The Unassuming Economist

From Market Urbanism:

“Two teams of researchers recently released estimates of the U.S. housing shortage – and they differ by a factor of five. Is the national shortage 20 million homes or just 4 million? With a range that big, both published by pro-housing groups, you’d be forgiven for thinking this is an exercise in futility.

But look under the hood and each estimate is asking and answering a different question. Together they offer a useful parallax on the current cost crisis. To oversimplify, here’s how I’m thinking about the studies:

• America needs to find space for about 4 million more households.
• City housing deficits add up to about 20 million dwellings, but the total is less than the sum of the parts.
• If we deregulated everywhere, high-priced places would build much more housing than Up For Growth predicts. And moderate-priced places would build much less housing than the JEC predicts.

JEC: 20 million

The easier report to understand is that produced at the Joint Economic Committee by the classically-named duo Kevin Corinth and Hugo Dante, the latter a GMU/Mercatus alumnus. They use a straightforward supply and demand framework with some simple, defensible assumptions about the housing production function and the demand curve within each county.”

Continue reading here.

From a NBER paper by Zhiguo He & Wei Wei:

“China’s financial system has been integral to its spectacular economic growth over the past 40 years. We review the recent literature on China’s financial system and its connections to the Chinese economy based on the categories of Aggregate Financing to the Real Economy (AFRE), a broad measure of the nation’s yearly flow of liquidity accounting for unique features of China’s financial system. While early work on China’s financial system emphasizes the state-owned enterprise (SOE) reform, the recent literature explores other more market-based financing channels—including shadow banking—that grew rapidly after 2010 and have become important components of AFRE. These new financing channels are not only intertwined with each other, but more importantly often ultimately tied back to the dominant banking sector in China. Understanding the mechanisms behind these channels and their intrinsic connections is crucial to alleviate capital allocation distortion and mitigate potential systemic financial risk in China.”

From a NBER paper by John H. Cochrane:

“The fiscal theory states that inflation adjusts so that the real value of government debt equals the present value of real primary surpluses. Monetary policy remains important. The central bank can set an interest rate target, which determines the path of expected inflation, while news about the present value of surpluses drives unexpected inflation. I use fiscal theory to interpret historical episodes, including the rise and fall of inflation in the 1970s and 1980s, the long quiet zero bound of the 2010s, and the reemergence of inflation in 2021, as well as to analyze the gold standard, currency pegs, the ends of hyperinflations, currency crashes, and the success of inflation targets. Going forward, fiscal theory warns that inflation will have to be tamed by coordinated monetary and fiscal policy. I thank Erik Hurst, Ed Nelson, Nina Pavcnik, and Timothy Taylor for helpful comments.”

From a NBER paper by Richard Baldwin:

“Globalisation affects the functioning of the macroeconomy. The macroeconomy’s functioning, in turn, conditions the conduct and impact of monetary policy. This is why globalisation matters for central banks. It is also why central bankers should pay attention to the evolution of globalisation. And evolve it has. This paper argues that the future of trade is trade in services – especially trade in intermediate services. Barriers are radically higher and falling radically faster for services versus goods, and, unlike farm and factory goods, there is no capacity constraint when it comes to the export of intermediate services from emerging markets. Undertaking the macroeconomic analysis for services trade that was done in the 2000s for goods trade, however, will require a substantial upgrading of the data available.”

From a NBER paper by Per Krusell & Anthony A. Smith Jr:

“The economic effects of climate change vary across both time and space. To study these effects, this paper builds a global economy-climate model featuring a high degree of geographic resolution. Carbon emissions from the use of energy in production increase the Earth’s (average) temperature and local, or regional, temperatures respond more or less sensitively to this increase. Each of the approximately 19,000 regions makes optimal consumption-savings and energy-use decisions as its climate (or regional temperature) and, consequently, its productivity change over time. The relationship between regional temperature and regional productivity has an inverted U-shape, calibrated so that the high-resolution model replicates estimates of aggregate global damages from global warming. At the global level, then, the high-resolution model nests standard one-region economy-climate models, while at the same time it features realistic spatial variation in climate and economic activity. The central result is that the effects of climate change vary dramatically across space—with many regions gaining while others lose—and the global average effects, while negative, are dwarfed quantitatively by the differences across space. A tax on carbon increases average (global) welfare, but there is a large disparity of views on it across regions, with both winners and losers. Climate change also leads to large increases in global inequality, across both regions and countries. These findings vary little as capital markets range from closed (autarky) to open (free capital mobility).”