Bachmann and the global economy, Zimbabwe constitutions, Google's money, and currency standards

Wait... what? Who is this Michele Bachmann person and why don't she understand what 'global economy' means? Politicians confuse me sometimes.

I imagine (best as I can) that things are scary, right now, in a country that needs a new constitution. Zimbabwe has been through a lot, and it's hard to trust those who are making the new document... I doubt they have a significant number of constitutional scholars working on it. Is it a liberal American bias to demand experts be involved in decision making?

I imagine that, upon doing further research, Google discovered that you can't throw money at a problem to fix it. Also, they have less power than they think they do (I'm looking at you, Google China).

While a monetary basket might be a better standard than the dollar, any attempt to make such a basket would be highly political rather than economic in nature. Countries will likely continue making their own decisions in determining currency standards rather than deferring their sovereignty. Though, I suppose, the international lending agencies could make it a requirement of aid.

Health care, unemployment, and gifts

Small businesses pay more than large firms for the same health care policies. A quarter of the uninsured are employees in firms smaller than 25 workers.

More, rising unemployment means less health care coverage.

The Game Theorist tells us that gift giving is a bad idea. I'm not sure he's taken all of the externalities into account, though.

Krugman tells us that the health care bill will lean liberal because the facts do. I didn't know facts played such a large part of politics.

Climate change, exchange rates, education, and new frontiers in economics

John Whitehead on climate change. The science hasn't been settled. Professor Whitehead doesn't go into this, but the consequences haven't been settled either.

Chavez is still trying to fix his economy, this time by playing with his fixed exchange rate. The blind lead the blind.

Tyler Cowen makes a partial list of over- and under-explored areas of economics. There are a lot of really interesting under-studied areas of economics.

Ed Glaeser looks at the link between GDP per capita and school enrollment in 1900. Education benefits seem to be very, very persistent.

Media woes

Did everyone forget that the current recession (or, at least, the remnants thereof) was originally started by a housing crisis and financial crisis? And that these crises started before the Obama administration? And that, at the time, many people said that unemployment may not return to normal levels until 2012? It seems disingenuous for news anchors to discuss when the Obama administration's use of the word 'inherit' just becomes an excuse. Must they contrive issues for the sake of seeming unbiased?

Also, does no one realize that banks make money, at least partially, by lending money? They don't need political pressure to continue lending, they have monetary incentives, and that's how they work. If they're not lending, there aren't enough monetary incentives for them to do so.

On the other hand, it seems like Republicans are claiming fiscal responsibility merely by disassociating themselves from Democrats, no matter what the issues actually are, and forgetting that the Bush administration ever happened. While the Obama administration is too classy to take advantage of Bush's unpopularity (a good move, in my opinion), the Democratic party leadership shouldn't let people forget so easily. So far, Republicans need to consider themselves lucky for getting off so easily.

Subprime mortgages, the end of the recession, FDI, and health care

The Cleveland Fed presents us with ten myths about subprime mortgages.

Mark Thoma tells us when we'll know that the recession is over. I think there are two important themes: 1) it's tough to tell, and 2) it'll be pretty obvious when it's there.

Foreign investment in long-term US bonds are up. Although China is pulling out some of its money, the scare that everyone wants to pull out their money and ruin the US is unfounded. Sometimes, economics is telling people the obvious, when they want to believe the ludicrous.

The public health care option may be off the table. Back to high health care expenditures? Have congressional Republicans attempted to make any concessions at all? Bipartisanship seems to imply compromise.

A round on healthcare

In a piece of news that no doubt highlights the need for healthcare reform, healthcare costs are expected to jump 9% for companies in 2010. More on healthcare: an interesting note in the comments section at Angry Bear on Singapore. And, some thoughts on different plans, with links to more information, from ataxingmatter. E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post would prefer to have good rather than bipartisan reform. I was recently thinking about healthcare reform--Democrats (as well as many others, including health economists) claim that they can provide more care to more people while saving a lot of money. I'm not sure what problem the Republicans have with this. So I asked around, and the answer I got was the ideological problem against the concept of socialism. Not only does the argument not apply very well, but public investment hasn't been all that bad, historically. You'd think Republicans could back a single payer option considering all the horror stories of the current state of affairs, and the prospect of saving a lot of money.

Then again, I think it's mostly politics. Republicans can get some of what they want without giving up much political capital. On the other hand, Republicans need to get their names on some successful bills if they want to have a chance of winning back more seats in the future. If Democrats can claim to have fixed the system and saved a lot of money at the same time, what can Republicans run on?

Finding a job, human rights, and Mish's Google talk

Barbara Kiviat tells us how we can find jobs using social networking sites. Essentially, if more people knowing you're looking for a job helps, then social networking sites get the word out quickly to a lot of people who can vouch for you. I don't usually blog on this sort of article, but I think it's interesting how technology affects the job market.

On another issue I don't usually blog about--here, particularly--the SCSU Scholars argue that a problem with poverty being called a "human right violation" is that such a claim requires identifiable violators to violate rigid laws. One violates a right, or one does not violate a right, there is no inbetween. In the case of poverty, the so-called 'poverty line' is unclear, and there are no clear violators. It's an interesting argument, but my first thoughts are that prejudice also comes in degrees (arguably, a reason that it still exists in places where we consider ourselves to have moved past that), and that institutionalized corruption is largely to blame for poverty in developing nations. Institutionalized corruption is difficult to fight, though, especially when they're, almost by definition, better financed than those who would fight.

Mish gives a talk at Google on the state of the economy. Among other things, he predicts we'll dip into another recession. I've heard some people predict a second or a third dip into recession, but I haven't heard a lot of explanation for it. I think he's off base at times, but it's an interesting talk.

Wasting a recession, African aid, principles courses, housing, stock predictions, and Krugman.

Simon Johnson echoes an idea from Rahm Emanuel: Don't let a recession go to waste. The idea is, essentially, that a recession is a time where more people are willing to back big change. I'm not sure how I feel about this--I'd be happy if things changed for the better, but how do I know I can trust legislators? Should interest groups have an opportunity to push the country around, while we're down? That being said, the five points that Emanuel listed seem like good ones, and people seem to trust this administration much more than the previous one.

A FT discussion on Africa: Is Aid Working? It's an interesting discussion, and I'm of the opinion is that aid can work, but more than giving money, steps must be taken to ensure and enhance the effectiveness of aid.

Scott Beaulier relays a message from Greg Mankiw. Despite the recent events, economics principles courses won't change significantly. The groundwork that those classes lay stays the same, though graduate courses will likely see change in the fields of financial economics or public choice.

A couple on housing. Six years of housing price gains have been wiped away in three years, in real terms. CalculatedRisk has graphs on that, as well as the price-to-rent and price-to-income ratios.

And a couple (more) on the recession: Political Calculations tries to predict changes in the stock market, based on recession probabilities. It should be interesting to watch June 16-23 and September 10-16. And, Krugman is somewhat optimistic in a recent statement, as he says the world economy is stabilizing. We've avoided catastrophe! Still, he frets about the nature of the recovery. I note this isn't getting more media coverage, like Krugman's previous, less optimistic predictions.

Credit rating, soda tax, education, and political definitions

Free Exchange wonders what we should do about credit rating agencies. Should we have more competition to ensure better, more reliable ratings? Or, will that cause people to just shop around for ratings?

Tim Haab talks about a soda tax, and quizzes us on it. Personally, I wouldn't mind swallowing the three cents per twelve ounces (pardon the pun).

Newmark's Door points to a paper that emphasizes the importance of education in helping low-wage workers. Really, this surprises no one, but it should continue to get airtime as long as there aren't many educational options to low-wage workers.

William Easterly tries to apply more broad definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" to US politics--definitions which hold more internationally. Really, I think this isn't important. In the US, "liberal" and "conservative" are more titles than descriptive adjectives. Though it's good to be aware of what the terms actually mean, it's also good to be aware that the real definitions don't apply.

Chile, debates, housing, oil and recessions, and cognitive skills

Rodrik talks about the Chilean Minister of Finance. He saved during the boom, although it was unpopular, and is now spending the massive savings. Why don't more countries do this?

Alex Tabarrok talks about the debates at Intelligence Squared. I like the concept of the website, though. Get experts to debate issues and provide podcasts. People vote on winners.

Jon Lansner talks about housing, via CR. Prices should bottom out late next year.

James Hamilton points out the connection between oil price spikes and recessions. That's really interesting research.

Some research shows that people with higher cognitive skills perform better economically. Moreover, to the extent that this is a genetic trait, evolution may play a factor in separating people with of cognitive skill levels.

Tea parties, retail sales, and more on the macro ranting.

Bruce Barlett, a former Regean official, points out some of the problems with the logic behind recent tea parties. I somehow think any such attempt to use logic will fall on deaf ears, but the tea parties seem rather silly to me. (part one)

Economix is still on the case of retail sales. We've seen a bigger decline than in the past. I'm going to predict that the trend line will stay below 100, as people try to save more, rely on credit less, and spend less. Dave Altig at the Atlanta Fed doesn't think there's anything so historically odd, though.

Menzie Chinn provides another excellent post, this time on the role of financial systems in macroeconomic models. Kling isn't convinced that macroeconomists have good models, and he's at least partially right, since all models require some degree of simplification. I think it's a field that will continue to get a lot of attention. In a not-totally-unrelated light, Dani Rodrik provides an interesting comment on the field of economics. Still on forecasting, Simon Johnsons provides his forecast of forecats. Nicholas Bloom at Stanford says that the response to the financial crisis was effective in avoiding a severe recession, and that growth will resume at the end of this year. I wonder how much of an effect the "response to the financial crisis" really had.

The stimulus and repeating history.

A couple of excellent pieces from Jeff Frankels: Is $800 Billion too much or too little? Jeff says Yes. It depends on what you're trying to accomplish. And, might this recession look like the Great Depression? We've learned a number of lessons from that catastrophe, I think (regardless of the disagreement over just what happened).

Jeff brings up a couple of points I've been talking about, but Jeff makes the points much better than I can.

(h/t Andrew Cassel at the Dismal Scientist)

The other Jeff--economics rockstar Jeffrey Sachs--also weighs in on the issue. He brings up the good point that we shouldn't go for wild swings in the economy. We shouldn't shock our economy into short-term recovery at the expense of long-term growth.

On scapegoats and short memories.

Mark Thoma links to Brad DeLong's post about why Freddie and Fannie aren't to blame for the current crisis. Free Exchange points to sources saying that laymen and others may be at least partially to blame for this mess--so let them suffer. David Henderson at EconLog says that there are people who have been saving money in order to buy homes at crisis-depressed prices--and trying the government's trying to fix the housing crisis hurts these people.

It seems to me that this sort of conversation has mostly left the public discourse. When the housing crisis was just starting to unfold, there was a lot of talk about who was to blame. The term "house of cards" was used quite a bit. Low interest rates from the Fed, financial institutions giving away subprime loans to anyone with a pulse, rating agencies giving high ratings to subprime mortgage-backed securities, and everyday people taking on huge mortgages without considering their abilities to pay them off. In short, lots of people were to blame, from the top to the bottom. Why aren't people still talking about this?

When this was unfolding, there was theme of "pass some kind of recovery bill--anything to help us. If we act now, we can stave off the worst of the recession." And that's what happened. Congress passed a $700 billion bill to try to save our economy. A number of economists were against this--particularly how the bill was designed--but the idea was that a bad bill was better than no bill. The bill, at the time, was intended to save large banks. The ones "too big to fail." The idea was that if those banks fell, then basically the flow of money would stop. There would be no money market at which to finance business ventures. If those big banks fell, then would the vast majority of businesses. Quick action was necessary.

But, that isn't the case any more. The bulk of the recently passed bill won't take effect until well past when the recession is forecast to end. Now, if the bill has any effect, it's to help along the recovery or expansion portions of the business cycle. However, people aren't talking about accountability anymore. That is, the bill is to "save the economy"--save big business, save small business, save homeowners--we've just assumed that we have a right to the money. And if the money doesn't help our specific subgroup of people, we feel gyped. The professionals are talking about where the money is going, not whether there should be any money to save the economy at all.

We were previously talking about how we got ourselves into this mess, and we have to learn that there are consequences to bad choices, rather than knowing the government will bail us out. We put that aside because we were convinced quick action would save us. Now that's no longer the case, we're ignoring this basic economic question?

I'm not trying to make a statement about the quality of the bill. If you think the bill is going to help us, good for you. If you think the bill is a terrible idea, wonderful. All I'm saying is this: what happened to the public discourse? Why aren't we talking about this anymore?

Our future

Here's an interesting article about Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, two possible choices for New York Federal Reserve president. It's a pretty interesting look at the two gentlemen. A WSJ blog gives more information.

Greg Mankiw writes a memo to President-elect Barak Obama. Hopefully Obama listens to Kling (and many others) on the auto industry.

Some advice for those seeking jobs in academia.

Prof Glaeser says that we need better teachers to improve our education system. I think there's much more to the issue. Also, Prof Glaeser doesn't say how we should attract better teachers--some data, for example, shows that better teachers often work at private schools, where they get lower pay. So, if pay isn't a good enough incentive, how do we attract teachers? Either much larger pay, or we should take a look at the incentives of teachers. My bet is that teachers are concerned with their work environment, their freedom in the classroom, and job security. The government has done a number of things to dissuade teachers from staying in their field. (h/t Thoma)

Still on education, Charles Murray argues that we should get rid of four-year BAs.

For those that follow oil prices and the industry, Mike Shedlock provides a wealth of information. Personally, I thought it was hilarious that Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez "predicted" $100/barrel oil, with no qualifiers. Firstly, price tends to increase in all goods--we call this inflation, and it's especially true in prices tied to the dollar--so with no time qualifier, Chavez's "prediction" is basically self-evident. Secondly, not even Chavez could "predict" how oil would skyrocket (proving him right, by technicality), then plummet again (making him still sound ridiculous).

Lastly, in a paper about the ancient history of economics, Gavin Kennedy talks about the origins or bargaining. Now that's economic history!

Just a few more things on my mind.

This mention of growth of the Chinese hat industry sticks out at me, only because I happen to know a guy who heavily invested in hat factories in China, buying up a few factories back in May or June. He must be doing very well, now!

Here's an interesting article pointing out that helping developing countries (in particular, countries to the south of us) is beneficial to the United States, due to positive impacts on trade. It's a point that most people outside of Economics haven't understood, it seems.

While I don't agree with everything the Economic Policy Institute believes, I think their post-election letter, Wall Street rescue plan, and their agenda for "Shared Prosperty" are interesting reads.

2.79 Quintillion.

That's Zimbabwe's inflation rate. Yowza! That's 2,790,000,000,000,000,000%. I didn't even know what came after quadrillion! That's just a ludicrous number. I half expect the Cato Institute to update the page with, "Just kidding!" Oh, and the link goes to a new blog in the econoblogsphere, Crisis Talk. When they linked their source on the 29th, it was 10 quadrillion percent.

The WSJ shows that states in which housing prices have fallen are voting for Obama, and states in which housing prices have risen are voting for McCain. I wonder if the economy as a major issue drove states to vote for Obama, or if states predisposed to voting for McCain have more responsible lenders.

Robert Shiller at the NYT talks about Greenspan's self-admitted mistake. Though Greenspan says that their models did not predict the housing bubble, Shiller points out that people hinted at it, but the warnings were ignored. Contrary views are unpopular, and when you're a policy maker, you are less likely to want to risk your job with contrary views.

Mark Perry at Carpe Diem quotes an energy economist who claims that oil will go down to $20-25. It's around $66 now, and it was $140 not too long ago. I find it difficult to believe it will go down to $20.

Moving onwards.

I've created a page on my website that includes links to some of the best commentary about the financial crisis around. With so much opinions on the matter, it's difficult to keep up with it all, difficult to figure out what's useful, and it kind of crowds out other interesting pieces of information. I'll keep that page updated with information or links to information, and try to keep this blog for other stuff (though, chances are there will be interesting financial crisis news I'll want to mention on here as well).

Robert Waldmann, on the Angry Bear, refutes the claims of the previously mentioned physicist. While Waldmann brings up good points, I don't think he refutes all of the claims with satisfaction. In a similar vein, a University of Houston physicist writes "What Economists should learn from Econophysics."

Now for a few links from Dani Rodrik. He's a Harvard professor specializing in developmental issues. He points to a useful site for development data. But, he's sometimes silly, such as linking this economics rap (I'm kind of impressed). He also sometimes takes on fellow Harvard professor Greg Mankiw. He also has a number of posts pointing out that subsidies can lower prices, not raise them (depending on whether the country is a net importer or a net exporter). MyC4 looks like a Kiva-type site. That's good stuff. And, a ranking of econoblogs, updated with data from the past 90 days. The other common ranking I knew of is here.

Here is a video archive of London School of Economics lectures. Nice stuff. I'll eventually make a webpage with economics podcasts and videos.

Phil Izzo at the Wall Street Journal tells us that most lawmakers don't have economic educations. Well, I think we all knew that already, but it's particularly pertinent when they're trying to fix a financial crisis.

It's interesting to note the net present value of a JD. I wish I could also find the study that shows the incidence of JDs in various countries.

I Bits is an interesting blog, and Laura Holson tells us that wireless broadband boosts economies.

Lastly, a couple of Slate articles I meant to post on here a long time ago. A discussion about automobile subsidies, and a commentary on Obama's law exams he used to give.

Enjoy!