Category: Economics

Brad DeLong asks:

This is one of the most puzzling puzzles in macroeconomics: that foreign-exchange speculators are not very good at linking domestic money and bond markets to the foreign exchange market. Not enough money seems to be engaged in betting that a currency with a high nominal interest rates will not decline in value fast enough to make investing in its securities unprofitable. Why not? It’s an easy thing to do.

James Hamilton [correction: *Menzie Chinn*] adds more.  What are the main hypotheses for why high nominal interest rate currencies appear to outperform the market?

1. The so-called "peso problem."  Someday the roof will cave in on these currencies.  The Asian financial crisis was only a small disruption compared to what will happen someday.  Our current data set is incomplete and does not represent the real population.

2. Holding crummy currencies is riskier than CAPM and variants indicate.  Most likely, the relevant investors are not and cannot be well-diversified.  So their high pecuniary returns are offset by the risk they bear.  If thirty percent of your wealth is in the South African Rand, the relevant measure of your risk may be the variance of that currency, not the covariance of that currency with some broader international market portfolio.  Economic theory usually measures risk by looking at the latter.

3. Many investors stay away from crummy, high nominal interest rate currencies for fear of what their wives (or bosses, consider an agency problem at a financial firm) would say, should they lose money.  The relevant markets are segmented.  This is linked to #2.

4. This used to be a puzzle, but now the profit opportunity has been identified.  The supposed additional risk of the high nominal interest rate currency is phantom.  People now jump into high nominal interest rate currencies, at least when such investments are appropriate to restore an equilibrium of risks and returns.  We should expect the paradox to disappear in future data sets.

Observation: Do not ever write or say "CAPM model."  Do not ever write or say "ATM machine."

Wages for low-wage workers have been flat in recent years but health care costs have been increasing.  For a company like Wal-Mart, which pays many of its workers modest wages but does offer a reasonable health insurance plan, this is an invitation to adverse selection.  As the value of the wage component of the Wal-Mart benefit package has declined relative to the value of the health insurance component Wal-Mart has attracted more workers who want the job for the health benefits, i.e. sicker workers.  Reed Abelson writing in the NYTimes notes:

The Wal-Mart work force reflects a growing fear of many employers that the
people who work for them are increasingly at risk for health problems. Many of
Wal-Mart’s employees are obese, the company says, and a result is rapidly rising
numbers of cases of diabetes
or heart
disease. The prevalence of these diseases among Wal-Mart employees is
increasing much faster than the national average, it says.

"The low-income population generally is not as healthy and does not engage as
much in preventive care," said Diane Rowland, executive director of the Kaiser
Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. A risk that a company like Wal-Mart
faces, especially when it competes with smaller retailers that offer no
insurance at all, Ms. Rowland said, is attracting too many workers who want the
job primarily for the health coverage.

Wal-Mart’s health care costs are rising faster than their revenues.  Other companies are trying to shift some of the cost of health care onto their workers but Wal-Mart’s workers are already paying more than the national average so Wal-Mart may try to reverse adverse selection by adjusting their work and benefit package.  An internal memo suggests that:

…the company could require all jobs to include some
component of physical activity, like making cashiers gather shopping carts. It
also recommends redesigning and expanding benefits to appeal to a different type
of worker, someone more interested in buying a home, say, than in getting health
insurance.

Wal-Mart will probably be pilloried for this sort of thinking but you can hardly blame them when the workers are engaging in almost the identical actions in reverse.  The more fundamental problem is the tying of insurance to work, a problem for which I am afraid there no win-win solution.

Comments are open.

Addendum: Rey Lehmann offers excellent commentary.

Here is a list, thanks to Craig Newmark for the pointer.

Here is question number two, if you are bold try to sketch an answer in the comments.

Let us say you had a real business cycle model where production took a very long period(s) of time, rather than just a single (shorter) period.  Might this help such a model explain the aggregate macroeconomic data?  What might become easier and what might become harder?

Hint: One good approach is to break your answer down in the three categories of "comovement, persistence, and labor supply."

I associate Ben Bernanke with several major contributions:

1. The theory of irreversible investment, circa 1983.  Before Bernanke, Dixit, and Pindyck, models often assumed that investments could be reversed or "taken back."  Bernanke outlined how the irreversibility of investment might matter.  Often individuals will choose to wait and sample more information, rather than make an immediate decision.  Small changes in information could lead to big fluctuations in investment.  Large changes in interest rates might have little effect.  Bad news can hurt you more than good news helps you.  This was Bernanke’s first major contribution to economics.

2. The credit channel for monetary policy; here are the papers, most of all the 1992 piece with Alan Blinder.  Bernanke took an old Keynesian idea and gave it empirical rigor.  During upturns and downturns, does money or credit play the leading role?  Bernanke showed that credit has greater importance.  Bernanke’s work in particular helped combat the Litterman and Weiss paper of 1983; L&W had showed that once you put the nominal interest rate in a Vector Autoregression (a relatively atheoretical statistic technique), money didn’t seem to matter.  Bernanke rescued the relevance of money but showed it mattered through the associated channel of credit.  This work stands among the most important contributions in macroeconomics in the last twenty years.  It also suggests that Bernanke, as Fed chair, will look closely at credit indicators.  Here is a Bernanke speech on money and the stock market.

3. Inflation targeting. Very few if any economists will now defend the old Friedmanesque recipe of monetary targeting or a fixed rule for money supply growth.  It has become increasingly popular to look toward inflation targeting.  New Zealand and Canada led the way in terms of policy when their central banks explicitly adopted a range for inflation targeting; 0-2 percent in the case of New Zealand.  Bernanke would like to see the Fed put greater emphasis on price stability.  He did not invent this view, but he is the individual who made it politically credible.  Right now the major debate in the theory of monetary policy concerns whether inflation targeting should be tight or loose.  Bernanke has been a major force on these issues, and he has often been praised for his leadership in this area, even by those who disagree with him.  Here is a 1999 Bernanke essay on inflation targeting.

4. Causes of the Great Depression; here is one paper, here is part of his book.  Bernanke did a good deal of comparative work and concluded that the Great Depression became great because of deflation, its international transmission, and rigid exchange rate policies.  Recall that Sweden, which cut the link from gold and let its currency float, had a much milder depression during the 1930s.  This has become part of accepted wisdom; in a policy context it implies Bernanke has a low tolerance for deflation.  Here is a Bernanke speech on the Great Depression.  Here is an Anna Schwartz review of his book.

5. The global savings glut.  Trade and budget deficits are enormous, so why aren’t we collapsing?  Why do real interest rates remain so low?  Bernanke cited the possibility of a global savings glut; here is one explanation of the idea, here is another.  The bottom line is this: some Asian countries have high levels of savings, but poor financial institutions.  They invest their savings in the United States, and often we invest in back in Asia.  In essence they are "outsourcing" their savings to foreign financial institutions.  This recycling of Asian savings may help explain what is going on in the global economy.  It also suggests that the current U.S. position is at least temporarily sustainable.  Here is a relevant Bernanke speech; here is some commentary on the idea.

Here is Bernanke’s vita.  Here are his books.  Here is his talk on making the transition from academic life to the policy world.  Here is a White House bio.  Here is Wikipedia.

Bernanke the man? I met him once and had lunch.  He came across as a nice guy; most importantly, he listened to everyone at the table (or at least seemed to!), no matter what their academic status.  In the profession he is popular.

If you know more, comments are open.  Here are various blogger reactions.

The new Fed nominee is Ben Bernanke, an excellent choice and a first-rate economist. 

What must a good Fed chair do? 

1. He should have a mastery of data and an understanding of the macroeconomy.  He must not be a dogmatist.  Bernanke gets an A or A+ here.

2. He should have the ability to lobby the President and Congress for support.  It is not clear who is listening but Bernanke gets in relative terms at least a B+ here.

3. He should have the personality to hang tough.  This requires the "test of time" but we have no reason to be pessimistic.

4. He should recognize that the Fed can only succeed if fiscal policy is responsible.  Give him an A.

5. He should be credible abroad and on Wall Street.  Bernanke is not fully senior in this regard, at least not within the policy community, but he could achieve this stature within a year’s time.  B.

6. He should have that Greenspan magic touch.  Grade?????

Next I will post on Bernanke’s contributions to economics.  Comments are open…

Word is that a successor to Alan Greenspan — or at least the Bush nominee — will be announced later today.  Check back for a report.  Comments on this post are open in case you beat me to the news; I do have a lunch coming up, plus many of you are excellent analysts anyway…

Milton Friedman has long suggested that the social responsibility of business is to maximize profits.  Recently he tried to clarify this view:

I shall try to explain why my statement that “the social responsibility of business [is] to increase its profits”…

Note first that I refer to social responsibility, not financial, or accounting, or legal. It is social precisely to allow for the constituencies to which Mackey refers. Maximizing profits is an end from the private point of view; it is a means from the social point of view. A system based on private property and free markets is a sophisticated means of enabling people to cooperate in their economic activities without compulsion; it enables separated knowledge to assure that each resource is used for its most valued use, and is combined with other resources in the most efficient way.

Of course, this is abstract and idealized. The world is not ideal. There are all sorts of deviations from the perfect market–many, if not most, I suspect, due to government interventions. But with all its defects, the current largely free-market, private-property world seems to me vastly preferable to a world in which a large fraction of resources is used and distributed by 501c(3)s and their corporate counterparts.

Friedman has qualified his social responsibility claim for force and fraud, but what about negative externalities more generally (just ponder Tamiflu licensing if you want the appropriate headache)?  Is Friedman’s claim:

1. Profit maximization is the best rule available, even though it fails society in particular instances (in that case, isn’t there some slightly more convoluted rule that can cover at least some of these situations and modify the outcomes?  If only "very simple" rules are allowed, why?)

2. Businesses have no responsibility to behave in an act utilitarian fashion.  Rules are rules, and we should follow them, come what may.

3. Following the doctrine of fiduciary responsibility — in this case to shareholders — is the greatest social good in these situations.  It outweighs potential act utilitarian considerations pointing in other directions.

4. Force and fraud aside, profit maximization always coincides with the social good, at least in the absence of bad government interventions.

5. It is a public choice argument.  The claim is a noble lie, for otherwise business will be regulated by government in a counterproductive manner.

6. So much anti-corporate nonsense has been written, so we need to shock people with an extreme claim in the opposite direction.

In response to Friedman, John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods, argues: “I believe the entrepreneurs, not the current investors in a company’s stock, have the right and responsibility to define the purpose of the company.” 

My take: No simple rule can sum up what is right to do, for a business or otherwise.  So I have to read Friedman as falling back on #5 and #6, with his partial belief in #4 convincing him he needn’t worry about the complications so much.

Forget about avian flu, I hate waiting in line to board a plane.  But what is the answer?

United Airlines says it believes it has hit on a better solution. It recently announced a logistics ploy it calls Wilma – shorthand for window-middle-aisle – that it claims will cut boarding times by four to five minutes, an eternity in the industry’s on-time takeoff sweepstakes. The idea is to fill the window seats in economy class first, then the middle seats, then the aisle seats, thereby eliminating the free-for-all chaos that clogs the cabin when passengers are sent in by row numbers.

Southwest, of course, eliminates the whole idea of assigned seats.  Or how about some economics?  Charge people for each carry-on, since the bag makes it harder to board (and get off) quickly.  Or have an electronic record of when people manage to reach their seats and buckle their seatbelt.  The sooner you buckle, relative to your position in the plane of course, the greater your chance of a prize or rebate.  Small ideas for a much better world, as they say.

Don’t forget that you can benefit Marginal Revolution, at no cost to yourself, by clicking on the Amazon link at the bottom of the right column or any book link and then making purchases.  Of course, if you would like to contribute directly you can do so via either the Amazon or PayPal "tip jars" at the top left.  Thanks! 

We all know Thomas Schelling’s classic analysis of focal points.  One of his original examples stipulated that two individuals are to meet somewhere in New York City, but they do not know the time or place.  Where would they appear?  Schelling suggested that a twelve noon meeting at Grand Central Station (actually called Grand Central Terminal), beneath the central clock, would be focal.

Focal points change, and of course trains have become a less important form of transportation.  I have been to Manhattan many times, but have not been in GCS in a good twenty years.  And when I take the train, I usually end up getting off at Penn Station.  Stick with noon as the time, which place would you find focal today?  I see a few options:

1. The clock at Grand Central Station remains focal.  Where else to go?  Note the clock stands above the designated information point as well.

2. The clock remains focal, but only because Schelling himself has kept it that way with his analysis.

3. Ground Zero.

4. The Empire State Building.

5. The US Air Shuttle Terminal at La Guardia.

6. A central point at Times Square.

7. The Metropolitan Museum of Art or perhaps at Picasso’s Les Demoiselles D’Avignon painting at MOMA. 

I will opt for number two, but for my mom I would wait on the stairs of the Met.  What do you think?  Comments, of course, are open.

Addendum: Brock Sides picks a focal point for Memphis and for the world; on the latter I say in front of The White House.

Go to www.tradesports.com, click under Current Events, this link helps.  The contract is for whether bird flu is found in the U.S.; more useful would be a contract on whether human-to-human transmission becomes widespread and causes many deaths.  Bird flu in U.S. birds, while terrible for Perdue Chicken, is not what most people care about.  It is in this country, and Western Europe, that bird flu is least likely to mutate into a form deadly for humans.  Right now the market is saying 15 to 18 percent that bird flu will be confirmed in the U.S. before year’s end.

Thanks to Ryan Peterson for the pointer.

The NYTimes Magazine has an excellent article on the housing market based around a discussion of the development firm Toll Brothers.  Bob Toll the president of the firm is predicting that US housing prices will converge with those in Europe.

"In Britain you pay seven times your annual income for a home; in the
U.S. you pay three and a half." The British get 330 square feet, per
person, in their homes; in the U.S., we get 750 square feet. Not only
does Toll say he believes the next generation of buyers will be paying
twice as much of their annual incomes; in terms of space, he also seems
to think they’re going to get only half as much. "And that average,
million-dollar insane home in the burbs? It’s going to be $4 million."

Toll agrees with Glaeser et al. that the key force driving up prices is zoning and growth regulations.  In New Jersey it now takes Toll Brothers up to two million dollars in legal fees and ten years in time to get the permits necessary to build. 

Susan Wachter, a housing economist at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, has an interesting public choice insight about why zoning is worse in Europe.

European towns also have less incentive to encourage development,
Wachter says, because they generally do not, unlike their American
equivalents, depend on their local tax base to pay for education and
services, which tend to be federalized.

This implies that towns in states that reduce their reliance on the property tax – often done, as in CA, in order to "equalize" school funding or other expenditure – will soon restrict development.  Go to it graduate students.

Lots of other interesting material on the organization of the industry.