Month: October 2022

Thursday assorted links

1. “Across 10 studies using mixed methods and different measures of deviant behavior, we provide evidence that masks are a moral symbol in China that reduces wearers’ deviant behavior by heightening their moral awareness.”  Link here, speculative.

2. Jeff Sachs interview with the Teheran Times, suggesting that maybe that Covid came out of a U.S. lab, posted on the Jeff Sachs web site.  Hard for me to imagine giving such an interview to the Teheran Times.

3. Tribute to Jacques Drèze.

4. New issue of Works in Progress.

5. In the U.S. chess championship, which has new and stronger anti-cheating protocols, Hans Niemann is 13th in a field of 14.

6. It seems women do not pay more for goods.  But perhaps tariffs fall disproportionately on women (because of apparel).

7. Good FT dialogue on Russia and nukes.

Lifecycle Investing

Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff argue that young poeple should borrow to invest in the stock market

Investors often think of diversification as a free lunch—it allows them to maintain returns while reducing risk. But most people only get part of diversification right, and that can hurt them later in life.

With traditional diversification, people spread money around different kinds of investments to mitigate risk. That approach misses a key opportunity: “diversifying” how you invest over time.

Most people start investing with a small amount of money, because that is all they can afford, and ramp it up as their earnings grow. But investing so much later in life unnecessarily puts people at greater risk when they are close to retirement. They end up with far greater exposure to stock-market risk in their 50s and 60s than in their 20s and 30s, even if they are buying diversified mutual funds.

We propose a different method: People ought to borrow money to make their initial investments larger, so that they can invest closer to the same amount every year over their lifetime. Think of investing $2 a decade steadily for three decades, instead of $1 for the first, $2 for the next and $3 for the third.

Sound risky? Consider that young people do the same thing with housing when they borrow money to buy a house they live in for decades—and there the leverage often involves borrowing $9 for every $1 of equity. We propose borrowing only $1 for each $1 invested. Limiting ourselves to 2:1 leverage means we don’t hit a perfectly even market exposure over time, but gets us closer to that ideal.

Most people won’t do this because unlike a home-mortgage it’s a non-standard idea. It could be standardized, however, with retirement planning products. Regardless, I agree with Ayres and Nalebuff that young people should be 100% in equities. Of course, the equity-basket should be diversified, national and internationally, and young people should follow a buy and hold strategy while being very aggressive on the equity-debt mix. Also, if, as you get older, you expect to make a bequest you should continue to be aggressive on the portion of your portfolio you expect be passed on to your beneficaries.

Emergent Ventures, 22nd cohort

Emily Karlzen, Arizona, Founder and CEO of Arch Rift, to develop an astronaut helmet for commercial space flight.

Mehran Jalali, for building energy storage systems, NYC, grew up in Iran.

Kyle Redlinghuys, a further award, recently launched an API to make the data from the James Webb Space Telescope available.

Pranav Myana, 18, University of Texas, Austin, working on incorporating renewable power into the grid.

Brian Chau, Waterloo (Canada), general career support for writing and podcasting. Here is his Substack.

Cathal J. Nolan, historian, Boston University, to write a book on the relationship between war and progress. Just learned he was born in Dublin.

Cynthia Haven, Stanford University, to write a book on John Milton and the 17th century.  Twitter here.

Harsehaj Dhami, 17, lives in Ontario, to visit a Longevity conference in Copenhagen.  LinkedIn here.

Jackson Oswalt, Knoxville, builds things, AR/XR stuff, for general career support.  In the Guinness Book of World Records for achieving a nuclear fusion reaction at age 12.

Miguel Ignacio Solano and Maria Elena Solano, Bogota/Cambridge, MA, co-founders of VMind, an artificial intelligence project.

Brian Kelleher, 18, Dublin, to improve software for doctors.

Devon Zuegel, to develop a new village and community, Twitter here.

Rodolfo Herrera, Pensamiento Libre, market-oriented Facebook and YouTube videos for Mexico.

Alia Abbas, 19, Maryland, to study biochemistry and materials and for general career development.

There are two other projects not yet ready for public announcement.

Ukraine tranche: There is now a new Emergent Ventures Ukraine.

Julia Brodsky, Maryland, former instructor of astronauts.  To support educational efforts to teach on-line STEM and other subjects to Ukrainian children in refugee camps.

Uliana Ronska, 17, Prague and Netherlands currently.  She is doing research on problems of triangulating fast-moving stars. It was also under her leadership that her team won ExPhO, CETO, and 2 all-Ukrainian Motion physics olympiads.  For general career development.

Demian Zhelyabovskyy, currently at Bromsgrove School in the UK, from Kyiv.  Last year he won first place in the All-Ukrainian Physics Marathon; also he and his teammates won the Experimental Physics Olympiad (ExPhO) and Computer Experiment Team Olympiad (CETO).  For general career support, and for the physics paper he is currently co-authoring.

Tymofiy Mylovanov, representing the Kyiv School of Economics, to nurture talent development for Ukraine.  Tymofiy as an individual was also the very first Emergent Ventures winner.

Congratulations to all, I am honored to be working with you!

Price caps on Russian oil and gas

A number of you have written in to ask what I think of the recent economists’ letter to Janet Yellen, proposing such price caps.  I don’t disagree with any of their economics, but I am less convinced this is a good idea.  This strikes me as a paramount example of what I call “foreign policy first.”  There is some chance that Russia initiates a nuclear attack, or takes some other set of drastic steps.  Does this price cap raise or lower that chance?  I genuinely do not know.  And thus for that reason I am agnostic about the policy.  The nuclear expected value calculations would seem to outweigh the other aspects of the proposal, and those calculations are beyond my ability to assess with much accuracy.

Often, when I have nothing to say, it is because I do not know exactly what to say.

A request about philosophy and two people

ymtmjl requested that I cover these topics:

(1) Jeffrey Sachs

(2) Who are your favorite recent-ish philosophers (other than Derek Parfit)?

(3) Over/Under-rated: David Lewis, W.V.O. Quine, Ludwig Wittgenstein.

(4) When will we get the CWT with Scott Alexander?

In order:

1. Jeffrey Sachs is a brilliant and much underrated economist, here is my early CWT with him.  His work on economic geography and development remains neglected, his “shock therapy” reforms in Poland worked, they didn’t listen to him in Russia, and the Millennium Villages project, while it did not obviously succeed, was a noble and impressive attempt.  He deserves a Nobel Prize for that work.  His marginal input in Bolivia was positive.  That said, I find some of his recent comments on China/Lab Leak and Russia/Nordstream deeply objectionable and one can only theorize about what is going on there.  In part he imbibed too much “New Left” foreign policy reasoning from the 1960s crew, but I don’t think that is the entirety of it by any means.

2. Is there any point in my mentioning the obvious famous figures such as Kripke, Bernard Williams, Latour, and so on?  As for other favorites, see CWT!  (Unlike Paul McCartney, most philosophers will in fact say yes to these dialogues.)  I also would stress that a lot of the best philosophy is done by “drive-by commentators” on the internet, and what is philosophical is the dialogical internet mechanism as a whole, as a kind of epistemic computer above and beyond any individual’s contributions.

3. Most major philosophers are underrated, with the exception of Althusser, who strangled and murdered his wife.

4. Some individuals have been invited who still have not yet said yes.  Not just Paul McCartney.

How much will AI succeed in the arts?

That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, and let us start with what is likely to work well:

It almost goes without saying that the AI revolution currently underway is impressive. It is likely to have a huge impact in some parts of art world, such as the commercial sphere — consumers are generally not interested in who made any given ad or logo. It either works or it does not, and those conditions favor the machine. AI will also give the world quality (automated) personal assistants and autonomous vehicles, among many other advances.

But here is the problem:

Consider music. If Taylor Swift’s or Beyonce’s songs had been made by a software program, with no star at the microphone, would they be nearly as popular? It is no accident that Taylor Swift has more than 227 million Instagram followers — her fans want more than just the music, and that extra something (at least so far) has to be supplied by a living, breathing human being.

In the world of the visual arts, too, collectors are often buying the story as much as the artist. Even the experts have trouble distinguishing a real Kasimir Malevich painting from a fake (he painted abstract black squares on a white background, with a minimum of detail). The same image and physical item, when connected to the actual hand of the artist, is worth millions — but if shown to be a fake, it counts for zero.

Here is a qualification:

There will undoubtedly be many collaborations between AI and human creators, with the humans put forward as the public face of the joint effort. Periodic scandals about authorship will surface (“did he write any of that song?”), just as allegations of cheating with AI have risen to prominence in chess. AI-generated art will attract the most interest when the aesthetic of the creation and the personality of the human accompanist appear to be in sync.

And this:

Imagine that you took some souped-up future version of GPT-3 and fed it all the world’s texts through the year 1500. Would you expect it to be able to come up with something equally important and original as Shakespeare’s plays, or Newton’s Three Laws? How about Strawberry Fields Forever? Skepticism on this point has hardly been refuted by recent advances, however impressive they may be.

We watch Magnus Carlsen, not Stockfish vs. Alpha Zero, even though the latter match is of higher quality and likely more exciting too, at least in terms of moves over the board.

Famous economists write a letter to Janet Yellen

Here is the letter, they argue for a price cap on Russian oil and gas:

As envisaged by the G7, the price cap would set a maximum price that Russian oil could be traded in conjunction with G7 services. This price, set in dollars, would be substantially below the world price, yet above the marginal cost of production in Russia. To use US, UK, EU, and allied financial services (such as insurance, credit, and payments), market participants will need to attest that all qualifying purchases are at or below this threshold.

Given the importance of participating countries for global finance and for shipping, compliance with this cap will create pressure for a lower price on Russian oil moved by tanker. While we do not expect all trades will be performed under the price cap, its existence should materially increase the bargaining power of private and public sector entities that buy Russian oil.

The price cap maintains economic incentives for Russia to produce current volumes. In April 2020, when the price of the Brent benchmark was close to $20, Russia continued to supply oil to world markets, because that price was above the cost of production in many or most existing Russian oil fields. Russian has little or no available onshore storage, and since shutting down and restarting oil fields is expensive and risky, it was more profitable for Russia to continue producing in the presence of low prices. The price of Brent now is around $96 per barrel, but Russia receives significantly less due to the “Urals discount”. This discount is caused by the perceived stigma of buying Russian products for some customers; they decline to bid for Russian oil, which reduces effective demand and lowers the price that the remaining customers need to pay.

The oil price cap proposal would effectively institutionalize the Urals discount and consequently further lower the dollar value of the Russian government’s primary revenue stream.

Do read the whole thing, the list of signers is on the bottom.

Tuesday assorted links

1. The economics of Mr. Beast.

2. Maybe the strongest case I’ve seen that Putin won’t use nukes?

3. The economics of Costco rotisserie chicken.

4. Yes Woke has peaked: “Shares of the San Jose, California-based company were down nearly 6% after the update, which PayPal said “included incorrect information”, sparked intense backlash on social media over the weekend.”

5. Short version of the Timur Kuran story.

6. Move along nothing to see here just an optics error (short video).

What I’ve been reading

1. Yoram Hazony, Conservatism: A Rediscovery.  An intriguing if unconvincing book.  Imagine the United States of America but without the natural rights and liberty emphasis in its background.  Does Hazony favor a kind of Christian Israel for us?  Nonetheless easy to read and a point of view that deserves at least one book.  I am pleased that Hazony is a fan of John Selden.

2. Helen DeWitt,  The English Understand Wool.  Fiction, about 66 pp., excellent, I read it as a modern re-do of Rousseau’s Emile but I doubt if anyone else sees it that way.

3. Norman Davies, White Eagle, Red Star: The Polish-Soviet War 1919-1920 and ‘the miracle on the Vistula.‘  And Adam Zamoyski, Warsaw 1920: Lenin’s Failed Conquest of Europe.  These are obvious reads at the moment.

4. Orlando Figes, The Story of Russia.  A decent introduction for those who are not so well-informed.

5. Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way, Revolution & Dictatorship, is an interesting take on why (some) authoritarian regimes have proven so durable: “As this book has shown, revolutionary assaults on powerful domestic and foreign interests often trigger a reactive sequence that, over time, lays a foundation for authoritarian durability.  Early radicalism generates violent and often regime-threatening counterrevolutionary conflict.  Regimes that survive these conflicts tend to develop a cohesive elite and a powerful and loyal coercive apparatus capable of both systematic low-intensity repression and, when necessary, high-intensity crackdown.”

I haven’t seen it yet, but here is the forthcoming Ashlee Vance book on commercial space exploration, looks very good.

The Nobel Prize Goes to Bernanke and Diamond and Dybvig

The Nobel Prize Goes to Bernanke and Diamond and Dybvig for their work on banking. Bernanke seems like an obvious choice. Doesn’t he have one already? Well, no. But few people have had as stellar an academic career topped by another stellar career in public policy. A few economists have became famous politicians but it’s difficult to think of any economists whose career in public policy consisting of implementing, applying and testing the knowledge they built in academia.

Bernanke, of course, wrote key papers on the Great Depression–the Nobel committee points especially to his 1983 paper Non-Monetary Effects of the Financial Crisis in the Propagation of the Great Depression which showed that it wasn’t just the decline of the money supply that mattered (ala Friedman and Schwartz) but also the decline of the credit supply. Another way of putting this is that the waves of bank failures in the 1930s reduced the economy’s ability to produce output in a way that could not be countered simply by printing more money. As Tyler and I emphasize in our textbook, Modern Principles, nominal and real shocks are often intertwined. Bernanke then famously brought this line of thinking to his actions as head of the Federal Reserve during the 2008-2009 Financial Crises. Bernanke believed that it was critical to rescue the banks and the shadow banks not because he was beholden to financial interests (he was not a Wall Street guy) but because he believed the banks were a critical bridge between savers and investors and if that link were broken the results would be catastrophic. Bernanke rescued the banks to save the bridges.

I’m also a fan of a second, somewhat less well-known paper that Bernanke also published in 1983 (the Annus Mirabilis paper phenomena), Irreversibility, Uncertainty, and Cyclical Investment. Bernanke in this paper pioneered what would later become the real options analysis of investment, i.e. thinking about investment as an option, akin to a financial option. Thus, investment has two key features–you can usually wait a little bit to gather more information before investing but once you strike, the investment is sunk, i.e. irreversible. These two features have important implications for investment decisions and writ-large business cycles. In particular, Bernanke showed something surprising which he dubbed “the bad-news principle.” The bad-news principle says that only the expected severity of bad news matters for the decision whether to invest, good news should not matter at all. The reason is that the real decision an investor must make is whether to invest immediately or wait a little bit to learn more but what makes waiting valuable is not the possibility of good news but the possibility of avoiding mistakes. Avoiding mistakes is what investors care about on the margin. In turn, what that means is that avoiding bad news–creating downside insurance–can generating a huge upside because it can trigger a wave of investment. Bernanke also took this lesson to his role at the Federal Reserve.

Large amounts have been written on Bernanke already, of course, including his own memoir and I don’t think I can add much to that torrent beyond emphasizing the remarkable consistency of Bernanke’s thoughts and actions from academia to central banking.

Diamond and Dybvig are responsible for the now canonical model of banking. You can read Tyler below for more details on Bernanke and an explanation of the DD model.

The economic contributions of Ben Bernanke

Ben Bernanke is best known for being Fed chairman, but he has a long and distinguished research career of great influence.  Here are some of his contributions:

1. In a series of papers, often with Alan Blinder, Bernanke argued that “credit and money” are a better leading indicator than money alone.  And more generally he helped us rethink the money-income correlation that was so promoted by Milton Friedman.  This work was more correct than not, but since money as a leading indicator has fallen out of favor (partially because of Bernanke’s own later actions!), these contributions are seen as less important than was the case for about fifteen years.  See also this piece on the (earlier) import of the federal funds rate as a measure of monetary policy.  Ben’s body of work on money and credit was what first brought him renown.

2. Bernanke has a famous 1983 paper on how the breakdown of financial intermediation was a key component of the Great Depression.  Earlier, Milton Friedman had stressed the import of the contraction of the money supply, but Bernanke’s work led to a much richer picture of how the collapse happened. Savers were cut off from borrowers, due to bank failures, and the economy could not mobilize its capital very effectively.  This article also shows the integration between Bernanke’s work and that of Diamond and Dybvig.  This piece has held up very well.

3. Bernanke has related work, with Gertler, Gilchrist and others, on how financial problems can worsen a business cycle.  This work of course fed into his later decisions as chairman of the Fed.  In yet other work, Bernanke showed how economic downturns can lower the value of collateral, thus squeezing the lending process and exacerbating business cycle downturns.

4. Bernanke’s doctoral dissertation was on the concepts of option value and irreversible investment.  Modest increases in business uncertainty can cause big drops in investment, due to the desire to wait, exercise “option value,” and sample more information.  This work was published in the QJE in 1983.  I have long felt Bernanke does not receive enough credit for this particular idea, which later was fleshed out by Pindyck and Rubinfeld.

5. Bernanke wrote plenty of pieces — this one with Mishkin — on inflation targeting as a new means of conducting monetary policy.  Those were the days!  Much of the OECD lived under this regime for a few decades.

6. Here is Ben with co-authors: “We first document that essentially all the U.S. recessions of the past thirty years have been preceded by both oil price increases and a tightening of monetary policy…”  Uh-oh!

7. Here is 2004 Ben on what to do when an economy hits the zero lower bound.  Here is Ben on earlier Japanese monetary policy, and what he called their “self-induced paralysis” at the zero bound.  He really was in training for the Fed job all those years.  Here is Ben on “The Great Moderation.”  Here is 1990 Ben on clearing and settlement during the 1987 crash.

8. Ben has made major contributions to our understanding of how the gold standard and international deflationary pressures induced the Great Depression, transmitted it across borders, and made it much worse.  This work has held up very well and is now part of the mainstream account.  And more here.

9. Bernanke coined the term “global savings glut.”

Here is all the Swedish information on the researchers and their work.  I haven’t read these yet, but they are usually very well done.  Here is Ben on scholar.google.com.

In sum, Ben is a broad and impressive thinker and researcher.  This prize is obviously deserved.  In my admittedly unorthodox opinion, his most important work is historical and on the Great Depression.