Tag Archives: Finance

What exactly is Ezra Klein’s “Abundance Agenda?”

Answer: it’s neoliberalism. But if that answer fills you with disgust, fear, or just confusion, please read on as I promise the explanation will be worth it.

In the wake of the 2024 election, Ezra Klein and buddies published a book called “Abundance,” and in talks and interviews they have been trying to sell it as a way forward for the defeated Democrats. The key question of the book is this: if liberal policies are so great, why do blue states have the most homelessness? Why do they have the highest overruns on their infrastructure projects? Why do they have the most difficulty building renewable energy?

These are difficult questions because they cut at the heart of the liberal/progressive promise for America. There was a half-century long political touchstone (within the American media sphere) that the Democrats were who you voted for if you cared about social issues, but you voted Republican if you cared about economics. Never mind that this misses the many socially conservative/economically re-distributive voters who saw things the opposite way, this “vote Republican for the economy” belief was one that Democrats wanted to push back on.

For my entire adult life, Democrats have been making the argument that no, “Republicans are actually bad for the economy, vote Democrat if you care about economics.” In the wake of the Financial Crisis, this message resonated, but after 4 years of inflation it seems voters no longer bought it.

Worse still, Ezra Klein’s “Abundance Agenda” argues that *you can’t blame voters for coming to this conclusion*. Blue states may be the *richest states*, but it is the Red states that are *growing*. They are building housing, they are building infrastructure, and in the next census it is predicted that Blue States (California and New York especially) will lose electoral votes to Red states (such as Florida and Texas). People are literally voting with their feet, moving from Blue states to Red states when every part of the liberal mindshare says that’s insane, and that all migration should be happening in the *other direction*. The only explanation is that people believe they’ll have higher quality of life in these Red states than what they have in the Blue states, how can that be?

Ezra Klein’s answer is that Democrats haven’t lived up to their economic promise, and they need to embrace Abundance if they are going to do so.

Much of his suggestions are things I myself have blogged about, land use should be deregulated, housing and energy should be made easier to build, and the free market should at times be deferred to to bring down prices for consumers. Government bureaucrats can’t run markets.

In this sense, Ezra Klein is making a (small) break with Bidenism. Tariffs on solar panels make it more expensive to build clean energy, tariffs on lumber make it more expensive to build houses.

When it’s more expensive to build things, then the supply is lower. When the supply is lower, the price is higher. If we want consumers to enjoy low prices, we should encourage higher supply by making it less expensive to build, this is the core of the Abundance Agenda. “Build what?” you ask? Everything. Housing needs houses to be built, energy needs power plants to be built, jobs need companies and factories to be built, and the Abundance Agenda encourages policies that make it cheaper to build all those things.

In essence, the Abundance Agenda is deregulation.

See, Biden is actually a pre-Carter Democrat, recall that he was elected to the Senate in 1972. The New Deal consensus at that time included a lot of skepticism of markets, and a certain degree of autarky in which the government should step in to ensure the economy is making the things it “needs” to make. So if car companies are struggling, we need to give them subsidies or protect them with tariffs, because cars are so important. Same with solar panels, microchips, and steel.

Biden’s economic record is actually reminding me a lot of Jean Jacque Servan-Schreiber, who you may remember from previous posts. Like JJSS, Biden seemed to be trying to use government power to “direct” the economy, and my criticisms of JJSS apply just as well here: governments can’t predict the future and so don’t actually know what the best investments are. Companies can’t predict either, but at least companies have price signals and the profit motive directing them towards the best bets, governments are immune from both by their sovereign nature.

JJSS wanted the Europe of the 1960s to invest heavily in supersonic planes, but we now know that those bets were quite wasteful as the fruits of their labor (Concorde) were outcompeted by the private sector (Boeing) who had already abandoned supersonic travel entirely. Will Biden’s chip foundries built in Arizona stand the test of time? Or will they be like Concorde, an unprofitable venture held up solely by the demands of national prestige, until such time as prestige becomes to expensive to maintain?

While Ezra still sees a need for government “leadership” (which I don’t, but more on that later), he is more comfortable in the post-Carter consensus, stating that governments should cut back the regulations which prevent companies from giving us cheap goods and services. Housing is expensive because governments don’t let us build houses. Energy and infrastructure are expensive because solar farms and railroads get blocked by environmental review. Even healthcare and education are burdened by over-regulation which prevents competition and protects the current megacorporations that dominate the market.

So Ezra Klein could be most accurately described as a “left-capitalist.” He is solidly on the left with regards to all social and moral issues, but does not have the skepticism of profit and corporations that Bernie and Biden do. In other words, he’s a neoliberal.

Now that is a *very* loaded term, because my time around the Internet has shown me that many people define neoliberalism as “anything I don’t like.” But philosophically neoliberalism *was* a thing, and in many ways did represent a real ideology. It was a break with the New Deal consensus on governments directing the economy, while still accepting a government role in social welfare and poverty reduction. Carter and Clinton both governed this way, and so are usually considered “neoliberals” by people who don’t consider it a slur.

Ezra Klein is therefore arguing that this “neoliberalism” should be part of the way forward for Democrats and America at large. California and New York should take more cues from Texas and Florida, at least economically. But to do so means touching a lot of third rails within the liberal coalition:

  • To deregulate housing, you need to remove the ability of local residents to block new housing. This can easily be reframed as “removing local control” and “overturning democracy” if the neighborhood votes against a new house and you let it be built anyway. This deference to localism is hard to overcome politically when it’s framed in terms of gentrification and “Residents vs Corporate Developers”
  • To deregulate energy and infrastructure, you need to end a lot of environmental regulations. You need to get acceptance from the coalition that sometimes we’ll have to cut down a meadow to build a solar farm, or pave over a creek to build a railroad. And if there’s a species of animal or plant that *only lives* in that meadow or creek, then you have to get buy-in that biodiversity is less important that fighting climate change.
  • Energy and infrastructure also touch on “local control” and activist veto. Ezra Klein wants to make it easier for companies to get environmental lawsuits dismissed, and would likely applaud the recent supreme court decision on NEPA. But in any fight between “corporations” and “climate activists,” the coalition is inclined to side with the activists, and that will be hard to overcome
  • To deregulate schools and childcare, you need to remove laws that were put there in the name of “safety.” Many states have very low caps on child-to-adult ratio in daycares, as low as 1:3, as well regulations that the workers must have a degree in childcare and training in a wide variety of emergency medical scenarios. When a certain democrat suggested raising the child-to-adult ratio to 1:4 in one city, I saw comments that “this change will kill babies,” which is a thought-terminating incitement intended to protect regulations by force of emotion, rather than reason. If 1:4 will kill babies, then isn’t 1:3 already killing babies, since we could instead be having a 1:2 ratio? Or 1:1? At some point you have to weigh up the costs and benefits, even in cases of life and death.
  • And to deregulate any of these things, you need to overcome the cries that “every regulation is written in blood,” ie no deregulation should ever happen. This is yet another thought-terminating cliche but it’s one that has a lot of power on the left-side of the political spectrum.

So will Abundance succeed? Will Ezra Klein and the new “Abundance Caucus” make New York and California as affordable as Texas and Florida? Will they reverse the migration trends and made New York lose so many of its electoral votes? I don’t know, but I have more to say on this later. Now that I’ve defined what abundance is, I’d like my next post to discuss what it isn’t. Stay tuned…

Protectionism wears the skin of health and safety

Regulations wrapped in red tape

Trump is an unusual figure among the world’s politicians. It is not that he is a nativist and a protectionist, but that he is open and direct about his nativist and protectionist beliefs. Trump says that foreign companies are harming American companies by undercutting on price, and that foreigners are stealing American jobs by working in America.

There are many reasons to attack these beliefs and to tell Trump he’s wrong. Here are some reasons give on the left or the right, maybe you agree with one of them:

  • If foreign companies sell for cheaper, than that means blocking foreign goods raises prices. And raising prices (aka inflation) directly harms all American consumers way worse than foreign goods harm a single American company
  • “Oh your company can’t compete? Sounds like a skill issue. Your company deserves to go bankrupt, free market in action.”
  • Foreigners do jobs Americans don’t want to do
  • It’s unethical to prevent foreigners from moving to America to look for a better life
  • “Oh you can’t compete against foreign workers? Sounds like a skill issue. You deserve to go bankrupt, free market in action.”
  • Trade barriers will wreck the economy by driving up prices, and any claims of fairness are necessarily secondary to this single overriding truth: trade barriers are bad for the economy

Politicians in and out of America have made each of these arguments in turn as they argue against Trumps new tariffs. But the single-minded opposition to tariffs hides something deeper: almost every politician globally throws up trade barriers just like Trump, but they have different excuses.

  • “Those goods contain chemicals that harm our health”
  • “Those goods contain chemicals that harm our environment”
  • “For national security or data privacy, we cannot allow foreigners to hold our market or buy our data”
  • And the old reliable: “those goods and services don’t comply with our regulations.”

This last one is pernicious because of how vapid and all-encompassing it is. It only works because people have a knee-jerk reaction against deregulation, but as I have pointed out, there’s a lot of anti-consumer regulation out there raising our prices and harming our economies. Regulation doesn’t actually mean “good,” but enough people believe it does that politicians can hide all their protectionist bullshit behind an aegis of “regulations.”

I say all this because I’m bashing the EU again today. A former EU minister of parliament put out a post which demonstrates a lot of this BS EU protectionism. I had already known that the EU uses “regulation” to protect its market from foreign goods, what is commonly termed “protectionism.” What I did not know is how much EU countries use this to protect their national markets from the single market itself.

The whole idea of the single market is free trade and free movement. If a company is allowed to sell goods in one country, it should be allowed to sell goods in all of them. If a person is allowed to work in one country, they should be allowed to work in all of them. This reduces barriers, brings countries closer together, and is much more efficient economically than a world of barriers and tariffs. It should bring everyone prosperity.

But the countries of the single market still want to “protect” their national markets and their national workers, just like Trump does. But unlike Trump, EU countries are legally forbidden from erecting tariffs. So they use health, safety, and regulation instead to do their dirty work. Here’s some examples from the article:

  • Denmark claiming that adding vitamins and nutrients to breakfast cereal “could be toxic,” with absolutely no justification whatsoever. The cereals are consumed EU-wide, and one would think the burden of proof would be on the accuser in that case. But no, a baseless “could be toxic” claim is enough to ban a product in Denmark unless the company making it is willing to go through a long court battle against a national government.
  • Spain and Italy trying to force foreign chocolate (consumed in every EU state, legally chocolate by EU law) to be explicitly marketed as “not true chocolate” even though every law says its chocolate.
  • France forcing Dutch biodiesel to comply with expensive testing that is waived for French biodiesel.
  • Germany forcing foreign professionals to undergo expensive “equivalence checks” before allowing them to work in the country. This is just more BS occupational licensing by the way, a horse-groomer shouldn’t need a license to begin with let alone an “equivalence check” to make sure their Italian license is valid in Germany.
  • Adding new national regulation that must be complied with *on top* of any EU regulation. This is the most pernicious, because most EU regulations explicitly mention that they are there to “harmonize” the market, make goods acceptable in every country. But EU regulations in the past decade have not decrease trade barriers, because countries have learned to add a new national regulation on top of every EU one, forcing foreign companies to increase their compliance cost if they want to break into a national market.

For years and years, Europe was indeed a continent of decreasing trade barriers. While they continued to be strongly protectionist against the outside world (erecting anti-GMO laws primarily as protectionism for EU farms), they were at least reducing barriers within the block. But Europe is not immune to the anti-globalization sentiment that has swept across Britain and America since 2016. It’s just that much like Biden, European politicians are caught between maintaining their appearance as internationalists while still wanting to be protectionists and nativists.

So rather than erect tariffs, the EU countries have recently relied on “soft” barriers, barriers which don’t *technically* forbid entry of foreign goods, but which do place onerous costs on anyone who wants to enter the market. And a supposed internationalist has to justify their protectionism somehow, they don’t have Trump’s luxury of just honestly stating their beliefs. So they rely on their old faithful excuses: health and safety.

Biden claimed that foreign goods were a national security issue. China was the security threat that we were supposedly countering, but we countered China in part by banning Vietnamese solar panels, Mexican cars, and Canadian lumber.

And for the EU countries health, environmentalism, and data privacy are paramount. They’re part of what separates Europe from America after all. So who cares that added calcium isn’t unhealthy, or that Dutch companies are making biodiesel the same way French companies do, if it’s foreign we can claim it’s unhealthy and unsafe by default. And then we ban it until they comply with our expensive tests, or until they start making the product in our country, or until they stop being foreign and sell themselves to locals.

This is exactly what Biden and Trump wanted: American goods instead of foreign goods. But the EU countries use regulation to achieve this goal since they can’t tariff the single market.

And this is one of the main reasons I push back against regulation. I’ve said over and over, regulation is not intrinsically good or bad. Good regulation is good, bad regulation is bad. But I’ve seen over and over how politicians hide their protectionism behind a coat of regulation. And I’ve seen how most people have an intrinsic distrust of deregulation, meaning whenever I point this protectionism out I’m accused of wanting to destroy health and safety.

“Foreign cereal is unhealthy,” “foreign biodiesel is bad for the environment,” “foreign Tech companies will steal our data,” it’s very easy to just claim this without evidence and get people on board with you. And it’s *surprisingly* easy to do when “foreign” just means another country in the EU, wasn’t Europe supposed to have solidarity?

And it’s impossible to prove a negative, so proving that the cereal is no less unhealthy, the biodiesel is no different, the foreign Tech has the same policies as the native Tech, this is a losing proposition and expensive to boot. So protectionism goes on unabated, and then people wonder why the EU is still falling behind economically. Well Mario Draghi told you why, it’s because even before Trump the EU was putting tariffs on itself.

I write this in part out of frustration and in part as an attempt at education. People are negatively polarized against Trump, and so even people who never heard or cared about tariffs are deciding that tariffs are bad and we shouldn’t do them. Some neoliberal Democrats are hoping that this lets them finally remake the coalition, and kick out the protectionists like Biden and Sanders in favor of rebuilding the Clinton-Bush-Obama consensus of free trade.

But even if this happens, I’ve seen way too much evidence that this will not be a radical remaking of ideology. Protectionism will, as it has in the EU, simply become the purvey of health and safety. Even the neoliberals of the party have trouble arguing against health and safety, especially when Democrats as a whole are so negatively polarized against deregulation.

So that’s what I really wanted to say: regulations are not always good. They are not always bad, but they are not always good. Don’t assume that just because the government banned something, it was right to do so. Be open to the possibility that they’re protecting their markets just like Trump is.

Draghi wants to unify Europe’s capital markets 

Note that this one’s more rambly than I wish, but I have a lot of thoughts and am not good at editing.  Suggestions for how to cut this down are appreciated if you want to leave a comment or an email. 

You might as well be lighting your money on fire…

When talking about the American vs European economies, the discussion always turns towards Tech.  “Europe missed the Tech boom” is a true, but surface level description of Europe’s stagnation in high tech industries.  Cloud computing, social media, AI, all the buzzwords of the last 20 years have been American, and some wonder why Europe doesn’t have trillion-dollar companies like Apple and Microsoft.  I’ve already pushed back on the “cultural” explanations for this, but I want to look deeper at some of the proposed solutions for helping Europe’s economy catch up. 

If you ask why Europe has a smaller Tech industry, there’s a few common answers given.  One is that Europe is fragmented linguistically, most people don’t speak each other’s language, while America has 300 million people all speaking one language.  But I’ve never been convinced by the argument that tech companies stop at the border.   

You can maybe make the argument that social media spreads fastest among people who speak the same language, but I’ve never seen this argument be well-quantified.  Facebook is used by half the earth’s population, they don’t all speak English, so why did it spread so easily even after maxing out in the English-speaking world?  And TikTok has been a viral hit among westerners, even though it started in China.  The language argument is often presented as obvious but without any evidence to support it, and I don’t think it’s reasonable until I see some evidence. 

Furthermore, social media is just a tiny piece of the Tech industry.  Apple, Microsoft, Spotify, Samsung, these aren’t social media companies.  So what explains why half of them are American, and the non-American ones aren’t even in the top 10? 

Another argument is that Europe is fragmented economically.  Still, I don’t really buy this.  It’s true that Europe is not wholly unified, different countries have different regulations.  But the EU is a common market of goods and services, overwhelmingly products sold in one country can likewise be sold in another.  If there was a European version of Apple or Samsung, their smartphones would almost certainly be buyable in any EU country.  Indeed, the market fragmentation never stopped Nokia from its 1-time dominance of cell phones, so why did this fragmentation prevent the emergence of a European smartphone company, if it never stopped the top European cell phone company? 

The final common answer is the one I want to discuss today: European investment is low because there is no unified capital market.  German investors invest in German companies, French investors in French companies, and this drastically limits how much capital is available for startups.  While Europe is trying to have 27 different capital markets, American capital is clustered in just 1 (Silicon Valley) or 2 (if you count Boston, New York, or one of the other “also rans”). 

I buy this argument more, but I want to start with some clarity on what it *really means* for a capital market to be “unified.” 

We’d say a market is unified when investors from one area are equally capable of investing in any other area.  Why might investors not invest across the border?  Tax and regulation mostly.   

Taxes don’t have to be *higher* to deter investment, *different* is more than enough.  Think of capital gains tax when an investor sells something they’ve invested in.  Some places allow a lower tax when you hold the investment longer (long-term capital gains), while others don’t make a distinction.  This may lead to a lower tax burden overall, but more tax-season headache in proving how long each investment was held, and proving it was held in the correct jurisdiction which allows this long-term capital gains distinction.  Sometimes it’s better to just invest everything in one place and hire less accountants. 

Different regulations would also be self-explanatory, there’s more bureaucratic overhead in understanding and applying different regulations for each different investment.  But here we come to the difficult part, and why I think Draghi’s drive for unification will face stiff headwinds.  Regulations have a moral component for lack of a better word.  When discussing regulations online, it’s not uncommon to see “regulations are written in blood” as an emotive argument put forth against deregulation.  Any attempt to pair back anything in the way of “red tape” faces a mountain of pushback from voters, and unifying the regulations will require *some* deregulation.   

*Some* country’s regulations will have to be cut, even if they’re simply replaced with those of another countries.  Even if regulations are “harmonized” by trying to bring them closer together, that still means some things get cut and some things get added.  And this will necessarily inflame the passions of the voters and commentators who say that “regulations are written in blood.”  Because while regulation of the capital markets might not have to do with healthcare and worker’s rights directly, they do have much to do with bankruptcy and ownership, which can be even more emotive. 

Trump is often jeered for his numerous corporate bankruptcies.  He in turn calls bankruptcy a smart business move when needed.  It’s true that an investor can expect 9 investments to go bust for every 1 that succeeds.  And it’s true that American bankruptcy laws are quite lenient.  And it’s also true that a smart investor be foolish to not take advantage of any edge the law can give them, lenient bankruptcy is one such edge. 

But bankruptcy stirs passions because someone’s left holding the bag.  If Europe is going to unify its capital markets, it’s going to inflame those passions.  When the banks went bankrupt in 2008, it stirred immense passion because of who had to pay and who was left holding the bag.  Changing these laws raises the specter of the financial crisis, and any recent bankruptcies will get put under a microscope to point out how things would be different in a unified EU capital market.   

To put some meat on these bones, let’s say a car company is going bankrupt in Bulgaria.  We’ll call it “Bulgarian Cars,” its owner and CEO is Mr Car, its workers belong to the “United Car Workers Union,” UCWU.  It has purchasing agreements for steel with “Steely Corp” and its sole creditor is “Big Banking,” who is unfortunately unaware that Mr Car is about to go bankrupt. 

Under the current Bulgarian system, Big Banking can (if they desire) simply take possession of all the “Bulgarian Cars” assets, and sell them in a fire sale to get back the money they are owed.  This means the factory, the showroom, and anything else could be closed down in an instant.  Big Banking gets back their money, Mr Car is broke, UCWU are out of their jobs, and Steely Corp lost its biggest customer. 

But how would this situation be effected by Draghi’s directive to unify EU capital markets?  How would the bankruptcy be altered?  Who would win, and who would lose? 

Draghi has already signaled that unified EU bankruptcy must allow for “debtor in possession,” meaning Mr Car can keep control of his company while working out a repayment plan with Big Banking.  This system allows Mr Car (or any investor) to try to rescue their company, even in bankruptcy. It’s part of what made Trump’s bankruptcies so painless. 

In France, a debtor is immediately granted relief from creditors upon filing restructuring plans.  In Germany, the debtor may *request relief*, but it isn’t automatic.  But if the capital markets are to be unified, Bulgaria must follow the direction of France and Germany and give Mr Car a reprieve from his creditors.

But should Mr Car even be *granted* relief?  He drove the company into the ground in the first place!  Why does he get to stay in charge, paying himself an obscene salary all the while?  Draghi’s unified capital markets would allow a lot more “Trump-like” bankruptcies ripe for this kind of outrage-bait, with a villainous CEO stiffing creditors, unions, and business partners while still bringing home fat checks. 

And what happens to UCWU?  They just finished negotiating a new contract with Bulgarian Cars. The contract included conditions and a long notice period before a new contract can be renegotiated.  But most EU countries allow the suspension of a union contract to help the company exit bankruptcy.  So Draghi’s unified capital market raises the possibility of workers losing out so that bankers and executives can keep the company going.  Workers’ pain for bosses’ gain. 

And through all this, what about Steely Corp, who just lost its biggest customer?  Bankruptcies are always politically fraught as they can cause a domino effect into other industries.  This is why some nations focus so much on business continuity, even if it comes at the expense of creditors and workers.  Steely Corp will want to lobby the government that UCWU and Big Banking can go to hell, they want to ensure that Bulgarian Cars returns to solvency no matter what.  Otherwise Steely Corp itself may go under, and the national news will blame the Government for letting not one, but *two* major employers go bankrupt.   

How much will Draghi’s unified capital market allow Governments to “save” companies this way?  Under certain restructuring scenarios, the Government will essentially be picking winners and losers in the market.  Demand Big Banking take a debt restructuring, demand UCWU accept a new contract, and you’re making banks and workers lose so that car and steel companies can win.  This doesn’t always fly with EU rules around fairness, and certainly won’t fly with some sections of the commentariat. 

This post was a lot less focused than usual, but it’s been in my mind for weeks.  “Unify the EU’s capital markets” sounds so obvious, why haven’t they done it?  They haven’t done it because it involves politically fraught trade-offs about ownership and hierarchy.  “Who wins and loses in a bankruptcy case” is just the top of the mountain.  Questions of equity investment, investor’s rights, corporate governance, union rights, these are also fraught questions that will have to be answered in a unified capital market.  Whatever answer is chosen will inevitably piss *someone* off, which is why countries are so slow to change these laws.  But until countries are willing to make big changes, the EU capital markets will never be unified. 

Would you work more hours if it meant you didn’t have to do housework?

I don’t have a catchier title, but this *is* a question I’ve been pondering. When I was young I thought that having someone else do housework for you was the height of luxury, but these days it doesn’t seem to be that uncommon. I don’t know anyone who paints their own fence, mows their own yard, or cleans their own roof. These jobs used to be seen as just part of owning a house, either you did it or you forced your kid to do it as part of their chores. But it seems nowadays most people hire professionals to do it instead.

Even the most basic housework has been outsourced, with services available to clean your bathroom and kitchen twice a month, or your whole house if you like. And of course think about restaurants and fast food: eating outside your own home has almost doubled in the past 50 years. That’s a lot less meals that people have to cook, a lot less dishes they have to clean, and even less groceries that they have to buy.

So housework is being outsourced, and is it related to how Americans seem to work many more hours than the rest of the developed world?

Shifting gears now, I’ve written before about the Europe vs America economic debates. Inevitably in such debates, the conversation shifts to working hours, workers in Europe work less hours than workers in America.

But Josh Barro on twitter has pushed back against claims about European quality-of-life: they don’t have dryers. Reddit too has a huge thread about the lack of dryers and high-energy appliances in Europe. Can a place without such creature comforts really be comfortable?

I don’t want to dwell on the dryer debate. Yes Europeans can dry their clothes in the sun. Yes, it may be cheaper. But does it require more work? Is an electric dryer not a labor-saving device that lets you cut out the work of hanging up your clothes and taking them down?

And coming back to housework, doesn’t paying someone to do your housework also save you from doing that labor? And if so, how much is your time worth it to you? To restate the question from the title of this post: if working 45 hours a week instead of 40 meant you never had to do housework, would you take it?

Some people like doing housework, I get that. But for most people, it’s a chore. And so I wonder if Americans on the whole have made a choice: they work more at work so they can work less at home, and I wonder if anyone has quantified this. European’s extra housework may not show up in the metrics, but it should still be quantified to know if Americans really do “work more hours.”

Working at work vs working at home is a dichotomy any student of economic history understands. When women first entered the private sector workforce, it didn’t mean that women *started working*, and that they weren’t working before that. Women had been doing work at home without pay since the dawn of time. If you calculate the labor done by homebound women and compare it to the paid labor plus housework done by working women, women’s’ overall working hours went down when they entered the workforce. They could use the money they made at work to pay for other people’s labor or labor-saving devices at home.

Men had also taken this leap from housework to paid work centuries before. During the days of subsistance farming, men, women, everyone had to do a hell of a lot of odd jobs to keep themselves housed, clothed, and fed, even when they weren’t actively “working” on their farm. This is why claims of how few hours medieval farmers worked are so misleading: they had many “holidays,” sure, but besides attending church those days would still be spent doing work around the house even if they wouldn’t be spent in the field.

If you were a medieval peasant, you might have a roof that needs mending, food that needs preserving, you need a new chair to fix the old one, a new patch to cover the hole in your cloak, and you had to do all this yourself or it wouldn’t get done. It didn’t show up in “hours worked” because it’s housework in the home. But it still needed to be done to maintain quality of life.

When men started moving from farms to factories, they traded their labor in for money, and could then use that money to *have their roof fixed, buy their own food, buy a new chair, or have their cloak patched*. They could use money to get someone else to do labor for them. They started working *less hours* when you account for both house work and factory work.

Factories workers worked a *lot*. But subsistence farmers worked far more for far less. But if you only calculate “hours worked” using work *outside* the house, then you’d wrongly conclude that subsistence farmers lived cushy lives and that women’s liberation destroyed women’s free time. Nothing could be further from the truth, instead, people these days work much more outside the house in exchange for working much less in it.

And I wonder how much that feeds in to the America vs Europe debate on working hours. How much labor do Europeans do around their homes that Americans *don’t* do. How much labor do Americans save by using dryers, by hiring landscapers, by hiring homecleaners, and are they happy with the extra hours they work to afford that? Do Americans work more hours to save themselves from housework?

Carter and Thatcher: Champions of deregulation

When people talk about the British economy, one complaint floats to the top of the internet discourse: the Financial Sector. According to the Twitterati, the UK spent too much money “building up” a sector of the economy that has done nothing but push up inequality, force everyone into London, and doesn’t even do anything useful.

You’ll hear it said that while finances pay most of the taxes and provide most of the GDP of the UK, this was due to a stupid choice the Government made not a fact of nature. Britain should have been more like Germany, investing in industry so they could have more middle class jobs spread around the whole country. Instead they invested in Finance and got one single city filled with rich people and their servants while the entire rest of the country goes to waste.

This complaint is wrong in many ways, but the most direct falsehood is that successive Governments *did not* “invest in” or “build up” the Financial services industry, services succeeded so rapidly because the Government *kept out*. For a long time, British financial services were heavily regulated and weren’t much larger than than what was available on the continent. But then the Government stepped away from the sector, dropped its regulations, and the sector thrived. The Government didn’t put money and time *into* finances, instead the Government was taken *out* of finances.

Maybe the Government should have gotten out of more industries?

But I’m getting ahead of myself, the changes to Britain’s financial sector all happened in a “Big Bang,” named such because instead of piecemeal deregulation over many years, there was massive, sweeping deregulation all at once. The sudden drop of onerous requirements made the sector highly competitive, and drove massive investment into London/the UK at the expense of the rest of Europe.

But most people look askance at “deregulation.” They think there must be some “catch” to this story. What regulation was dropped, and how did this secretly allow Bankers to suck blood from the unions and the working class? Well here are a few regulations that were dropped:

Broker price fixing: before the big bang, if you wanted to buy a stock from a broker they were required to charge you a minimum price for the service of selling you the stock. This price was set by the Government, and it was illegal to offer lower prices. This is bad for consumers and bad for business, I mean should the Government set a *minimum price* for food? For rent? Hell no. So why a minimum price for stocks?

Ending the price fixing meant suddenly bankers had to compete on price. The price to trade a stock went lower and lower, and this had the effect of opening up the stock market to the common people as well. Suddenly there wasn’t some onerous price on top of any stock you wanted to buy, you could pay for just the stock plus a paltry service fee of a few pence. And in time, even this few pence fee went away, as brokers offered fee-less trading in an attempt to compete on volume.

Price ceilings are terrible, but leftist will still argue they are at least good for the consumer. Price *floors* are exactly as terrible, and I hope even leftist realize they aren’t good for the consumer.

Electronic trading: before the big bang, it was mandated that to buy or sell a stock, two people had to meet in person and agree to the sale. You put in your order to a broker, they wired the order to someone else, and eventually your order would make its way to two people standing on a crowded floor screaming at each other to haggle over the price of your stock. They weren’t screaming in anger, but just to be heard over everyone else on the floor, who was also screaming.

The big bang introduced electronic screens with prices and volumes, and allowed orders to be made totally electronically. This helped end the monopoly of overpaid men screaming at each other. It made ordering easier, allowed it to be done from anywhere, and by cutting out the middlemen it helped bring down the price for buying and selling stock. Once again, this helped democratize the stock market, few workers today would be able to invest for their retirement on the stock market if prices to buy and sell were still as high as the 70s.

Foreign ownership: the big bang allowed foreign companies and individuals to act as brokers. Much like electronic trading, this broke the monopoly on overpaid men screaming at each other, and lowered prices; are you seeing a pattern here? Anyway foreign banks and brokers could now bring outside investment and outside technology to the British stock market, where before they’d been banned.

The ban on foreign brokers had been done solely to “protect” the profits of British banks and British brokers. But like tariffs, it did not help the British economy nor protect British wages. It was just another facet of a Government sanctioned oligarchy, which allowed only certain, connected individuals to profit from Britain’s stock market. Foreign investment created competition, and it also created a flood of incoming money, which boosted demand for workers and drove up British wages. These new brokers needed buildings, needed computers, needed employees etc. The flood of incoming money was a great boon for workers and builders in every sector of the British economy.

These are just a few of the deregulations brought on by Thatcher’s big bang, but they all had the same theme. They broke the monopoly of the overpaid bankers and brokers, and brought in competition that brought down prices and democratized the stock market. The financial industry grew like never before, eclipsing every other sector of the British economy. And it did so not through Government support, but because the Government *kept out*.

But let us turn now to Jimmy Carter.

Deregulation is too often seen as a boogieman of the right wing. The conservative party (whichever party it is in your country), wants to deregulate because they secretly want to destroy the environment and make workers their slaves. It is a too-common dogma on the left that any regulation is necessary and sacrosanct for the good of the economy, and that deregulation doesn’t even help GDP but merely lets well-connected CEOs impose a monopoly that makes everyone poorer.

So I thought I’d push against that view with a man no one could accuse of being a right-wing conservative: Jimmy Carter. Jimmy came to the presidency at a time of great difficulty. Inflation, oil crisis, stagflation even, the American economy was nuts in the 70s. There was even fear that the USSR would overtake America. Jimmy would fix that.

One of Carter’s signature policies was deregulating the airline industry. Once again, a modern leftist might see this as a betrayal: what did Carter’s deregulation do to break the unions, harm the workers, and price-gouge the people, and how much did the airlines pay him to do this? But nothing could be further from the truth. Prior to Carter’s deregulation, the airline industry worked like a Gilded Age trust, with strict rules that protected the big players at the expense of workers, people, and anyone trying to get a foot in the door.

First, to make a new airline route, companies had to submit their request to a centralized body. This body would then look to see if the new route created too much competition with any other airline’s route, and if it did, the route was forbidden. Imagine if Walmart could forbid anyone from opening a store within 5 miles of their own, that was basically what this law did.

The airline submitting the new route had to basically get a hospital-style “certificate of need” proving that there weren’t enough flights for the amount of passengers who *wanted* to travel. This was of course very difficult to prove, and the airlines already serving that route could try to maintain their monopoly by promising to increase flights, so usually the monopoly was protected.

In addition, a centralized agency set a price floor on airline tickets. Like we discussed earlier: price floors are bad. They only serve to enrich the big players by making it impossible for new companies with better tech to come in and compete on price.

In fact, even *starting a new airline company* was all but impossible, as any new company had to get permission to run airlines. Imagine if Walmart could forbid the creation of Costco solely on the basis of “we were here first.”

Airlines in America had a ton of overregulation that only served to protect the big players at the expense of everyone else. No one benefited from this, not the workers, not the fliers, not the American economy, no one except the big boys who lobbied hard to prevent deregulation from passing.

In the end, deregulation democratized flight in America the way same way it democratized the stock market in Britain. Adjusted for inflation, the average New York to LA flight was 1,200$ in 1970, today you can fly that route for under 300$. There is no question in my mind that the American people are better off without being price-gouged by airline lobbyist. And Carter made all that possible.

So my final thought is this: deregulation is a dirty word, but it shouldn’t be. Regulations are not necessarily good. They are not necessarily bad either, but don’t assume they are always good. Deregulation is likewise value neutral. It is good to remove bad regulations, it is bad to remove good regulations.

Britain has a lot of bad regulations holding it back, that’s why I suggested deregulation to Keir Starmer. Starmer has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change Britain for the better. He’s got a big majority, there is wide agreement that his predecessors were bad for the economy, and he’s hemmed in by debt and deficits preventing any big spending. This is the perfect time for deregulation.

So I say cut the red tape, kick out the cartels, and trample all over the lobbyists who want to protect their corporate fiefdoms. If Britain is going to build, it needs change, the kind of change that Jimmy Carter understood. And even if Thatcher deregulated, that doesn’t mean deregulation is always bad. Would you like to pay 10 pounds every time you wanted to purchase a stock? Would you like to pay 4 times as much to fly to another city? Starmer should cut costs for the working folk, and deregulation can make that happen.

If I Ruled Britannia: economic reforms

Sir Keir Starmer, the newly elected King of England, 2024 pencil sketch

Last time on Streams of Consciousness, I was talking about the economy of Great Britain and what they needed to change to improve things. They’ve tried raising taxes, they’ve tried cutting spending, but their fiscal deficit is only rising and new loans to cover the deficit are getting ever more expensive. My previous recommendation was spicy and probably unpopular, so I quarantined it in its own post and am putting the rest of my recommendations here.

But first: what should Great Britain *not* do? Well first of all I agree with Tony Blair: they shouldn’t put retaliatory tariffs on America. And this isn’t because I’m biased and don’t want them to hurt America, it’s because *I want what’s best for Britain and don’t want them to hurt themselves*.

It may sting to allow Donald Trump a “win.” He’s jacked up tariffs and demanded that no one else retaliates with their own. If you do what he’s asking, aren’t you letting him win? Well if you think retaliatory tariffs are a smart move, you must think that because you believe they will hurt America with only a modest affect on your own country. But that’s wrong, tariffs are a huge blow to your own country, with only a modest affect on the one you’re tariffing. Doing what Donald Trump wants just means letting him win the foot-shooting competition.

Tariffs are inflation in action: everything gets more expensive for absolutely no reason. Because everything is more expensive, everyone is poorer (since their money doesn’t go as far). And tariffs don’t “protect” domestic industries, they destroy them. They destroy competitiveness because there is no market force pushing companies to improve their products. With tariffs, it’s always more viable to increase your profits by rent seeking (demanding the tariffs rise yet further) rather than by self-improvement. Thus the companies stagnate and rust out. Less goods are produced at a much higher cost, everyone is poorer.

This is true even when your tariffs are “targeted.” It’s just that “targeted” tariffs destroy only a few industries instead of all of them. Donald Trump tariffed you, but if you retaliate with tariffs on on American fuel and aircraft (major American exports), you’ll harm your own airline industry by raising their costs. Needless to say your airlines will have to raise their own costs, harming your tourism/travel industries, and thereby harming your citizens who can no longer afford airfares. America will feel some harm, yes, but not as much as your own people.

“We’ll substitute American goods by buying goods from Europe!” Trump wants to substitute foreign goods with American goods, do you think that will work for him? It won’t work for you either.

Tariffs also destroy industries by raising the cost of all their inputs, since again tariffs are just inflation. The steel company can raise its prices since it’s no longer competing with Chinese steel, and has no incentive to innovate because it plans to ask for more tariffs next year. So if you’re a manufacturing company making anything with steel, all your steel just got very expensive and will only get more expensive from here. Might as well cut wages, it’s the only cost you can control.

Many manufacturers will go bankrupt, they can’t afford the higher prices. A few dozen steel jobs will be “saved” at the cost of thousands of higher-paying manfacturing jobs. Those steel workers will then be laid off because with all the manufacturers going bankrupt, no one needs so much steel. And besides, the cost of iron has gone up with the tariffs on iron (and the iron mine is soon to go bankrupt as they can’t afford the machines needed to keep mining).

Think of it this way: if you think retaliatory tariffs are a good idea, then you think Trump’s tariffs in general are a good idea. You agree with him that the tariffs hurt the target countries more than they hurt the country placing them. You think Trump is doing smart economic policy, and are just mad that he’s doing it to *you*.

So again, don’t complain about giving Trump a *win*, reject the cognitive dissonance on tariffs and accept the one and only truth: tariffs are bad for growth, bad for prices, and bad for workers. Biden knew this in 2019, but I fear the cognitive decline hit him fast since he forgot it by 2021. (example, example, example)

Anyway that’s what Britain *shouldn’t* do, so what *should* it do?

How about reducing the need for occupational licensing? “Licensing” sounds good in theory, the Government is going to step in and demand minimum qualifications for certain professions. But everything sounds good when you ignore the costs and handwave the benefits.

Licensing sounds nice because you immediately think of doctors and nurses. But many many jobs have mandatory licenses that simply do not need them. Does a horse trainer really need a license? A piano tuner? A wig-maker? Adding a license does nothing except make it harder for people to get jobs. It’s part of what’s killed “entry-level” positions, there is no such thing as “entry-level” in an industry where any work at all requires a specific license.

20% of UK jobs need a specific license, which ossifies the labor marker and prevents workers from job-hopping to find better wages. You may have veterinary training, a fondness for horses, and see well-paying jobs opening up in the horse-racing industry. But without a long and arduous licensing process, you’re cut out from that part of the labor market, forced to keep working at Tesco for almost nothing.

You may ask “but without a license, how can we ensure these workers are competent?” You interview them, you look at their CV, you contact prior employers. An incompetent employee can do damage yes, for instance an incompetent Tesco stocker can leave heavy merchandise off-balance to crush unwary shoppers, so do shelf stockers need a license? Be honest, exactly how much is saved by having entry-level jobs be licensed? Quantify all the harms, both physical and monetary, then weigh them up against the costs.

Because licensing *does* have a cost. It lowers social mobility since the lower class can’t afford to spend years getting licensed before getting their first job. It hampers growth by preventing industries from growing to meet demand. And it drastically raises costs for licensed labor, without really raising wages.

How can that be? Aren’t licensed jobs paid more than unlicensed? Yes but look at the cost of getting that license, with its years of training and bureaucracy. Look at the cost of *keeping* that license, with mandatory retraining, continuing education, and the like. Time is money, and all the time it takes getting and keeping a license usually drains any additional pay that the license brings.

And look at how that license locks you into a single career, unable to switch things up to chase a higher wage. I’m sorry, you’re a *horse* trainer, *dog* training is a different license.

And study after study shows that very few licenses improve outcomes. Doctor, nurse, these require years of training and understudy, a license here may be warranted. But this kind of thinking is needlessly applied to far too many jobs, most of which show no difference in quality between licensed professionals (in countries where a license is needed), and unlicensed professionals (in countries where it isn’t). License medical and legal practitioners, let everyone else be.

So that’s occupational licensing. My next suggestion for Keir: end planning permission and build housing on the green belt. I wrote about the Green Belt before, but for those of you who missed it: the Green Belt isn’t green, and Britain should build on it.

“The Green belt” of is a bunch of land surrounding many of Britain’s largest cities. The name conjures to mind beautiful forests and fields, untouched by Man since the days of yore. But it’s actually car parks and monoculture farms, forbidden from being built on so that landowners can prevent their neighbor’s property from being bought up by the urban bourgeoisie. It’s a NIMBY version of feudalism.

And the Green Belt does have houses by the way. NIMBY houses for people who don’t want anyone to live near them, but also don’t want to pay for that privilege. Instead of buying the land surrounding their house (and thus paying tax on it), they simply demand no one *else* be allowed to build anything there.

So build on the Green Belt, put apartments on the car parks. Housing is unaffordable in Britain, build more houses and prices will come down. Build more apartments and rent will come down. And with housing and rent getting cheaper, people can afford to spend more on buying goods and services, pumping more money into the economy and creating more jobs.

Importantly, *the Government does not need to do this building*. Too many people think that if the Government is not actively building things, either with its own taxpayer-funded corporation or through special subsidies, then things just won’t get built. But that is not at all true. A plethora of private companies would love to build and sell houses, but Government laws prevent them. So just repeal the laws and the companies will build, no special subsidies or taxpayer-funded company necessary.

And while we’re at it, do away with local planning permission. People complain about developers “banking” land, holding it without building for years. That’s only done because it takes on average a *decade* to get permission to build anything. If someone wants to build and sell houses, buying the land is step 1, steps 2-90 are all planning permission. Cut out those steps and the houses will be built faster and cheaper.

Local councils hold far too much power to block housing, get rid of that power. Instead of a situation where council have to give “permission,” create a national “by-right” system of planning. Developers submit a proposal to build a dwelling at a location, a national organization makes sure it’s up to code, and once they OK it development starts. No more veto-ocracy by local NIMBYs.

Great Britain is no longer a feudal society, you shouldn’t require the permission of the local landlords to build on your own land. Local landlords don’t want you to build a nice apartment that competes with their crack house? Tough. End local planning permission and kick the landlords to the curb.

And now here’s my final suggestion for Keir Starmer, get rid of bank ring-fencing.

Actually that’s not my suggestion, but it was raised as a possibility by British politicians. And the suggestion isn’t that outlandish, Germany ended its ring-fencing over a decade ago

But wait, what is/was ring-fencing? In 2008, the Financial Crisis/Great Recession happened when banks made risky loans, those loans defaulted, and the banks went bust. This cause a knock-on effect throughout the economy.

The risky loans often came from the “investment” side of the banking business, but when the bank went bust even the the “core” side (which held consumer’s money) was hit. Ring-fencing meant keeping investment banking separate from consumer banking, so any bad investment bets would have no effect on consumer savings.

But banks are banks, and economies of scale mean one bank doing two things is usually more efficient than two separate banks. That’s why some want to get rid of ring-fencing and let banks make more money. Germany already did so, why shouldn’t Great Britain? Let the good times roll again.

I don’t know if ending ring-fencing is good or not because honestly I don’t actually know much about its effect. What efficiency is gained by combining consumer banking and investment banking? What is lost by ring-fencing? But I don’t reflexively hate this idea the way I probably would have hated it 10 years ago, less than a decade after the Financial Crisis. I don’t know, I’ll need to do more reading.

So anyway those are my proposals the economy of Great Britain. Keir, if you’re reading: work on this for me, would you?

Deregulation is a dirty word on the left mostly because it’s a clean word on the right. But this reflexive partisanship isn’t helpful, regulations are not always good. Removing bad ones is necessary for an economy to grow. And if Labour wants growth, if they want to stop having to come out with more taxes and less spending every six months, then they need deregulation.

Post Script: Talking about the banking deregulation, I was reminded of Thatcher’s “Financial Big Bang.” No time to discuss it today, but I hope I remember to do so soon, because it’s a fascinating topic that explains a lot about today’s Great Britain.

“No more austerity! The Government needs to invest!”

“Government” is capitalized here because we’re talking about the UK today. I meant to write about it earlier, but Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have been announcing that benefits cuts will hit the UK this year. On top of last year’s tax hikes, this has raised the specter of Austerity, and fears of another Lost Decade in the UK, only this time with Labour at the helm.

Critics of the cuts abound, bringing complains and counsel:

“What happened to the tax rises from last year?!?”

“Austerity failed already! We can’t keep cutting!”

“Tax the rich! Don’t cut off the poor!”

And finally: “We should invest, not cut!”

Let me address these one by one. First, as much as the left-of-center despises the Laffer Curve, it is still an accurate reflection of reality. Raising taxes increases prices and reduces demand. This nearly always leads to a tax rise bringing in less money than the government predicts. They may claim to be modelling the demand reduction, but governments that raise taxes are heavily incentivized to make broad claims about bringing in lots of money to balance the books. Accurate modeling plays second fiddle.

And this has been the case in the UK, the 40 billion pound tax rise announced last year isn’t expected to bring in quite that much. For instance, a tax on private school education was expected to raise money while affecting a minimal number of pupils. But the government underestimated how many families would be unable to afford the tax, pushing those kids back into the public schools, where they aren’t paying the tax and the government will have to pay for their education.

So the government’s tax rise didn’t bring in near enough, and they even raised spending on top of it. The UK now faces a yawning deficit, nearly 5% of GDP. With Debt to GDP already over 100%, the government is finding borrowing unaffordable. The cost of financing all that debt is soaring, it’s 25% higher than it was a year ago at more than 100 billion pounds a year. Remember, that 100 billion pounds is *just the cost of the interest payments*, assuming no money is spent actually paying down the debt. Labour is then adding that 5% deficit on top of that, which will need even more borrowing.

So borrowing is going to cost way more than Labour expected. If they don’t want to enter a debt spiral, they need to manage that deficit.

“But Austerity failed already!” When did the UK ever implement austerity? It was the word of the decade under the coalition government, but despite the tough talk and tax rises, total spending increased every single year of the coalition, and never went down. And this wasn’t “cuts in real terms either,” *real spending* ie inflation adjusted spending, never went down during the Coalition government. It grew more slowly than under Blair/Brown, but it never went down. Boris Johnson has the (dis)honor of overseeing the only year on year reduction in real Government expenses, thanks to the massive pandemic spending that then petered out.

The UK hasn’t done austerity, and it isn’t doing austerity now. The announced cuts aren’t actual reductions in spending, they are really just slowing the rate of spending *increase*. Labour promised massive spending increases last year, and a few of those are being paired back into a smaller increase. This is still an increase in real spending, just less of one than what was promised. This isn’t austerity.

And what of taxing the rich? They’re already pay all the tax. The top 10% of UK earners pay 60% of all taxes, the top 1% pay half of that (ie 30% of the total). The bottom 50% of earners pay 17% of tax. About a third of working age Britons pay no tax at all.

And that is significantly more progressive than on the Continent, the German 10% pay a little over half of their country’s taxes, the German 1% pay a little under a quarter. By and large, the UK taxes the rich more and taxes the poor less than in the rest of Europe.

Of course, the real definition of “rich” is “1 standard deviation above my personal income.” Everyone agrees that someone *else* must pay more, but will the British economy really be improved by chasing off its last remaining high earners to America? Europeans have boasted that Trump will set off a “brain drain” of wealthy Americans, but the difference in after-tax earnings means historically that brain drain has only happened in the America-ward direction. Further tax hikes will only enforce that paradigm.

Finally, shouldn’t the Government *invest* rather than *cut*? The private sector does it all the time! They take out eye-watering amounts of debt and yet somehow come out on top, the public sector should too!

But the Government doesn’t really invest. It spends money, and it uses the language of the private sector to claim that the money is spent well. But the Government doesn’t have the profit incentive that the private sector does, it’s overwhelming incentive is for optics and votes. So as Biden showed us, Government “investment” never really generates a return.

Labour is right to cut spending. They’ve already hiked taxes, and they need to get borrowing costs under control somehow. Besides, Government spending as a proportion of GDP is already nearly 50% in the UK, about 17,000 pounds per person. Just over 10% of the population (people making more than 50,000 pounds) are putting in more money than they’re getting out. The Government already spends a lot of money, and not well. More money in the fire won’t necessarily help.

But like Nigeria’s president Tinubu, Keir Starmer has talked a big game on growth without having the stomach to follow through with it. So again, here’s my unsolicited policy advice:

Keir Starmer should liberalize (liberalise?) the UK’s labor (labour?) laws. UK companies are significantly constrained in their abilities to fire, and this generates a reluctance to hire. The UK has stiff requirements on minimum notice before firing, minimum compensation when you get fired, and if you work there for 2 years a company needs to jump through significant regulatory hoops to be allowed to fire you. These laws should be liberalized to make it easier to fire, and therefore incentive companies to hire.

I know this proposal doesn’t sit well with any of my readers. We’re all workers, I doubt any of us is an owner. But here’s the rule of labor markets: easy go, easy come. The easier it is to fire a worker, the more willing a company will be to hire, and the more nimble a company will be at navigating a changing market.

If a UK company wants to expand, they have to do so very slowly and carefully because any new hire becomes a big liability after 2 years. UK Companies can’t downsize to adjust to market conditions, and so they are hesitant to upsize even during the good times. That makes them grow more slowly, and believe it or not it reduces wages.

Let’s look at Meta as an example: they laid off tens of thousands of employees when the “metaverse” was proven to be a bust. They were able to lay off quickly and adjust their company focus because those metaverse employees weren’t guaranteed a silver parachute. If firing was harder, they might have held on to their losing bet on the metaverse for much longer, because the cost of firing mitigated the upside potential in changing tactics. Then again if firing was harder, Meta might have never made a big expensive bet on the metaverse to begin with.

See the metaverse was a big, expensive failure, but US companies have to expect that most of their bets will fail. But some bets will succeed and wipe out all the loses from the failures, and so US companies are very quick to hire when they’re chasing a big bet.

The ballooning wages in Tech are a symptom of this. Companies like Google and Amazon have made big bet after big bet in the last 20 years, and to when those bets pay off the company starts offering higher and higher wages to expand the company on the success of their big bet. Sometimes those bets go bad and you get layoffs like at Meta. But many of those bets go good and you find that starting salaries in America become higher than mid-tier salaries in most of Europe.

And while Tech is the most famous example, this is endemic in every American industry from energy to pharma and beyond. Liberalized labor markets mean companies are willing to make big bets, meaning some of those bets pay off and the workers get chased by higher salaries. The workers are ultimately the ones who benefit here, that’s why America is such a magnet for high-skilled immigration (on top of its attractiveness for all immigration). Even with Trump in power, tens of thousands of highly skilled immigrants will continue to come to America every year he’s in office, the salaries are just too good to pass up.

That was a lot more than I expected to write on labor markets, but I’ve got more if you’re interested. Stay tuned for the next exciting installment of “if I ruled the world.”

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.