Lukasz Rachel Profile picture
Mar 14 10 tweets 11 min read
One *super basic* thing that has been missing from the 🇷🇺 oil & gas embargo econ debate is some PERSPECTIVE.

We have seen terms like "poverty", "huge impact", particularly in 🇩🇪 (a pivotal country, so I will focus on it).

To help with perspective, some v basic charts: 1/n
First, 🇩🇪 annual GDP growth.

The red diamond is IMF fcast for '22, adjusted lower for the recent rise in energy prices.

The grey swathe is a range of embargo impact e.g. from @GoldmanSachs & @ben_moll @kuhnmo @MSchularick @BachmannRudi and others econtribute.de/RePEc/ajk/ajkp… 2/n
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

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Lukasz Rachel

Lukasz Rachel Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @LukaszRachel

Mar 16
The debate on 🇷🇺 oil & gas ban to #StopFundTheWar & #StandWithUkraine is important. 🇺🇦🌻

I put together a list of arguments against the ban, debunking them 1-by-1 (a "myth buster")

Hope it's constructive & useful 4 all involved.

PDF here:

dropbox.com/s/fvd59j8ksp2t…

16 myths: ImageImage
MYTH 1:We are not financing Putin’s war (b/c of sanctions, he cannot use the billions of euros/dollars we send him anyway).

FALSE: there’s no doubt that a ban would drastically limit the real resources available for war.

numbers: beyond-coal.eu/russian-fossil…

see links in the PDF
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.

eia.gov/todayinenergy/…
Read 19 tweets
Mar 13
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.
Gut feelings: "huge" economic impact. I don't deny there'll be a cost, perhaps significant. But w/o evidence or analysis, this is scaremongering.

Show us your model / assumptions / simulations / regressions / back of the envelopes
Unsubstantiated: next winter - ignores completely substitution possibilities, which increase with time.

And what if Putin turns off the tap in Nov? Or what if he makes his move on a NATO member then? It's a significant econ risk to be taking right now.
Read 8 tweets
Mar 12
Can't stop thinking about this:

"Wir reden von Armut" - "We're talking about poverty"

said Robert Habeck, German vice chancellor and economic minister of economy and climate @BMWK

No, he was not reflecting on the fate of 2 million who have fled Ukraine in as many weeks, ...
clutching on to a plastic bag with what's left of their life's possessions.

He also wasn't talking about Mariupol's residents destined to die of starvation & dehydration, or shelling.

He was reflecting on the ~0.5-6% (I'm generous*) hit to annual GDP per capita in Germany, ...
Europe's economic powerhouse.

These reflections came with no accompanying numbers or analysis,

against the backdrop of strong support of tougher sanctions across 🇩🇪 population,

and surely were well heard in Moscow.

My guess: history will judge these words harshly.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 8, 2021
📉UNEVEN GROWTH📈– Automation’s Impact on Income and Wealth Inequality, w @ben_moll @pascualrpo

A brand new & improved version of our paper out today @nberpubs:

nber.org/papers/w28440?…

Main idea + key results (thread): 🤖🧵

(tagging some whose great work we draw on🙏) Image
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.
Read 14 tweets
Jul 2, 2019
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
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(