Tag Archives: economics

the end of “shareholder primacy”

Leave a reply

From Project Syndicate:

The Business Roundtable, an association of the most powerful chief executive officers in the United States, announced this month that the era of shareholder primacy is over.

Does this signal a new era where companies consider a broader range of values and stakeholders than just the latest stock value? Stakeholders could include employees, customers, and maybe even present and future generations of the public at large, for example. Let’s not get too crazy and include plants, animals, and rocks just yet. Not so fast – according to this article, this is just a reaction to the growing power of institutional investors such as pension funds. Rich and powerful managers and board members are trying to protect their own jobs and fortunes like they always do.

data-driven economics 101

Leave a reply

This article in Vox is about an entirely data-driven approach to introductory economics. The idea of asking students to discover their own theories is an interesting one, but in most fields I do think there is an established body of theory and standard practice that students should learn before they are qualified to go off reinventing their own wheels. If a new generation doesn’t know what they don’t know, they have to reinvent everything and society doesn’t make progress.

Joseph Stiglitz’s Economic Platform

Leave a reply

Joseph Stiglitz has a new book on what he thinks an evidence-based progressive economic platform should look like. I admit, I haven’t read the book, but I have read this Axios summary of the book. And here is my summary of that summary:

  • “the government should spend as much money as it takes to bring the economy to full employment.” Nicely put.
  • strong antitrust action, including against social media companies
  • a federal job guarantee, but no universal basic income or explicitly race-based reparations
  • the ability to opt in the Medicare
  • (optional) mortgages provided by the government (well, don’t we have something close to this already? I guess it’s just that private banks get their cut before they hand it over to an “implicitly” government-backed lender. I guess you could cut out the middleman.
  • Higher education funded by a progressive tax on post-graduation earnings: “Graduates earning more than $30,000 might pay 1% of their income toward repaying their student loans; those on seven-figure salaries might pay 4%. After 25 years, the loans are forgiven.” He doesn’t specify this has to be public schools only, although it seems to me this would blur the distinction. And if this federal program existed, is it possible states would reduce or end their funding for state schools and blur the distinction even more?

This all sounds good to me. Add some serious research spending and it just might work. The jobs guarantee might work, but would have to be coupled with a stronger disability, mental health and substance addiction safety net than we have now.

where academic economics is headed

Leave a reply

Writing in Boston Review, Harvard Professor Dani Rodrik and others talk about how public opinion has turned against the economics profession to some extent over the last decade or so, and how academic economists are trying to engage with the issues of the day, including inequality, technological change and climate change.

  • economic history
  • behavioral economics
  • the study of culture (hmm, not sure if economists first thought of this one…)
  • wealth concentration
  • costs of climate change, and setting an appropriate carbon price
  • “concentration of important markets” (maybe this means concentration of a few firms within a given market?)
  • working class income stagnation
  • social mobility
  • empirical data analysis to test and confirm theory
  • analysis and study of institutions
  • appropriate allocation of property rights, including “intellectual property”
  • innovation, technological change, and their effects on growth and labor markets
  • money, power, and politics

They list a few “economic universals” which they think will never change: “market-based incentives, clear property rights, contract enforcement, macroeconomic stability, and prudential regulation”. Traditional topics that will probably always be studied include labor, credit, and insurance markets; tax, fiscal and monetary policy; international trade; recessions and financial crises; public goods and social insurance programs. I had to look up prudential regulation, which is basically capital requirements and limits on risk in the banking sector.

best books of 2018 (Project Syndicate)

Leave a reply

Project Syndicate is one of my favorite sources of commentary on economics and geopolitics. In this post, their contributors each name some of their favorite books of 2018, which, perhaps not surprisingly, mostly cover economics and geopolitics. I would love to read almost everything on this list, but I’ll mention 10 just for brevity.

November 2018 in Review

Leave a reply

Most frightening and/or depressing stories:

  • Coral reefs are expected to decline 70-90% by mid-century.
  • The U.S. stock market is overvalued by about 40% by historic measures, and some economists think a major recession may be looming.
  • About half a million people have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan since the U.S. invasions starting in 2001. This includes only people killed directly by violence, not disease, hunger, thirst, etc.

Most hopeful stories:

Most interesting stories, that were not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps were a mixture of both:

  • New tech roundup: People in Sweden are barely using cash at all, and some are paying with microchips embedded in their fingers. New technology may allow screening of multiple airport passengers from 25 feet away with minimal disruption. This is great for airline passengers who are already expecting to be screened intrusively, but of course raises some concerns about potential uses elsewhere in the public realm. Amazon is hiring about 100,000 seasonal workers this year, compared to about 120,000 in past years, and the difference may be explained by automation. There is a new ISO standard for toilets not connected to sewers systems (and not just your grandfather’s septic tank.)
  • A unidentified flying object has been spotted in our solar system, and serious scientists say there is at least a plausible, if very unlikely, chance that it is an alien spacecraft.
  • People are taking micro doses of LSD on a daily basis, believing it boosts creativity, and there is some evidence for this although the science is not rigorous.

could Marxism make a comeback?

Leave a reply

Maybe, according to this Marxist professor writing on Truthout.org.

Within the broad Marxian tradition, some strands offer both analyses and policies that differ sharply from anything offered by either neoclassical or Keynesian economics. To take perhaps the clearest example, many Marxists focus on the undemocratic position of capitalists within enterprises (individual owners and corporate boards of directors). Their decisions on whether and how to invest net revenues determine the shape of the macroeconomy for all. A minority focused on enterprise profits as “the bottom line” makes decisions impacting the jobs, incomes, debts, etc. of a majority to which it is not democratically accountable. This minority’s expectations, desires and “animal spirits” (as Keynes put it) causes instability, in the Marxian view. The policy suggestion emerging from that view focuses on a program to “democratize the enterprise” as a solution to instability. Replacing hierarchical undemocratic capitalist enterprises with democratically organized worker cooperatives – where each enterprise member has one vote in deciding key matters, such as investment decisions – is a way forward that neither neoclassical nor Keynesian economists have yet allowed to be debated in public and academic forums. We will all be better off when the current narrowness of economics is opened up to include more basic proposals for change adequate to the depth and scope of capitalism’s current problems.

I’m not sure where I “stand”, except I’d like to see more empirical testing of economic theories and less ideology. Even if we figured out which of the major economics religions is actually “the right one”, we still couldn’t expect it to pick solutions for us. It could identify a range of reasonably economically efficient solutions to a problem (and reject a lot of clearly dumb ones), but we would still have to pick one to try moving ahead with that best represented our values. But maybe with all those dumb solutions tossed out and better information at our fingertips about the range of good solutions, our messy political system would have a better chance of making good choices.

October 2018 in Review

Leave a reply

Most frightening stories:

  • The Trump administration has slashed funding to help the U.S. prepare for the next pandemic.
  • I read more gloomy expert opinions on the stability and resilience of the global financial system.
  • A new depressing IPCC report came out. Basically, implementing the Paris agreement is too little, too late, and we are not even implementing it. There is at least some movement towards a carbon tax in the U.S. – a hopeful development, except that oil companies are in favor of it which makes it suspicious. There is a carbon tax initiative on the ballot in Washington State this November that the oil companies appear to be terrified of, so comparing the two could be instructive, and the industry strategy may be to get a weaker law at the federal level as protection against a patchwork of tough laws at the state and local levels.

Most hopeful stories:

  • There is no evidence that kids in U.S. private schools do any better than kids in U.S. public schools, once you control for family income. (Okay – I admit I put this in the hopeful column because I have kids in public school.)
  • Regenerative agriculture is an idea to sequester carbon by restoring soil and  protecting biodiversity on a global scale.
  • Applying nitrogen fixing bacteria to plants that do not naturally have them may be a viable way to reduce nitrogen fertilizer use and water pollution.

Most interesting stories, that were not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps were a mixture of both:

  • New tech roundup: Artificial spider silk is an alternative to carbon fiber. Certain types of science, like drug and DNA experiments, can be largely automated. A “quantum internet” could mean essentially unbreakable encryption.
  • Modern monetary theory suggests governments might be able to print (okay, “create”) and spend a lot more money without serious repercussions. What I find odd about these discussions is they focus almost entirely on inflation and currency exchange values, while barely acknowledging that money has some relationship actual physical constraints. To me, it has always seemed that one function of the financial system is to start flashing warning lights and make us face the realities of how much we can do before we are all actually starving and freezing in the dark. It could be that we are in the midst of a long, slow slide in our ability to improve our physical quality of life, but instead of that manifesting itself as a long slow slide, it comes as a series of random shocks where one gets a little harder to recover from.
  • I read some interesting ideas on fair and unfair inequality. Conservative politicians encourage people not to make a distinction between alleviating poverty and the idea of making everybody equal. These are not the same thing at all because living just above the poverty line is no picnic and is not the same thing as being average. There is a strong moral case to be made that nobody “deserves” to live in poverty even if they have made some mistakes. And simply “creating jobs” in high-poverty areas sounds like a nice conservative alternative to handouts, except that there isn’t much evidence that it works.

fair vs. unfair inequality

Leave a reply

This interesting article in Vox talks about academic ideas on how to distinguish and measure a difference between fair and unfair inequality. The premise is that there is no moral justification for leaving anyone below the poverty line, even if they are there due to bad choices of their own making. But once out of poverty, there is a need for incentives for people to make effort, make good choices and take the kind of good risks that sometimes pay off for society. There is also a difference between people who are less well off because of bad luck (often the luck of who their parents are) and people who are less well off because they have made less effort or bad choices. Of course, people who are better off because of luck or breeding will tend to rationalize their success relative to others as being due to superior effort and good choices, when in fact they may not be the case. So having an objective way to measure this is an interesting idea. It suggests you could have policies that kick in automatically when some measure of “unfair inequality” gets to a certain level. I don’t quite understand the measure itself, but this is a blog post referring to an academic paper, and I didn’t dig into the academic paper itself.

September 2018 in Review

Leave a reply

Most frightening stories:

Most hopeful stories:

  • The Suzuki and Kodaly methods are two ways of teaching music to young children that may actually help them think later in life. Training in jazz improvisation may also be good for young brains in a slightly different way.
  • There are some bright ideas for trying to improve construction productivity, which has languished for decades. Most involve some form of offsite fabrication.
  • In energy news, there’s a big idea to produce half the world’s electricity from sunlight in the Sahara desert. Another idea for collecting solar energy in otherwise (ecologically) wasted space is solar roadways, and there are a few prototypes around the world but this doesn’t seem to be a magic bullet so far. Another big idea is long-term storage of energy to smooth out fluctuations in supply and demand over months or even years.

Most interesting stories, that were not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps were a mixture of both: