This site has moved to
The posts below are backup copies from the new site.

June 5, 2014

Latest Posts from Economist's View

Latest Posts from Economist's View

TIGER Forum 2014 Joseph Stiglitz Lecture: Creating a Learning Society

Posted: 05 Jun 2014 02:46 AM PDT

'Growth Has Been Good for Decades. So Why Hasn’t Poverty Declined?'

Posted: 05 Jun 2014 01:40 AM PDT

Neil Irwin on a new study from the EPI:

Growth Has Been Good for Decades. So Why Hasn't Poverty Declined?: The surest way to fight poverty is to achieve stronger economic growth. That, anyway, is a view embedded in the thinking of a lot of politicians and economists. ...
But over the last generation in the United States, that simply hasn't happened. Growth has been pretty good, up 147 percent per capita. But rather than decline further, the poverty rate has bounced around in the 12 to 15 percent range — higher than it was even in the early 1970s. The mystery of why — and how to change that — is one of the most fundamental challenges in the nation's fight against poverty.
The disconnect between growth and poverty reduction is a key finding of a sweeping new study of wages from the Economic Policy Institute. ... From 1959 to 1973, a more robust United States economy and fewer people living below the poverty line went hand-in-hand. That relationship broke apart in the mid-1970s. If the old relationship between growth and poverty had held up, the E.P.I. researchers find, the poverty rate in the United States would have fallen to zero by 1986 and stayed there ever since. ...
...low-income workers are putting in more hours on the job than they did a generation ago — and the financial rewards for doing so just haven't increased. ...[T]he facts ... cast doubt on the notion that growth alone will solve America's poverty problem. ... That's the real lesson of the data: If you want to address poverty in the United States, it's not enough to say that you need to create better incentives for lower-income people to work. You also have to devise strategies that make the benefits of a stronger economy show up in the wages of the people on the edge of poverty, who need it most desperately.

I think it's also important to understand why the distribution of income changed in the 1970s. It's not enough to say that the rewards have flowed to those at the top because of their increased contribution to society, as productivity has risen since the 1970s workers have contributed more, but their compensation has not increased commensurately. My own belief is that changes in economic power and the political power that comes with it have distorted income flows and changed the rules of the game in a way that favors those at the top. Thus, it's not that those at the top deserve what they have received because of their contributions, though perhpas it's partly that, it's also due to a change in the way income is distributed arising from changes in economic/political power.

Do Low Cause 'Reach for Yield'?

Posted: 05 Jun 2014 12:33 AM PDT

John Cochrane:

Sugar Mountain: ...Itamar Drechsler, Alexi Savov, and Philipp Schnabl's "Model of Monetary Policy and Risk Premia" ... addresses a very important issue. The policy and commentary community keeps saying that the Federal Reserve has a big effect on risk premiums by its control of short-term rates. Low interest rates are said to spark a "reach for yield," and encourage investors, and too big to fail banks especially, to take on unwise risks. This story has become a central argument for hawkishness at the moment. The causal channel is just stated as fact. But one should not accept an argument just because one likes the policy result.
Nice story. Except there is about zero economic logic to it. The level of nominal interest rates and the risk premium are two totally different phenomena. Borrowing at 5% and making a risky investment at 8%, or borrowing at 1% and making a risky investment at 4% is exactly the same risk-reward tradeoff. ...
OK, enter  Drechsler, Savov, and Schnabl. They have a real, economic model of the phenomenon. That's great. We may disagree, but the only way to understand this issue is to write down a model, not to tell stories. ...
Read the paper for more. I have come to praise it not to criticize it. Real, solid, quantiative economic models are just what we need to have a serious discussion. This is a really important and unsolved question, which I will close by restating:

Does monetary policy, by controlling the level of short term rates, substantially affect risk premiums? If so, how?

Of course, maybe the answer is "it doesn't."

[See the original post for the technical arguments and "money illusion" intuition for the results in the paper. This has been a key argument behind the call to increase the Fed's target rate now rather than later, so it's an important issue.]

'Capital Controls in the 21st Century'

Posted: 05 Jun 2014 12:24 AM PDT

Barry Eichengreen and Andrew Rose:

Capital controls in the 21st century, by Barry Eichengreen, Andrew K Rose, Vox EU: Summary Since the global financial crisis of 2008–2009, opposition to the use of capital controls has weakened, and some economists have advocated their use as a macroprudential policy instrument. This column shows that capital controls have rarely been used in this way in the past. Rather than moving with short-term macroeconomic variables, capital controls have tended to vary with financial, political, and institutional development. This may be because governments have other macroeconomic policy instruments at their disposal, or because suddenly imposing capital controls would send a bad signal.

Links for 6-05-14

Posted: 05 Jun 2014 12:06 AM PDT

No comments: