Pity the friend-of-Larry blogger who is condemned top parse Summers' wide-ranging interviews for time immemorial! (But great job - this was very useful.)
Two things struck me & I think they would both be Hexapodia-worthy:
1) Wow, we have both Tooze and Summers calling for a "global stability strategy". Seems like time to expand both upon the possible attributes of such a beast and possible paths by which it might come into existence.
2) "Green transition is now not a cost and a drag on the rest of the economy but a benefit. Technologies have advanced remarkably fast, and have progressed sufficiently far that measured real output in the future will be higher the faster we make this transition." I think an episode justifying this claim is in order. I'm familiar with Ramez Naam's stuff on learning curves and with the Way, Ives, Mealy, Farmer "Empirically grounded" paper that projects these curves into a cost-saving ($13T!), logistic substitution model of an energy transition - but it would be good to hear if you (and Noah) take these predictions as reliable - and why. I think there are some flaws in the Way et al. model, but I should probably save those thoughts until you (or you and Noah) expand upon its virtues. (Apologies if you did this in some earlier post - I can't find it.)
Middle school tracking. How sure should be be about this? Might not the non-honors math student benefit from being taught math in a non-honors way? Or different material: Bayesian statistics instead of calculus,
The WAY Larry could alter his tone would be to point to the TIPS expectation levels and also gently suggest that announcing future instrument settings is NOT being data sensitive. We want markets to expect that the Fed will at each decision point do what it thinks best to achieve it's FAIT, PL or NGDP target, NOT that it will set instrument X at value Y.
Do you think Larry could persuade Janet to add those intermediate tenor TIPS?
"the need to immediately build institutions to finance the rapid large-scale green transition is exactly on point. Green transition is now not a cost and a drag on the rest of the economy but a benefit."
But which investment should be financed? Which investments will not be a drag on the rest of the economy? Those not financed at the expense of other investment for starters. And those that pass net present value tests when the net CO2 and methane emissions have the appropriate social cost for another. Can we ensure those criteria will pertain in the finance institutions to be built? Without an explicit net tax on net CO2 and methane emissions?
On the WB and the (inevitable) next round of debt relief for post-HIPC countries, please learn from the past:
1. Cut the moralizing bullshit conditionality; countries can't pay, they can't pay; give them 75% NPV discount upfront no questions asked; and the other 25% on measures of quality of public spending. [NB this will require top management changes at the Bank]
2. Limit the Fund's role. They are easily (willingly) manipulated by the major shareholders, hide info from Bank staff, hold ex parte discussions with the borrowers about the only thing they care about (making their nut with PDR on the primary surplus), allow their own staff to be intimidated by political appointees on their Board, etc.
3. Impose strict limits on post-HIPC II on commercial borrowing by the beneficiary nations. The Fund looked the other way on that (hello Ethiopia !).
4. Get the Bank out of budget support. Go back to doing projects.
Pity the friend-of-Larry blogger who is condemned top parse Summers' wide-ranging interviews for time immemorial! (But great job - this was very useful.)
Two things struck me & I think they would both be Hexapodia-worthy:
1) Wow, we have both Tooze and Summers calling for a "global stability strategy". Seems like time to expand both upon the possible attributes of such a beast and possible paths by which it might come into existence.
2) "Green transition is now not a cost and a drag on the rest of the economy but a benefit. Technologies have advanced remarkably fast, and have progressed sufficiently far that measured real output in the future will be higher the faster we make this transition." I think an episode justifying this claim is in order. I'm familiar with Ramez Naam's stuff on learning curves and with the Way, Ives, Mealy, Farmer "Empirically grounded" paper that projects these curves into a cost-saving ($13T!), logistic substitution model of an energy transition - but it would be good to hear if you (and Noah) take these predictions as reliable - and why. I think there are some flaws in the Way et al. model, but I should probably save those thoughts until you (or you and Noah) expand upon its virtues. (Apologies if you did this in some earlier post - I can't find it.)
Middle school tracking. How sure should be be about this? Might not the non-honors math student benefit from being taught math in a non-honors way? Or different material: Bayesian statistics instead of calculus,
The WAY Larry could alter his tone would be to point to the TIPS expectation levels and also gently suggest that announcing future instrument settings is NOT being data sensitive. We want markets to expect that the Fed will at each decision point do what it thinks best to achieve it's FAIT, PL or NGDP target, NOT that it will set instrument X at value Y.
Do you think Larry could persuade Janet to add those intermediate tenor TIPS?
"the need to immediately build institutions to finance the rapid large-scale green transition is exactly on point. Green transition is now not a cost and a drag on the rest of the economy but a benefit."
But which investment should be financed? Which investments will not be a drag on the rest of the economy? Those not financed at the expense of other investment for starters. And those that pass net present value tests when the net CO2 and methane emissions have the appropriate social cost for another. Can we ensure those criteria will pertain in the finance institutions to be built? Without an explicit net tax on net CO2 and methane emissions?
On the WB and the (inevitable) next round of debt relief for post-HIPC countries, please learn from the past:
1. Cut the moralizing bullshit conditionality; countries can't pay, they can't pay; give them 75% NPV discount upfront no questions asked; and the other 25% on measures of quality of public spending. [NB this will require top management changes at the Bank]
2. Limit the Fund's role. They are easily (willingly) manipulated by the major shareholders, hide info from Bank staff, hold ex parte discussions with the borrowers about the only thing they care about (making their nut with PDR on the primary surplus), allow their own staff to be intimidated by political appointees on their Board, etc.
3. Impose strict limits on post-HIPC II on commercial borrowing by the beneficiary nations. The Fund looked the other way on that (hello Ethiopia !).
4. Get the Bank out of budget support. Go back to doing projects.