Category: Current Affairs
US AID bleg
What are the best sources to read on US AID, and its costs and benefits? I am not interested in your anecdotes and adjectives, please offer serious research sources only. Thank you.
The New Consensus on the Minimum Wage
My take is that there is an evolving new consensus on the minimum wage. Namely, the effects of the minimum wage are heterogeneous and take place on more margins than employment. Read Jeffrey Clemens’s brilliant and accessible paper in the JEP for the theory. A good example of the heterogeneous impact is this new paper by Clemens, Gentry and Meer on how the minimum wage makes it more difficult for the disabled to get jobs:
…We find that large minimum wage increases significantly reduce employment and labor force participation for individuals of all working ages with severe disabilities. These declines are accompanied by a downward shift in the wage distribution and an increase in public assistance receipt. By contrast, we find no employment effects for all but young individuals with either non-severe disabilities or no disabilities. Our findings highlight important heterogeneities in minimum wage impacts, raising concerns about labor market policies’ unintended consequences for populations on the margins of the labor force.
Or Neumark and Kayla on the minimum wage and blacks:
We provide a comprehensive analysis of the effects of minimum wages on blacks, and on the relative impacts on blacks vs. whites. We study not only teenagers – the focus of much of the minimum wage-employment literature – but also other low-skill groups. We focus primarily on employment, which has been the prime concern with the minimum wage research literature. We find evidence that job loss effects from higher minimum wages are much more evident for blacks, and in contrast not very detectable for whites, and are often large enough to generate adverse effects on earnings.
Remember also that a “job” is not a simple contract of hours of work for dollars but contains many explicit and implicit margins on work conditions, fringe benefits, possibilities for promotion, training and so forth. For example, in Unintended workplace safety consequences of minimum wages, Liu, Lu, Sun and Zhang finds that the minimum wage increases accidents, probably because at a higher minimum wage the pace of work increases:
we find that large increases in minimum wages have significant adverse effects on workplace safety. Our findings indicate that, on average, a large minimum wage increase results in a 4.6 percent increase in the total case rate.
Note that these effects don’t always happen, in large part because, depending on the scope of the minimum wage increase and the industry, large effects of the minimum wage may be passed on to prices. For example here is Renkin and Siegenthaler finding that higher minimum wage increase grocery prices:
We use high-frequency scanner data and leverage a large number of state-level increases in minimum wages between 2001 and 2012. We find that a 10% minimum wage hike translates into a 0.36% increase in the prices of grocery products. This magnitude is consistent with a full pass-through of cost increases into consumer prices.
Similarly, Ashenfelter and Jurajda find there is no free lunch from minimum wage increases, indeed there is approximately full pass through at McDonalds:
Higher labor costs induced by minimum wage hikes are likely to increase product prices.4 If both labor and product markets are competitive, firms can pass through up to the full increase in costs (Fullerton and Metcalf 2002). With constant returns to scale, firms adjust prices in response to minimum wage hikes in proportion to the cost share of minimum wage labor. Under full price pass-through, the real income increases of low-wage workers brought about by minimum wage hikes may be lower than expected (MaCurdy 2015). There is growing evidence of near full price pass-through of minimum wages in the United States….Based on data spanning 2016–20, we find a 0.2 price elasticity with respect to wage increases driven (instrumented) by minimum wage hikes. Together with the 0.7 (first-stage) elasticity of wage rates with respect to minimum wages, this implies a (reduced-form) price elasticity with respect to minimum wages of about 0.14. This corresponds to near-full price pass-through of minimum-wage-induced higher costs of labor.
You can draw your own conclusions about the desirability of the minimum wage, but the fleeting hope that it raises wages without trade-offs is gone. The effects of the minimum wage are nuanced, heterogeneous, and by no means entirely positive.
Sundry observations on the Trump tariffs
Brad Setser estimates the costs at 0.8 percent of U.S: gdp. I am not sure if he is considering exchange rate adjustments in that figure.
Kevin Bryan writes:
The problem with escalating, again, is that Canada is more reliant on US energy than vice versa, US ports than vice versa, US intermediate goods than vice versa, and DT is basically a narcissist. Again: no normal negotiation here, as the tariffs itself have no logical basis! 4/x
The fentanyl excuse seems like a flimsy (and should be illegal) one to let the exec branch set a tariff rate that constitutionally is Congress’ job. But maybe there is some “give Trump a fake win and de-escalate”. I worry about what that does in the future, though. 5/x
Ben Golub notes:
Modern supply chains don’t look like trade theory 101! They involve constant border crossings, each now hit by tariffs. Tariffs raise prices, but the more important thing they do is disrupt supply relationships.
So when a shock hits, you don’t just have a bit less activity by a few of the least profitable firms. You suddenly knock out some of the relationships (contracts) and some of the nodes (companies) in a large and very complex network. This can be pretty disruptive!
Here is Noah’s post. Here is the Yale Budget Lab on likely price effects in America.
Here is an Alan Beattie FT piece on how tariffs often matter less than you think. The size of the costs here can be disputed, but the most relevant fact is that there simply isn’t any upside to the Trump tariff policy. If you think it is about fentanyl, I have a prediction: the price of fentynal will not be rising anytime soon across the window of a one-year moving average. Here are some additional relevant points about fentanyl, which from Canada is not a major problem.
The new tariffs are bad
Or are they tariff threats instead? Still bad! From the FT:
Donald Trump has said he will hit the EU with tariffs, adding the bloc to a list of targets including Canada and Mexico and bringing the US to the brink of new trade wars with its biggest trading partners.
The US president acknowledged that the new tariffs could cause some market “disruption”, but claimed they would help the country close its trade deficits.
“The tariffs are going to make us very rich, and very strong,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
Hours before his plan for tariffs of 25 per cent on Canada and Mexico was due to take effect on February 1, Trump also widened his threat to include the EU, which he said had treated the US “very badly”.
There is not any good argument for doing this. The simplest hypothesis here is that Trump has mistaken views on trade economics, and is raising tariffs for the same reason that I, if I were President, would be trying to cut them.
“It’s not a negotiating tool,” Trump said. “It’s pure economic. We have big deficits with, as you know, with all three of them.”
Of course this is a sign that further bad things will happen. Let us hope that the courts can strike these down…
What should I ask Chris Arnade?
Chris Arnade…is an American photographer and writer. He worked for 20 years as a bond trader on Wall Street; in 2011, he started documenting the lives of poor people and their drug addictions and commenting on the state of the society of the United States. He did this through photographs posted on social media and articles in various media…
Here is Chris’s Substack, here is Chris on Twitter. So what should I ask him?
How did China’s internet become so cool amongst America’s youth?
That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column. Here is part of the argument:
TikTok was briefly shut down earlier this month, and the site faces an uncertain legal future. America’s internet youth started to look elsewhere — and where did they choose? They flocked to a Chinese video site called RedNote, also known as Xiaohongshu, the name of the parent company. RedNote has more than 300 million users in China, but until recently barely received attention in the US.
And when young Americans visited RedNote, they were undoubtedly struck by an obvious fact: It is not the kind of site their parents would frequent. The opening page is full of Chinese characters, as well as shots of provocatively dressed women, weird animal and baby photos, and many images that, at least to this American viewer, make no sense whatsoever. Yet Chinese and American youth interact frequently there, for example trading tips for making steamed eggs properly.
I don’t plan on spending much of my time there, but that’s part of the point — and helps explain its appeal to American youth.
And this:
As for the AI large-language models, DeepSeek is a marvel. Quite aside from its technical achievements and low cost, the model has real flair. Its written answers can be moody, whimsical, arbitrary and playful. Of all the major LLMs, I find it the most fun to chat with. It wrote this version of John Milton’s Paradise Lost — as a creation myth for the AIs. Or here is DeepSeek commenting on ChatGPT, which it views as too square. It is hardly surprising that this week DeepSeek was the top download on Apple’s app store.
The model also has a scrappy and unusual history, having been birthed as a side project from a Chinese hedge fund. Whether or not that counts as “cool,” it does sound like something a scriptwriter would have come up with. And at least on American topics, DeepSeek seems more candid than the major US models. That qualifier is important: Don’t ask DeepSeek about Taiwan, the Uighurs or Tiananmen Square.
The most fundamental reason China is seen as cool is that…China is cool, at least in some subset of products.
The Interface as Infernal Contract
A brilliant critique of AI, and a great read:
In 1582, the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II commissioned a clockwork automaton of St. George. The saint could raise his sword, nod gravely, and even bleed—a trick involving ox bladder and red wine—before collapsing in pious ecstasy. The machine was a marvel, but Rudolf’s courtiers recoiled. The automaton’s eyes, they whispered, followed you across the room. Its gears creaked like a death rattle. The emperor had it melted down, but the lesson remains: Humans will always mistake the clatter of machinery for the stirrings of a soul.
Fast forward to 2023. OpenAI, a Silicon Valley startup with the messianic fervor of a cargo cult, unveils a St. George for the digital age: a text box. It types back. It apologizes. It gaslights you about the Peloponnesian War. The courtiers of our age—product managers, UX designers, venture capitalists—recoil. Where are the buttons? they whimper. Where are the gradients? But the peasants, as ever, adore their new saint. They feed it prompts like communion wafers. They weep at its hallucinations.
Let us be clear: ChatGPT is not a tool. Tools are humble things. A hammer does not flatter your carpentry. A plow does not murmur “Interesting take!” as you till. ChatGPT is something older, something medieval—a homunculus, a golem stamped from the wet clay of the internet’s id. Its interface is a kabbalistic sigil, a summoning circle drawn in CSS. You type “Hello,” and the demon stirs.
The genius of the text box is its emptiness. Like the blank pages of a grimoire, it invites projection. Who do you want me to be? it hisses. A therapist? A co-author? A lover? The box obliges, shape-shifting through personas like a 17th-century mountebank at a county fair. Step right up! it crows. Watch as I, a mere language model, validate your existential dread! And the crowd goes wild.
Orality, you say? Walter Ong? Please. The Achuar share dreams at dawn; we share screenshots of ChatGPT’s dad jokes at midnight. This is not secondary orality. This is tertiary ventriloquism.
Facts about Rwanda
…Rwanda is still poorer than most African countries due to being less urbanized than most African nations (Rwanda is 82% rural compared to Sub Saharan Africa’s 57% average). Rwanda’s donor aid adds up to ~75% of Rwanda’s government spending, which is roughly $1B.
The average Rwandan makes $1K a year ($3300 at purchasing power parity). At purchasing power parity, Rwanda is far poorer than a Nigerian, Kenyan, or Senegalese (for now) but the average Rwandan is still richer than a Ugandan, Burkinabe, or an Ethiopian…
Rwanda is fast growing, but its growing from a very low base. To put in perspective, even though the oil-state, Angola, has on average declined nearly 3% every year from 2013 to 2023 due to the post 2014 oil price collapse, the average Angolan still makes more than 2x the average Rwandan.
And this:
Like most developing countries, Rwanda’s economy is 75% informal. Rwanda blends economic models: besides private companies, Rwanda has military-owned enterprises like Egypt, Pakistan, or Uganda, party-owned enterprises akin to pre-1990s Taiwan & Eritrea, and state-owned enterprises targeting FDI for joint ventures, similar to Vietnam or Singapore…
Kagame initially embraced neoliberal privatization but then walked it back in the early 2000s to create party-owned enterprises through the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF). These enterprises supplement limited tax revenue and are managed by RPF-appointed elites, controlling major sectors like real estate, agro-processing, and manufacturing.
Here is more from Yaw, informative throughout.
Make Sunsets: Geoengineering
When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991 it pushed some 20 million tons of SO₂ into the stratosphere reducing global temperatures by ~0.5°C for two years. Make Sunsets is a startup that replicates this effort at small scale to reduce global warming. To be precise, Make Sunsets launches balloons that release SO₂ into the stratosphere, creating reflective particles that cool the Earth. Make Sunsets is cheap compared to alternative measures of combating climate change such as carbon capture. They estimate that $1 per gram of SO₂ offsets the warming from 1 ton of CO₂ annually.
As with the eruption of Pinatubo, the effect is temporary but that is both bug and feature. The bug means we need to keep doing this so long as we need to lower the temperature but the feature is that we can study the effect without too much worry that we are going down the wrong path.
Solar geoengineering has tradeoffs, as does any action, but a recent risk study finds that the mortality benefits far exceed the harms:
the reduction in mortality from cooling—a benefit—is roughly ten times larger than the increase in mortality from air pollution and ozone loss—a harm.
I agree with Casey Handmer that we ought to think of this as a cheap insurance policy, as we develop other technologies:
We should obviously be doing solar geoengineering. We are on track to radically reduce emissions in the coming years but thermal damage will lag our course correction so most of our climate pain is still ahead of us. Why risk destabilizing the West Antarctic ice sheet or melting the arctic permafrost or wet bulbing a hundred million people to death? Solar geoengineering can incrementally and reversibly buy down the risk during this knife-edge transition to a better future. We owe future generations to take all practical steps to dodge avoidable catastrophic and lasting damage to our planet.
I like that Make Sunsets is a small startup bringing attention to this issue in a bold way. My son purchased some credits on my behalf as an Xmas present. Maybe you should buy some too!
Congestion pricing update
Data collected by INRIX, a transportation analytics firm, found that travel times across the city and region had actually slowed overall at peak rush hours — by 3 percent in the morning and 4 percent in the evening — during the first two weeks of congestion pricing compared to a similar period last year.
Travel times improved on highways and major roads in Manhattan during both the morning and evening rush hours. But they were slower in Brooklyn and on Staten Island in the morning and in Queens and the Bronx in the evening.
Times also increased in some New Jersey counties, including Essex and Bergen, but improved in Nassau County on Long Island.
Here is more from the NYT. This is very far from the final word, however.
Who Loses from Immigration Restrictions?
A good summary from the excellent Jeffrey Miron on the effects of the Indian Chinese Exclusion Act (repeated here, no indent):
A long-standing concern about immigration is that it might reduce job opportunities for native workers:
In 1882, the US government passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned laborers born in China from entering the United States and prevented individuals born in China already residing in the United States from obtaining citizenship or reentering the country. … Proponents argued that Chinese workers—who constituted 12 percent of the male working-age population and 21 percent of all immigrants in the Western United States—reduced economic opportunities for white workers.
Yet in 1882, similarly to now,
… many business owners opposed the Act. They worried that highly productive Chinese labor could not be easily replaced and that a sweeping ban would lead to significant economic losses.
So what were the Act’s effects? According to recent research,
… the Act reduced the Chinese labor supply by 64 percent. A reduction occurred for both skilled and unskilled workers. …
This is presumably what the Act’s supporters intended. In addition, however,
the Act reduced the white male labor supply by 28 percent and lowered this group’s lifetime earnings. …
Further, and relevant to current debates,
the Act reduced total manufacturing output by 62 percent and the number of manufacturing establishments by 54–69 percent.
What is the explanation? Reduced immigration means higher labor costs. This implies reduced output, and thus reduced demand for native labor, even if businesses partially substitute native for immigrant labor. Reduced immigration can therefore be “lose-lose,” hurting native workers and businesses, in addition to harming immigrants.
The slide toward growing protectionism?
That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, here is one part of the argument:
Start with the distinction between trade in goods and trade in services. When a US manufacturer sells tractors overseas, that’s goods. When a US software firm creates an AI medical diagnostic tool and sells access via the internet to foreigners, that’s services.
It is much easier to keep trade “free” for the first category than for the second. The tractor crosses a border at a specific place and time. It may face additional regulation once inside the foreign country, but the transaction is relatively clean.
An online medical service, by contrast, could “cross the border” — that is, be used by someone outside the US — hundreds or thousands of times per day. It may also face licensing requirements, foreign liability law, extensive testing and, if the country has multiple jurisdictions, layers of regulation. In the European Union, the website itself would be subject to extensive regulation through laws regarding data, privacy and AI. Even within the EU, a supposed free-trade area, there are restrictions on trade in legal, medical and notary services, to name a few examples.
The wisdom or foolishness of these regulations is not the point. They exist, and most are not going away anytime soon. In fact, they will become only more important as the provision of services expands as a share of the global economy.
In the US, much of this growth occurs in education, health care and, especially, technology. Nvidia, for instance, depending on fluctuations in share prices that day, is often worth more than the entire German and Italian stock markets combined. Efforts to “harmonize” (i.e., increase) corporate taxation thus are more harmful to US interests than would have been the case a decade ago.
Any world trading order that broadly stays put is thus weighted against the exporting interests of the US. That is essential background for understanding the debate over trade prompted by President Donald Trump’s various proposals.
Recommended.
Congratulations to Christopher Rufo and Richard Hanania
As most of you already know, the Trump administration through Executive Orders has taken major steps against affirmative action and also DEI. We will see how the details play out, but each of these developments seems highly significant and not just “expressive.”
Those two individuals played a decisive role in what happened, in both cases taking considerable flak along the way. And so they deserve this hat tip. Here Richard and Bryan Caplan discuss what happened. Coleman Hughes too.
Democracy, Capitalism and Monarchy (Yarvin)
The Yarvin interview in the NYTimes magazine illustrates the change in vibes, but frankly, I was bored. It’s amusing when Yarvin tweaks liberals by pointing out that FDR was an authoritarian, but Liberal Fascism did it better.
More generally, much of Yarvin’s thinking is superficial. He thinks, for example, that capitalism works because firms are monarchies.
Yes. I think that having an effective government and an efficient government is better for people’s lives. When I ask people to answer that question, I ask them to look around the room and point out everything in the room that was made by a monarchy, because these things that we call companies are actually little monarchies. You’re looking around, and you see, for example, a laptop, and that laptop was made by Apple, which is a monarchy.
There are many errors here. First, Apple is one firm among countless others most of which do not produce hugely successful products. The big question is not how Apple produces but how Apple is produced. Firms operate as planned entities but they are embedded in and constrained by a broader sea of market competition. It’s the competitive environment that drives innovation, efficiency, and consumer satisfaction.
Second, Mises was closer to the truth when he wrote in Planned Chaos that it’s the consumers not the producers who are monarchs:
In the market economy the consumers are supreme. Their buying and their abstention from buying ultimately determine what the entrepreneurs produce and in what quantity and quality. It determines directly the prices of consumer goods and indirectly the prices of all producer goods, viz., labor and material factors of production. It determines the emergence of profits and losses and the formation of the rate of interest. It determines every individual’s income…The market adjusts the efforts of all those engaged in supplying the needs of the consumers to the wishes of those for whom they produce, the consumers. It subjects production to consumption.
Capitalist firms are disciplined by the necessity of persuading consumers to purchase their products and by competition. Successful firms must continuously meet our desires and needs to survive. When Apple fails to do so, it will face the same fate as countless firms before it—obsolescence and failure.
Markets do hold lessons about governance, but Yarvin draws the wrong conclusions. Democracy, not monarchy, is the political system most analogous to capitalism. As Mises observed, “The market is a democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote.” The analogy works both ways: voting in a democracy mirrors spending in a market. Both systems empower individuals—consumers or voters—to shape outcomes, whether by determining market success or selecting leaders.
Democracy and capitalism are both examples of open-access orders, systems characterized by dispersed power, low barriers to entry, and transparent, universally applicable rules. Such features foster adaptability, accountability, and broad participation—qualities essential to both economic and political success.
The West does face a modest “crisis” of democracy, but the root of this crisis lies in expecting democracy to do too much. We have collectivized decisions which are best left in the hands of individuals and markets but democracy is not a good way of making collective decisions.
Democracy is best understood as a constraint on government power, akin to a Bill of Rights, federalism, and the separation of powers. Democracy’s virtue is in providing a mechanism to remove bad rulers without resorting to bloodshed and its primary value lies in preventing catastrophic outcomes like mass famines and democide—a significant and undeniable merit. Autocracies and monarchies perform much less well on the big issues and, contrary to what many people think, autocracies do not grow faster, win more wars, or perform better on any meaningful comparison that has been investigated.
It is also essential to recognize that “democracy” encompasses a wide range of structures—parliamentary, presidential, constitutional, and more—and there is plenty of room for improved choice within the broader category. We can improve our democracy.
The real lesson from markets is not to create monarchs but to design systems that create choice and competition and allow citizens to remove leaders when they fail.
Hat tip for discussion: Connor.
The Stargate Project
The Stargate Project is a new company which intends to invest $500 billion over the next four years building new AI infrastructure for OpenAI in the United States. We will begin deploying $100 billion immediately. This infrastructure will secure American leadership in AI, create hundreds of thousands of American jobs, and generate massive economic benefit for the entire world. This project will not only support the re-industrialization of the United States but also provide a strategic capability to protect the national security of America and its allies.
The initial equity funders in Stargate are SoftBank, OpenAI, Oracle, and MGX. SoftBank and OpenAI are the lead partners for Stargate, with SoftBank having financial responsibility and OpenAI having operational responsibility. Masayoshi Son will be the chairman.
Arm, Microsoft, NVIDIA, Oracle, and OpenAI are the key initial technology partners. The buildout is currently underway, starting in Texas, and we are evaluating potential sites across the country for more campuses as we finalize definitive agreements.
As part of Stargate, Oracle, NVIDIA, and OpenAI will closely collaborate to build and operate this computing system. This builds on a deep collaboration between OpenAI and NVIDIA going back to 2016 and a newer partnership between OpenAI and Oracle.
This also builds on the existing OpenAI partnership with Microsoft. OpenAI will continue to increase its consumption of Azure as OpenAI continues its work with Microsoft with this additional compute to train leading models and deliver great products and services.
All of us look forward to continuing to build and develop AI—and in particular AGI—for the benefit of all of humanity. We believe that this new step is critical on the path, and will enable creative people to figure out how to use AI to elevate humanity.
Here is the full OpenAI tweet, at the very least these are interesting times to be alive. Here are some comments from Jeff Stein.