Some people have a gut feeling the impact would be more severe.
It is difficult to draw a gut feeling on the chart.
But OK, let's take 5% hit to GDP in 2022, the yellow square.
Look at this chart again. Does it look like return to poverty is likely in 🇩🇪? 3/n
Next up, the level of GDP. How far back wld the embargo take us?
Check the next chart.
The income in the short term might drop to 2017 levels or so.
"Huge"? "return of poverty"? Mmmm I don't think so 4/n
Ahh maybe GDP is not everything, and it's all about unemployment.
OK let's check: the red line is the German UR (right axis)
I do not need any fanciful econometrics to argue that the increase in unemployment can be
contained.
we know how to - look at 08/corona! 5/n
The truth is we don't exactly know what an embargo would do to GDP.
The point is to label this uncertain impact as 'huge', 'disastrous', 'return of poverty' does not square w longer-run perspective, even if you are v pessimistic.
[It is also insensitive, btw]
6/n
Looking at these charts I am embarrassed we are even having this short-term econ debate.
It ignores where we must get to in the long-term anyway.
+ ignores large econ risks (eg Putin closes the taps in Nov)
+ ignores the LT costs of this lack of 🇩🇪 leadership in 🇪🇺
7/n
Economists must ofc help to assess impact + devise ways to cushion against it.
But the decision should have been taken already on strategic, political & moral grounds, which surely completely swamp these considerations. n/n
MYTH 2: Russia can sell oil & gas to China and others, so we’d only be hurting ourselves.
FALSE: a complete substitution towards China is infeasible given the scale of EU imports. If China becomes nearly the sole buyer, it will bargain hard.
Another input into the energy imports embargo 🇩🇪 debate, now from @MonikaSchnitzer.
Unfortunately rather than the advertised "balanced and unexcited assessment of the tradeoffs" we get a bunch of gut feelings, unsubstantiated claims, and outright errors and misunderstandings.
What are the distributional consequences of shifts in technology? Who wins and who loses, and why?
Much has been said about the uneven impact of technology on wages of different workers (@davidautor, @lkatz42).
But what about its effects on wealth ownership and the unequal distribution of capital income?
In this paper we build a tractable framework of wealth and total (i.e. labor + capital) income distributions, and we use it to study the consequences of automation technologies.
UNEVEN GROWTH: NEW PAPER [Thread] Over the past 4 decades, gains from growth have been very unevenly distributed. Why is that? In a new paper, Ben Moll @pascualrpo & I consider the role of automation in driving the rise in inequality, inc at the v top: princeton.edu/%7Emoll/UG.pdf 1/7
The key feature of our theory is that technology permanently affects rates of return. By raising return to capital automation results in rapid individual wealth accumulation and thus higher wealth inequality. This is related to @PikettyLeMonde 'r-g’ argument. 2/7
More concentrated holdings of wealth translate into more concentrated capital income, which drives up income inequality. We show how this is distinct from - and more powerful than - the usual compositional argument that emphasises K-income is more concentrated than L-income. 3/7