Posts in US politics and society
The case for reading old economists and the elephant in the room in EM equities

I hope you’re enjoying the 2023 Chat-GPT advent calendar even if it is quite a deviation from the content normally posted here. Fret not, I will pepper the flow of advent stories with some economics, and a lookahead to markets next year.

I really enjoyed @EconTalker's conversation with @tylercowen, the founder of the most widely read economics blog out there, reminding us that there is still value in reading the grand old masters of economics. I enjoyed re-reading most of Keynes’ the General Theory for my essay on fiscal policy, and it was also fun to remind myself about Milton Friedman’s permanent-income-hypothesis for the essay on the life cycle hypothesis. But in reality, I fall foul of Tyler’s accusation of an economist who is probably not as well acquainted with the classics as I should be. I have read very little of Smith for example, I find Hayek very difficult to read, and as an economist interested in demographics, I also regret to say that I have only read few parts of Malthus in the primary versions. Fortunately for me and others, Tyler has made his new his new book"GOAT" of economics—freely available, and I am looking forward to dig in over Christmas.

Read More
Random shots

I am still collecting my thoughts, and catching up with work, after holiday, so a few Random Shots are in order. For general reading inspiration I’d recommend Aeon, Arts and Letters Daily, The Hedgehog Review and The Point. I try to consume as much from all of these as I can, in between the mandatory market/investment-related research.

Read More
The Real Macro Wars

I am still not entirely sure whether Noah Smith, a U.S. Economist and prolific blogger, is a converted MMTer or not. But I do know that he is doing a great job in describing the discourse around this newfound holy grail of macroeconomic policymaking. In my attempt to label MMT as “Woke Economics”, I leaned on some of Noah’s earlier pieces on this, and now he is back with his invocation of the new Macro Wars. The stage, according to Noah, is the recent fiscal relief bill in the US, prompting even otherwise pro-stimulus economists to push back. Oliver Blanchard and Lawrence Summers both suggest that $1.9T might be too much of a good thing, while Krugman is sticking to his Keynesian ethos, arguing that Biden’s bill really is ‘disaster relief’, a position that Noah seems to agree with. Replying specifically to Noah’s recent post, he argues that Keynesianism won the theoretical battle a decade ago, leaving only “cranks, charlatans and WSJ Op-ed writers” on the other side. Tyler Cowen chimes in, pointing out that Biden’s post-election fiscal stimulus push has as much to do with populism as it has to do with careful application of Keynesian macroeconomics. As it turns out, this is a position I have a lot of sympathy for.

Read More
Woke economics

The chancellor of the Exchequer had sobering news for the UK public last month when he unveiled that the Treasury is on track to borrow almost 20% of GDP this year to plug the hole in the economy created by the virus, a move that will see the public debt-to-GDP ratio zoom past 100%. In a world governed by the rules of the now-defunct work by Rogoff and Reinhart—famously discredited by a spreadsheet error—these numbers would send chills down the spine of economists and public policymakers, but we’ve moved from on then, significantly. We now understand that the government does not operate under a budget constraint, and that it can, in fact, create as much (sovereign) money it wants to buy as much debt that it wishes to issue—via primary market purchases by the central bank—to finance whatever level of spending and investment—ostensibly to generate jobs for every able man and woman—that it wants. I treated these issues in a long-form essay on fiscal policy, but the elevator pitch is simple enough. Under the auspice of MMT, governments have the ability and duty to create jobs for everyone and to prevent financial and economic distress and harm. It must do so because the economic costs and constraints hitherto associated with such a policy strategy are figments of Neo-Classical economists’ imagination.

Read More