La Comisión Europea ha aprobado el viernes un desembolso de 10.000 millones de euros, correspondientes al primer tramo del plan de recuperación.
¿Quiere decir esto que el Gobierno está haciendo reformas y va a gastar bien el dinero asignado? No, en absoluto.
Abro HILO 1/13
"La Comisión Europea ha puesto muy buena nota al plan de España".
Sí, y a todos los demás. De los 22 planes aprobados, 19 han recibido exactamente la misma nota. España solo ha sacado más nota que Bélgica, Chequia y Estonia. Es un aprobado general, no un sobresaliente. 2/13
¿Cuales son los países a los que no le han aprobado todavía el plan?
-Holanda, Suecia y Bulgaria porque llevan varios meses sin Gobierno.
-Polonia y Hungría porque no respetan el Estado de Derecho. La Comisión va a gastar todo su capital político en estos dos países. 3/13
Después de la última crisis, la Comisión Europea se ha cansado de ser la mala de la película. Por eso, salvo en el caso de Polonia y Hungría, el dinero llegará sin muchas fricciones a los Estados miembros. La condiciones que ha puesto la Comisión son de mínimos. 4/13
No podemos esperar a que Europa resuelva siempre nuestros problemas, España recibirá el dinero para gastarlo en digital, verde y hacer reformas. Pero que las inversiones y las reformas sirvan para algo es cosa de cada país.
Entonces, ¿qué tal lo está haciendo el Gobierno? 5/13
Las reformas no van a transformar la economía española. De hecho, en algunos casos pueden dejarla peor.
Lo que conocemos de la reforma de las pensiones es un despropósito que deja un agujero de 42.000 millones de euros. Lo explico aquí 👇6/13
La reforma laboral todavía no se ha dado conocer, pero las filtraciones muestran que el Gobierno está trabajando con los sindicatos para que el mercado laboral sea más rígido. Es una pésima idea en un país con 3 millones de parados. 👇7/13
Hay otras reformas de las que se ha hablado menos, pero que son igual de equivocadas. La reforma universitaria que ha propuesto Castells se hace para decir a Europa que hemos reformado las universidades, pero no sirve para nada 👇 8/13
El Gobierno ha elegido fingir reformas para recibir los fondos en vez de resolver los problemas estructurales de la economía española.
Pensaréis "por lo menos vamos a recibir el dinero". Vamos a ver cómo se está ejecutando 👇 9/13
De los 24.000 millones que el Gobierno ha metido en los presupuestos de 2021 solo hay convocatorias, ya cerradas o abiertas, para 7.800 millones. Estamos a 5 de diciembre. 10/13
Entre las convocatorias que ya se han cerrado está 1 millón de euros ‘para el fomento de la movilidad internacional de autores literarios’.
Parece que para el Gobierno era prioritario pagarle viajes de 10.000€ a 100 escritores con fondos europeos... es lamentable. 11/13
How it started (mal plan de recuperación) / how it's going (la única de las grandes economías europeas muy por detrás de su nivel de actividad anterior a la pandemia). 12/13
Hace más de un año pedí una tregua política para pactar el plan, pero me ignoraron. En todas las críticas que hago doy propuestas alternativas, y lo seguiré haciendo porque los españoles se merecen mucho más que las ocurrencias de este Gobierno. 13/13
New data shows that the EU Commission has blown the chance the NextGen gave it to get the EU on a growth path. Two key elements. 1. Pensions in Spain. 2. Reforms in italy.
The new data is from the ageing report of the EU Commission on the budgetary impact of the pension "reforms"- more below
( h/t @rdomenechv @fernandosols with official data from the Spanish government.)
The EU NextGen plans gave an unprecedented and powerful stick to the EU Commission to demand reforms and investments in exchange of money. Never has the Commission had the chance to get states to get some reforms going.
In Spain, the EU Commission has been complicit (in spite of numerous warnings) in setting Spain on an unsustainable Fiscal path
(2/7)
Under cover (!!!) of the "reforms" required by the European NextGen plan, the Spanish government abrogated the 2012 reforms of pensions (the single reform done by the Rajoy government), based on an automatic adjustment mechanism, without putting anything else meaningful in place.
The cost is 3.3 points of GDP higher than before the reform.
Some reactions to the (wonderful) Levitt interview. 1) On the @uchicago PhD program and the atmosphere in the department in the 90s (toxic?). 2) On Price Theory and its future at @uchicago and beyond. 3) On the "technification" of economics and the blurring of the "theory-empirics" boundaries.
(link to interview: )
(Thread)
1/npodcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ste…
1) On the Econ PhD Program. I went in 1992, graduated in 1998. I did not feel the ambiance was toxic. It was tough work, almost brutal, not toxic. I was given a chance I would not have gotten elsewhere. There was nothing personal about the standards. We were getting trained by the best and that was intellectually invaluable -we got the chance of a lifetime. Here are some profs of my first two years (note 5 nobels):
Macro: Sargent, Lucas, Cochrane, Woodford, Stokey, Townsend.
Micro: Becker, Rosen, Murphy, Scheinkman
Metrics: Hansen, Heckman, Zellner.
It was extremely hard, by far the hardest thing I have ever done. But it should be hard. They were trying to put a bunch of kids at the frontier of knowledge.
It was not for everyone, but we knew what we were getting into. My admired supervisor, Sherwin Rosen, then department chair, gave us a "superstar" (he wrote THE paper after all) talk on the first day. He told us half of us would fail in the first year Core (and exit with an MA, is that so bad?), half of the rest would not make the prelims. Of the 50 we were there, maybe 10 would finish the PhD, most of those would never get any citation.
And yet we persisted. We wanted to learn, and were grateful for the hance.
2/n
2) On Price Theory. What is the Chicago Price Theory style? Best thing I can recommend is to experience it yourself by listening to the playlist of Kevin Murphy's classes. . He is an amazing teacher, and makes economics come alive.
Is it true as Levitt says, quoting Mulligan to Friedman, that this style of Micro lost in the market place of ideas?
3/nyoutube.com/@chicagopricet…
Prometí hacer un pequeño hilo con datos sobre el estancamiento de la economía española, al hilo de mi entrevista en @elmundoes.
Aquí van 4 gráficos. Al final del hilo, el texto de la entrevista completo.
La economía crece por demografía o por productividad.
Demografía: somos 47 millones.
La ONU estima que a finales de siglo seremos 30.8 millones, con una orquilla entre 21m y 43m: en el mejor caso (con mucha inmigración) estancamiento de la población.
We have seen much about Bob Lucas' macro contributions these days, but he also had a highly influential contribution to the theory of the firm: the "assigment theory of the firm", which explains, for instance, why Musk earns so much (and controls so many resources).
THREAD
Before Lucas 1978, we had Marshall-Viner: individual firms have U-shaped long-run average cost functions. In equilibrium, each firm produces at the minimum point of this curve, with firm entry or exit adapting to get aggregate production. Resonable for plants, but not for firms!
The size distribution which emerges is a solution to the problem: allocate production over firms to minimize total cost.
It goes without saying that this is counterfactual for firm size.
Here is the actual firm size distribution (Axtell, Science 2001).
🚨Stunning document, leaked today supposedly from GOOGLE, on whether there is a "moat" (Barrier to entry) in the LLM space.
The author argues neither Google nor OpenAI have a moat, and open source wins. Thread with critical comment at end: semianalysis.com/p/google-we-ha…
The question of whether one-three players dominate the industry (like Operating Systems or Search) or it is perfectly competitive is hugely important: 1) For consumer welfare: more competition is better. 2) For control of direction/ethics: more competition makes it harder.
To answer the question requires answering: what are the barriers to entry protecting the incumbents? What can their competitive advantages be?
If there are huge barriers, then the winner (Google in search) takes it all in AI, like Google did in search or MSFT in Office.
1. Including battery back-up, cost of electricity from renewables is 3x/4x more expensive than from fossil fuels.
2. Same for cars. Oil prices need to be quite high for EVs to be less costly: you need oil price at €129 for battery powered car to be more economical.
3. Fossile fuels will not just run out on their own.
On the contrary we are finding oil faster than we can use it:
We had 30 years worth of oil in 1980, 40 years today. Huge reserves of coal and gas.