For more examples see benjaminmoll.com/RussianGas_Sub…, e.g. some of you may have "fond" memories of mask production in the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic
6/
The second part of the supplement makes some general observations on substitution in the macroeconomy.
There is an important distinction between a micro "engineering view" of substitution that focuses on individual production processes and a more general "economic view".
7/
Key observation: zero substitution at "micro-micro" level of individual production processes does not mean zero substitution in aggregate economy
How so? Simply because such production processes will be replaced by new better processes
This can also be true for entire firms
8/
Or perhaps we simply import some of the goods that become too expensive to produce domestically.
This idea goes back to a classic 1955 @RevEconStudies paper by Houthakker: even if individual technologies are Leontief (elasticity = 0) they may aggregate up to a Cobb-Douglas production (elasticity = 1)
@ChadJonesEcon discusses the result with the usual lucidity.
10/
The discussion is therefore subject to a classic "micro-to-macro fallacy".
Interesting corollary: industry representative saying "little substitution is possible" may well be right from "engineering perspective". But this would still be a biased view of the macroeconomy.
11/
Summary: these examples and considerations aim to show the surprising adaptability of the free-market economy.
@fetzert puts it well: "Let this adaptability shine. If not now then when?"
Thanks for the thread @ChristianKopf. But why would you deliberately ignore our main macro analysis using the @DBaqaee-Farhi model which addresses some of your criticisms and features exactly the types of production chains that people are worried about in popular debate?
The important thing is to have a quantitative debate based on data, empirics & models rather than people's "gut feelings".
In the spirit of elevating the debate, here are some thoughts, particularly for journalists as well as politicians & citizens in favor of fact-based policy:
I'm not as pessimistic as @BachmannRudi. I think it can be done.
I finally read this & thought the following was interesting: exercises quite similar to this ("saving rates rise with income, hence inequality increases aggregate saving") were a prime motivation for Friedman to develop the permanent income hypothesis in the 1950s.
This 1975 Alan Blinder paper "Distribution Effects and the Aggregate Consumption Function" has a nice exposition of the evolution of economic thought up to the 70s
Off the top of my head, here are 6 reasons (in somewhat random order) why a heterogeneous agent model allows you do more than "just starting from the MPC>>0 and then going forward from there":
Do wealthier households save a larger share of their incomes than poorer ones?
I suspect most people's prior is that the answer is "yes." Turns out that's incorrect, or rather: things are considerably more subtle, at least in our Norwegian wealth tax registry data.
A short 🧵:
The 🧵 is based on a major revision of "Saving Behavior Across the Wealth Distribution: The Importance of Capital Gains", which is joint with @AndreasFagereng@BlomhoffHolm & @GNatvik
Why do saving rates matter? Answer: for (i) secular trends in income & wealth inequality and (ii) how such distributional shifts feed back to macro aggregates
#EconTwitter hivemind: what are your favorite papers combining “causal” micro estimates (say from DiD or RCT) with a general-equilibrium macro model to answer an interesting macro question?
This is for my PhD teaching so the easier to read the better. Thanks in advance!