The influence of Milton Friedman in ending conscription is well-known. But an economist named William Meckling arguably played a larger role, read the story. Many of you will know that Meckling, working with Michael Jensen, made seminal contributions to the theory of the debt-equity ratio. Here’s hoping that Congress meant its recent vote.
And consider these words from David Henderson:
Many of you who have made or are now making your fortunes would not have done so if the draft had been in the way. Consider Bill Gates, who in 1975 dropped out of Harvard to start Microsoft: during the draft years, young men like him who left college risked being certified as prime military meat. Computer programmers and other IT workers, who often do their best work relatively early in life, regularly drop out of college now because high-paying, interesting jobs beckon. If we still had the draft — even a peacetime draft — many wouldn’t have that chance.
People often wonder why today’s 20-somethings have such entrepreneurial spirit. One reason, I believe, is that a whole generation has grown up without the draft looming over its head.
Thanks to Bryan Caplan for the pointer.
Edward Prescott, who picked up the Nobel Prize for Economics, said President George W. Bush tax rate cuts were “pretty small” and should have been bigger.
“What Bush has done has been not very big, it’s pretty small,” Prescott told CNBC financial news television.
“Tax rates were not cut enough,” he said.
Lower tax rates provided an incentive to work, Prescott said.
As spoken, I agree with the words. But I must wonder if negative numbers count as “pretty small”? We all know that Bush has shifted taxes into the future, not cut them. Government spending is a better (albeit still imperfect) measure of what government takes from the economy. And domestic spending is way, way up; read Alex here.
We try to vary our content on MarginalRevolution; still if there were one point that we would make every day, it would be this one. “It’s the spending, stupid,” you might say.
Prescott should not be blamed for any possible misquotation or removal from context of his words by the news media; if there is any economist who understands the difference between real and nominal variables, or the importance of intertemporal budget constraints, it is he. Here is the link.
Ms. Frenkel was not on a date with Mr. Blumberg, in pursuit of a kinky threesome; she was on the clock. A 29-year-old graduate student, she is one of a dozen women who work for a New York-based Web site called Wingwomen.com, earning up to $30 an hour to accompany single men to bars and help them chat up other women. The Web site’s founder, Shane Forbes, a computer programmer, started it in December after realizing he had more success with women when he went to clubs with female friends. “Every time I was with them, I would meet women,” he said.
I find that women often judge a husband by the quality of his wife. We call this a “sufficient statistic.”
But do Wingwomen work for everyone?
When asked about the women he had met, he shrugged. “They are all nice and cute, but two were in insurance, and the other one is from New Jersey.”
Here is the full story. Thanks to Andy for the pointer.
Addendum: Randall Parker discusses other possible dating strategies…don’t be shocked…
The most important application of the time-consistency ideas in Kydland and Prescott’s work (with due credit going also to Barro and Gordon and Kenneth Rogoff) is to monetary policy. Consider a central bank that wants low inflation and low unemployment. To keep inflation low the central bank promises to hold down the growth rate of money. Let us suppose that the public believes the central bank’s promise and as a result they plan on low inflation in their writing of contracts. At some point, however, unemployment will increase and the central bank will be tempted to juice the economy with a spurt of inflation. Since the public has planned on low inflation a higher than expected inflation rate will be very effective at reducing unemployment and thus very tempting.
But the situation that I have just described cannot be a rational equilibrium. When the central bank promises to keep inflation low the public will say, ‘this promise isn’t credible – if we take the central bank at their word they will surely try to deceive us later with high inflation rates’. As a result, the public does not plan on low inflation and when the central bank does want to reduce unemployment it must increase inflation even more than when low inflation was expected. The only equilibrium of this game is one with high inflation and no systematic reduction in unemployment.
How can we improve the situation? Surprisingly, a nasty central banker can make everyone better off. A nasty central banker cares only about reducing inflation and not at all about reducing unemployment (think fat-cat Republican living off fixed income bonds). Precisely because a nasty central banker won’t juice the economy to reduce unemployment, the nasty central banker can credibly commit to keep inflation low. The public believes the promise and safely plans for low inflation. Unemployment is the same in both scenarios – because the central bank can never systematically surprise the public with higher than expected inflation – but inflation itself is lower with the nasty central banker and thus the public is better off.
Thomas Schelling once described a similar idea this way: If you are kidnapped who do you want in charge of the negotiations, your loving wife or your nasty ex-wife? Easy, right? But suppose that the kidnappers know in advance who will be in charge of the negotiations – now who do you want? See? Sometimes, nasty people do good things.
Tyler has commented on the time-consistency problem so I will post on the other contribution for which Kydland and Prescott were awarded the Nobel, real business cycles. (I see now that Tyler also has a post on real business cycles – that guy is fast!.)
Recessions have almost always been thought of as a failure of market economies. Different theories point to somewhat different failures, in Keynesian theories it’s a failure of aggregate demand, in Austrian theories a mismatch between investment and consumption demand, in monetarist theories a misallocation of resource due to a confusion of real and nominal price signals. In some of these theories government actions may prompt the problem but the recession itself is still conceptualized as an error, a problem and a waste.
Kydland and Prescott show that a recession may be a purely optimal and in a sense desirable response to natural shocks. The idea is not so counter-intuitive as it may seem. Consider Robinson Crusoe on a desert island (I owe this analogy to Tyler). Every day Crusoe ventures onto the shoals of his island to fish. One day a terrible storm arises and he sits the day out in his hut – Crusoe is unemployed. Another day he wanders onto the shoals and he finds an especially large school of fish so he works long hours that day – Crusoe is enjoying a boom economy. Add to Crusoe’s economy some investment goods, nets for example, that take “time to build.” A shock on day one will now exert an influence on the following days even if the shock itself goes away – Crusoe begins making the nets when it rains but in order to finish them he continues the next day when it shines. Thus, Crusoe’s fish GDP falls for several days in a row – first because of the shock and then because of his choice to build nets, an optimal response to the shock.
An analogy is one thing but K and P showed that a model built from exactly the same microeconomic forces as in the Crusoe economy could duplicate many of the relevant statistics of the US economy over the past 50 years. This was a real shock to economists! There are no sticky prices in K & P’s model, no systematic errors or confusions over nominal versus real prices and no unexploited profit opportunities. A perfectly competitive economy with no deviations from classical Arrow-Debreu assumptions could/would exhibit behavior like the US economy.
Models like K & P’s called dynamic, stochastic, general equilibrium (DSGE) models are now the standard in macroeconomics but today they may also include demand side shocks and sticky prices as well as real shocks. Thus thesis has met anti-thesis and the synthesis has demand and supply shocks both contributing to business cycles.
Addendum: More at the Nobel site.
Most nineteenth century theories of the business cycle were real (non-monetary) in nature, often involving agricultural causes. The harvest is bad and next thing you know, the economy stands in ruins. A pretty good theory when agriculture accounts for more than half of gdp. The Swede Knut Wicksell stood at the peak of this tradition, although he used changes in the natural rate of interest as a more general way of thinking about the initial real shock. In the basic Wicksellian story, a decline in the real rate of return causes entrepreneurs to contract their economic activity. Money and credit contract as well, leading to a downward “cumulative process.”
Real business cycle theory to some extent went underground during the “years of high theory.” Both Hayek and Keynes, while they drew from Wicksell, diverted our attentions away from traditional real business cycle theory mechanisms. Hayek blamed monetary expansion, while Keynes focused more on issues of animal spirits and liquidity premia, and sometimes sticky prices. Kalecki and others worked on the real approach, but it lost its professional centrality.
The rational expectations revolution of the 1970s led us back to real approaches. If people anticipate the future with a fair degree of accuracy and rationality, money will likely be neutral or close to neutral. Furthermore if all markets clear, there should be no room for sticky prices and wages. So what else is left other than real theories of the business cycle?
Any business cycle theory, real or not, must account for at least two generalized phenomena of business cycles: persistence (the cycle is not over right away but rather drags on) and comovement (many sectors of the economy move together). Kydland and Prescott were among the first people to see this problem (kudos to Long, King, and Plosser as well), and among the first to address it.
Kydland and Prescott wrote a seminal article (Econometrica 1982) about “Time to Build and Aggregate Fluctuations.” They resurrected the old Austrian concept of a “period of production.” But rather than engaging in the metaphysics of capital theory, they ran some simulations. They showed that if production takes time, an initial negative shock can cause lower inputs and outputs over a longer period of time. Furthermore they showed that reasonable assumptions about parameter values can lead this mechanism to fit the real world. This article made an immediate splash, and rightly so.
Now today the purely real approach to business cycles no longer stands. Wage and price stickiness now play some role in virtually all business cycle theories, if only because labor market data otherwise appear inexplicable. But you might also say that today “we are all real business cycle theorists.” Most economists subscribe to a hybrid theory involving monetary shocks, real shocks, and imperfect adjustment mechanisms. All of these theories, to some extent or another, rely on the real transmission mechanisms outlined by Kydland, Prescott, and others.
This year’s Nobel Prize in economics went to Finn Kydland and Edward Prescott . Kydland and Prescott wrote a famous 1977 piece (Journal of Political Economy) on time inconsistency. Ever wonder why government policy toward prescription drugs is so problematic? Kydland and Prescott had the answer. The optimal policy will first award the drugmakers a patent and allow them to charge a high price. But once the drug is developed, the “rents” will be confiscated. Optimal policy will revoke the patent and lower the price. After all, once you have the drug. why not let everybody have it cheaply? Of course the drugmakers are aware of this danger in advance, and they are correspondingly reluctant to develop new drugs. Alex posted on this logic just days ago.
In more formal language, the optimal policy is not a time consistent policy. This develops earlier ideas from Thomas Schelling on game theory. Schelling’s point was that nuclear deterrence can fail because, once destruction is aimed your way, you don’t necessarily wish to retaliate.
The logic of time consistency is quite general. It applies to regulatory policy issues, tax policy, monetary policy, foreign policy (threaten Saddam, but do you really want to have go to through with it?), and strategic behavior in a wide variety of settings.
Here are my earlier comments on Prescott, which link to other facets of his work. He arguably has enough contributions to win the prize twice. Kydland is less well known but is an important figure nonetheless. And it doesn’t hurt that he is Scandinavian (Norwegian).
Are the pair deserving? Absolutely yes.
Why did they win this year? I’m guessing that in the midst of a partisan U.S. election, the Swedes did not want to pick Paul Krugman or Robert Barro (pro-Bush), for fearing of appearing too political. Note that the economics prize has stood under criticism for some time now, for not being “scientific” enough.
And this pick the betting market got right. Prescott had opened up a clear lead in the betting market some time ago.
It’s acceptable for consumers to use software that edits out nudity or bad language from a DVD movie — but they had better leave the commercials and promotional announcements in, according to legislation adopted by the House of Representatives this week.
Here is the full story.
It is easy to see how this differential treatment might be efficient. Sex-edited DVDs increase market value by giving some parents a choice. Yet at the same time ads in DVDs help fund new issues; if consumers found the ads too burdensome the DVD makers would leave them out (admittedly the marginal consumers may not represent the interests of the market as a whole, but this is a special case).
Yet many people — myself included — feels a twinge of disapproval, or perhaps even slight rage, on reading the quotation above. It reflects how our intuitions are programmed to reflect views about autonomy and control: “How come prudish moralists can remove artistically vital movie segments, but hip culture fiends cannot eliminate the offensive abominations known as commercials?”
The prudes gain control, the artists and film directors lose control over their product, and the culture fields are stuck with their initial level of control. It seems that only the “unworthy” gain autonomy, therefore the idea must be a bad one. Yet, as stated above, the policy probably maximizes economic value.
The bottom line: Our moral intuitions have only a very loose connection to long-run efficiency, especially when impersonal market forces are involved, and someone bears an annoying cost (i.e., commercials) in the short run.
Addendum: One of my readers cites the long-run elasticity of prudishness, in an attempt to reconcile our intuitions with efficiency. If edited DVDs lower the cost of being an (interfering) prude, they may not be so good after all.
Will your children see an exponential growth explosion? Here is Robin Hanson’s latest:
A revised postcard summary of life, the universe, and everything, therefore, is that an exponentially growing universe gave life to a sequence of faster and faster exponential growth modes, first among the largest animal brains, then for the wealth of human hunters, then farmers, and then industry. It seems that each new growth mode starts when the previous mode reaches a certain enabling scale. That is, humans may not grow via culture until animal brains are large enough, farming may not be feasible until hunters are dense enough, and industry may not be possible until there are enough farmers.
Notice how many “important events” are left out of this postcard summary. Language, fire, writing, cities, sailing, printing presses, steam engines, electricity, assembly lines, radio, and hundreds of other “key” innovations are not listed separately here. You see, most big changes are just a part of some growth mode, and do not cause an increase in the growth rate. While we do not know what exactly has made growth rates change, we do see that the number of such causes so far can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
While growth rates have varied widely, growth rate changes have been remarkably consistent — each mode grew from one hundred and fifty to three hundred times faster than its predecessor. Also, the recent modes have made a similar number of doublings. While the universe has barely completed one doubling time, and the largest animals grew through sixteen doublings, hunting grew through nine doublings, farming grew through seven and a half doublings, and industry has so far done a bit over nine doublings.
This pattern explains event clustering – transitions between faster growth modes that double a similar number of times must cluster closer and closer in time. But looking at this pattern, I cannot help but wonder: are we in the last mode, or will there be more?
If a new growth transition were to be similar to the last few, in terms of the number of doublings and the increase in the growth rate, then the remarkable consistency in the previous transitions allows a remarkably precise prediction. A new growth mode should arise sometime within about the next seven industry mode doublings (i.e., the next seventy years) and give a new wealth doubling time of between seven and sixteen days. Such a new mode would surely count as “the next really big enormous thing.”
Read the whole thing. Yes you should pay attention to these ideas; even if their chance of being right is small, their expected value in terms of importance is high. That being said, I sometimes tease Robin for offering us a secular version of Pascal’s Wager.
Note that Robin makes Arnold Kling look like a pessimist.
Wondrous Strange, the new biography of late Canadian pianist Glenn Gould is splendid, even in a relatively crowded field. If you’re not tuned into the obsession, try Gould’s rendition of Bach’s Partitia #1, in B flat major; this is perhaps my favorite classical music recording of all time. Don’t forget these either.
George Bush during the second debate:
Non-homeland, non-defense discretionary spending was raising at 15 percent a year when I got into office. And today it’s less than 1 percent, because we’re working together to try to bring this deficit under control.
Kevin Drum makes it simple.
Here’s the truth about non-defense discretionary spending over the past six administrations:
Nixon/Ford: 6.8% per year
Carter: 2.0% per year
Reagan: -1.3% per year
Bush 1: 4.0% per year
Clinton: 2.5% per year
Bush Jr: 8.2% per year
All percentages are adjusted for inflation. The chart on the right shows raw figures for the past three administrations (from the Congressional Budget Office).
In my recent post on pharmaceutical regulation I wrote:
In the pharmaceutical market the major costs are all fixed costs (they don’t vary much with market size) so profit =P*Q-F. Acemoglu and Linn look at changes in Q but a 1% change in P has exactly the same effects on profits, and thus presumably on R&D, as a 1% change in Q.
But as Bernie Yomtov pointed out to me a reduction in P will increase Q. Ugh, an economist who has to be reminded about the law of demand. Embarrassing. The argument goes through if demand is quite inelastic which makes sense for a lot of drugs given that the price to the final consumer is low to begin with due to insurance – nevertheless the result is not so clean. Indeed, because of the envelope theorem a small change in P will have only a very small change in profits. Sadly, I teach this to my students regularly. Did I mention that I have had the flu this week?
“A bubble is good for growth because it creates a low cost environment for experimentation.”
Here is the full argument. I am prepared to believe that the government should not try to regulate or otherwise restrict bubbles. Why should we think that governments can outguess traders? And bubbles help finance socially worthwhile ideas that may not have high private returns. But would I wish that traders had less “bubbly” temperaments?
Thanks to www.politicaltheory.info for the link.
Who needs an entire boyfriend, when you can have just one part? The Japanese have an answer to this question.
Thanks to Yana for the pointer.