Monthly Archives: March 2014

The US can learn from India

India is finishing initial success with its ambitious, almost futuristic biomarker ID program.

Cowen reports that India is uniquely well-positioned to implement such a labor-intensive project on such a vast scale because it’s labor force is similarly vast and willing to work for low wages.

Wait. Don’t we have 3.8 million long-term unemployed who might never work again?

Heck, you could even roll this employment program into a skills-retraining program, and make it a condition for receiving extended UI benefits.

Edit: I guess I should point out I don’t think we really need a biomarker ID system here, because we have social security numbers and a functioning IRS (haha) and such. Point remains.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Economics After the Crisis

Based on this review, Economics after the Crisis says much of what I’ve been trying to say for a while. It’s at the top of my reading list, right above Game of Thrones.>

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Is the Fed stupid?

I doubt it.

The editors if Bloomberg View write that the Fed’s latest stress tests for systemic risk in banks are too lenient and employs unrealistically simple kind of stress. They compare the Fed’s weak methodology to better stress tests by NYU researchers and the Bank of Canada to prove their point.

So is the Fed stupid? I doubt it. But if the BoC and NYU have better methods, why didn’t the Fed just adapt those? The only possible explanation here is that the Fed deliberately eschewed a superior methodology. So why did they do that? Is our government that corrupted by the power of big banks? We’ve seen it before with the FDA an USDA. But if the Fed is in fact in the pocket of the big banks then we are so screwed it doesn’t even matter anymore.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Neuro-psychology-biology-whatever

I’m much better at the the pictures-based Doge 2048┬áthan the original numbers-based 2048. What does that say about my brain?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Is more output better output?

From an internship way back when, I recall there being two ways to calculate GDP, only one of which I actually remember.* That method is by adding up the total expenditure on factors of production in a country. Wikipedia tells me there are actually two others: adding up all income directly (which makes a heck of a lot of sense), and adding up expenditures.

France has lower output, as measured by one of these three techniques, than the US. Paul Krugman says that this is reason to be cautious about the new IMF redistribution paper. And I’d probably agree. In the same post Krugman says that he lower output is explained specifically by the fact that the French work less. But a quick look at data from FRED (it’s too annoying to post it from my iphone) reveals that France’s GDP per hours worked is in fact also lower than in the US.

Therefore the French are either less productive, or something else is going on. The BEA uses the third technique for calculating GDP (pg 6-8). This method literally adds up C+G+I+X-M and attempts to exclude intermediary purchases by businesses, eg of finished window glass by Honda. I’m going to assume France does the same. If so, it must be the case that expenditures per hour worked are lower in France than in the US. Is it possible that France’s output takes the form of more non-market income, such as unpaid childcare? Is it possible that expenditures could be masked or appear attenuated when they appear in G rather than in C? For instance, the value of a CT scan could be the same for two patients, but if Medicare only covers one of them then the gross total expenditures will differ.

What if France is actually more “efficient” (not in the welfare sense) in turning money into value? Even at purchasing power parity, is it possible or plausible that a typical dollar-equivalent in France buys more non-tangible stuff that cannot be accounted for in PPP?

This has the same flavor as arguments that the CPI overstates inflation because it isn’t possible to account for the value of certain advancements in society, thereby overestimating the extent to which prices grow relative to the value of services rendered. And as in that case, I keep being reminded of the Jencks, et al. paper I linked to a while ago.

For the record, I’m not some kind of Francophile/europhile and I’m not trying to imply “yes” answers to all of these things. I am however trying to break the illusion that the US is some kind of ideal standard. And I’m trying to work through macro in my head a bit more. I’m sure that my lack of macro knowledge is on full display here.

*I’m certain this wasn’t taught in my undergrad principles or macro courses.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized