A trial Zoom meeting for Citizens’ Daily Briefing

at 6:30 pm eastern time today, March 31. Meeting id 824-584-0623.

It will be a learning experience.

[UPDATE: I really got a lot out of it! I think that there is a real appetite for something with an alternative point of view. But I decided that I need to think more carefully about structure. The trick will be to balance the advantages of a central focus with the fact that many people have something to contribute.

I am going to take what I learned from this and brainstorm with some other like-minded folks and then come back with another iteration, hopefully soon.

Other comments welcome.]

Citizens’ Daily Briefing

I have reached the point where I am afraid that we are permanently losing our way of life. When government obtains new powers in a crisis, it does not relinquish them. When the Fed is going to have power to control more capital than all of the bank loans and corporate bonds combined, that is going to make the American economy like the Chinese economy, where the government also acts as the central source of credit. On the fiscal front, we may never again see Federal government is taking on a share of the economy not seen since World War II, starting from a higher debt level than we ended the war with, and with no thought whatsoever of future fiscal austerity.

I disagree with the elite consensus in two ways. First, I do not think that we should rely so heavily on the stay-at-home strategy and we ought to at least in some region try the masks-and-scarves strategy. Second, I think that the “stimulus” is misguided. At the very least, the government should have a plan to undo the increase in debt and a plan to unwind the huge Fed balance sheet.

If we are going to get off this disastrous course, people who agree with me will have to be heard. My thought is to try to start some sort of discussion about how to do this.

President Trump and his virus task force seem to give daily briefings. I would like to see citizens get together, say on Zoom, to give their own briefings. Call this idea Citizens’ Daily Briefings.

My dream is that eventually every day there would be several thousand different online meetings, each with a few dozen participants, discussing these issues and coming up with ways to pressure the elites to change course. You can think of this as a modern version of Committees of Correspondence.

I would like to hear comments from anyone who would like to see this idea work. I know what I am proposing is difficult to execute and likely to fail. It may not be desirable to try. But I don’t need to hear any of that. Negative, hostile, and snarky comments are not welcome. If you don’t buy into the spirit of the idea, just keep silent.

UPDATE: at 6:30 pm eastern time today, March 31. Meeting id 824-584-0623. Going to try a Zoom meeting. A learning experience.

Repeal the CARES act

Amit Seru and Luigi Zingales write,

The need to help individuals and small firms has provided cover to the largest corporate subsidy program in U.S. history. Under intense pressure from lobbyists, the Cares Act allocates $510 billion to support loans for large businesses. A small chunk of this money ($56 billion) will be used directly by the Treasury to grant loans to airlines and other “strategic” firms (read: Boeing). The Treasury will then confer the rest ($454 billion) to the Federal Reserve to absorb losses the Fed might incur in lending to firms in the private sector.

The expectation is that the central bank will leverage this money 10 to 1, enabling it to lend up to $4.54 trillion to companies. That sum is more than all U.S. commercial and industrial loans outstanding at the end of 2019 ($2.35 trillion) plus all the new corporate bonds issued during 2019 ($1.41 trillion). Thus, if this capital is all deployed by the Fed, and at rates that will surely crowd out private capital, all capital allocation in the U.S. in 2020 will be done by the Federal Reserve System, not by the capital market.

Their recommendation is for more transparency and oversight. Really? Our country has switched to an economic system somewhere to the left of Bernie and barely to the right of Lenin, and you would be satisfied with transparency and oversight?

I applaud Seru and Zingales for coming forward to point out the radicalism in the CARES act. But it requires a more radical response.

The formal sector and the informal sector

Timothy Taylor writes,

Here’s are some columns from a table from the World Employmentand Social Outlook: Trends 2020 published by the International Labour Organization in January 2020. As the report points out, around the world about 60% of workers have informal jobs; in low-income countries, it’s more like 90%

Read the whole post. The ability to cooperate in groups above the Dunbar number is extremely important for economic development. You might hate big corporations, but they are actually a miracle of civilization, as Tim and others have pointed out.

Longer term health insurance policies

Hanming Fang and others write,

Under long-term contracts, sick individuals pay relatively low premiums and compensate by paying relatively high premiums in healthy times of their life. In theory, a carefully designed long-term contract can reduce the risk of premium fluctuations due to health shocks (“reclassification risk”), while ensuring participation and eliminating adverse selection

This was the health insurance solution that I advocated in Crisis of Abundance in 2006. The authors look at an version that is used by about 10 percent of the insured population in Germany.

The main contribution of our paper is to provide a systematic welfare analysis of an existing, simple real-world alternative long-term contract with a distinct advantage of low information requirements for implementation. We show that, even though the GLTHI [German long-term health insurance] contracts are theoretically not optimal, they provide a close approximation in terms of welfare to the optimal GHHW contracts by providing better reclassification risk insurance at the cost of less intertemporal consumption smoothing

Today’s spending, tomorrow’s taxes?

A commenter asks,

With plan B the taxes happen sooner. With plan K the taxes happen later. We will scramble to produce output to pay those taxes later so the difference between B and K is just the timing of taxes. Apparently you don’t agree so I’m asking why?

Because no one will vote for the necessary tax increases. Look, they could do it now if they wanted to. They are spending 50 percent more in 2020 than they did last year. They could enact tax increases to go into effect in 2021 and later to pay for that spending. But they won’t. That’s even assuming that an increase in tax rates would actually work to increase revenues, which is no sure thing.

After World War II, we restored fiscal health with economic growth and Dwight Eisenhower. Economic growth meant that even though tax rates were not increased to pay off the debt, tax revenues went up.

Because we were willing to cut government spending from its wartime levels, and because Eisenhower had old-fashioned values about fiscal responsibility, for more than a decade we ran what economists call primary surpluses. The primary surplus is the government deficit if you do not include interest payments. If interest payments are $50 and the deficit $80 $20 (good catch by a commenter0, then the primary surplus is $30. If you keep running a primary surplus long enough, the interest payments keep falling until you no longer have a deficit. It’s like if you keep paying off some of the principal on your credit card, eventually you get out of debt.

But in case you haven’t noticed, Dwight Eisenhower is no longer President. We aren’t running primary surpluses, and we are not going to. We had some nice economic growth in the 1990s, and it took a while for Washington politicians to catch on, so the fiscal situation improved for a couple years. We had some slow economic growth from 2011-2019, and even though the Obama and Trump Administrations outspent the resulting increases in tax revenues, the Federal debt increased only gradually.

And now we have that 50 percent increase in spending. With more to come, probably. And no tax increases.

10 percent of GDP here, 10 percent of GDP there, and soon you are talking about real money. Of course I could turn out to be wrong, but I think this time we will catch the inflation virus.

AEI paper on virus containment policy

Written by Scott Gottlieb and others. They call it a road map to reopening, and it includes various benchmarks and milestones that might be used in deciding when to lighten up on the shut-downs. Pointer from Yuval Levin.

My main quibble with it is that I think that we should at least try a “masks and scarves” strategy in one city and compare it with the “shut down the economy” strategy in a comparable city. Although the report recommends using masks or face-covering fabric, it does not consider that this might substitute for strangling local economies.

[UPDATE: You want to object, “We can’t experiment with people’s lives in a crisis!” My response is that we are doing exactly that. We are experimenting with various lockdown policies, but not in a way that allows us to learn from the results. ]

For the future, the report recommends,

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed serious gaps in our nation’s pandemic preparedness. COVID-19 will not be the last public-health emergency to threaten American society. We must invest in the scientific, public-health, and medical infrastructure needed to prevent, detect, and respond to the next infectious disease threat.

. . .We need to move away from a decentralized system that promotes unequal implementation of preparedness measures across the nation and toward more coordinated execution of response. . .Preparedness for public-health emergencies should be elevated as a function in the White House, with a coordinating function analogous to the director of national intelligence.

I fear that this is exactly what will happen. But it embodies a form of the Nirvana Fallacy, in which a big spending spree and consolidating power in a central agency are presumed to work. Some points to consider:

1. We already have a CDC, and it failed at its One Job. It may have done more harm than good, by trying to monopolize testing and by recommending against people wearing masks.

2. After 9/11, we created the TSA. Do we think that was cost effective? Remember to include the lost time for passengers. Plus the inconvenience and the effort it takes to implement workarounds for the restrictions on liquids.

We are in a Robert Higgs Crisis and Leviathan moment. Government officials always say in a crisis “We need more power.” They never relinquish it. Look at where the Fed’s balance sheet stood ten years after the “emergency” of 2008. It had not even come close to shrinking back toward its pre-crisis level. And now, of course, it will grow by another order of magnitude.

We have increased government spending by roughly 50 percent over last year. What do we expect to happen in 2021?

a) We go back to the old baseline level of spending.

b) We cut spending below the old baseline, as part of the process of restoring fiscal health.

c) We continued to spend about 50 percent more than the old baseline.

You and I both know that the answer is (c). Keynesians will be warning us that any “cuts” in spending will cause a recession. And politicians, having increased their ability to conspicuously bestow funds on various constituents, will not relinquish their enhanced control over resources.

Thoughts on heterogeneity

Tyler Cowen asks why numbers imply spread rates and death rates that are so difficult to reconcile across regions and countries.

People are feeding their elegant dashboards, nifty charts, and fancy computer models with worthless numbers. Nobody seems to want to listen to me on that. But it would not surprise me to find that all of the heterogeneity that cannot be explained by demographics and differences in treatment quality is simply an artifact of the way that numbers are collected.

Only fools claim to know precisely the true spread rates or the true death rates. We don’t even have decent ballpark estimates.

If we were to obtain data that were good enough to infer true spread rates and death rates, and these rates turn out to differ greatly across regions, then I would speculate on a combination of two factors. First, different variants of the virus, which spread and kill at different rates. Second, a highly skewed spreading phenomenon. That is, instead of every infected person proceeding to infect exactly 2.2 other people, you have a few infected persons infecting dozens of others, and most infected people infecting no one else. Put those two factors together, and you will get heterogeneity. But I emphasize that this is purely speculative. Don’t take this idea and run with it. Stop guessing. Get some facts first.

I wish someone at the CDC would take and run with the idea of obtaining scientific data, rather than guessing using the numbers that are being collected. In a scientific study, the investigator chooses who gets tested for the virus, and when the tests are conducted. The study uses the same type of test kit on every subject, preferably a test kit with a low rate of false positives and false negatives. Tests are conducted by carefully trained workers who follow very standard procedures. Before we test a large sample of people, we administer two tests to 100 people and count the number of times that we get different results on the two tests. If it is large, then we need to figure out how many tests we need to do on one person to get a reliable result.

Of the many problems with numbers as collected and reported, consider the issue of time lag. Suppose that two regions each test 1000 infected people on day 1. Region A reads and records the results a few hours later. Region B reads and records the results a week later. Suppose that the one-week spread rate is 100 percent per week, and each region then tests 1000 new infected people. Suppose that the death rate is 1 percent, and death occurs near the end of the week.

After day 8, each region has 2000 cases and 10 deaths. But region A, which reads the results quickly, will report that cases are doubling weekly and the death rate is 10/2000, or 0.5 percent. Region B, which reads the results slowly, will still report 1,000 cases, with a death rate of 1.0 percent.

Another problem is that there is very large variation in the ratio of tests to infected people, not only across regions but over time within a region. As you ramp up testing, you increase the reported spread rate and lower the reported death rate.

Almost all health agencies have chosen not to monitor this crisis scientifically. I wish I could change that.

A sense of relief

We have been living through tense times. But the legislation that President Trump signed on Friday should make us feel better.

Economists overwhelmingly agree that we needed this dose of fiscal medicine, and probably more, to treat individuals and businesses that are suffering and to minimize the potential for their troubles to spread. Rising to the occasion, Congress put aside its polarized politics and passed the bill. The press, which has been harshly critical of the Administration for its tardy and often ineffectual actions in dealing with the virus, is much more on board with these economic measures. We are seeing America come together to take constructive measures in a crisis.

If you are like most people, the passage of this legislation eased some of your anxiety. Government is doing something, and it’s going to help. You are experiencing a sense of relief.

And you should not read the rest of this post. Continue reading

Genes and heritability: from the comments

At least two commenters pointed to an article that indicates that the use of genes to predict height has gotten more effective.

One of them wrote,

Furthermore, the DNA chips used in today’s genome-wide association studies contain a few million variants at most, so these studies cannot even in principle recover the full heritability which is strongly influenced by very rare variants.

This is the answer. Polygenic scores are, for now, based on SNPs. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) recovers full heritability for height.

As the other commenter put it,

in a short amount of time, we’ve gone from “17%” as “most predictive”, to another study saying 40%, to a new one getting close to the heritability range.