Category Archives: Finance

If the government doesn’t do this, no one will

I’m not exactly happy about the recent NIH news. For reference the NIH has decided to change how it pays for the indirect costs of research. When the NIH gives a 1 million dollar grant, the University which receives the grant is allowed to demand a number of “indirect costs” to support the research.

These add up to a certain percentage tacked onto the price of the grant. For a Harvard grant, this was about 65%, for a smaller college it could be 40%. What it meant was that a 1 million grant to Harvard was actually 1.65 million, while a smaller college got 1.4 million, 1 million was always for the research, but 0.65 or 0.4 was for the “indirect costs” that made the research possible.

The NIH has just slashed those costs to the bone, saying it will pay no more than 15% in indirect costs. A 1 million dollar grant will now give no more than 1.15 million.

There’s a lot going on here so let me try to take it step by step. First, some indirect costs are absolutely necessary. The “direct costs” of a grant *may not* pay for certain things like building maintenance, legal aid (to comply with research regulations), and certain research services. Those services are still needed to run the research though, and have to be paid for somehow, thus indirect costs were the way to pay them.

Also some research costs are hard to itemize. Exactly how much should each lab pay for the HVAC that heats and cools their building? Hard to calculate, but the building must be at a livable temperature or no researcher will ever work in it, and any biological experiment will fail as well. Indirect costs were a way to pay for all the building expenses that researchers didn’t want to itemize.

So indirect costs were necessary, but were also abused.

See, unlike what I wrote above, a *university* almost never receives a government grant, a *primary investigator* (called a PI) does instead. The PI gets the direct grant money (the 1 million dollars), but the University gets the indirect costs (the 0.4 to 0.65 million). The PI gets no say over how the University spends the 0.5 million, and many have complained that far from supporting research, the University is using indirect costs to subsidize their own largess, beautifying buildings, building statues, creating ever more useless administrative positions, all without actually using that money how it’s supposed to be used: supporting research.

So it’s clear something had to be done about indirect costs. They were definitely necessary, if there were no indirect costs most researchers would not be able to research as Universities won’t allow you to use their space for free, and direct costs don’t always allow you to rent out lab space. But they were abused in that Universities used them for a whole host of non-research purposes.

There was also what I feel is a moral hazard in indirect costs. More prestigious universities, like Harvard, were able to demand the highest indirect costs, while less prestigious universities were not. Why? It’s not like research costs more just because you have a Harvard name tag. It’s just because Harvard has the power to demand more money, so demand they shall. Of course Harvard would use that extra money they demanded on whatever extravagance they wanted.

The only defense of Harvard’s higher costs is that it’s doing research in a higher cost of living environment. Boston is one of the most expensive cities in America, maybe the world. But Social Security doesn’t pay you more if you live in Boston or in Kalamazoo. Other government programs hand you a set amount of cash and demand you make ends meet with it. So too could Harvard. They could have used their size and prestige to find economies of scale that would give them *less* proportional indirect costs than could a smaller university. But they didn’t, they demanded more.

So indirect costs have been slashed. If this announcement holds (and that’s never certain with this administration, whether they walk it back or are sued to undo it are both equally likely), it will lead to some major changes.

Some universities will demand researcher pay a surcharge for using facilities, and that charge will be paid for by direct costs instead. The end result will be the university still gets money, but we can hope that the money will have a bit more oversight. If a researcher balks at a surcharge, they can always threaten to leave and move their lab.

Researchers as a whole can likely unionize in some states. And researchers, being closer to the university than the government, can more easily demand that this surcharge *actually* support research instead of going to the University’s slush fund.

Or perhaps it will just mean more paperwork for researchers with no benefit.

At the same time some universities might stop offering certain services for research in general, since they can no longer finance that through indirect costs. Again we can hope that direct costs can at least pay for those, so that the services which were useful stay solvent and the services which were useless go away. This could be a net gain. Or perhaps none will stay solvent and this will be a net loss.

And importantly, for now, the NIH budget has not changed. They have a certain amount of money they can spend, and will still spend all of it. If they used to give out grants that were 1.65 million and now give out grants that are 1.15 million, that just means more individual grants, not less money. Or perhaps this is the first step toward slashing the NIH budget. That would be terrible, but no evidence of it yet.

What I want to push back on though, is this idea I’ve seen floating around that this will be the death of research, the end of PhDs, or the end of American tech dominance. Arguments like this are rooted in a fallacy I named in the title: “if the government doesn’t do this, no one will.”

These grants fund PhDs who then work in industry. Some have tried to claim that this change will mean there won’t be bright PhDs to go to industry and work on the future of American tech. But to be honest, this was always privatizing profit and socializing cost. All Americans pay taxes that support these PhDs, but overwelmingly the benefits are gained by the PhD holder and the company they work for, neither of whom had to pay for it.

“Yes but we all benefit from their technology!” We benefit from a lot of things. We benefit from Microsoft’s suite of software and cloud services. We benefit from Amazon’s logistics network. We benefit form Tesla’s EV charging infrastructure. *But should we tax every citizen to directly subsidize Microsoft, Amazon, and Tesla?* Most would say. no. The marginal benefits to society are not worth the direct costs to the taxpayer. So why subsidize the companies hiring PhDs?

Because people will still do things even if the government doesn’t pay them. Tesla built a nation-wide network of EV chargers, while the American government couldn’t even build 10 of them. Even federal money was not necessary for Tesla to build EV chargers, they built them of their own free will. And before you falsely claim how much Tesla is government subsidized, an EV tax credit benefits the *EV buyer* not the EV seller. And besides, if EV tax credits are such a boon to Tesla, then why not own the fascists by having the Feds and California cut them completely? Take the EV tax credits to 0, that will really show Tesla. But of course no one will because we all really know who the tax credits support, they support the buyers and we want to keep them to make sure people switch from ICE cars to EVs

Diatribe aside, Tesla, Amazon, and Microsoft have all built critical American infrastructure without a dime of government investment. If PhDs are so necessary (and they probably are), then I don’t doubt the market will rise to meet the need. I suspect more companies will be willing to sponsor PhDs and University research. I suspect more professors will become knowledgeable about IP and will attempt to take their research into the market. I suspect more companies will offer scholarships where after achieving a PhD, you promise to work for the company on X project for Y amount of years. Companies won’t just shrug and go out of business if they can’t find workers, they will in fact work to make them.

I do suspect there will be *less* money for PhDs in this case however. As I said before, the PhD pipeline in America has been to privatize profits and subsidize costs. All American taxpayers pay billions towards the Universities and Researchers that produce PhD candidates, but only the candidates and the companies they work for really see the gain. But perhaps this can realign the PhD pipeline with what the market wants and needs. Less PhDs of dubious quality and job prospect, more with necessary and marketable skills.

I just want to push back on the idea that the end of government money is a deathknell for industry. If an industry is profitable, and if it sees an avenue for growth, it will reinvest profits in pursuit of growth. If the government subsidizes the training needed for that industry to grow, then instead it will invest in infrastructure, marketing, IP and everything else. If training is no longer subsidized, then industry will subsidize it themselves. If PhDs are really needed for American tech dominance, then I absolutely assure you that even the complete end of the NIH will not end the PhD pipeline, it will simply shift it towards company-sponsored or (for the rich) self-sponsored research.

Besides, the funding for research provided by the NIH is still absolutely *dwarfed* by what a *single* pharma company can spend, and there are hundreds of pharma companies *and many many other types of health companies* out there doing research. The end of government-funded research is *not* the end of research.

Now just to end on this note: I want to be clear that I do not support the end of the NIH. I want the NIH to continue, I’d be happier if its budget increased. I think indirect costs were a problem but I think this slash-down-to-15% was a mistake. But I think too many people are locked into a “government-only” mindset and cannot see what’s really out there.

If the worst comes to pass, and if you cannot find NIH funding, go to the private sector, go to the non-profits. They already provided less than the NIH in indirect costs but they still funded a lot of research, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Open your mind, expand your horizons, try to find out how you can get non-governmental funding, because if the worst happens that may be your only option.

But don’t lie and whine that if the government doesn’t do something, then nobody will. That wasn’t true with EV chargers, it isn’t true with biomedical research, and it is a lesson we all must learn if the worst does start to happen.

Thomas Friedman’s the-world-is-flatitude

Flatitude is supposed to be a play on attitude

I remember reading about Thomas Friedman’s “The World is Flat” thesis years ago. Put simply: he proposed that globalization meant the USA no longer enjoyed a by-default pre-eminance in the world economy. American companies and workers now had to compete with the entire world, and that inevitably would lead to worldwide wages equalizing and other companies rising up to meet American dominance. Gone are the days when an American can work for the world’s biggest company, headquartered in their hometown, and then go on vacation to places where “everything is so cheap!” The world’s biggest companies will be more likely to be headquartered in China and India than America, and wages worldwide will rise to the point that every country is as expensive to visit as America.

20 years on, none of that has happened.

At times and at places, global wages have risen relative to America. At times and at places, global companies have risen into industries once dominated by America. But in 2005, when Friedman published his book, the top 10 global companies by market cap were 80% American. In 2024, they’re 90% American. And in certain years (like 2016 and 2017), they’ve been 100% American. American companies still rule the global roost, and American wages are still the highest on earth. International workers still prefer to immigrate to America, despite the massive costs and uncertainties, rather than find a job with a global company in their home country.

I don’t know how Friedman himself portrayed his thesis in 2005, but in my part of the world (liberal and anti-American-by-default because the sitting president was a Republican), there was a lot of “take that America! You won’t stay on top for long and you’d better get used to it!” I think Friedman had a misread of history, and the readers had an even greater misread of the present.

There is a default mindset that I feel many people fall into when talking about economics. The idea goes: America used to be on top of the world because of unfair, random advantages. Those could be colonialism, those could be early industrialization. But now that the world is more fair (or once we *make it* more fair), America can’t coast on inertia, it will have to compete on a level playing field, and *of course* the rest of the world, which has 95% of the population to America’s 5%, will eventually out-compete it in *many* areas.

I think this belies a misunderstanding of the unfair advantages that America has *right now*. India, Nigeria, and China all have large populations, lots of natural resources, and growing middle classes. But it’s difficult to do business there because of import/export and currency restrictions, and often-times everything can be taken from you by government fiat, so it’s harder to create success and you’re more likely to leave the country if you do manage it. And when you leave the country, you can always go to Europe, but if you want to keep growing your business or your personal finances you go to America where the wages are higher and the business climate friendlier.

Friedman said that globalization, the technology that connects us and the legal/social willingness to offshore jobs and production will inevitably lead to a flattening of global economies and global wages. Why would Microsoft pay $100,000 to a programmer in America, when a programmer just as good in India will cost $10,000? They won’t. And so there will be more demand for Indian programmers and less and less demand for American ones. Law of supply and demand means American wages will fall and Indian wages will rise until the two equalize.

But alternatively, why would Microsoft put its money into India (as it must do in order to have the bank accounts, rental agreements, and so on which allow it to employ Indian workers), when capital controls will restrict its ability to get its money back out again? Companies don’t exist for a country’s good, they exist for their own good, and Microsoft wants to be able to move its money anywhere and everywhere at a moment’s notice. Capital controls, like what the developing world still employs, make it harder to do so, and make companies like Microsoft and others far more leery about investing in those countries.

An employee in America costs 10x as much, but at least your money will never get stuck in America with no way out.

And this is just the one example that leapt off the page at me. There are plenty more reasons why the world is not flat and probably won’t ever be. There are network affects to the USA that may take centuries to undo, such as the preeminence of the US stock markets at the expense of all others. India investors throw their money into the S&P more than the Indian stock markets, so an Indian company looking to grow fast with public money also needs to list on the S&P. That draws it further and further into connecting with the American economy, until it starts making more and more sense to just do its business in America as well. Oh it would never think of uprooting from India (and the government won’t allow it anyway), but it will invest more in American operations and less in Indian operations than it would if it didn’t get drawn to America by all the money that’s there.

Then there’s security. For all the internet memes, America is a safer place with a generally lower death rate than developing nations like India and Nigeria. There’s a whole lot of reasons for this, but it isn’t something that can be fixed quickly and easily with a bit more money. So an Indian worker would still prefer to make their money in America if it means they get to live in America as well, even if they could make the same amount of money in India.

I think there is a general under-estimating of what makes the American economy so strong. A lot of people assume it’s just inertia: America industrialized early, got to coast on colonialism, and then wasn’t destroyed in World War 1 and 2. That meant that it emerged in the 50s as the strongest economy on earth, but without those lucky breaks it has no reason to stay the strongest. So people assume America has just been coasting and the rest of the world will quickly catch up. I don’t think that’s the truth. A lot less attention is paid to just how much America’s laws and economic setup make doing business here easier than anywhere else.

There’s a separate meme about how “lucky” America is that it keeps finding natural resources everywhere. Coal, oil recently Helium, America just seems “lucky.” But while hydrocarbons certainly aren’t found everywhere, America isn’t *really* just lucky. The recent American oil boom is driven by fracking, and Europe could have joined in the boom except that they banned fracking entirely. There is plenty of frack-able (is that a word?) oil underneath Europe, even if there aren’t any Saudi-style oil fields there, but Europe can’t join the oil boom because its laws don’t allow it.

And American finds of lithium, helium and so on aren’t just luck either. In America, if you own a piece of land you generally own the mineral rights beneath it. That makes it economically viable to just start searching the land for any big piles of lithium/helium and so on, because if you find any its yours by default and you win a lot of money.

But in Australia, many mineral rights are held by the states. So why would I ever go hunting for lithium/helium on my land if I may not be able to get money out of it? If I have to pay the state a portion of my winnings? There’s probably just as much ultra-precious metals in Australia as there are in America, but less of it gets found because there’s less incentive. Not to say *nothing* gets found, Australia does have a mining-intensive economy, but less than if individuals had an incentive to go looking.

I just wanted to post this to say that the world is not flat, and America is not just lucky. Luck may play a role, but writers and commentators often don’t understand how America’s current laws and economic setup give it a *current* competitive advantage relative to all the other countries on earth. It isn’t just coasting on its *past* competitive advantage from the 1950s, and there’s no guarantee that the rest of the world *must* catch up to America unless they loosen their economic laws in turn.

If I were president of Nigeria

You may have read in the news that Nigeria is going through an economic crisis. I feel most news agencies haven’t done a lot of due diligence, they have poured plenty of ink over the human interest stories of people unable to buy petrol, of the mass protests, and of the government’s response. But they haven’t done anything to explain the economic underpinnings of the crisis.

At best they may have given you a few basic facts. The president cut fuel subsidies and currency controls; the price of everything skyrocketed; the president says some pain is necessary. But they aren’t doing anything more than blaming the president’s actions for the crisis while also blandly repeating his assertions of “no pain, no gain.”

WHY did the president do what he did? Why does he think it’s necessary? What has it achieved? What has it *not* achieved? And what could he be doing differently?

Nigerian President Tinubu came into power only last year, amid an already languid economy. He comes from the same party as his predecessor, but was not content to be “Continuity Buhari,” he wanted to shake things up. At his inauguration, he announced the end of the fuel subsidy “with immediate effect.” People of course rushed out to buy the last of the subsidized fuel before prices skyrocketed. Not long after, he began loosening currency controls. The central bank had been artificially inflating the value of the Naira, and so without these controls it’s value came crashing down.

But I don’t think Tinubu did this because he hates poor people and doesn’t want to spend money on them. I think there were dire financial circumstances that demanded these actions, but not only do they demand *more* actions that Tinubu seems unwilling to entertain, but he himself has not been a great spokesman for why he did this.

To start with, the fuel subsidy was costing Nigeria an incredible amount each day. Nigeria maintains a relatively low tax environment thanks to a state monopoly on oil which is the government’s main source of revenue. The fuel subsidy hoovered up between 15 and 25 percent of this government revenue, a huge outflow that badly constrained government finances while also inhibiting a transition to renewable, perhaps even cheaper energy like wind and solar.

Meanwhile, the currency controls also costed Nigeria greatly. There are two ways to maintain an artificially powerful currency: buying currency on the local market and restricting the movement of currency into and out of the country.

The Nigerian central bank spent loads of dollars and euros from its vault buying up naira (Nigeria’s currency) on the global market, to raise the price of naira relative to these other currencies. But this was never enough to keep the value of the naira up, the central bank’s “official” exchange rate was always around 100 to 1000 times more expensive than what the naira was *actually* worth. The black market exchange rate pegged the naira as being worth way way less than what the central bank said.

In normal circumstances, this black market rate would quickly take over, obliterating the value of the naira as people trade naira for dollars at fair market prices, rather than the bank’s artificially set price. So currency controls were implemented to prevent this.

There were (and still somewhat are) huge restrictions on bringing dollars or foreign currency into Nigeria. It’s hard to bring cash on an airplane, and if you send money digitally through a bank, the Nigerian central bank will forcibly convert your dollars into naira at their set price, turning your 100 dollars into say 10,000 naira instead of the 1,000,000 naira they’re actually worth. This loses you a lot of money. And then there are crackdowns on any unofficial money changers, all this means that it’s very restrictive to move money into and out of the country.

But what if you’re a tourist, or a business that wants to invest in Nigeria? Then the central bank’s currency scheme is a certain way to fleece you for your dollars. Nigeria (like most countries) demands all transactions be in its local currency, the naira. So if you want to buy Nigerian yams, either because you’re a tourist who wants to eat yams or because you’re an exporter wanting to export them on the global market, you need to change your dollars into naira to do so. This either means losing 90% of your dollar’s value through the official exchange rate, or risking jail time by smuggling dollars into the country and using a black market money changer.

Either way, this makes investment *and* tourism a lot more precarious, and does even more to scare foreign money *out* of the country, at a time when Nigeria desperately needs money coming *in* to save its beleaguered industries.

To get back to Tinubu, he saw that Nigeria’s government finances were not good. The government deficit ran 5% of GDP, and was growing. It was difficult, and VERY expensive for Nigeria to borrow money on the world market because of this, so continuing the deficit-spending path was merely robbing future generations to pay for the present generation.

So he wanted to cut spending and boost investment. He cut the fuel subsidy, since it costed so much of the government’s revenue, and he loosened currency controls so that it’s easier to invest in Nigeria. In this way he hope to grow the economy and raise tax revenue. In the long run, this should provide *more* money to support the people.

Loosening currency controls however, led to triple digit inflation, as the naira’s official value finally caught up to its black market value. And combined with the end of the fuel subsidy this made everyone a lot poorer and made food and basic necessities a lot more expensive.

There’s a glimmer of hope that Tinubu’s plans are working, foreign investment is surging and perhaps after so much pain, Nigeria can come out the other side with a stronger economy that can actually spend more on its people, more on education, safety, and medical welfare instead of just subsidizing petrol. But it may also be far to little to save Tinubu’s presidency, and his successor can just undo it all to appease the populace.

I think the gains would come a lot faster for Tinubu if he were willing to be a truly radical reformer, and not just cut spending on the poor.

In addition to the fuel subsidy and currency restrictions which make investing in Nigeria difficult, the country also has a highly restrictive trade policy which isn’t making things any easier. Nigeria prohibits the import of a wide variety of products, from staple crops like cassava (related to the yam or sweet potato) to cement to eggs and meat. The only justification for this is to “protect domestic industry and farmers,” but let me rebut that:

First of all, people cannot afford food! The end of the fuel subsidy, the floating of the currency, these have put the price of food out of reach of many Nigerians. There are thousands of foreign companies, in West Africa and the rest of the world who can step in to provide more food if import restrictions are lifted. More food means a drop in the cost of food, through the laws of supply and demand, and so this increase in supply would go at least some way towards alleviating the hardships brought on by Tinubu’s other reforms.

And furthermore, importing food would create just as many jobs, if not more, than it “destroyed.” Markets need workers to staff them, trucks need drivers, loaders, unloaders and ports need all the same. Importing eggs so that people can afford to eat might make it harder to a poultry farmer to compete, but it would also create a number of jobs in logistics, supply, and customer-facing roles to get those eggs into people’s hands.

Furthermore, the unemployed farmer need not remain so. The high price of eggs makes it hard not only for customers to afford eggs, but also for any industry that uses eggs to afford them. Ice cream is very popular in Nigeria, but locally made ice cream is more expensive than it should be because the price of eggs remains high. But importing eggs would lower the price of eggs by driving up supply, and would allow ice cream manufacturers to buy more eggs, make more ice cream, and thus they’d need to hire more loaders and unloaders, more line workers, more mechanics for their ice cream machines, and so on. The loss of jobs in the poultry industry would easily be replaced by the gain of jobs in every manufacturing industry which uses eggs as an input.

And new industries could also be created. The thing about the government controlling the economy (as it does when it restricts the import and export of goods) is that the government doesn’t know as well as the market what a country’s competitive advantage is. And by stifling the import of so many goods, the Nigerian government makes it difficult for the economy to *find* those competitive advantages.

The USA eats far more pineapples than it produces, but imported pineapples are often packaged and canned in the USA, and that packaging and canning industry employs far more people than pineapple-growing alone ever could. And it’s not as if the USA *couldn’t* grow pineapples. California, and Florida all grow pineapples, but they have found competitive advantages in other products (like oranges or computer software) and the pineapple-growing jobs are instead pineapple-canning jobs, which are higher paid as well.

So if Nigeria ended its import restrictions, not only would individuals be able to afford groceries, but industries would be created and expanded, growing the economy. Nigeria would be able to find its competitive advantages, the things it does better than every country on earth, and would better exploit those advantages for growth and profit.

I will throw a bone to the populists who say that the fuel subsidies and currency controls may have been lifted *too fast*. I haven’t looked into it, but perhaps the pain would have been minimized, and the disruptions smoothed out, if these reforms were phased in such a way that the economy could better adjust. But if I were advising president Tinubu, my primary advice would be that he isn’t going far enough. End the trade restrictions, help the people afford basic goods, and help the industries grow through competitive advantage. The end result will be a much better economy than when you cut all the subsidies but still try to “protect” entrenched industries.

Why is State Farm leaving California?

note: I had intended to publish this months ago. But I never finished it, and now I’m struggling to get a post out in time, so I’ve tried to make this one acceptable.

There was recently news that State Farm insurance is leaving California, and will no longer accept new customers. Perhaps they may even kick old customers off their plans and refuse to do any business in California at all. This caused a wave of reactions, from consternation that a company could be so mean to California, to demands that State Farm “reimburse” customers who have paid for years with no claims, to calls to nationalize the insurance companies because “clearly” they’re just stealing from the little guy.

All these reactions will be addressed in turn, but first, let’s talk about how insurance works. If you recall my post from way back about Ric Flair and his gym, insurance is just a way to reduce your downside risk in exchange for a small lose of your upside gain. You pay a little every month and in exchange if your house or business is destroyed, you get some money back.

What’s important is that insurance is structured like a bet: the insurance company is betting that nothing bad will happen to your property during the period of your insurance, if they win the bet they keep your money and you get nothing in return (except maybe peace of mind). While they only pay out if they lose the bet and your property *is* damaged. Because of this, many people see insurance as a scam. Why would I ever pay if I don’t expect my property to be damaged? Well you’re mitigating risk, maybe there’s only a 1% chance your home is destroyed, but that’s a 1% chance that you lose *everything* and are left utterly homeless unless you have insurance to cover the cost of rebuilding your home. Isn’t it worth it to pay a little to ensure you aren’t homeless from an act of God?

Now first, I want to quickly call out a very dumb line of reasoning I’ve seen floating around regarding insurance. I’m not quoting any one tweet or post, but synthesizing what I’ve seen in many places at many times:

Why isn’t there a refund check for insurance like taxes? I’ve paid so much without using the policy, and even if I make a claim, they find ways to avoid paying. Total scam!

This sentiment belies a complete failure to understand insurance on even the most *basic* level. To start with, if you want a refund because you’ve paid in without using the policy, should the insurance company be able to demand more money if you paid in and then *did* use the policy? Of course not, you’d call them insane and selfish. But realize that it’s the identical situation, in reverse.

An insurance policy is simple: you pay regularly and they pay if certain conditions are met. Of course “certain conditions” can be interpreted differently by different people. And insurance companies are profit-maximizing (like all companies) they’ll try to avoid paying when they can. But this is a necessary evil, better the company try to limit payouts than it go bankrupt overpaying it’s customers. Because then every *other* customer would suddenly lose their insurance.

So finally, why is State Farm leaving California? Because they can’t make a profit. Most states regulate insurance incredibly heavily, to the extent that they put price caps on insurance premiums. That way the company cannot raise prices without the state’s say so. And if the state won’t let a company raise prices to cover rising costs (and costs ARE rising because of inflation and climate change), then the insurance company is not obligated to subsidize a state with coverage cheaper than costs.

As is so common, people blame the free market for a government-run system.

Vibes and the economy

I don’t want to get too political, but it’s an election year (in several countries) and The Discourse is inevitable. But I want to quickly push back on something I’ve seen all too often on social media recently.

In America, the numbers for the economy look “good.” Unemployment is low, *really* low. Inflation is high, but wage growth is higher. And the stock market is up. So why are Americans’ perceptions of the economy so poor? Why is consumer confidence lower than it *should* be?

Some partisans and twitterati have decided that Trump Was Right and the problem is fake news. Legacy media and social media are both driving relentlessly negative press and this is brainwashing people into believing that the “good” economy is “bad.”

But instead I’d like to take take a step back and see if polls are telling us something that “the numbers” just aren’t. And I think I have good evidence that they are.

First, here’s a graph from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. It shows that housing affordability is lower than at any time since the 80, lower even than during the housing bubble that precipitated the Great Recession. If you’re a millennial or a zoomer, *never in your life has housing been less affordable than it is today*.

And housing isn’t just a “nice-to-have,” it sits at the bottom of Mazlo’s Hierarchy of Needs for a reason. A stable housing situation is (for most people) a necessary ingredient before they feel confident starting a family, putting down roots, or just feeling like they “belong” to where they live.

Now, you *can* have a stable housing situation in an apartment, but it’s much harder. Rent increases can drive you out, and rent-controlled apartments are hard to come by. Apartments also aren’t always conducive to the types of living that people want in their life.

So the price of housing is driving a *real crisis* in millennial and zoomer living, as people with otherwise high earnings are unable to obtain what lower-earnings folks could get in the past, namely a house to live in.

Then there’s the fact that datapoints about “all” millennials are missing key differences *between* millennials. See the next graph

The *median* millennial is doing worse than the median boomer was at this point in their life, in terms of net wealth, net assets, and housing. But the top 10% of millennials are doing way better than the boomers ever could, so taken together it seems like millennials are doing well overall. It’s like looking at a city where 1 person is a billionaire and 99 are destitute and saying that overall the city is very wealthy.

These kinds of mean/median differences are well-known to people in liberal circles, because they signal high inequality. But because a liberal is currently president, these differences are ignored by much of the twitterati.

I could say more about this topic, and I wish I had the energy to, but I’ve been so tired lately with my new medicine. Nevertheless, next time you see someone like Will Stancil screech that the kids are all morons and that everyone is rich, note that he is a member of that top 10%, not the median.

When people’s answers in polling are different than what “the fundamentals” suggest, it may be that the people are just stupid. But it’s far more likely that polling is capturing something that your data is ignoring. And right now that’s housing costs and growing inequality.

Are analysts’ opinions anti-correlated with the market?

This time 2 years ago, we were still riding high on the post-pandemic surge, and analysts were expecting the S&P could break 5,000. This time last year, we were still in what felt like the 2022 doldrums and analysts were predicting a recession. This time 3 months ago, people were declaring inflation was whipped. And then a few days ago, CPI and PPI came in hot.

I’ve written before about how the Efficient Market Hypothesis may imply that there is *no* correlation between analyst opinion and the stock market. Analysts are just as likely to be wrong as right, but people only remember the examples which agree with their biases. On the other hand, I read an article recently (I’m sorry I cannot find it to link) arguing that analyst opinion is in fact *anti*-correlated. That is, the Short Cramer ETF is correct, and analysts are so stupid you should do the opposite of what they say.

Speaking of, the Short Cramer ETF “SJIM” is down about 20% from when it began. But no matter, should you do the opposite of what analysts say or is that as irrational as following their advice?

One argument is that analysts are inherently *backward-looking*, they generally assume trends will continue forever. Some are perma-bulls or perma-bears, but on average when the market is down analysts predict a down year, and when it’s up they predict an up year. In this case, if the market is a random walk then it’s very unlikely to simply continue it’s current trend, thus an analyst is more likely to be wrong than right.

On the other hand, shouldn’t wisdom of the crowds have an affect? On the aggregate, many gamblers who bet on real world events (either sports of politics) are betting on what they *want* to happen, and many have no real knowledge whatsoever. Yet Nate Silver and others have argued that betting markets are often more accurate than not, whether it’s politics, sports or what have you. Some how, a million idiots adds up to something better than our smartest mind.

If that’s the case why don’t all the analysts of the market add up to something smart?

It just reminds me to be humble, because all too often I’ve seen people caught out badly by a trend. The late 2023 “inflation is beaten, start thanking Joe Biden” narrative won’t seem as smart if inflation stays persistently hot, any more than the “recession around the corner” narrative of 2023. Overconfidence when you really know nothing is the hallmark of an analyst, and maybe that’s why they’re so often wrong.

Is it culture? Or is it incentives?

The Internet in general is US-centric. So even on the European parts of the Internet it’s common for countries (or the entire continent) to compare themselves to America. There are thousands of things you could compare, but the most contentious is probably the economic comparisons. America has recently grown much more strongly than Europe, and it doesn’t take an economist to realize that nearly all of the world’s top companies and startups are located in America. San Fransisco alone has more billion-dollar startups than entire countries, and before you say “that’s just silicon valley,” New York and Boston aren’t far behind.

There are a million ways to explain this discrepancy and plenty of reasons why Europeans may even think it’s good. We could talk all day about whether worker’s rights are fundamentally incompatible with cut-throat capitalism, and if Europe has therefore chosen the better path. But the most flawed reason I see bandied about is that Europe just has the wrong culture for this kind of stuff.

Europe is more laid back, less aggressive. Their investors prefer same, consistent gains. The European mindset isn’t focused on innovation, and culturally Europeans aren’t focused on business the way Americans are.

I think these explanations are wrong and dumb, and I’d use more expletive words if I hadn’t made a New Year’s Resolution not to do so in my writing. I don’t think Europeans are culturally less attuned to startups and Big Business, I think the legal framework prevents it.

Not long ago, Europe was seen as the beating heart of innovation and technology. Industrial progress, scientific progress, just go to any chemistry or physics class and see how many formulas are named for Germans. But now America dominates the industries, and I think it’s because of government, not culture.

The American business framework provides significant bankruptcy protection. People mocked Trump for his many bankruptcies, but most investors know that 90% of good ideas fail and the last 10% have to cover those loses. Bankruptcy is a way for investors to mitigate their downside, and thus allows for bigger risks to be taken.

The American financial system also gives significant benefits to investors, giving them greater flexibility in buying and selling their company to whomever they wish. Until Biden and Trump brought protectionism back to the fore, it was not uncommon to see American companies sold to foreign investors with little fanfare. Nativists and racists may complain about *gasp* Chinese people owning an American company, but from the investor’s perspective selling the company is a good way to cash out his winnings from the investment. Foreign buyers compete with American buyers, and this increase in demand means prices go up. This means the sale price of companies goes up, and that increases the returns on an investor’s investment.

But long before Trump, Europe was made famous in the tech world for blocking foreign buyers from its companies. Again, nativists wrongly think that this strengthens the European tech industry by “keeping it in European hands.” But when an investor sells out, they get cash in return. What do you think they do with that cash? They don’t hoard it like Smaug the Dragon, they reinvest it. Because they’re investors. By blocking foreign buyers, you reduce buying pressure, you reduce how much money investors can get out of their investment, and you therefore reduce their upside potential. Is it any wonder then they’d prefer a safer investment, when Europe is happy to cap the gains on any risky tech investment they make?

And Europe prides itself on fining big tech companies for any reason whatsoever. But surely it’s obvious that a government hostile to profitable tech companies would scare off anyone wanting to make a profitable tech company near them. Better to start in America or get out of Europe ASAP. Microsoft and Apple can afford billion dollar fines, but such sanctions could be lethal to a smaller European tech company. So again investors are scared off, entrepreneurs are scared off, and Europe wonders why it doesn’t have a tech sector.

“But what about ASML and Spotify!” And what about them? For every single, solitary European company that manages to rise above the hostile governing environment, there are 10 American companies that rose under easier circumstances. Spotify started in 2006, and since then Massachusetts alone has started Draft Kings, Moderna and Intellia Therapeutics, all of comparable value to Spotify. And Massachusetts has half the population of Sweden.

People respond to incentives, and the incentives for risky tech investment are very poor in Europe. Bankruptcy is easier in America, returns are (or were before Biden and Trump) less likely to be capped by protectionist policies, and (before Biden) the government generally has taken a more lax approach to dealing with corporations. You can debate if these things are good or bad, but I find them far more likely reasons for America’s tech dominance than “culture” or “attitude.”

Nationalization

Nationalization (or rather Nationalisation) was a big part of Jeremy Corbyn’s manifesto during the 2017 and 2019 General Elections. If Labour won, it promised that anything and everything would be nationalized, usually at below market price.

I’ve always been skeptical of claims that nationalization leads to any kind of savings. The claim is that since a Government company doesn’t have to worry about profits for shareholders, it can be more efficient than a private company. All the profits that are paid out as dividends are instead re-invested into the company to provide better service at a lower cost.

But there truly isn’t any law saying a company ever has to provide dividends and profits. If Corbyn, McDonnell and co truly thought that companies could run better and more efficiently without profit, they could always just do that themselves without need of the government. Private citizens can always set up a non-profit corporation, they can take money from people (God know’s Corbyn was a fundraising machine) and set up a company that doesn’t pay dividends to shareholders, but instead re-invests everything to provide better service at a lower cost.

If such a non-profit did truly provide better service at a lower cost, then customers would flock to it over the for-profit companies that already exist. And again since this non-profit doesn’t hand out dividends, then Corbyn Co could easily be the fastest growing company in the world as it takes on more and more customers and reinvests into being better and better.

So why did they need nationalization? Why couldn’t they give the British people good services as a low price by just setting up a non-profit company and out-competing the for-profit ones? Why do socialists only ever think they can succeed by taking from someone else?

I think they simply didn’t have enough economic literacy to realize how their whole idea was such a shambles. Non-profit companies haven’t taken over the world because for-profit companies are actually way more efficient. They’re more efficient than non-profits and more efficient than Government companies, but socialists prefer to deny the lessons of history and keep acting like it’s the 1970s.

Not only are nationalized companies less efficient, but the act of nationalization creates inefficiencies. The idea that the government can force a sale of a profitable enterprise creates a chilling effect as investors become less likely to invest knowing it can all be taken from them at any moment. People don’t want to be forced to sell to the government, even at a “fair” price. Most eminent domain projects throughout history were done at a “fair” price, with people being paid the market value for their homes and then kicked out to make way for freeways and whatnot. But “fair” price or not, no one likes a forced sale.

And Corbyn Co wanted to take things a step further by paying below market value for the companies they wanted to nationalize. So not only was the government forcing a sale, but they were also committing theft at the same time.

I write all this because nationalization became a big word again during the recent bout of inflation, and I’ve seen way to many people jump on the bandwagon saying we need to nationalize energy companies, housing companies, and everything else to keep prices down. But prices don’t rise because companies are greedy, they rise because of fundamental shortages and inefficiencies. A nationalized company would have just as much trouble with inflation as a for-profit one, only a nationalized company could push its losses onto the taxpayers rather than be forced to raise prices and cut costs.

High prices are a signal that there is a shortage and that alternative avenues should be sought. When the price of gas rose, I decided I couldn’t justify driving to work every day so I tried to bike whenever possible. But would a nationalized American Gas company instead pass that cost onto the taxpayer? Wouldn’t they keep prices low so that I kept using as much gas as I always did? In that case every taxpayer who tries to be a good world citizen and use less carbon would be subsidizing me personally as a drove a distance that I could easily bike instead.

As inflation tapers off, it seems clear that nationalization was not the answer, and we are entering the Era of Corporate Generosity. But I doubt we’ve silenced forever the calls of nationalization, no matter how many times it leads to omnishambles. Still, I hope no serious nationalization proposal is put forward for a long time yet.

“The Crime of ’73”

Boy, these posts aren’t quite coming out weekly now are they?

I might have posted on this topic before, but I wanted to write something down and this was on my mind. It’s interesting how the controversies of yesteryear always fade away, even though in their day they dominated the news and the mind-space of politically conscious voters.

Take the Silver vs Gold movement. When America was founded, it had a bi-metallic standard, meaning that both silver and gold were legal tender. Congress set down in writing how much weight of silver made a dollar and how much gold made a dollar, and so both could be used to buy and sell. But of course, as commodities the price of silver and gold in the market would fluctuate, but congress didn’t understand or act quickly enough to fix things.

For example, silver mines in Mexico continued to run and depressed the price of silver relative to gold. This created an arbitrage opportunity because the price of gold was higher than that of silver:

  • Take 10 silver dollars and exchange them for 10 gold dollars, as they are equivalent
  • Take the gold dollars to Mexico and melt them down.
  • Take that gold and exchange it for raw silver
  • Bring that silver back to the Mint in America and demand to have it struck into silver dollars. Because of the price difference between silver and gold, the silver you brought back will make more than 10 dollars worth, so you can pocket the extra as your profit.
  • Start back from the beginning, trading 10 silver dollars for 10 gold dollars

This happened because congress set a fixed value for a commodity who’s value changed on the market, and as that value changed there was arbitrage created. Gold flowed out of the country and was replaced with silver. When the California gold rush happened, the price of gold suddenly decreased and the whole process reversed. Congress didn’t understand what was happening, and so simply decided to remove the bimetallic standard to stop this from happening.

But now we get to “The Crime of 1873.” When congress removed the silver standard in 1873, silver miners could no longer have their pure silver struck into coins that could be used as tender. The mint was by far the largest purchaser of silver and so removing silver from the standard removed most of the demand and so killed the price. Congress therefore upended the livelihoods of thousands of miners and mining towns by changing the laws on coinage. And those people never forgave them.

For years this “Crime” was the hottest topic in certain political sections. It was the litmus test for candidates and parties. And it was the entire foundation of the presidential candidacy of William Jennings Bryan. For years, certain voters would never vote for a candidate or party who had supported the “Crime,” and they may not have even kept polite company with voters who supported those candidates. In its time, the “Crime” was seen as the greatest betrayal possible, and plenty of people pointed to it as the reason for national or local economic problems. They blamed the “Crime” and hoped that overturning it would fix things.

Of course, America never regained the silver standard. For a time, the Federal government compromised and declared it would still buy silver from the miners directly, but in time even this subsidy was removed. The people affected by the “Crime” probably never forgave the Republicans (who passed the bill) for what they did. Indeed the “Crime’s” authors had a hard time defending their actions in the face of angry voters. Some authors claimed that the bill didn’t do what critics claimed, and that the US had technically been non-silver since 1853. Others claimed that ending the silver standard was an unintended biproduct. But this had the perverse effect of amplifying conspiracy theorists who believed the bill was passed with malicious intend, and giving ammo to those who wanted to overturn it.

In the 1880s and 1890s, the “Crime of 73” was as much a controversial topic as any political topic today. Friendships could be ended by it. But it too did pass. I think most of the controversies of our day shall also pass, these days even American History students will barely remember the “Crime.”

Tariffs are taxes, I’m tired of pretending otherwise

Every politician says they’re lowering taxes. Or if they raise taxes, it’s only on the rich, poor people definitely deserve lower taxes. So do middle class people (where “middle class” equals “everyone less than rich” and “rich” equals “everyone richer than my current audience and me”). Taxes are unpopular and taxes shouldn’t be raised.

But tariffs are fine apparently. In a new wave of protectionism, Biden and Trump have jacked up tariffs on everything from solar panels to lumbar. And despite claims of “national security” and “containing China” these tariffs have most strongly hit America’s allies such as Canada and Germany. The national security claims are bunk, these tariffs hit allies far more than they hit enemies.

But still Biden doesn’t get pushback for raising taxes because “tariffs” aren’t seen as taxes. Wrongly, most people don’t realize that slapping a tax on imported goods raises the price of all of those goods, even the locally made ones. Think of it like this: if Biden slapped a tax on Pepsi such that every Pepsi now costed 5$, would Coca-Cola sit back and keep their prices? Of course not, as a greedy company Coca-Cola knows that customers will flock to its lower-priced products, and this will give it the ammunition to raise prices to juuuuuuuust under what Pepsi has. So now 4$ Cokes will become the norm.

So too does it happen with tariffs. When you raise the price of Canadian lumbar, American lumbar companies also raise their prices because they know the consumer has no choice but to take it. When you raise the price of German steel, American steel raises its prices. These taxes on foreign goods have raised the price on all goods. They then raise the price of what those goods are used for, for example lumbar tariffs are raising house prices. And what do you call it when the price of goods rises over time? Inflation.

Biden’s tariffs are adding to inflation. Trump’s tariffs are adding to inflation. Tariffs are nothing more than a tax on goods, a tax that the poor and middle class pay most as they are the ones most damaged by inflation. I’m tired of house prices soaring in part because of these new taxes. I’m tired of solar panel prices soaring as well. It’s all very two-faced of the Biden admin to claim global warming is an existential threat and then do everything in their power to kill the solar industry with new tariffs. Taxing it into the ground only makes global warming worse.

So I’m tired of these tariffs, they’re nothing more than a tax. And I’m not going to pretend otherwise.