One Economy to Rule Them All

IT WAS TRANSITORY:

Inflation News Is Still Exaggerated by Dubious Shelter Estimates (Alan Reynolds, 7/11/24, Cato)

Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation has been zero for two months. Over the past 12 months, prices of food at home are up 1.1 percent, and energy prices are up 1 percent. Yet headlines keep focusing on the 12-month averages of 3 percent for the total CPI and 3.3 percent for “core inflation” (less food and energy). But there is a big problem: Those 3–3.3 percent figures do not reflect a broadly defined measure of inflation since they are largely dominated by shelter costs.

Widely criticized Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimates of rent and owners’ equivalent rent (a price nobody pays) account for a third of the total CPI and over 40 percent of the core CPI.

That is why suspiciously extreme estimates of shelter inflation (known to lag reality by 12–18 months) have continually exaggerated reported inflation since July 2022.

IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERSTATE DEFLATIONARY PRESSURES:

HOW LAB-GROWN DIAMONDS UPENDED THE INDUSTRY AND COULD END UP CHANGING THE WORLD (Matthew Hart, 6/20/24, CrimerReads)

Rarity is the basement attribute that supports the diamond industry. Without that concept, the whole idea of a jewel is under threat. That threat became real when a virus invaded the sparkling domain of diamonds, destroying the very idea of rarity. The virus was lab-grown diamonds.

Pity the poor Malthusians.

WHINGEING IS NOT HARDSHIP:

We’ve never been richer: But we’re still quite cranky about the economy (Matt Phillips, 6/7/24, sherwood News)

The latest quarterly numbers from the Federal Reserve show that the net worth of the U.S. household sector hit a new high of $160.8 trillion in the first quarter, after rising $5.1 trillion during the first three months of the year. Net worth was up 8.8% compared to the first quarter of 2023, handily outpacing 3.5% rise in inflation over that period.

Hard to be the hero of your own story when the living is as easy as it is today. So we pretend times are hard.

COVID FORCED CONTRADICTIONS:

Remote Work Liberated Us from Unaffordable Places (Scott Lincicome, 6/05/24, The Dispatch)


When we discussed remote work’s benefits and durability a few months ago, I omitted one other great feature: its potential to allow Americans to live where they want to live instead of simply where their jobs are located. That’s good on its own, but it also comes with a big policy bonus if workers exercise their newfound freedom in large numbers: Their moves can pressure state and local governments to improve costly tax, housing, education, and other policies, and they can rejuvenate some of the places that our modern economy (supposedly) left behind.

IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERSTATE DEFLATIONARY PRESSURES:

When the Robots Take Your Job: Some Intuitions From Recent Models of Automation (MATT CLANCY, JUN 04, 2024, What’s New Under the Sun)

Economists typically think about three major inputs to making all the stuff in the economy: ideas, labor (us) and capital (machines, buildings, tools – all the non-labor stuff that doesn’t get used up in production).

As the cost of labor and of a main component of capital (energy costs) trend towards zero we can not grasp how much cheaper wealth creation is going to get.

THINGS HAVE NEVER BEEN EASIER:

Here’s how long it takes workers to become 401(k) millionaires: The number of people who crossed the seven-figure mark hit an all-time high in the first quarter, though retirement savings surged across the board. (Michelle Singletary, May 31, 2024, Washington Post)

The millionaires have an average contribution rate of 17 percent.

Fidelity said record-high contribution levels and positive market conditions pushed average account balances to their highest levels since the fourth quarter of 2021.

In the most recent quarter, total average 401(k) savings rates reached a record high of 14.2 percent, driven by employee and employer 401(k) contributions.

This savings rate is a milestone. It’s the closest it has ever been to Fidelity’s recommendation that workers contribute at least 15 percent of their gross income to their workplace plan. This could include a combination of their savings and a matching contribution from their employer.

“LAW OF THE HOUSE”

The History of Economics Embedded in English (Michael Ferber May 28, 2024, In Depth NH)

Let’s start with “economics” itself. When I was in school the girls all took “Home Economics.” That phrase struck me as odd at the time, and I explained it to myself as a set of skills for managing a home “economically” or frugally. I only learned much later that the phrase hearkened to oldest use of “economics,” which comes from a Greek word, oikonomia, which meant “management of the household.” In Homer the oikos is the entire estate or establishment, not just the house: buildings, family, clients, servants, slaves, animals, croplands, and pastures. In 18th-century English the sense of domestic management remained in use: one could still speak of a “private economy” or “an economy too sumptuous for one’s means.” In the 19th century John Ruskin, evoking the etymology to show how “economics” had drifted from its real purpose, wrote, “All true economy is ‘Law of the house’.” The phrase “political economy” appeared in the 18th century and since then the default sense of “economy” has come to be the organization of national or international goods and services, and “domestic” in this context now means “national.” So the girls in their Home Ec classes were going back to the root of the matter.

Several common words began as names of physical objects and then grew more abstract, a frequent semantic path for words of many kinds.  A “bank” was originally a “bench” (from the same root) on which money and ledgers were laid during a transaction.  A “budget” was originally a “pouch or bag,” from French bougette, from Latin bulga, meaning “leather sack.”  The Oxford English Dictionary reports that “The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in presenting his annual statement, was formerly said to open the budget.”  “Fiscal” comes from Latin fiscus, originally “basket,” then “purse,” then “state treasury.”  “Salary” derives from Latin salarium, or “money paid to Roman soldiers for the purchase of salt”; “salt” is sal.  It’s fun to imagine the primitive economy as carried out by opening bags or baskets on a bench and exchanging what is in them for salt.

As for “exchequer,” though we seldom use the word in America, it is related to “checkers” and “chess.”  The Old French word eschequier (“chess board),” named for the table cloth divided into squares (like “checkerboard” cloths today) with counters used for calculating sums, was used in the treasury or revenue office of the Norman kings of England.  “Chess,” by the way, is really the plural of “check,” which is what you say when you threaten your opponent’s king, because “check” actually means “king.”  It comes from the Persian word shah.  (The chesspiece “rook” is also Persian.)  “Checkmate” is shah mat, “the king is dead.”  But I digress.

WHEN MEANS MEET ENDS:

On the Efficiency and Morality of Free Markets (Donald J. Boudreaux, May 29, 2024, AIER)

The implication seems to be that at least some defenders — mostly economists — of free markets are interested in “economic efficiency for its own sake,” while thoughtful conservatives understand that well-rounded individuals in healthy societies pursue goals beyond “just the efficient.” Yet in fact, all classical liberals who endorse free markets also endorse, no less than do conservatives, the seeking of the good, the beautiful, and the true. And no serious economist who champions free markets has ever advocated efficiency for its own sake or at the expense of the good, the beautiful, and the true. The reason is simple: “efficiency for its own sake” is meaningless.

Efficiency describes a relationship between means and ends. Efficiency says nothing whatsoever about the contents of the ends. If you want to drive this morning from Philadelphia to New York in the shortest period of time, a well-functioning GPS navigator will show you the appropriate route, one that would likely include a long stretch on I-95. If, in fact, there’s no alternative route that you could drive that would get you to New York more quickly, then the route displayed by your GPS device is efficient given your goal. But if your goal is instead to take in some beautiful scenery along the way, subject to getting to New York before nightfall, then the most-efficient route will be one that keeps you off of I-95 and in your automobile for several hours more than you’d spend if you took the fastest route.

To act efficiently is simply to act in that way that best enables you to achieve your goal, whatever that goal might be.

The end of an economy is to create wealth and the free market is the most effective means we’ve found to do so. Redistribution of that wealth is a mere political question.

RETURN TO NORMALCY:

We can, and should, return to our nation’s economic ideals (Samuel Gregg, May 24, 2024, Washington Examiner)

Put simply: Key Founders believed that America’s future was to be one in which dynamic trade, entrepreneurial spiritedness and, commercial audacity would define society — not aristocratic priorities. The “republic” side of the equation was that these market freedoms would be grounded upon institutions and virtues derived from those same classical, religious, and Enlightenment sources: virtues that don’t just grease the wheels of commerce, but which, as Adam Smith wrote, are nothing less than “excellence, something uncommonly great and beautiful.”

Put another way: America isn’t meant to be a facsimile of Western European social democracy. America isn’t meant to be an outpost of Central European traditionalism. America isn’t meant to regard the federal government as its economic savior. America is meant to be something unique, something exceptional.

Today’s America is far removed from the civilization of ideas upon which it is built. Its polar opposites — populism, demagoguery — stalk the land. Our fiscal house is a shambles. Our economy is riddled with regulation, welfarism, bureaucracy, and cronyism. And those who Adam Smith called “men of system” have emerged across the political spectrum to demand even more power to direct that economy from the top-down. From left to right, interventionist hubris is in, and economic humility is out.

But we should not despair. Bad ideas are powerful, but good ideas are difficult to keep down.