One Economy to Rule Them All

THE SOLUTION TO POVERTY IS WEALTH:

The first results from the world’s biggest basic income experiment: Money always helps, but for the very poor, one lump sum can last a long time (Dylan Matthews, Dec 1, 2023, Vox)


The latest research on the GiveDirectly pilot, done by MIT economists Tavneet Suri and Nobel Prize winner Abhijit Banerjee, compares three groups: short-term basic income recipients (who got the $20 payments for two years), long-term basic income recipients (who get the money for the full 12 years), and lump sum recipients, who got $500 all at once, or roughly the same amount as the short-term basic income group. The paper is still being finalized, but Suri and Banerjee shared some results on a call with reporters this week.


By almost every financial metric, the lump sum group did better than the monthly payment group. Suri and Banerjee found that the lump sum group earned more, started more businesses, and spent more on education than the monthly group. “You end up seeing a doubling of net revenues” — or profits from small businesses — in the lump sum group, Suri said. The effects were about half that for the short-term $20-a-month group.

The explanation they arrived at was that the big $500 all at once provided valuable startup capital for new businesses and farms, which the $20 a month group would need to very conscientiously save over time to replicate. “The lump sum group doesn’t have to save,” Suri explains. “They just have the money upfront and can invest it.”

Intriguingly, the results for the long-term monthly group, which will receive about $20 a month for 12 years rather than two, had results that looked more like the lump sum group. The reason, Suri and Banerjee find, is that they used rotating savings and credit associations (ROSCAs). These are institutions that sprout up in small communities, especially in the developing world, where members pay small amounts regularly into a common fund in exchange for the right to withdraw a larger amount every so often.

“It converts the small streams into lump sums,” Suri summarizes. “We see that the long-term arm is actually using ROSCAs. A lot of their UBI is going into ROSCAs to generate these lump sums they can use to invest.”

RATES ARE USURIOUS:

Disinflation Dream Come True (Alexander W. Salter, December 1, 2023R, AIER)

The current target for the federal funds rate, which is the Fed’s key policy interest rate, is between 5.25 and 5.50 percent. Using core PCEPI growth, the inflation-adjusted range is 3.29-3.54 percent. As always, we must compare this to the natural rate of interest. Sometimes called r* by economists, this is the inflation-adjusted rate consistent with maximum employment and output, as well as non-accelerating inflation. We can’t observe this rate directly. But we can estimate it. Widely cited figures from the New York Fed place r* between 0.57 and 1.19 percent. That means current market rates are roughly three times as high as the estimated natural rate!

THE SOLUTION TO POVERTY IS WEALTH:

Evaluating the Success of the War on Poverty since 1963 Using an Absolute Full-Income Poverty Measure (Richard V. Burkhauser, Kevin Corinth, James Elwell, and Jeff Larrimore, Journal of Political Economy)


We evaluate progress in the War on Poverty as President Lyndon B. Johnson defined it, which established a 20% baseline poverty rate and adopted an absolute standard. While the official poverty rate fell from 19.5% in 1963 to 10.5% in 2019, our absolute full-income poverty measure—which uses a fuller income measure and updates thresholds only for inflation—fell from 19.5% to 1.6%.

LAST MEN:

People, stop being crybabies: Life is better now than ever (Quin Hillyer, November 27, 2023, Washington Examiner)


Far too many people have become spoiled, ungrateful, whiny wretches.

That’s the proper conclusion from a Wall Street Journal poll showing that barely more than a third of people believe “the American dream — that if you work hard, you’ll get ahead — still holds true.” Compared to the 36% who say it still holds true, 45% said it once was true but not anymore, and 18% said it never held true.

Only the 36% have it right. The rest are, to put it bluntly, pathetic defeatists. Likewise for the 50% who say life for ordinary Americans is worse than it was 50 years ago, against only 30% who say it is better.

We have a powerful urge to be the hero of our own stories, which we can’t be if we acknowledge how affluent we are and how easy modern life is

TRANSITORY IS AS TRANSITORY DOES:

Prices are going down. Here’s where you can see the difference. (Becca Stanek, 11/23/23, The Week)

According to Nerdwallet, citing data released in November by the Department of Labor, the “consumer price index — a proxy for inflation — remained flat from September to October, at 3.2%.” Moreover, the consumer price index report “shows year-over-year price index drops in 92 goods and services categories (among 338 measured).”

In further evidence of this trend, “retailers such as Walmart say an era of price hikes is fading,” The Wall Street Journal reported. Meanwhile, “Adobe, which tracks online sales through its analytics arm, predicts holiday discounting will hit record highs.”

THESE ARE ACTUALLY THE ARGUMENTS TO TAX ONLY CONSUMPTION:

Cutting inheritance tax is not just fiscally unsound – it’s unfair (Ben Ramanauskas, 11/20/23, Cap X)

[U]sing this increased revenue to cut inheritance tax would not only be fiscally unsound, it would be deeply unfair. It would represent an even greater shift away from taxing wealth and towards wages. Cutting inheritance tax at this time would therefore be a giveaway to the wealthiest funded by working people.

Rather than cutting inheritance tax, the Chancellor should instead eliminate fiscal drag by unfreezing the income tax and national insurance thresholds.

The main reason for this is that it will allow people to keep more of their money. While inflation is returning to target, there is still a cost of living crisis gripping the country. Millions of households across the country are struggling to make ends meet despite working hard, often in multiple jobs. Increasing tax thresholds in line with inflation will mean that they have more money to spend on themselves and their families.

Ending fiscal drag would also boost productivity. We have seen stagnant productivity growth in the UK since the Global Financial Crisis and while the tax rate is far from being the main cause of this, it has almost certainly contributed to it. As Paul Krugman pointed out, ‘Productivity isn’t everything, but, in the long run, it is almost everything’. Productivity is the key driver of economic growth, which has been persistently low and is forecast to be non-existent over the next year. We have already experienced one lost decade in the UK and we are set to experience another if we don’t turn things around. The government should be doing whatever it takes to boost productivity, and so ending fiscal drag should be a priority.

Unfreezing tax thresholds could also help with the labour shortages facing many areas of the economy. While the labour market is loosening, it is tight by historical standards. Firms are really struggling to get staff to work for them, especially in hospitality and social care. If a person knows that they will be no better off in real terms then they are unlikely to say yes to an extra shift or take on another job. Allowing them to keep more of their money will incentivise them to work longer hours or look for another job.

In other words, stop punishing work, investment, and savings to make them more attractive.

TAKING THE DRUNK’S KEYS:

Milei’s Policy Challenges (luis pablo de la horra, 11/24/23, Law & Liberty)


Milei’s plan to tackle inflation hinges on the radical step of dismantling Argentina’s central bank (BCRA) and embracing the US dollar as the nation’s official currency. This proposition has sparked fervent debate, evident in the strong resistance it faces from politicians across the political spectrum and prominent academics. Nonetheless, there is a widespread acknowledgment that decisive action must be taken to confront the nation’s foremost economic challenge. Does dollarization represent the optimal strategy to set the nation on a path toward monetary stability?

There is no straightforward answer. Dollarization is not the first best choice, as it deprives central banks of the monetary policy tools they typically employ to address economic crises. For instance, in the face of deflationary pressures, a central bank would typically reduce the policy rates to stimulate economic activity. In a dollarized economy, the national central bank is either eliminated (as Milei proposes) or loses its authority over monetary policy, leaving policymakers with fewer resources to use in the event of a crisis.

Furthermore, the elimination of the BCRA implies the loss of its role as a lender of last resort to address liquidity issues within the banking sector, especially during financial crises. Likewise, the process of dollarization demands an ample supply of dollar reserves, and the BCRA has notably reduced its holdings over the past year. This reduction in reserves could potentially introduce complications in the dollarization process. The question then arises: are these challenges insurmountable?

Undoubtedly, the ideal stance for a country or a group of countries is to uphold monetary policy autonomy. However, the effectiveness of such a policy hinges on the existence of an independent central bank endowed with the capacity to promote price stability through judicious monetary measures. This stands in contrast to the BCRA, which has demonstrated a dismal track record in controlling inflation, as evidenced by the recurring inflationary episodes over the past decades.

A less radical course of action could involve retaining the peso while endowing the BCRA with independence from political interference, thereby curbing its tendency to monetize government debt. Regrettably, this option might be hindered by the BCRA’s lack of credibility and the historical inability of politicians over the past decades to effectively address and control inflation by granting independence to Argentina’s central bank.

NATIONALISM/SOCIALISM ISN’T WORKING:

Misunderstanding Milei (g. patrick lynch, 11/23/23, Law & Liberty)


It took almost 80 years. That’s how long Argentina’s economy and society have been in free fall. In some ways, it’s a testament to our greatest fears about democracy and self-government that no political leader had the political incentives and simple nerve to buck the status quo. Eighty years of relentless, grinding inflation and spiraling deficits, followed by defaults, currency devaluations, and restarts before November 19. But finally, the people of Argentina have rejected a failed status quo. Javier Milei publicly won a near landslide by Argentinian standards, and when one considers the probability of Peronist cheating at approximately 100%, the margin was likely much higher. Whether or not the alternative Argentinians have chosen will “fix the situation” is for now beside the point. They have exercised the one option they have—rejecting the incumbents for the promise of something different. That’s all that democracy promises.

[…]

Milei’s main, nay fundamental, policy proposals are all in the context of this backdrop. His firm commitment to abolishing Argentine central banking and cutting social spending is straight out of Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman, and it is completely appropriate given the circumstances. The only way that an “anarcho-capitalist” could be elected was in a situation of failed governance and welfare statism so dire that he could crack the door open slightly and introduce ideas unknown by the mainstream intelligentsia, let alone the average Argentine on the street. […]

There are no easy solutions here, which is part of the reason the media and its stale-minded intellectual influences have no solutions to offer. They are left with nothing but vague language, scare tactics, and labeling. What took 80 years to destroy will take decades, perhaps centuries to recreate. Well before he won the first round of voting back in September, Milei was asked what his model for Argentina was. He replied, Ireland. Ireland of course famously cut taxes and regulation, freeing its economy and spurring rapid economic growth. Argentina could do worse than Ireland, but anything different than its current path will be an improvement.

We know what works and what doesn’t. Do what works.

MORE:

Inflation Destroys Rotten Governments (HAROLD JAMES, 11/23/23, Project Syndicate)

In Argentina, the election of a radical self-styled anarcho-capitalist, Javier Milei, as president can be understood as the immediate consequence of the incumbent Peronist regime’s inability to deal with inflation, which has hit an annualized rate of 143%. Milei’s most important campaign promise was to restore price stability by abolishing the central bank and replacing the Argentine peso with the US dollar.

Ending monetary autonomy is obviously a bold and risky experiment that will severely limit government action. But that is exactly the point. Since the previous government tried to do too much, and manifestly failed, voters now feel as though anything would be better than more mismanagement. […]

[R]ussian inflation also surged in 2022, following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine – just as it had done in 2014 after the initial seizure of territory in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Then, from April 2022, the inflation rate fell for a full year, and almost looked as though it would settle at a respectable 2.5%. But that stability turned out to be an illusion. Inflation returned this summer, following Wagner Group leader Yevgeny Prigozhin’s aborted putsch, and it now represents the greatest immediate risk to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s wartime regime.

Moscow’s city government is candid about this source of angst, and even Putin, who generally avoids acknowledging weaknesses, recently commented on inflation and its threat to Russian families. The Russian central bank has duly hiked its policy rate to 15% – almost three times higher than the US federal funds rate.


As Putin may well know, discontent over prices is often the first sign of an authoritarian regime’s loss of social support.

THE SOLUTION TO POVERTY IS WEALTH:

We’ve been fighting poverty all wrong (Oshan Jarow, Nov 20, 2023, Vox)

Over the course of 2021, child poverty was cut nearly in half, and the long-running fear at the heart of the American welfare system — that unconditional aid would discourage work — never came to pass.

Then, to the dismay of advocates and recipients alike, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) blocked the Democratic Party’s effort to make the expansion permanent, fearing, among other familiar concerns like the cost, that recipients would just buy drugs (the data shows that recipients spent the money on food, clothes, utilities, rent, and education). Come 2022, phase-ins returned to the CTC, approximately 3.7 million children were immediately thrust back into poverty in January, and the rest of the year saw the sharpest rise in the history of recorded child poverty rates.

Phase-ins have long had critics across the political aisle, but their arguments have generally been grounded in small-scale pilot experiments, appeals to morality, or even philosophizing about human nature. Now that we have real-world evidence from a nationwide, year-long experiment, the expanded CTC’s success should ignite efforts to roll back phase-ins across the board. That also means cutting them from the CTC’s sister program, the earned income tax credit (EITC), which phases in as a supplement to wages for low-income Americans and helps about 31 million Americans.

The expanded CTC is estimated to have reduced child poverty rates anywhere from 29 percent to 43 percent, with the vast majority of that drop attributable to removing phase-ins. Extending that success to include the EITC would cut child poverty by an estimated 64 percent.

IMPORTED DISCIPLINE:

Dollarization for Argentina? (Scott Sumner, 11/20/23. Econlib)

  1. Dollarization would solve the problem of hyperinflation.
  2. If Argentina intends to dollarize, now would be a good time to do so.
  3. Dollarization is not a panacea. Argentina still needs Chilean-style economic reforms, and there’s no guarantee that dollarization would lead to those reforms.
  4. Dollarization is less risky than a currency board, but not completely free of risk.

There are two reasons why this is an ideal time for dollarization. First, years of hyperinflation have produced a very small monetary base (in real terms, obviously.) Many Argentine citizens have already switched their money holdings from pesos to dollars. Thus the fiscal cost of dollarization would be relatively low. Given Argentina’s severe economic problems, it would still be a heavy lift, but it’s doable if they are determined to make the switch. Fiscal reforms would obviously make the job much easier, and Milei has promised to slash the budget. I certainly don’t think he’ll cut anywhere near as much as promised, but some cuts seem likely.