Humanity's existence is threatened not by plague or environmental catastrophe but by its own passive acceptance of decline. My column looks at the novel case two economists, Dean Spears & @MikeGeruso make amazon.com/dp/1668057336 against depopulation. wsj.com/economy/global…
2/ Spears and Geruso don't invoke the usual risks of falling population such as a smaller labor force and more pressure on Social Security. Rather, they argue a larger, or stable, population is a good thing in and of itself.
3/ For example, a larger population means more scientists, inventors, innovators. And since ideas are reproducible for free, this increases all of humanity's wealth, and its ability to solve problems.
4/ The reflexive Malthusian belief that population growth inevitably exhausts finite resources and leads to destitution survives, especially among those who think population makes climate change worse. But ...
5/ ... history shows that we have largely overcome resource scarcity and environmental degradation as population has grown, via innovation and political will. For ex, children in India have gotten taller as population has grown thanks to better nutrition and sanitation.
6/ On climate change, Spears and Geruso show that population is only a tiny contributor to future emissions. Per capita emissions, a function of economic development and technology is far more significant.
7/ As I like to point out, the technology we need to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 mostly exists and is commercially viable. The cost of implementation is roughly ~2% of world GDP (i.e. one year of economic growth). Hardly immiserating. wsj.com/finance/invest…
8/ The reason we are not yet on a path to net zero is the policy framework and financing do not yet exist to address the externality of emissions and sufficiently accelerate the shift from high to low/zero emission energy sources.
9/ Explanations for low fertility commonly reflect our idiosyncratic biases rather than evidence. None of the most popular explanations, from lack of child care/housing/parental leave to declining marriage and religiosity, explain its decline across almost all geographies.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ If Trump forces Powell out, markets could no longer assume Fed will hit 2% inflation no matter what. Inflation would be subordinated to White House's larger agenda. No longer the brakes, the Fed would be part of the engine. My column: wsj.com/economy/centra…
2/ It's remarkable that through pandemic, stimulus, tariffs, deportations & soaring debt, inflation expectations stayed anchored around 2%. A victory for post-93 regime of political noninterference & inflation targeting.
3/ If Powell is removed, markets would assume the next chair could also be removed if president isn't happy with him. (Removal "for cause" when president gets to define "cause" is tantamount to removal without cause.) Independence would, de facto, be gone.
Whatever your probability of recession three weeks ago, it should be lower today. Five reasons why: 1. April employment was first "hard" data since 4/2 tariff announcement, with March tariffs already in place, and tariffs left no imprint on hiring, even at the industry level.
2. Policy is endogenous. Trump's tariff announcements tanked the market a month ago, so he walked them back (pauses, exemptions, plea for talks w/China). Businesses updating their assumptions will logically assume further Trump capitulation and act accordingly.
3. The S&P 500 has recovered all of its post 4/2 losses. Investors have not notably reduced future earnings growth, and the uncertainty premium has now been priced in.
Where did all those imports go in Q1? An update. The gap between surging imports and subdued inventories was even larger based on Census Bureau's March wholesale inventories. Bureau of Economic Analysis made an adjustment boosting March inventories, eliminating part of the discrepancy. Without that adjustment, GDP would have shrunk even more, by 1.5% instead of 0.3%, according to Ben Herzon of S&P Global.
So we are still left with a mystery. Why didn't inventories rise more? Why is the source data for inventories so weak? Where the heck are all those imports going?
.@Brad_Setser thinks he's solved the mystery of the missing inventories that caused q1 GDP to go negative: Pharma shipments
1/ This 7-year old interview w/Apple CEO Tim Cook is getting attention now as proof of why tariffs don't work. Some context is in order. Here, Cook claims companies don't go to China for low labor costs but for skills that aren't available in the U.S. HOWEVER:
2/ That may be true now, but not when Apple went to China 25 years ago. Apple had factories (& skills) in U.S. at the time. Cook came to Apple in 1998 to run operations, closed those factories and, imitating Dell & Compaq, offshored production to Asia. wsj.com/articles/tim-c…
3/ Asia's main appeal was low labor costs. Foxconn & other Chinese contract manufacturers, by serving Apple, "learning by doing," acquired essential process knowledge and skills. China owes its central role in the electronics supply chain to Cook's original outsourcing decsion.
Trump wants a lower trade deficit, but his tax cuts and pro-investment policies would make it bigger. Here's how to reconcile them: austerity. Steep spending cuts will lower inflation, interest rates and the dollar. I explain how here. /1 wsj.com/economy/trade/…
2/ The link between the fiscal and external balance is well established; thus the nickname "twin deficits." IMF study found that $1 in fiscal consolidation improves the current account by 30-50 cents for a low-trade dependency country like U.S.
3/ So reducing budget deficit from 6.4% of GDP last year to 3% in 2029 (Bessent proposal) could reduce trade gap by $300-$500B/ year. (It was $900 B last year). The time is right: inflation is above target and austerity would hasten return to target, Fed rate cuts, lower dollar.
Houses are places to live, but they're also assets, and the components of asset valuation - price, interest rates, and rents - show them overvalued now, near bubble-level peaks. While a bust isn't imminent, I explain here why real returns could be poor for a while. wsj.com/finance/invest…
2/ Real home prices and price/income ratios aren't good valuation measures when real cost & quality of shelter is rising. Price to rent ratios are superior because owning and renting are close substitutes. So rents up 24% v. prices up 51% since 2019 is a big red flag.
3/ Which rents? BLS's "owner equivalent rent" matches owner occupied homes to similar rental units - but may understate rent growth b/c of stock of existing leases that will renew at higher rates. Single-family market rents are up 31%, still way below price increase.