Today we had a meeting of @RenewEurope to discuss Ukraine. I share here a few proposals on #EconomicWarfare I prepared for the Group to discuss (link at end).
Given the failure of Putin´s initial plans, tough economic sanctions are crucial NOW.
Starting point: this is warfare, even if economic-- thus we, the EU countries (and US!), will need to incur serious costs. No free lunch.
My view is that there we must act on 4 axis:
- Swift
- Central Bank Assets
- Oligarchs money
- Energy: Zero-gas
2/12
First: SWIFT, paired with several other measures, including blocking alternative payment systems linked to bank accounts, and blocking access of all banks to the financial system (more on energy later!).
Painful to Putin: EXTREMELY
Painful to us: VERY
3/12
Second, cut off Russian Central Bank, block its assets abroad.
Putin has done a huge effort diversifying away from US Dollars etc but there is a huge amount (10% is 60 bn in Europe) to seize just in EU, probably GER.
Painful to Putin: Very
Painful to us: Little (short run)
4/12
Third: @gabriel_zucman@PikettyLeMonde confiscatory tax on assets of oligarchs.
Their two key insights
- Wealth in Russian is extremely concentrated
- It is held offshore in extremely high proportion
5/12
So how to do it? Zucman, in personal commmunication proposes a tax (left slide). PIketty in blog too. Legally, sounds dubious.
So here is a new idea. Everyone linked to this war of aggression is a war criminal. A lot of regime honchos seen on TV supporting aggression.
6/12
This has never been done, but there is no reason why it cannot be done- e.g. there is space for this in the Guideliness of the Council.
Painful to Putin: Hugely
Painful to us: Not at all
7/12
Final idea: Zero-gas.
Starting point here is that we are subsidizing this war.
WE, the EU citizens are the evil people givin Putin the cash for this crazy advanture.
8/12
We can survive 0-gas.
Winter is almost over, we have huge LNG surplus capacity, we need to bring back nuclear and other closed plants (yes, thermal plants) but we can do it.
WE CANNOT CONTINUE PAYING FOR THE WAR EFFORT OF PUTIN!
9/12
One caveat: this shock is very asmmetric. Different countries incur very different costs. Thus Europe needs to absorb the cost of this policy with a new facility modeled after NextGEn.
Like Covid, we are facing a one off, massive supply shock. Europe needs to absorbe it.
10/12
Conclusions:
Do it all
Do it hard
Do it now
11/12
I know it is a pain to read slides like this.
Here is a link to the full PDF . I hope it can stimulate a good discussion
12/12 dropbox.com/s/0g599p297cbu…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Live from Palo Alto! "The Economics of Transformative AI" @nberpubs workshop. I will be trying to live tweet (mega jet lagged--flew from HKG--, so I really hope I can keep it up) the papers presented. Watch this thread
Here is the fantastic line up nber.org/conferences/ec…
Intro talk from Agrawal, Korinec and Brynjolfsson. The assignment: lets not discuss if transformative AI will or not happen. Instead, lets assume it is going going to happen and draw the consequences for makets and the economy.
Paper 1: Agrawal–Goldfarb–Gans, "Genius on Demand: The Value of Transformative AI"
Q: If “genius” is on tap (Einstein level intelligence), what is this worth—and how does it get allocated ?
A: Paper argues in the short run, human geniuses specialise in questions that are furthest from existing knowledge, where their comparative advantage over AI is greatest. In the long run, routine workers may stay at the edges and eventually be completely displaced as AI efficiency approaches human genius efficiency.
There is widespread sense AI adoption is slowing down and productivity gains are hard to get. Is it true? Why? I just attended the inaugural conference of the Center for AI, Management and Organizations at Hong Kong University. A thread on insights.
1/17
A general answer before going deep in: firm adoption of GenAI is widespread, but it is shallow, and barely profitable. An often repeated point was that only a small minority of firms are seeing P&L impact. Data from a Deloitte&CAMO survey of 109 top executives: 2/17
Executives say they overestimated expected financial returns from AI implementation.
At launch, many expected strong ROI but outcomes disappointed. 45% reported returns below expectations; only 10% exceeded them.
3/17
1/10 Good news on AI could be bad news for Europe's debt.
A boom in AI-driven productivity could end decades of slow growth. But for Europe, this silver lining may hide a fiscal storm cloud. Here’s why.
2/10
The key is the global real interest rate, r*. Think of it as the price that clears the world's market for assets. For 70+ years, high demand for assets from savers and slowing productivity has kept r* low. This is about to reverse. siliconcontinent.com/p/r-without-g
3/10
AI changes the game.
It boosts the supply of assets (higher profits, huge data center investments) and lowers demand (richer future generations save less).
More supply + less demand = lower asset prices, which means higher interest rates.
Let's not kid ourselves: Europe can't compete on compute.
- Energy costs 2-3x more than in US.
- Permitting makes building anything a nightmare.
- We lack tech ecosystem.
Catching up in model-building is delusional.
An alternative: Europe can be a smart second mover.
🧵1/10
Nobody knows who will capture the value created by AI: could be chips (NVIDIA), manufacturing (TSMC/ASML), models (OpenAI), or implementation layer.
What we do have:
- 450 million consumers in a (semi-)unified market.
- Top companies in manufacturing, pharma, automotive. - A highly educated workforce.
The question isn't how to build models - it's how to ensure the value stays at the implementation stage. 3/10
1/@EpochAIResearch doubles down on preiction AI will drive 20%+ annual GDP growth. Economists remain skeptical.
This is the defining debate of today: AI builders see infinite prosperity ahead. Economists see the same limits that constrained every technological revolution.🧵 1/13
2/The economists' core insight, which Epoch misses, is that progress works itself out of a job.
The more successful a technology becomes, the less it matters economically. Revolutionary technologies shrink their own importance precisely through their success. Larry Summers:
3/Consider history's greatest productivity miracle: artificial light.
In 1800, one hour of reading light cost more than a day's wages. By the 1990s, we produced the same light using 1/3,000th the energy. The price fell 40,000x.
1/10 🧵 @masuch_klaus have written a post arguing the late 2010s QE was a big mistake. The debate sounds technical--central banks sold is as technical fine-tuning. But it's massive fiscal policy by unelected officials, creating perverse incentives and wealth transfers.
2/10 Fiscal consequences: QE transforms government debt structure. When central banks buy long-term bonds and pay with overnight reserves, they swap fixed-rate debt for floating-rate debt. The state suddenly owes money at today's rates, not yesterday's.siliconcontinent.com/p/the-hidden-c…
3/10 Example: Government issues €100bn in 10-year bonds at 1%. Central bank buys them, creates overnight reserves. When rates hit 3%, annual costs triple from €1bn to €3bn. ECB's €5 trillion portfolio lost ~€650bn when rates rose. Taxpayers absorbed the duration risk.