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
Europe had an effective tool for climate action: the Emissions Trading System (ETS). Instead of expanding this market-based solution, we've built a byzantine regulatory framework that goes far beyond emissions reduction.
THREAD on my post today on the "Compliance Doom Loop"
1/10
Costs are staggering: Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) requires 42,000 companies report 1,052 data points (783 mandatory). Cost: €150K-1M per company annually.
CSRD compliance costs of 12.5% of investment of mid sized firms (EIB).
Danish firms face 63% more regulations in 2023 vs 2001. Chemical industry SME compliance costs nearly doubled: €332.5K (2014) to €577K (2023). Add GDPR: €500K-10M more. 3/
Wake-up Europe! Enough of the de-growth agenda!
There is no strategic autonomy while we spend our every waking hour erecting barriers to growth!
THREAD on the post today in Silicon Continent by @pietergaricano.
1/8
Today's Trump victory makes Europe's strategic autonomy urgent. But Europe has lived beyond its means through "luxury rules" - virtuous but growth-hurting policies that were only possible due to US protection and innovation. 2/ siliconcontinent.com/p/the-end-of-l…
Luxury rules are laws that make our privileged societies feel good but harm competitiveness. Like Germany closing nuclear plants in 2011, increasing reliance on imported gas, or the EU's GDPR hurting tech innovation.
3/
The EU AI Act seems designed to allow AI only for routine tasks while hindering its use in high-level problem-solving.
This will endanger European AI startups and significantly damage EU productivity.
THREAD on our post today in Silicon Continent. 1/9
An AI bank teller in the EU would need two humans to oversee it. A startup building an AI tutor faces countless hurdles before launching. The is the reality under the EU AI Act—a well-meaning but flawed attempt to regulate AI. 2/ siliconcontinent.com/p/the-strange-…
The Act classifies AI systems by risk: unacceptable, high, limited, and minimal. Unacceptable systems, like social scoring or workplace emotion recognition, are banned.
Fines can reach €15 million or 3% of global revenue.
3/
We keep hearing how solving Europe’s innovation stagnation requires more public spending. But the numbers show otherwise: the EU falls behind in private R&D investment, not public.
A thread based on this week’s blog.
1/10 siliconcontinent.com/p/the-problem-…
As a share of GDP, Europe spends 0.74% on public sector R&D, compared to the U.S. 0.69%.
The actual R&D gap is in private sector spending, where Europe spends 1.3% of GDP compared to the United States' 2.4%!
That gap is worth 341 billion in R&D spending in 2021. /2
Take the story of DeepMind. It is a contemporary of EU's AI flagship, the Human Brain Project, launched in 2013 with €600M in public funding, aimed to simulate a human brain in 10 years. It's now widely regarded as a failure, while DeepMind leads in AI. /3
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…