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.

Caballero's story

David Beckworth considers the proximity of economists to the financial system and their view of the effect of interest rates in the housing and credit boom. The idea is that, essentially, business economists see the Fed's lowering of interest rates as a key factor in the boom because of their keen, first-hand knowledge of the situation, rather than academic economists who have less contact. I'll ignore the obvious problems of Professor Beckworth's hypothesis to point out something that struck me as odd: Cabellero's story. Caballero seems to believe that the demand for safe assets rose...

By 2001, as the demand for safe assets began to rise above what the U.S. corporate world and safe mortgage‐ borrowers naturally could provide, financial institutions began to search for mechanisms to generate triple‐A assets from previously untapped and riskier sources. Subprime borrowers were next in line, but in order to produce safe assets from their loans, “banks” had to create complex instruments and conduits that relied on the law of large numbers and tranching of their liabilities.

... does this make sense? So, financial institutions poorly measured risk, sure. But, in order for complex instruments to be made from subprime loans, more subprime loans had to be made. Meaning, there had to be incentives for subprime borrowers to receive subprime loans. Does Caballero really believe that lower interest rates couldn't have been among these incentives? And that had interests rates been higher, there wouldn't have been less incentive? Ricardo Caballero's story can't be the one held by most academic economists, can it?

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.

A giant has fallen.

Good bye, Paul Samuelson.

Thank you for formalizing Economics.

Recession, tax revenue, the Economist, and Monopoly.

Glenn Rudebusch, at the FRB San Francisco, answers five key questions. The financial crisis is over. The recession is most likely over. We won't return to normal employment for some time. Inflation will not be too high. The Fed has an exit strategy to undo its recession-fighting policy actions.

Federal revenue as a share of GDP is at its lowest point since 1950. It's an interesting graph, and I want to see how the percentage federal revenue has fluctuated with GDP growth and also with the change in tax rates. The top tax rate was slashed a lot in the 60s, but you don't see much of a change.

The Economist's forecast. No big surprises, I think. Still, an interesting read. I might expect a slower increase of the federal funds rate than they do, though.

Free Exchange on the history of Monopoly, Anti-Monopoly, and Hasbro.

EIA, map of job losses, new wave of research, and Caterpillar

Env-econ re: BCA vs EIA, OK?

This is a very interesting map of job losses and gains around the country since 2004. It'd be nice if it showed percentage loss/gain rather than net, but it's still illuminating, I think.

Will Google Wave change how research is done?

Caterpillar sees "encouraging signs" of economic recovery. The construction industry, many say, is a pretty good leading indicator.

Unemployment rates, Shiller on housing, urban data, and soccer.

The FRB Cleveland again, this time telling us about alternative unemployment rates.

Shiller, of the Case-Shiller housing index, tells us about the housing market. Seems like people are more rosy now about their long term investment prospects.

Matthew Kahn talks about possibilities with urban data. If we could look at power bills, we could determine whether people have high-power consumption items, of if they're just being wasteful. I'm sure there might be a number of interesting uses of the data, if privacy issues could be resolved.

The economics of soccer. How do I get to do that?