Category: History
What should I ask Katja Hoyer?
Yes, I will be doing a Conversation with her. Here is Wikipedia:
Hoyer was born in Wilhelm-Pieck-Stadt Guben, Bezirk Cottbus, German Democratic Republic (GDR), where her mother was a teacher and her father an officer of the National People’s Army. She received a Master’s degree from the University of Jena and moved to the United Kingdom in about 2010.
Hoyer is a visiting research fellow at King’s College London and has published two books about the history of Germany. She is also a journalist for The Spectator, The Washington Post, Times Literary Supplement, UnHerd, and Die Welt.
Her first book, Blood and Iron, about the German Empire from 1871 to 1918, was well reviewed, even though some reviewers suggested that she had played down the negative aspects of the period and of Otto von Bismarck‘s legacy. Her second book, Beyond the Wall, about the history of the GDR from 1949 to 1990, was well reviewed in the United Kingdom, but less well received in Germany.
She also has a new, forthcoming book on the history of the city of Weimar, namely Weimar: Life on the Edge of Catastrophe. So what should I ask her?
Physician Incomes and the Extreme Shortage of High IQ Workers
Physician incomes are extraordinarily high in the United States. A new NBER paper finds that U.S. physicians earn roughly two to four times as much as their counterparts in Canada, the Netherlands, and Sweden.
Why? Is it some feature particular to the US health care sector? Probably not. The same paper finds that physicians in the US have about the same relative income ranking as in Canada, the Netherlands, and Sweden. In other words, lots of high-skill workers in the US earn high incomes and physicians don’t look unusual relative to these other high-skill groups.
That is exactly what one would expect in an economy with an extreme shortage of high-IQ, high-skill workers. The US is a uniquely productive economy for high-skill workers which is why the US demand for foreign workers and the foreign demand to immigrate are so strong, especially at the high end.. By one estimate, “immigrants account for 32 percent of aggregate U.S. innovation.”
Immigration of high-skill workers such as with the H-1B and EB-1,2,3 programs, together with stronger U.S. education, is one way to reduce the shortage of high-skill workers. The alternative is simpler: make the economy less dynamic and less rewarding for talent. Then wages would fall and fewer ambitious people would bother coming. A solution but only if your preferred cure for scarcity is decline.
On the Giving Pledge
From my latest piece from The Free Press:
A lot of America’s most effective giving was done by the early “robber barons,” such as Carnegie, Mellon, and Rockefeller. Andrew Carnegie, for instance, helped to create what is now Carnegie-Mellon University, and Carnegie libraries to this day dot the country and encourage literacy and reading. The Mellon and Rockefeller art collections seeded some of America’s highest quality museums.
None of this was done with any kind of pledge. Those great 19th-century industrialists pursued high-quality philanthropic opportunities when they saw them, unencumbered by today’s massive foundation staffs. If a town wanted to set up a Carnegie library, they had to meet some standard criteria, and they started by sending a letter to Carnegie’s private secretary, James Bertram. The Carnegie Corporation, which in later years led much of the philanthropy, had mainly clerical staff and did not have a full-time salaried president until after Carnegie’s death. It remains to be seen whether today’s philanthropists, including the ones who signed the Giving Pledge, will do as well.
There is much more at the link.
More on the David Lang opera version of Wealth of Nations
In 18 parts, Lang explores some of Smith’s central themes, including one of the book’s most famous passages, where Smith uses a wool coat worn by a very poor Scottish worker as a way to examine trade. “He asks, ‘Did you ever think of how many people need to be employed in order to make that coat?’” says Lang, whose movement “the woolen coat” names all the artisans and laborers who contributed to the garment in song:
the shepherd
the sorter of the wool
the wool-comber or carder
the dyer
the spinner
the weaver
the fuller
There are also the workers on the ship that brought in the dye and all the people who built the ship. An ordinary coat is revealed to be a kind of miracle of skilled labor and global collaboration, the product of “many thousands” of workers coming together in (selfish) harmony. Part of me wanted to run out of the theater right then and buy something … perhaps a coat… for America.
Here is more from Bloomberg, via John De Palma. The opera seems to be ultimately a rather gloomy view of the book?
The hyper-NIMBY of earlier Cape Town and South Africa
The most controversial of the forced removals occurred in the second half of the 1960s, with the expulsion of 65,000 coloureds from District Six, a vibrant inner-city ward of Cape Town, where whites, many of the slumlords, owned 56% of the property. Against their will, District Six residents were moved out to the sandy townships of the Cape Flats. In Johannesburg, the inner-city suburb of Sophiatown, where blacks could own freehold property, was another notorious site of forced removals. Often long-established community institutions such as churches and schools had to be abandoned.
That is from the very good book by Hermann Giliomee The Afrikaners: A Concise History.
What should I ask Toby Wilkinson?
Yes I will be doing a Conversation with him. He is one of the leading historians of ancient Egypt, and he has a recent book out on Ptolemaic Egypt, namely The Last Dynasty: Ancient Egypt from Alexander the Great to Cleopatra.
Here is his Wikipedia page, he also has served as Vice Chancellor of Fiji National University, and worked extensively as a development director for Cambridge. Here is his personal home page.
So what should I ask him?
Why is the USDA Involved in Housing?!
In yesterday’s post, The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, I wrote that Trump’s Executive Order “cuts off institutional home investors from FHA insurance, VA guarantees and USDA backing…”. The USDA is of course the United States Department of Agriculture. In the comments, Hazel Meade writes:
USDA? Wait, what????
Why is the USDA in any way involved in housing financing?
Are we humanly capable of organizing anything in a rational way?
It’s a good question. The answer is a great illustration of the March of Dimes syndrome. The USDA got involved with housing in the late 1940s with the Farmers Home Administration. The original rationale was to support farmers, farm workers and agricultural communities with housing assistance on the theory that housing was needed for farming and the purpose of the USDA was to improve farming. Not great economic reasoning but I’ll let it pass.
Well U.S. farm productivity roughly tripled between 1948 and the 1990s as family farms became technologically sophisticated big businesses. So was the program ended? Of course not. Over time the program subtly shifted from farmers to “rural communities”–the shift happened over decades although it was officially recognized in 1994 when the Farmers Home Administration was renamed the Rural Housing Service. Today rural essentially means low population density which no longer has any strong connection to agriculture.
So that’s the story of how the US Department of Agriculture came to run a roughly $10 billion annual housing program for non-farmers in non-agricultural communities. And how does it do this? By supporting no-money-down direct lending and a 90 percent guarantee to approved private lenders. Lovely.
It’s a small program in the national totals, but an amusing example of the US government robbing Peter to pay Paul and then forgetting why Paul needed the money in the first place.
On the future of war
Murphy: What do you think we need to do to avoid major conflict over the next 25 years? Or do you think it can be avoided?
Cowen: I just think there’ll be more festering conflicts. Consider the difference between World War One and World War Two. World War two is very decisively settled. That’s quite rare in history. And you had a clear, small number of victors that largely agreed. And US & UK set things up. That didn’t happen after World War One.
Yeah, there was a League of Nations that didn’t work. It collapsed again. Future conflicts will be more like World War One than World War Two. Yeah, there’s too many nuclear weapons out there, for one thing. Are we really going to decisively defeat Russia in anything, ever? Who knows? But I wouldn’t count on it.
I’m very struck by this recent conflict between Thailand and Cambodia, which is a nothing burger, but I think people are making a mistake by ignoring it. What it’s showing us is that two countries can find it worthwhile to conduct a nothing burger war every now and then a few weeks, and it’s never really over.
It never really escalates. It just goes on and I think we’ll just see more of that. East Africa feels quite dangerous at the moment.
Murphy: I mean, Azerbaijan.
Cowen: Things like that. And they’ll just multiply and not quite. You know, some of them will be settled. But as a whole, they won’t be settled, and they won’t give birth to, like, the new UN, the new Bretton Woods, the new whatever. The A’s will build their own institutions. Let’s wish them luck.
That was recorded several months ago with Nebular, here are the links:
We’ve just published the video on YouTube, X, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts. We also published some extended show notes and the transcript on Substack.
How frequent are price bubbles?
We examine the historical frequency of stock market booms, crashes, and bubbles in the United States from 1792 to 2024 using aggregate market data and industry-level portfolios. We define a bubble as a large boom followed by a crash that reverses the market’s prior gains. Bubbles are extremely rare. We extend the industry-level analysis of Greenwood, Shleifer, and You (2019) through 2024 and replicate their findings out of sample using Cowles Commission industry data from 1871 to 1938. Booms do not reliably predict crashes, but they do predict higher subsequent volatility, increasing the likelihood of both large gains and large losses.
That is from a new NBER working paper by William N. Goetzmann, Otto Manninen, and James Tyler.
The Vietnam War and racial integration
The Vietnam draft conscripted hundreds of thousands of young Americans into an integrated military. I combine near-random draft lottery variation with administrative voter data to study the long-run racial integration effects of coerced national service. Black and Native American veterans became more likely to marry white spouses, identify as Republicans, and live in more-integrated neighborhoods. Improved economic standing may partly mediate these effects. Effects are larger for Southerners and are precisely null for white veterans. Coerced military service generates substantial but asymmetric cross-racial political convergence and racial integration: Vietnam-era service caused about 20 percent of affected cohorts’ interracial marriages.
That is from a recent NBER working paper by Zachary Bleemer.
My Conversation with the excellent Henry Oliver
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. In the first half of the episode we discuss Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, and then move on to other topics. Here is the episode summary:
Henry Oliver is the preeminent literary critic for non-literary nerds. His Substack, The Common Reader, has thousands of subscribers drawn in by Henry’s conviction that great literature is where ideas “walk and talk amongst the mess of the real world” in a way no other discipline can match. Tyler, who has called Henry’s book Second Act “one of the very best books written on talent,” sat down with him to compare readings of Measure for Measure and range across English literature more broadly.
Tyler and Henry trade rival readings of the play, debate whether Isabella secretly seduces Angelo, argue over whether the Duke’s proposal is closer to liberation or enslavement, trace the play’s connections to The Merchant of Venice and The Rape of Lucrece, assess the parallels to James I, weigh whether it’s a Girardian play (Oliver: emphatically not), and parse exactly what Isabella means when she says “I did yield to him,” before turning to the best way to consume Shakespeare, what Jane Austen took from Adam Smith, why Swift may be the most practically intelligent writer in English, how advertising really works and why most of it doesn’t, which works in English literature are under- and overrated, what makes someone a late bloomer, whether fiction will deal seriously with religion again, whether Ayn Rand’s villains are more relevant now than ever, and much more.
Excerpt:
COWEN: Now, before doing your current work, you were in advertising for almost a decade. How do you feel that work in advertising has shaped how you read literature?
OLIVER: [laughs] I try to keep them very separate. I try not to let advertising—
COWEN: You try, but I’m sure you fail.
OLIVER: —pollute my readings of literature.
COWEN: Why is it a pollution?
OLIVER: Because advertising is not a great art, and to apply the principles of advertising to literature would be a diminishment.
COWEN: You don’t have to apply the principles. Advertising gives you insight into what people value, how people respond, and that’s also a part of literature.
OLIVER: It is if you take advertising not to mean headlines and banner ads and things like that, but to mean the calling of attention to some particular thing of importance. You can see that a lot of the great writers were very good advertisers of their own work, of their own ideas.
COWEN: Swift in particular.
OLIVER: Swift is very, very good at advertising. If you wanted to be obtuse, you could reframe his whole career as an exercise in lobbying and PR, and realize that no one’s ever been as good at it as he was.
COWEN: So, your favorite authors are the ones who are best at advertising is what you’re now telling us.
OLIVER: I have a very catholic view of literature, and I admire those writers who are practical and can do a lot of different things. I love Samuel Johnson, and one reason is that he can write a sermon, a legal opinion, an advert—almost anything you want. I think the literary talent can often be turned to those multiple uses.
COWEN: Why isn’t there more creativity in advertising? So much of it, to me, seems stupid and boring.
OLIVER: Yes.
COWEN: You would think, well, if they had a clever ad that people would talk about, it would be better, but that doesn’t happen. Is it a market failure, or it’s actually more or less optimal?
OLIVER: I don’t think it’s optimal. We don’t know how well advertising works, and we’re still impeded in that because of the laws about who you can and cannot target on the internet. I think most people would actually be surprised, if they went into an advertising agency, to learn just how poorly we can target people. Everyone thinks they’re being targeted all the time, but being followed by a toaster advert is really quite basic, and everyone uses the same toaster example because everyone’s being followed by the same bloody toaster. That’s not targeting.
I think they’ve been taken over by bad ideas. There are two competing schools of advertising. One of them is the hard sell, where you put a lot of information and facts, and you name the product a lot. “Buy this aspirin. It cures headaches three times quicker than other brands. We did a study—38 percent of people . . .” And you just hammer it all the time.
The other advertising school is image-based. Arthur Rubicam wrote those wonderful Steinway adverts. The instrument of the immortals. Have you brought great music into your home? The woman in the dress at the piano. You’re buying a whole mood or a vibe. The peak of that is like the tiger on the Frosty cereal packet. You don’t need words. Or the Marlboro Man—you buy these cigarettes. You’re going to look like that cowboy in that shirt, and you’re going to smoke. You’re going to feel like a man, and it’s just going to be great. Coors Light does that now.
Then there was this terrible, terrible thing called the Creative Revolution in the 1960s, where supposedly—this is like the modernism of advertising.
Definitely recommended, and do get out your copy of the Shakespeare.
Addendum: Here are comments from Henry.
Chaos and Misallocation under Price Controls
My latest paper, Chaos and Misallocation under Price Controls, (with Brian Albrecht and Mark Whitmeyer) has a new take on price controls:
Price controls kill the incentive for arbitrage. We prove a Chaos Theorem: under a binding price ceiling, suppliers are indifferent across destinations, so arbitrarily small cost differences can determine the entire allocation. The economy tips to corner outcomes in which some markets are fully served while others are starved; small parameter changes flip the identity of the corners, generating discontinuous welfare jumps. These corner allocations create a distinct source of cross-market misallocation, separate from the aggregate quantity loss (the Harberger triangle) and from within-market misallocation emphasized in prior work. They also create an identification problem: welfare depends on demand far from the observed equilibrium. We derive sharp bounds on misallocation that require no parametric assumptions. In an efficient allocation, shadow prices are equalized across markets; combined with the adding-up constraint, this collapses the infinite-dimensional welfare problem to a one-dimensional search over a common shadow price, with extremal losses achieved by piecewise-linear demand schedules. Calibrating the bounds to stationlevel AAA survey data from the 1973–74 U.S. gasoline crisis, misallocation losses range from roughly 1 to 9 times the Harberger triangle.
Brian has a superb write up that makes the paper very accessible. Unfortunately, the paper is timely and relevant.
What should I ask Katja Hoyer?
Yes I will be doing a Conversation with her. She is the author of a forthcoming book on Weimar, namely Weimar: Life on the Edge of Catastrophe. Note that much of the book considers the city of Weimar, mostly in Nazi times, and not just the Weimar era. She also has published Beyond the Wall: A History of East Germany, and Blood and Iron: The Rise and Fall of the German Empire 1871-1918. She is active in journalism, podcasting, and is a visiting research fellow at King’s College London. She was born in East Germany and is both British and German.
So what should I ask her?
One measure of economics GOAT
Who is the greatest economist of all time? This paper provides one potential measure that, along with other considerations, can contribute to debates on who the greatest economist of all time is. We build a novel dataset on the percentage of history of economic thought textbooks dedicated to top economists, using 43 distinct textbooks (1st editions, when available) published between 1901 and 2023. As a percentage of total book pages, Adam Smith has the highest share at 6.69%, beating out Ricardo (5.22%), Mill (3.83%), and Marx (4.36%). Just over 32% of all textbooks allocated most of their pages to Adam Smith, followed by Marx with 18.6%, Mill with 13.95%, and Ricardo with 11.3%. While interesting as a history of economic thought project, such an exercise isn’t merely amusing pedantry; it can provide insight into the types of contributions, research questions, and methodologies that have had the most enduring impact in economics. It may also inform future authors of history of economic textbooks.
That is from a new paper by Gabriel Benzecry and Daniel J. Smith. There is of course also my generative book on this topic at econgoat.ai.
The Macroeconomic Effects of Tariffs
We study the macroeconomic effects of tariff policy using U.S. historical data from 1840–2024. We construct a narrative series of plausibly exogenous tariff changes – based on major legislative actions, multilateral negotiations, and temporary surcharges – and use it as an instrument to identify a structural tariff shock. Tariff increases are contractionary: imports fall sharply, exports decline with a lag, and output and manufacturing activity drop persistently. The shock transmits through both supply and demand channels. Prices rise in the full sample but fall post-World War II, a pattern consistent with changes in the monetary policy response and with stronger international retaliation and reciprocity in the modern trade regime.
That is from a new NBER working paper by