Category Archives: Tyler Cowen is my Favorite Blogger

Neil Wallace on Money

Posted on by

He says,

“Money is memory” is a better idea. It leads you to think about various kinds of payment instruments in terms of the kind of informational structure that supports them. The money that is the best current counterpart to the “money is memory” idea is currency. You don’t need much of an informational network for currency; in fact, you probably don’t need any, except for worrying about counterfeiting.

Read the whole thing. Pointer from Tyler Cowen. At this Cato event, George Gilder and I talked about money as a low-entropy channel, and during the Q&A I used that metaphor to suggest that Bitcoin is not functioning as money.

Wallace also offers this ominous quote.

while one can imagine arrangements in which control of the price level is maintained in the presence of large and unsustainable government deficits, it rarely happens.

Larry Summers on the Great Factor Substitution

Posted on by

He said,

If there are only two factors, they have to be complements. If there’s more capital, the wage has to rise. Now imagine that…you can take some of the stock of machines and, by designing them appropriately, you can have them do exactly what labor did before…When capital is reallocated to substituting for [replacing] labor, the stock of effective labor rises and the stock of conventional capital falls, and so wage rates fall. Third, the capital share, understood to include the total return to capital of both varieties, rises. That’s just a corollary of output rising and wages falling. This pattern is similar to what we have seen take place. I suspect that this reflects the nature of the technical changes that we have seen: increasingly they take the form of capital that effectively substitutes for [replaces] labor.

Pointer from Tyler Cowen, who I’m surprised did not make a bigger deal about it.

My one quibble/criticism is that this describes a closed economy. In the real world, with China and India developing, factor-price equalization is at least as important as factor substitution. To put this another way, include those countries when you calculate trends in labor’s share of income.

Also, Summers writes,

Where production has taken place in the classic way we teach, productivity growth has continued. There has been progress. Real wages measured in those terms have increased substantially. It’s just that a larger and larger share of our economy is in sectors that are not well thought of as widgets produced by competitive firms. They are sectors where property rights, scarcities, intellectual property, and the like are of fundamental importance.

My take on this is to be wary of talking about “the” real wage. Your real wage is much higher if you abstain from making extravagant use of modern medicine and private colleges. See The Reality of the ‘real wage’.

He concludes by raising the issue that Nick Schulz and I called the New Commanding Heights. Summers writes,

Whether the expansion of those sectors as a share of the economy necessitates a growing share of the public sector in the economy, or whether the share of healthcare and education that takes place in the public sector should decline will be a matter of great public debate. As a country, and not without controversy, we do not seem to be moving toward a smaller public role in healthcare. Nor do other countries in the world. But that will, perhaps, change over time.

Two Findings in Search of Explanations

Posted on by

1. Yihui Pan, Tracy Yue Wang, and Michael S. Weisbach find that

disinvestments are fairly common in the early years of a CEO’s tenure, and that these disinvestments decrease with tenure. Investments, on the other hand, are relatively low in the early years of a CEO’s tenure and increase over time. As a result, the firm’s assets and employment grow more slowly early in the CEO’s tenure than in later years.

Pointer from Timothy Taylor, who speculates

the analysis makes CEOs sound a bit like coaches of sports teams: they arrive to clean up the mistakes of the past regime, but over time many of them gradually drift into their own set of mistakes.

This analogy would suggest that whatever the incumbent’s excesses (too much investment, too little investment), the new CEO would do the opposite. But instead the pattern seems to be that the incumbent eventually tends to over-invest.

The authors’ preferred explanation is that the CEO wants to over-invest, and only over time does a CEO gain control of the board and carry out the over-investment. When the CEO exits, the new CEO is more subservient and understands the need to pare back.

My proposed explanation may be the least dramatic. My thinking is that major projects go through a long gestation period. A new CEO needs to get comfortable before he/she can approve major new projects, so major new projects get put on hold for a year or two. Meanwhile, existing projects wrap up, so you get a lull. My explanation would predict that you would not see a burst of investment just as a CEO is getting close to exit. Rather, you would see low investment when a CEO starts, then ramping up to a higher level that is maintained until the CEO exits.

2. Alison Jane Rauh writes,

While blacks of the second generation have equal or higher education and earnings levels than the first generation, the return on their unobservable characteristics is converging to that of native blacks…Convergence across generations is mostly driven by low-educated second generation blacks that drop out the labor force in greater numbers than low-educated first generation immigrants do. Similarly, convergence within a generation is mostly driven by low-educated blacks who immigrate when they are young dropping out of the labor force in greater numbers than those who immigrate when they are older. A social interactions model with an assimilation parameter that varies by age of immigration helps explain this phenomenon. When making their labor force participation decision, immigrant men of all races, but not women, generally place more weight on the characteristics of natives the earlier they immigrate.

Pointer from Tyler Cowen. Both he and the author embrace a “peer effect” explanation, in which black immigrants start out trying to achieve, but assimilation leads them to see achievement-orientation as acting white.

An alternative explanation is that first-generation immigrants of all races are more willing to strive and sacrifice than are their children. However, suppose that there are differences in average ability by race, and that even high-ability first-generation immigrants are hampered by lack of cultural background. As immigrants assimilate, differences in outcomes start to reflect differences in ability.

I am not saying that my alternative explanations are necessarily correct. My point is that these are both papers that strike as presenting interesting findings that might have many possible explanations.

Should Today’s Students Learn to Code?

Posted on by

In an interview, Tyler Cowen says,

If becoming a programmer is appealing to you, great. But seeking employment based on any one “hard skill” is an outdated way of thinking. The rapid evolution of technology forces us to constantly reconsider which hard skills are in demand. (And we should). Staying on top of the hard skills needed is a necessity in the short term, but one of the best ways to position yourself for success in the long term is to focus on the soft skills needed no matter what technology you are working with.

I think it is fair to say that one should not aspire to be on just one side of the suits/geeks divide. On the geek side, you end up as Dilbert, working for an idiot boss. On the suit side, you are the idiot boss. For years, I have been telling my high school students that the combination of technical skills and communication skills is important.

But I think that the most important career advice is to spend at least some time in a profit-seeking enterprise. The bias in our educational system against working business is intense, and I believe that this bias does considerable social harm. If you want to know where collective hostility toward business can lead you, look at healthcare.gov.

Normal AD vs. the Credit Channel

Posted on by

‘Uneasy Money’ writes,

try as they might, the finance guys have not provided a better explanation for that clustering of disappointed expectations than a sharp decline in aggregate demand. That’s what happened in the Great Depression, as Ralph Hawtrey and Gustav Cassel and Irving Fisher and Maynard Keynes understood, and that’s what happened in the Little Depression, as Market Monetarists, especially Scott Sumner, understand. Everything else is just commentary.

Pointer from Tyler Cowen. This argument broke out five years ago, and it is no closer to being settled. I might phrase it as the following multiple choice question:

a) the economic slump caused the financial crisis (the Sumnerian view, endorsed above)

b) the financial crisis caused the slump (the Reinhart-Rogoff view; also the mainstream consensus view).

c) both are symptoms of longer-term structural adjustment issues (I am willing to stand up for this view. Tyler Cowen also is sympathetic to it. Note that I do not wish in any way to be associated with Larry Summers’ view, which is that the structural issue is that we have too much saving relative to productive investments.)

d) both are symptoms of a dramatic loss of confidence. As people lose confidence in some forms of financial intermediation, intermediaries that are heavily weighted in those areas come to grief. Se see disruptions to patterns of trade that depend on those forms of intermediation. Moreover, as businesses lose confidence, particularly in their ability to access credit, they trim employment and hoard cash.

I want to emphasize that I see a reasonable case to be made for any of these views. There may be yet other points of view that I would find reasonable (although Summers’ “secular stagnation” is not one of them). In macroeconomics, if you think you have all the answers, then I cannot help you. I think that this is a field in which doubts are more defensible than certainties.

A Challenge for Francis Fukuyama

Posted on by

He writes,

Many American political actors recognize that the political system isn’t working well, but nonetheless have very deep interests in keeping things as they are. Neither major party has an incentive to cut itself off from access to interest group money, and the interest groups fear a system where money can’t buy influence. As in the 1880s, a reform coalition has to emerge that unites groups without a stake in the current system. But achieving collective action among these out-groups is difficult; it requires skillful and patient leadership with a clear agenda, neither of which is automatically forthcoming. It may also require a major shock, or shocks, to the system. Such shocks were critical, after all, in crystallizing the Progressive movement—events like the Garfield assassination, the requirements of America’s rise as a global power, entry into the World War, and the crisis of the Great Depression.

Pointer from Tyler Cowen.

I did not care for this essay. He sounds to me like a Progressive, circa 1910. With sufficient moral authority, the government can be more effective and reflect the true Will of the People™.

My challenge for Fukuyama is to name a government with a large, diverse population that in his view works really well. The countries with populations larger than the U.S. are China and India, and I do not wish to trade governance with either country. In fact, of the top 10 most populous countries, the only one with a government that is not atrociously worse than ours is Japan. And they are the least diverse. Germany, with 1/4 of our population, is decently governed. So is the UK, with 1/5 of our population, and Canada, with 1/9 of our population.

When you think of a country with an effective central government, what comes to mind? I come up with Singapore, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, and such, all with populations under 10 million. And Switzerland delegates a lot of political power to cantons and towns. What this says to me is that the most promising way to reform government in the U.S. is in the direction of Federalism, rather than betting on making the central government work better.

Medicaid = Nursing Homes

Posted on by

Harold Pollack writes,

If we want to provide more cost-effective care to poor people, we should proceed in the same way that we should proceed in other parts of the medical economy. We must do the hard work of improving the quality and economy of care provided to the concentrated group of extremely costly patients. There is no short cut. Under any financing system, this requires the hard work of clinical-care coordination, quality improvement and social services to address life circumstances that undermine health.

Pointer from Tyler Cowen. His main statistical argument is that a small percentage of Medicaid patients account for much of the spending. It is likely that these are patients in nursing homes.

However, this does not answer the question of where there are opportunities to save money in medical care. Some possibilities.

1. Death panels. To the extent that late-stage treatments are wasteful, you have to change the decision-making process. Families and would-be heroic doctors need to have less influence.

2. Reducing procedures, such as back surgery, with high costs and low benefits. In Crisis of Abundance, I argued that there is in fact a large “gray area” of medicine, in which procedures are neither absolutely necessary nor absolutely unnecessary. This is counterintuitive, and if you do not believe it, then you end up siding with Pollack. If you do believe it, then having patients pay more of the cost of treatment could be a big deal.

3. Improving management in health care, particularly of patients with complex illnesses. My guess is that if there are big savings to be had here, they come from reducing the status of doctors relative to managers, social workers, and care-givers with lesser credentials. See Does the Doctor Need a Boss? I would not bet that government will be successful at re-engineering the system, and in fact regulation of medical practice is probably a major inhibitor.

4. Innovation in treatment. My concern would be with the Food and Drug Administration. They want to err on the side of keeping treatments off the market. We might be better off if their task was shifted to funding and publicizing research, not actually regulating.

Occupations of the Future

Posted on by

David Brooks writes,

Millions of people begin online courses, but very few actually finish them. I suspect that’s because most students are not motivated to impress a computer the way they may be motivated to impress a human professor. Managers who can motivate supreme effort in a machine-dominated environment are going to be valuable.

Actually, I think that a big reason that people drop online courses is that those courses are a misfit for them. An advantage of a typical live course is that most of the students have been selected to have similar abilities and experiences. A lot of people sign up for online courses who otherwise would be discouraged from doing so. That is not necessarily a problem with online learning.

However, that is why MOOCs are not the answer, in my view. My line is that we need instruction that is many-to-one, not one-to-many. Indeed, Jonathan Haber suggests that MOOCs might be a step backward, and he links to something I wrote in 2002.

suppose that we had all of the highly-touted electronic technologies for distance learning, and then someone came along and invented the book. My guess is that the book would be greeted as a technological marvel–easy to hold, convenient to carry, outstanding resolution, and so forth. This thought experiment leads me to suspect that electronic distance learning is a fad.

On the subject of the future, my joke is that the ideal occupation will be a yoga instructor working in an old-age home. That lines up with the trends toward more spending on health care, education, and leisure, along with an older demographic.

A Famous NYT Columnist Looks at the Minimum Wage and Income Inequality

Posted on by

He tries to offer a balanced view.

The federal minimum did not change from 1981 to 1990, causing its inflation-adjusted value to fall 30 percent during that time. Wages in the bottom of the income distribution fell sharply, even more sharply than they have in the last decade. The inflation-adjusted wage of a worker at the 20th percentile of the distribution dropped 9.5 percent from 1981 to 1990, according an analysis of government data in the forthcoming book “The State of Working America, 12th Edition,” by the Economic Policy Institute.

…Since 1990, though, the minimum wage has risen. If you’re trying to understand why every income group except for the affluent has taken an income cut over the last decade, you probably shouldn’t put the minimum wage at the top of your list of causes.

And if you are trying to guess which NYT columnist wrote this, you probably shouldn’t put Paul Krugman on your list of possible authors. Cross off Tyler Cowen, also, although he did link to the column. Continue reading →