live longer. Why? One popular explanation is summarized in the documentary Unnatural Causes: Is Inequality Making us Sick?

The lives of a CEO, a lab supervisor, a janitor, and an unemployed mother illustrate how class shapes opportunities for good health. Those on the top have the most access to power, resources and opportunity – and thus the best health. Those on the bottom are faced with more stressors – unpaid bills, jobs that don’t pay enough, unsafe living conditions, exposure to environmental hazards, lack of control over work and schedule, worries over children – and the fewest resources available to help them cope. 

The net effect is a health-wealth gradient, in which every descending rung of the socioeconomic ladder corresponds to worse health.

If this were true, then increasing the wealth of a poor person would increase their health. That does not appear to be the case. In important new research David Cesarini, Erik Lindqvist, Robert Ostling and Bjorn Wallace look at the health of lottery winners in Sweden (75% of winnings within the range of approximately $20,000 to $800,000) and, importantly, on their children. Most effects on adults are reliably close to zero and in no case can wealth explain a large share of the wealth-health gradient:

In adults, we find no evidence that wealth impacts mortality or health care utilization.... Our estimates allow us to rule out effects on 10-year mortality one sixth as large as the crosssectional wealth-mortality gradient.

The authors also look at the health effects on the children of lottery winners. There is more uncertainty in the health estimates on children but most estimates cluster around zero and developmental effects on things like IQ can be rejected (“In all eight subsamples, we can rule out wealth effects on GPA smaller than 0.01 standard deviations”).

(My emphasis above)

Alex does not emphasize the most important point, I think, of this study.  The natural inference is, The same things that make you wealthy make you healthy. The correlation between health and wealth across the population reflect two outcomes of the same underlying causes.

We can speculate what those causes are.  (I haven't read the paper, maybe the authors do.) A natural hypothesis is a whole set of circumstances and lifestyle choices have both health and wealth effects. These causes can be either "right" or "left" as far as the evidence before us: "Right:" Thrift, hard work, self discipline and clean living lead to health and wealth. "Left:" good parents, good neighborhood, the right social connections lead to health and wealth.

Either way, simply transferring money will not transfer the things that produce money, and produce health.

Perhaps the documentary was right after all: "class shapes opportunities for good health."  But "class" is about more than a bank account.

Also, Alex can be misread as a bit too critical: "If this were true." It is true that health and wealth are correlated. It is not true that more wealth causes better health.  The problem is  not just "resources available to help them cope."

Why a blog post? This story is a gorgeous example of the one central thing you learn when doing empirical economics: Correlation is not causation. Always look for the reverse possibility, or that the two things correlated are both outcomes of something else, and changing A will not affect B.   We seldom get an example that is so beautifully clear.

Update:  Melissa Kearney writes,

"Bill Evans and Craig Garthwaite have an important study [AER] showing that expansions of EITC benefits led to improvements in self-reported health status among affected mothers. 

Their paper provides a nice counterpoint to the Swedish lottery study, one that is arguably more relevant to the policy question of whether more income would causally improve the health of low-income individuals in the U.S.

Thanks Melissa for pointing it out. This is interesting, but I'd rather not get in to a dissection of studies here -- just who takes advantage of EITC benefits, how instruments and differences do and don't answer these problems. The main point of my post is not to answer once and for all the question -- how much does showers of money improve people's heath -- but to point out with this forceful example for non-economists the possibility that widely reported correlations - rich people are healthier -- don't automatically mean that money showers raise health.