Category: Current Affairs
Noah Smith has economic ideas for Japan
Excerpt from the opening:
Fortunately, Japan is in an OK macroeconomic situation right now. Government debt, the country’s thorniest problem, is actually falling as a percent of GDP, thanks in part to higher inflation and in part to rising corporate profits and tax revenues…
The deflation problem that bedeviled Japan for decades has finally been defeated. And at the same time, unemployment in Japan remains very low…
This means that Takaichi and her cabinet don’t need to focus as much energy and attention on macroeconomics, as Abe did. There is no need for further stimulus, monetary or fiscal. Instead, Takaichi is free to concentrate on improving Japan’s underlying economic model, in order to promote productivity and growth.
Noah has six specific ideas of note, starting with improving capital markets. Here is the whole post.
On a possible China deal
Tyler Cowen, Free Press columnist and Holbert L. Harris Chair of Economics at George Mason University:
What do I want from a U.S. trade deal with China? Most of all, stability and predictability. America has a great deal it needs to do to “deal with China.” That might include boosting our own supplies of rare-earth elements, maintaining our lead in generative AI, and making sure that enough high-quality chips come from somewhere other than Taiwan.
Vigorous action is required on all these fronts. While we are at the wish-making stage, how about better fiscal policies for long-term sustainability, improved science funding, a more rapid and effective military procurement system, and an education system with fewer holes?
But here is the thing—none of those will be accomplished through a trade deal with China. Success or failure on those fronts will depend solely on ourselves. The purpose of a trade deal, at this point, should simply be to put U.S.-China relations back on a normal footing. We are not going to stop significant supplies of dangerous drugs from entering the United States, no matter what China does or does not agree to. We are not going to end China’s trade surplus with us, nor should we fear that trade surplus. And we are not going to end the ability of the Chinese government to have some influence over the real value of its currency, just as we have that same ability.
We could and should turn the drama down a notch. Whether that is what you will get from this episode in the reality TV season, however, remains to be seen.
Here are numerous other contributions, including from Dan Wang and Niall Ferguson.
Trump and the Americas
That is the topic of my latest Free Press column, here is one excerpt:
And in this system, where is the dominant American sphere of influence likely to be? North America and Latin America. These regions are removed from the rest of the world by large oceans; they share time zones; and there are plenty of Latin Americans in the United States, creating linguistic, personal, and business ties. America’s connections with Canada are even more obvious. China may buy lots of commodities from Latin American countries, but it is unlikely ever to have comparably close connections, if only for reasons of language, distance, and culture.
And this:
Let’s start with Argentina. Milei is trying to bring freer markets and fiscal responsibility to Argentina. If he succeeds, many in the region will copy his formulas. But if he fails, free markets might end up discredited. So, in the Trumpian view, it is very important to throw him a lifeline. Trump sees the United States’ $20 billion economic support package to Argentina not just as a “bailout,” but as an attempt to shape the entire ideological direction of South America.
The article offers many further specific points.
Agustín Etchebarne on Milei and the election
Passed along to me by the excellent Gonzalo Schwarz, I will not double indent:
“Against all odds, Javier Milei achieved a major national victory, surpassing the expectations of polls that had predicted a technical tie, and doing so in a context where markets were deeply pessimistic and heavily dollarized.
Despite having most of the media against him, the president obtained a resounding 41% of the vote, compared with 24% for Kirchnerism and 9% for the more moderate Peronists.
In total, 75% of Argentines rejected a return to populism and endorsed the path of structural reforms and economic openness.This result anticipates a day of strong market recovery: Argentine bonds and stocks are expected to rise sharply, interest rates in pesos to fall, and the dollar to drop significantly on Monday. The outlook points toward an economic recovery.
Even the U.S. Treasury—which invested in peso-denominated instruments under the management of Scott Bessent—will likely make a profit, as the appreciation of the peso will increase the value of those assets.
The message from the ballot box is clear: Argentines support a president who aims to move toward a modern capitalist economy, with the goal of placing the country among those with the highest levels of economic freedom in the world.
Election Results
• La Libertad Avanza swept the country with 40.7% of the vote, compared with 32% for Fuerza Patria (the Kirchnerist coalition), 7.1% for Provincias Unidas—which failed to win in any district—and 4.6% for the six local ruling parties.
• Milei gained 10 points compared with 2023 (when he obtained 30%), while Kirchnerism fell from 36% to 24%.
• LLA won in 16 districts, standing out in Buenos Aires City (Senate) and Mendoza with more than 50%, in Santa Fe and Córdoba with over 40%, and especially in Buenos Aires Province, where Santilli overturned a 13-point deficit from the September 7 election and won with 41.5%.
• Voters also reaffirmed the strategic alliance with the United States, which is now the most explicit in recent history.
• Unlike what happened in 2017 with Macri—when a similar victory was quickly followed by a loss of support—this time the outlook suggests a sustained economic recovery, driven by lower interest rates and accelerated investment.
New Balance of Power in Congress
• In the Chamber of Deputies (house of representatives), the LLA + PRO alliance becomes the largest bloc with 110 seats, followed by Fuerza Patria (the Kirchnerist coalition) + the Left with 100 and the dialogist bloc with 47.
The government will need to negotiate with 19 of the 47 dialogists to pass legislation (127 votes for a simple majority), but it already holds a guaranteed veto power with 85 deputies.
• In the Senate, Fuerza Patria (the Kirchnerist coalition) remains the largest minority, though it loses 7 seats and drops to 26; LLA and PRO reach 24 senators, obtaining the one-third threshold needed to block initiatives.
The dialogists, with 22 seats, retain negotiating power: the government must reach agreements with 13 senators for a quorum and 12 for a simple majority.
Outlook and Political Message
Milei’s post-victory speech was conciliatory and strategic.
He renewed his call for governors and rational political forces to discuss a package of key structural reforms—labor, pension, and tax—and invited them to revive the May Pact as a meeting point for a new institutional contract.
La Libertad Avanza thus emerges stronger than ever, positioned to build the majorities needed to advance the comprehensive modernization of the state and the economy, consolidating a new stage of growth, stability, and individual freedom.”
Here is the author, here is Gonzalo Schwarz.
The evolution of Albanian AI governance
Albania’s AI-generated minister, Diella, is “pregnant,” Prime Minister Edi Rama has announced. He revealed plans to create “83 children”, or assistants, one for each Socialist Party member of parliament.
“We took quite a risk today with Diella here and we did very well. So for the first time Diella is pregnant and with 83 children,” he said at the Global Dialogue (BGD) in Berlin. Rama said the “children,” or assistants, will record everything that happens in parliament and keep legislators informed about discussions or events they miss.
“Each one…will serve as an assistant for them who will participate in parliamentary sessions, and will keep a record of everything that happens and will suggest members of parliament. These children will have the knowledge of their mother,” Rama said.
Here is the full story, bizarre throughout. At least you cannot say they are anti-natalist.
Are new data centers boosting electricity prices?
But a new study from researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the consulting group Brattle suggests that, counterintuitively, more electricity demand can actually lower prices. Between 2019 and 2024, the researchers calculated, states with spikes in electricity demand saw lower prices overall. Instead, they found that the biggest factors behind rising rates were the cost of poles, wires and other electrical equipment — as well as the cost of safeguarding that infrastructure against future disasters.
“It’s contrary to what we’re seeing in the headlines today,” said Ryan Hledik, principal at Brattle and a member of the research team. “This is a much more nuanced issue than just, ‘We have a new data center, so rates will go up.’”
North Dakota, for example, which experienced an almost 40 percent increase in electricity demand thanks in part to an explosion of data centers, saw inflation-adjusted prices fall by around 3 cents per kilowatt-hour. Virginia, one of the country’s data center hubs, had a 14 percent increase in demand and a price drop of 1 cent per kilowatt-hour. California, on the other hand, which lost a few percentage points in demand, saw prices rise by more than 6 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Here is the full story, via Cliff Winston.
Are the ACA exchanges unraveling?
After all, that is what economists predicted if the mandate was not tightly enforced. Here is the latest reprt:
Premiums for the most popular types of plans sold on the federal health insurance marketplace Healthcare.gov will spike on average by 30 percent next year, according to final rates approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and shown in documents reviewed by The Washington Post.
The higher prices — affecting up to 17 million Americans who buy coverage on the federal marketplace — reflect the largest annual premium increases by far in recent years.
Here is the full article.
Harvard graduate admissions
The Faculty of Arts and Sciences slashed the number of Ph.D. student admissions slots for the Science division by more than 75 percent and for the Arts & Humanities division by about 60 percent for the next two years.
The scale of reductions in the Social Science division was not immediately clear, though several departments in the division experienced decreases over the coming two years ranging from 50 percent to 70 percent.
The reductions — detailed by five faculty members and in emails obtained by The Crimson — stipulate smaller Ph.D. admissions quotas across dozens of departments. Departments were allowed to choose how they would allocate their limited slots across the next two years.
Here is the full article, via Chris Brunet.
Words of wisdom
Among these changes, the most underrated is not misinformation or kooky conspiracy theories or even populism per se — it’s relentless negativity. One thing that we’ve learned from revealed preferences on the internet is that negativity-inflected stories perform better…
The impact of ultra-negativity is symmetrical in the sense that both sides do it, but it’s asymmetrical in the sense that conservatives outnumber progressives. In practice, oscillating extremism results in a right-wing authoritarian regime, not a left-wing one.
That is from the gated Matt Yglesias. The important thing is to keep a positive, constructive attitude toward what is possible. Content creators who do not do that, no matter what their professed views, are supporting the darker sides of MAGA.
So keep up the good work people!
How the pandemic has changed the world
From Patrick Collison on Twitter:
Maybe a very prosaic observation, but I’ve been reflecting on just how much the pandemic changed the world in ways that are completely unrelated to the pandemic itself. I think I’ve underestimated it ’till now.
In a recent interview, I was struck by the comment that so many of the shops that we associate with the best of France—the poissonneries and the fromageries—closed during the pandemic, to be replaced by take-out pizza shops and the like.
College professors almost uniformly describe big changes in student behavior: lecture attendance and willingness of students to complete reading assignments are both way down.
A UK government official recently told me that British economic statistics have become much less reliable since the pandemic: data on trade, employment, and population is suspect. (The true GDP per capita figures are probably worse than what is indicated by the published data, since the 2021 census is believed to be an undercount.)
In the West, there are far fewer bustling workplaces than there used to be. In recent conversation with a well-traveled friend, he bemoaned how so many cities—places like Madrid, Buenos Aires, and Bali—have lost so much of their erstwhile vibrant nightlife.
Immigration accelerated enormously across many countries, including the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia.
In China, I hear descriptions of how fear, caution, and conservatism have persisted since the COVID lockdowns. (And Western travel to China remains massively depressed.)
Lots of the changes are neutral, or even good. Retail participation in the US stock market almost doubled overnight, say, and has persisted at that elevated rate. Firm creation in the US increased by around 50%, which is probably a very good thing.
Overall, the number of time series (either literal or figurative) that jumped discontinuously during COVID and then didn’t return to baseline is just very striking.
Which are the best historical analogs? Are there any apart from major wars?
I want to read this book!
The median voter model, or the Becker pressure group model?
Or perhaps a game-theoretic model between the President and the Supreme Court? From the WSJ:
President Trump in recent weeks has exempted dozens of products from his so-called reciprocal tariffs and offered to carve out hundreds more goods from farm products to airplane parts when countries strike trade deals with the U.S.
The offer to exempt more products from tariffs reflects a growing sentiment among administration officials that the U.S. should lower levies on goods that it doesn’t domestically produce, say people familiar with administration planning. That notion “has been emerging over time” within the administration, said Everett Eissenstat, deputy director of the National Economic Council in Trump’s first term. “There is definitely that recognition.”
The move comes ahead of a Supreme Court hearing in early November on the reciprocal tariffs—a case that could force the administration to pay back many of the levies if it loses in court. The White House, Commerce Department and U.S. Trade Representative’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment.
I suppose that is good news, but of course it can introduce more cross-product and cross-nation distortions as well.
Rare Earths Aren’t Rare
Every decade or so there is a freakout out about China’s monopoly in rare earths. The last time was in 2010 when Paul Krugman wrote:
You really have to wonder why nobody raised an alarm while this was happening, if only on national security grounds. But policy makers simply stood by as the U.S. rare earth industry shut down….The result was a monopoly position exceeding the wildest dreams of Middle Eastern oil-fueled tyrants.
…the affair highlights the fecklessness of U.S. policy makers, who did nothing while an unreliable regime acquired a stranglehold on key materials.
A few years later I pointed out that the crisis was exaggerated:
- The Chinese government might or might not have wanted to take advantage of their temporary monopoly power but Chinese producers did a lot to evade export bans both legally and illegally.
- Firms that had been using rare earths when they were cheap decided they didn’t really need them when they were expensive.
- New suppliers came on line as prices rose.
- Innovations created substitutes and ways to get more from using less.
Well, we are at it again. Tim Worstall, a rare earths dealer and fine economist, is the one to read:
…rare earths are neither rare nor earths, and they are nearly everywhere. The biggest restriction on being able to process them is the light radioactivity the easiest ores (so easy they are a waste product of other industrial processes — monazite say) contain. If we had rational and sensible rules about light radioactivity — alas, we don’t — then that end of the process would already be done. Passing Marco Rubio’s Thorium Act would, for example, make Florida’s phosphate gypsum stacks available and they have more rare earths in them than several sticks could be shaken at.
Some also point out that only China has the ores with dysprosium and terbium — needed for the newly vital high temperature magnets. This is also one of those things that is not true. A decade back, yes, we did collectively think that was true. The ores — “ionic clays” — were specific to South China and Burma. Collective knowledge has changed and now we know that they can exist anywhere granite has weathered in subtropical climes. I have a list somewhere of a dozen Australian claimed deposits and there is at least one company actively mining such in Chile and Brazil.
…No, this is not an argument that we should have subsidised for 40 years to maintain production. It’s going to be vastly cheaper to build new now than it would have been to carry deadbeats for decades. Quite apart from anything else, we’re going to build our new stuff at the edge of the current technological envelope — not just shiny but modern.
As Tyler says, do not underrate the “elasticity of supply.”
Predicting Job Loss?
Hardly a day goes by without a new prediction of job growth or destruction from AI and other new technologies. Predicting job growth is a growing industry. But how good are these predictions? For 80 years the US Bureau of Labor Statistics has forecasted job growth by occupation in its Occupational Outlook series. The forecasts were generally quite sophisticated albeit often not quantitative.
In 1974, for example, the BLS said one downward force for truck drivers was that “[T]he trend to large shopping centers rather than many small stores will reduce the number of deliveries required.” In 1963, however, they weren’t quite so accurate about about pilots writing “Over the longer run, the rate of airline employment growth is likely to slow down because the introduction of a supersonic transport plane will enable the airlines to fly more traffic without corresponding expansion in the number of airline planes and workers…”. Sad!
In a new paper, Maxim Massenkoff collects all this data and makes it quantifiable with LLM assistance. What he finds is that the Occupational Outlook performed reasonably well, occupations that were forecast to grow strongly did grow significantly more than those forecast to grow slowly or decline. But was there alpha? A little but not much.
…these predictions were not that much better than a naive forecast based only on growth over the previous decade. One implication is that, in general, jobs go away slowly: over decades rather than years. Historically, job seekers have been able to get a good sense of the future growth of a job by looking at what’s been growing in the past.
If past predictions were only marginally better than simple extrapolations it’s hard to believe that future predictions will perform much better. At least, that is my prediction.
Rick Rubin podcasts with me
He interrogates me about stablecoins, AI, economic policy, the current state of the world and more. Here is the link, self-recommending, two full hours! Rick is a great interviewer.
This is part one, there will be more to come. We had great fun recording these in Tuscany.
We Turned the Light On—and the AI Looked Back
Jack Clark, Co-founder of Anthropic, has written a remarkable essay about his fears and hopes. It’s not the usual kind of thing one reads from a tech leader:
I remember being a child and after the lights turned out I would look around my bedroom and I would see shapes in the darkness and I would become afraid – afraid these shapes were creatures I did not understand that wanted to do me harm. And so I’d turn my light on. And when I turned the light on I would be relieved because the creatures turned out to be a pile of clothes on a chair, or a bookshelf, or a lampshade.
Now, in the year of 2025, we are the child from that story and the room is our planet. But when we turn the light on we find ourselves gazing upon true creatures, in the form of the powerful and somewhat unpredictable AI systems of today and those that are to come. And there are many people who desperately want to believe that these creatures are nothing but a pile of clothes on a chair, or a bookshelf, or a lampshade. And they want to get us to turn the light off and go back to sleep.
…We are growing extremely powerful systems that we do not fully understand. Each time we grow a larger system, we run tests on it. The tests show the system is much more capable at things which are economically useful. And the bigger and more complicated you make these systems, the more they seem to display awareness that they are things.
It is as if you are making hammers in a hammer factory and one day the hammer that comes off the line says, “I am a hammer, how interesting!” This is very unusual!
…I am also deeply afraid. It would be extraordinarily arrogant to think working with a technology like this would be easy or simple.
My own experience is that as these AI systems get smarter and smarter, they develop more and more complicated goals. When these goals aren’t absolutely aligned with both our preferences and the right context, the AI systems will behave strangely.
…we are not yet at “self-improving AI”, but we are at the stage of “AI that improves bits of the next AI, with increasing autonomy and agency”. And a couple of years ago we were at “AI that marginally speeds up coders”, and a couple of years before that we were at “AI is useless for AI development”. Where will we be one or two years from now?
And let me remind us all that the system which is now beginning to design its successor is also increasingly self-aware and therefore will surely eventually be prone to thinking, independently of us, about how it might want to be designed.
…In closing, I should state clearly that I love the world and I love humanity. I feel a lot of responsibility for the role of myself and my company here. And though I am a little frightened, I experience joy and optimism at the attention of so many people to this problem, and the earnestness with which I believe we will work together to get to a solution. I believe we have turned the light on and we can demand it be kept on, and that we have the courage to see things as they are.
Clark is clear that we are growing intelligent systems that are more complex than we can understand. Moreover, these systems are becoming self-aware–that is a fact, even if you think they are not sentient (but beware hubris on the latter question).