Category: Economics
How good is current stress testing?
To me, the biggest culprit in SVB’s failure is that the fed’s most severe stress test scenario in 2022 didn’t even consider the possibility of rising interest rates. Asleep at the wheel. pic.twitter.com/pidlaMUDnm
— Will Diamond (@wdiamond_econ) March 15, 2023
I know how easy it is for some of you to write your Op-Eds calling for more, more, more regulation, but banking is already a remarkably regulated sector. Maybe sometimes those regulations just don’t work so well. (I still recall the earlier call for “have them hold more government securities!”) And you can’t just blame that on the “plutocrats,” the “tech bros,” or whatever.
Not your grandfather’s crypto?
“Crypto prices soar on support for depositors” (FT)
Bitcoin and ether jump 20% in the last three days after US authorities intervene
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Crypto is a “luxury,” long-term financial intermediation project which may or may not succeed. It comoves with the market, stability, low interest rates, and long time horizons. It is not a potential substitute for fiat currency.
Machine Learning as a Tool for Hypothesis Generation
While hypothesis testing is a highly formalized activity, hypothesis generation remains largely informal. We propose a systematic procedure to generate novel hypotheses about human behavior, which uses the capacity of machine learning algorithms to notice patterns people might not. We illustrate the procedure with a concrete application: judge decisions about who to jail. We begin with a striking fact: The defendant’s face alone matters greatly for the judge’s jailing decision. In fact, an algorithm given only the pixels in the defendant’s mugshot accounts for up to half of the predictable variation. We develop a procedure that allows human subjects to interact with this black-box algorithm to produce hypotheses about what in the face influences judge decisions. The procedure generates hypotheses that are both interpretable and novel: They are not explained by demographics (e.g. race) or existing psychology research; nor are they already known (even if tacitly) to people or even experts. Though these results are specific, our procedure is general. It provides a way to produce novel, interpretable hypotheses from any high-dimensional dataset (e.g. cell phones, satellites, online behavior, news headlines, corporate filings, and high-frequency time series). A central tenet of our paper is that hypothesis generation is in and of itself a valuable activity, and hope this encourages future work in this largely “pre-scientific” stage of science.
Here is the full NBER working paper by Jens Ludwig and Sendhil Mullainathan.
Sentences to ponder
Big banks’ behavior this time has been shaped by the fallout from 2008. Why isn’t Dimon buying S.V.B.? He has complained about the headaches of buying Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual at the government’s behest in 2008, having spent years fighting litigation and paying fines for those firms’ bad behavior. Bank executives who were around back then remember that.
That is from Dealbook 2.0, NYT, via TO. File under “The Costs of Intervention and Regulation and Political Grandstanding are Higher than You Think.”
Can the SVB crisis be solved in the longer run?
The failure and closure of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) raise immediate issues as to how policymakers should react. I’d like to step back and consider what this implies for banking regulation more generally in the longer run. The main lesson is that successful bank regulation is an ongoing, dynamic problem, unintended secondary consequences are rife, and neither more regulation or less regulation can be guaranteed to succeed.
If you think of the FDIC/Fed/Treasury as a consolidated entity, the broader question is how many financial institution liabilities they should guarantee, whether explicitly or implicitly. Let us consider why in fact the government felt compelled to guarantee all of the deposits.
An unwillingness to guarantee all the deposits would satisfy the desire to penalize businesses and banks for their mistakes, limit moral hazard, and limit the fiscal liabilities of the public sector. Those are common goals in these debates. Nonetheless unintended secondary consequences kick in, and the final results of that policy may not be as intended.
Once depositors are allowed to take losses, both individuals and institutions will adjust their deposit behavior, and they probably would do so relatively quickly. Smaller banks would receive many fewer deposits, and the giant “too big to fail” banks, such as JP Morgan, would receive many more deposits. Many people know that if depositors at an institution such as JP Morgan were allowed to take losses above 250k, the economy would come crashing down. The federal government would in some manner intervene – whether we like it or not – and depositors at the biggest banks would be protected.
In essence, we would end up centralizing much of our American and foreign capital in our “too big to fail” banks. That would make them all the more too big to fail. It also might boost financial sector concentration in undesirable ways.
To see the perversity of the actual result, we started off wanting to punish banks and depositors for their mistakes. We end up in a world where it is much harder to punish banks and depositors for their mistakes.
Another unintended secondary consequence is that lots of funds would flow out of the banking system and into U.S. Treasuries. In other words, our private businesses would find it harder to borrow and our government would find it easier to borrow and thus government would command more resources. That hardly seems like a desirable outcome for a policy decision that had some initially libertarian motives.
Alternatively, you might think it is a simple way out for the government to guarantee all those deposits, as indeed was done last evening.
That decision too will prove to have unintended secondary consequences. Raising the FDIC protection limit from $250,000 to ??? raises political eyebrows in a dramatic manner. For one thing, the FDIC would then be seen as guaranteeing a much larger part of the financial system. Over time, the pressures for the government to protect yet additional parts of the financial system will grow, just as they did after the bailouts from the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Furthermore, if the FDIC keeps on increasing its protections in the quest for financial stability, that means a larger FDIC, a larger regulatory apparatus, perhaps higher capital requirements, and over time higher premia for banks to pay to the FDIC. (As a side note, worthy of another post, we are also hearing calls that somehow VCs need to be regulated now, if they are going to “receive bailouts”.)
As that scenario unfolds, there will be all the more incentives to supply more lending and also deposit-taking services outside the formal and more heavily regulated banking sector. Rather than pushing more resources into the larger banks, this policy would push additional resources outside the formal banking system altogether. That would mean less power, oversight and scrutiny from the Fed and also from other regulatory bodies. Typically American banks are more tightly regulated and monitored than are non-bank financial entities.
This kind of problem is likely to unfold slowly, but it is no less real. The initial policy was an expansion of FDIC regulatory authority, but the end result could well be less total regulation of lending and depository functions. Once again, the policy decision may fail at achieving its initially intended goals.
The core problem is this: regulators can only protect so much of the financial system. Yet in a wealthy, peaceful economy the financial system often grows more rapidly than does gdp, if only because the financial system is based on the intermediation of wealth, not income. Simple accumulation boosts the ratio of wealth to income over time, thereby creating regulatory dilemmas for finance. Neither “regulating more and more of it” nor “letting more and more of it continue in a less regulated manner” are entirely satisfactory solutions.
But those of course are the only options available to us.
Tabarrok on Stranded Technologies Podcast
I talk with entreprenreur Niklas Anzinger on the Stranded Technlogies Podcast. Niklas summarizes some of the discussion:
- This episode is an intellectual journey that discovers insights that can be used by entrepreneurs and city developers. We talk about the Baumol effect that Alex uses to explain the now infamous price chart.
- Alex’s recommendation to new city or governance startups like Prospera, Ciudad Morazan or the Catawba DEZ is to think of city development as a “dance between centralization and decentralization”.
- Economists have developed concepts that are waiting to be commercialized, e.g. prediction markets. In this episode, we talk about dominant assurance contracts and how they could be used in new city developments and fundraising.
Inflation is slightly underrated
Still bad, yes, but it has a few upsides, here is one part from my Bloomberg column:
It’s also worth asking which groups are most hurt by inflation, and which least. On the one hand, inflation helps debtors, and the debtor class is often relatively poor. Yet there is also a large set of distributional effects through wages, and those effects might prove more congenial to conservative values.
One obvious loser from higher inflation is someone with a tenured job, either de facto or de jure. To use an example close to home: Many professors cannot easily switch jobs and duplicate their current working conditions, nor can they easily demand and receive offsetting raises. A lot of them are locked into their current posts — which is hardly surprising, since the nature and incentives of tenure do not require those who have it to stay at the top of their game to keep their job.
Many conservatives wish to abolish academic tenure altogether. That’s unlikely to happen (though Florida is making moves in that direction), but a dose of inflation might make tenure less appealing.
Many government bureaucrats also often have de facto tenure, and many of them are not so marketable to the private sector. For them, higher inflation is a pay cut. Again, just as inflation will not abolish tenure, so it will not eliminate bureaucracy. But it may make the less dynamic parts of the public sector less attractive, helping to slow the growing bureaucratization of society.
In contrast, consider a private entrepreneur who will attempt seven start-ups over the next 20 years, with some succeeding and others failing. That person probably will not suffer much from inflation, as he is starting from scratch with new nominal values on a fairly frequent basis. More generally, productive people who have flexibility and the ability to adjust to circumstances will emerge relatively unscathed as well.
Here is some commentary from Scott Sumner, though I think Scott is not taking me literally enough. Inflation really is bad (“never reason from an inflation change!”…nonetheless), it is simply elsewhere that I explain my views on that. And do note an extensive literature shows that the Fisher effect does not hold 1-to-1, and thus inflation at modest levels does lower real borrowing rates. It is also funny for Scott (“Money Illusion”) to say that short-run non-neutralities do not matter.
Scalping Girl Scout cookies?
Samoas, Trefoils and Thin Mints, move over. A new Girl Scout cookie flavor, Raspberry Rally, is in such high demand that, after swiftly selling out online, boxes are now being peddled for far higher prices on resale websites.
Single boxes of the cookies, which have a crispy raspberry-flavored center coated in chocolate, cost from $4 to $7, but they are selling for as much as five times the usual price on the secondary market.
Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. has expressed dismay over the situation. The organization said in a statement that most local Girl Scout troops had sold out of the “extremely popular” Raspberry Rally cookies for the season and emphasized that it was “disappointed” to see unauthorized resales of the flavor…
The Raspberry Rally cookies, which first became available late last month, can be bought only online. The cookie is considered a “sister” to the Thin Mint, the top-selling Girl Scout cookie, according to the Girl Scouts website.
Here is more from the NYT, via a loyal MR reader. How about teaching Girl Scouts how to raise the price?
The Collectivization of Innovation
In Collective Action Kills Innovation I wrote:
We have innovations like Uber and Airbnb and many others only because entrepreneurs didn’t have to ask for permission. Had we put these ideas to the vote they would have been defeated. Allow almost anyone with a car to drive customers around town? Stranger danger! Let any house be turned into a hotel? Not in my neighborhood! Once the innovations were brought into existence, the masses saw the benefits but they would not have seen those benefits if the idea had been put to a vote. Demonstration is more powerful than imagination.
More and more, however, the sphere of individual action shrinks and that of collective action grows.
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8429171/1900mission5.jpg)
A small but sadly amusing case in point is building in San Francisco. A plan was proposed to build the apartments at right. Love it, hate it. I don’t care. But it shouldn’t be up for collective action. Instead, what we have, however, is a planning process in which the President of the SF Planning Commission, Myrna Melgar, can opposed the plan because:
….I have to just state that I hate the design. Nothing against the architect, I think that the big windows, to me, are a statement of class and privilege. …having that building, with all of those windows it’s such a statement of, to me, class privilege because you know, poor people don’t do that, they don’t you know, like, win- you know, have everything out on the street. It just, so it just, it really rankles me the wrong way. So I just have to say it is a design issue. To me, design guidelines for what’s going to come are going be really important because I do think it does say to the community – is this still our community, what are we building for?
The building was proposed as a replacement for an auto shop (!) in 2014! Building didn’t start until 2022 and as of January 2023 it still wasn’t complete, although it looks like they got most of the windows approved.
An amusing video on some of the hypocrisy involved.
Hat tip: M. Nolan Gray and twitter thread.
My Conversation with Yasheng Huang
Here is the audio, video, and transcript, Yasheng is a China scholar and a professor at MIT. Here is part of the episode summary:
Yasheng joined Tyler to discuss China’s lackluster technological innovation, why declining foreign investment is more of a concern than a declining population, why Chinese literacy stagnated in the 19th century, how he believes the imperial exam system deprived China of a thriving civil society, why Chinese succession has been so stable, why the Six Dynasties is his favorite period in Chinese history, why there were so few female emperors, why Chinese and Chinese Americans have less well becoming top CEOs of American companies than Indians and Indian Americans, where he’d send someone on a two week trip to China, what he learned from János Kornai, and more.
And an excerpt:
COWEN: Now, in your book, you write of what you call Tullock’s curse— Gordon Tullock having been my former colleague — namely, embedded succession conflict in an autocracy. Why has Chinese succession been so stable up to now? And will we see Tullock’s curse whenever Xi steps down, passes on, whatever happens there?
HUANG: I do want to modify the word that you use, stable. There are two ways to use that term. One is to describe the succession process itself. If that’s the situation we’re trying to describe, it is not stable at all. If you look at the entire history of the PRC, there have been so many succession plans that failed, and at a catastrophic level. One potential successor was persecuted to death. Another fled and died in a plane crash. Others were unceremoniously dismissed, and one was put under house arrest for almost 15 years, and he died —
COWEN: But no civil war, right?
HUANG: Yes, that’s right.
COWEN: No civil war.
HUANG: That’s right. There’s another way to talk about stability, which is stability at the system level, and that, you are absolutely right. Despite all these problems with these successions, the system as a whole has remained stable. The CCP is in power. There’s no coup, and there were not even demonstrations on the street associated with the succession failures. So, we do need to distinguish between these two kinds of stability. By one criterion, it was not stable. By the other criterion, it is quite stable.
The reason for that is, I think — although it’s a little bit difficult to generalize because we don’t really have many data points — one reason is the charisma power of individual leaders, Mao and Xiaoping. These were founding fathers of the PRC, of the CCP, and they had the prestige and — using Max Weber’s term — charisma, that they could do whatever they wanted while being able to contain the spillover effects of their mistakes. The big uncertain issue now is whether Xi Jinping has that kind of charisma to contain future spillover effects of succession failure.
This is a remarkable statistic: Since 1976, there have been six leaders of the CCP. Of these six leaders, five of them were managed either by Mao or by Deng Xiaoping. Essentially, the vast majority of the successions were handled by these two giants who had oversized charisma, oversized prestige, and unshakeable political capital.
Now we have one leader who doesn’t really have that. He relies mostly on formal power, and that’s why he has accumulated so many titles, whereas he’s making similar succession errors as the previous two leaders.
Obviously, we don’t know — because he hasn’t chosen a successor — we don’t really know what will happen if he chooses a successor. But my bet is that the ability to contain the spillover effect is going to be less, rather than more, down the road, because Xi Jinping does not match, even in a remote sense, the charisma and the prestige of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. There’s no match there.
Recommended. And I am happy to recommend Yasheng Huang’s forthcoming book The Rise and Fall of the East.
Pre-order here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0300266367?ref_=cm_sw_r_cp_ud_dp_CXCHDSQB8JBKEXM4J5BE
On graduate student mental health (from my email)
…we often discuss mental health in terms of treatment and selection effects. While more causal inference is needed, I believe it some points are often overlooked.
Personality plays a role: Many in the field can be characterized as overachievers. This behavior can easily turn pathological if it is driven by a fear of failure or a sense that self-worth is contingent on competence. Moreover in a competitive academic environment. Exit may be psychologically very difficult if your self-worth is on the line.
Policies within graduate programs exacerbate the issue: In my program, if a student drops out, the University will not award them a master’s degree if they already have a similar degree from another university. This policy discourages students exit and may keep them in situations that are not beneficial for their mental health.
Economists tend to overrate the effectiveness of educational signals in selecting prospective grad study: Interviews are often not a part of the selection process, which I believe is a missed opportunity to assess a student’s psychological readiness for a PhD program. For many far less stressful jobs psychological testing is standard. In my experience, I only received interviews from programs that had already accepted me (meant to convince me to accept offers).
From anonymous.
The Era of Planetary Defense Has Begun
In Modern Principles of Economics, Tyler and I use asteroid defense as an example of a public good (see video below). As of the 5th edition, this public good wasn’t being provided by either markets or governments. But thanks to NASA, the era of planetary defense has begun. In September of 2022 NASA smashed a spacecraft into an asteroid. A new set of five papers in Nature has now demonstrated that not only did NASA hit its target, the mission was a success in diverting the asteroid:
DART, which was the size of a golf cart, collided with a Great Pyramid-sized asteroid called Dimorphos. The impact caused the asteroid’s orbit around another space rock to shrink — Dimorphos now completes an orbit 33 minutes faster than before the impact, researchers report1 today in Nature.
…As DART hurtled towards Dimorphos at more than 6 kilometres per second, the first part that hit was one of its solar panels, which smashed into a 6.5-metre-wide boulder. Microseconds later, the main body of the spacecraft collided with the rocky surface next to the boulder — and the US$330-million DART shattered to bits….the spacecraft hit a spot around 25 metres from the asteroid’s centre, maximizing the force of its impact….large amounts of the asteroid’s rubble flew outwards from the impact. The recoil from this force pushed the asteroid further off its previous trajectory. Researchers estimate that this spray of rubble meant Dimorphos’ added momentum was almost four times that imparted by DART.
…Although NASA has demonstrated this technique on only one asteroid, the results could be broadly applicable to future hazards…if a dangerous asteroid were ever detected heading for Earth, a mission to smash into it would probably be able to divert it away from the planet.
Income and happiness, revisited
Measures of well-being have often been found to rise with log (income). Kahneman and Deaton [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 16489–93 (2010)] reported an exception; a measure of emotional well-being (happiness) increased but then flattened somewhere between $60,000 and $90,000. In contrast, Killingsworth [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2016976118 (2021)] observed a linear relation between happiness and log(income) in an experience-sampling study. We discovered in a joint reanalysis of the experience sampling data that the flattening pattern exists but is restricted to the least happy 20% of the population, and that complementary nonlinearities contribute to the overall linear-log relationship between happiness and income. We trace the discrepant results to the authors’ reliance on standard practices and assumptions of data analysis that should be questioned more often, although they are standard in social science.
That is from a recent collaboration by Matthew A. Killingsworth, Daniel Kahneman, and Barbara Mellers. Via the excellent Kevin Lewis. So if you’re rich, don’t be a sad sack! No need for that. And via Daniel Lippman, here is some Bloomberg coverage of the same.
Competing for residents rather than businesses
Amazon is pulling back from its second headquarters expansion in Crystal City (yes I still call it that), and this will herald a new age of lesser competition for businesses and their main offices:
…the growing difficulty of courting corporations. If Amazon stiffs Northern Virginia, future politicians elsewhere may be less eager to promise tax breaks and infrastructure investments, not to mention spend their reputational capital. Politically speaking, it will be harder for urban and suburban leaders to rise to the top by attracting a new major corporate tenants. “Pro-business” local governments may be less common in the years to come.
Another relevant trend is the work-from-home and hybrid models. Why should a major corporation invest in more office space if a lot of that space will be used only part of the time?
It is worth thinking through how remote and hybrid work will affect regional evolution. There have already been “booms” in some relatively small resort areas, such as parts of Maine, Long Island and West Virginia. But there will be a more general impact as well. To the extent corporations give up on clustering their talent in big office buildings, people will spread out where they live. Not everyone will set down stake in the Hamptons or along the Irish coast. Plenty of people will want to live near family or where they were born, or perhaps a few hours away from the main office as part of a hybrid arrangement.
In this new world, it will be much harder for a well-governed region to rise to the top. Even if its leaders succeed in convincing a company to relocate, for instance, there may be fewer workers who do so. Or perhaps there will be the same number of workers but they will come into the office less frequently and live scattered in many directions, sometimes in other states or metropolitan areas.
There is nothing necessarily wrong with this outcome. But the potential parvenu region just won’t feel that exciting, and the level of activity won’t feed upon itself in terms of attracting more retail and cultural amenities.
And:
Overall, there may be less competition to attract corporations. At the same time, political competition for residents may become more intense, because more people will be able to choose where to live regardless of where they work. This competition could lead to improvements in schools and parks.
Here is the rest of my Bloomberg column.
Will remote work promote more family formation?
A new paper puts forth a fascinating theory: Maybe remote work is making it easier for couples to become parents—and for parents to have more children.
The economist Adam Ozimek and the demographer Lyman Stone looked at survey data of 3,000 American women from the Demographic Intelligence Family Survey. They concluded that female remote workers were more likely to intend to have a baby than all-office workers, especially if they were richer, older, and more educated. What’s more, remote workers in the survey were more likely to marry in the next year than their nonremote counterparts.
Remote work might promote family formation in a few ways. Remote workers can move more easily, because they don’t have to live within commuting distance of their job. This flexibility might result in more marriages by ending the “two-body problem,” where romantic partners find employment in different cities and must choose between their career and their relationship. What’s more, remote work reduces commutes, and those weekly hours can be shifted to family time, making it easier to start or grow a family.
Fertility is an awkward topic for journalists, because starting a family is such a complicated and intimate decision. But fertility rates aren’t declining simply because more people are choosing not to have children—American women report having fewer kids than they want, as Stone has documented in previous research. If remote work is subtly restructuring the contours of life to enable more women to have the families they want, that’s great news.