1/7 Very interesting article. A series of Chinese studies may be discovering something about the high-speed rail system that France had already learned: rather than boost the economies of secondary cities, being connected...
2/7 to the HSR may actually reduce economic activity and encourage a brain drain. Even patent applications in secondary cities have dropped significantly, according to one study, after the city was connected to a high-speed line.
3/7 If this is true, it undermines the claim that even if much of the HSR is not economically viable today, it will generate enough growth in the less economically advanced areas to become viable in the future. The value of HSR is more likely to decline than to increase.
4/7 This reinforces a point I have made many times before, including in the linked essay. The idea that concentrating investment in poorer regions will drive economic convergence is based on a confusion about what drives growth.
5/7 Poorer regions are usually poorer because their social, economic, legal, and cultural institutions prevent businesses and workers from being able to absorb high levels of capital productively.
6/7 In that case more investment only generates sustainable growth when these regions are relatively underinvested, and this doesn't mean relative to more advanced regions but rather relative to their own specific institutional capacity (what I call the Hirschman level).
7/7 Once each region has as much investment as it can productively absorb — and in China most regions reached that point well over a decade ago — more investment doesn't help. What it needs is more institutional reform.
1/4 The point of this thread is not to suggest that investment in HSR, or capital deepening more generally, is economically a bad idea. It is in fact often a very good idea – for example infrastructure investment in China in the 1990s, or in the US today – but we should ...
2/4 understand both the conditions under which it can accelerate economic development and those under which further economic development will not occur without the right institutional reforms, in which case further capital deepening can actually reduce future growth.
3/4 As a corollary, the longer an investment-driven growth model has proven successful, the more politically entrenched it is likely to become – that is certainly what the historical precedents suggest – but in fact the less successful it is likely to be...
4/4 in the future as it closes the gap between actual investment and the amount of investment the region can productively absorb.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/6 Bob McCauley says that Stephen Miran's proposal to reduce the US trade deficit and weaken USD by imposing a “user fee” on official holdings of Treasury securities won't have any impact on the US trade deficit or on...
2/6 the value of USD because "the user fee would most likely simply lead activity in the dollar to move offshore."
He's right about the creation of an offshore market, but he misses the point altogether.
3/6 If Autostrade wants to issue a bond to Swiss and British investors, for example, and denominates the bond in USD, to the extent that it diverts Swiss and British USD demand from US Treasury bonds to Autostrade bonds, it accomplishes exactly what Miran wants it to accomplish.
2/8 In fact Germany doesn't need an economic miracle. It needs to shift away from an export-oriented model that is based on weak domestic demand to make Germany competitive, and on large trade surpluses to externalize the cost of that weak domestic demand.
3/8 The fact that the world is no longer willing to absorb large beggar-thy-neighbor trade surpluses is what has made the model obsolete, and China's aggressive doubling down on its own version of this model has forced Germany to take on the brunt of the adjustment.
1/12
Oren Cass makes a very important point here. While most economists agree that trade intervention is always contractionary (i.e. it reduces the total value of goods and services produced by the intervening country), their agreement is based... understandingamerica.co/p/the-one-word…
2/12
on their failure to understand the assumptions that underlie Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage, the most important of which is that trade is balanced in the aggregate because countries produce exports only in order to pay for imports.
3/12
In that world, if Germany subsidizes the production of solar panels to sell to Spain, and uses the export revenues to buy Spanish cars, Spain may indeed be better off by switching from producing solar panels to cars (unless it sees solar panels as strategically important).
1/15
Phil Gramm and Donald J. Boudreaux argue that the US trade deficit doesn't matter because it is simply the flip side of foreign investment into productive facilities in the US, and these create jobs and economic value for the US.
2/15
"If Japanese tech-investing firm SoftBank invests $100 billion in the U.S.," they write, "as SoftBank acquires dollars to fund the investment, the value of the dollar will rise relative to what it would have been without the investment, the cost of U.S. exports...
3/15
will rise, the cost of U.S. imports will fall, and the country’s trade deficit will rise. Fortunately, foreign capital investment creates American jobs and fuels economic growth no less than do foreign purchases of American exports."
1/7 WSJ: "The top 10% of earners in the U.S. now account for 49.7% of all spending, a record in data going back to 1989. Three decades ago, they accounted for about 36%."
It is surging stock and property markets that seem to drive their disproportionate spending.
2/7 This is very worrying. US consumption spending seems to depend heavily on the creation of what Charles Munger described as "bezzle", expanding John Kenneth Galbraith's definition of the word to describe a temporary, unsustainable increase in wealth.
3/7 This means that growth in the US economy has become overly reliant on even faster growth in the value of stocks and property, and of course in the longer term, the latter can only grow as fast as the former.
1/6 "The fact that a tax on imports is effectively a tax on exports is a famous result in economics. It was formally proved by Abba Lerner in 1936 but it was obvious long before then that there must be an intimate connection between exports and imports."
2/6 It's not really a famous result in economics. It is a famous result in economic modeling, but the idea that there is a symmetric relationship between changes in exports and imports is constantly violated in the behavior of real economies.
3/6 This shouldn't surprise us. Like many economic models, The conclusions of Lerner's symmetry theorem may seem striking, but in fact they are a trivial restatement of the wholly unrealistic assumptions that are needed to make the model work.