Surprised Finding from the Book-Thinking, Fast and Slow

Currently, I am reading a book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, which is written by Daniel Kahneman. In this book, the author mentioned a person called Amos several times. As I am pretty interested in the findings and statements in this book, I went to search for who Amos is.

A report caught my eye.

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-two-friends-who-changed-how-we-think-about-how-we-think

That report is written by Cass R. Sunstein and Richard Thaler, two famous psychologists or behaviour economists. Especially, Professor Thaler, if my remembering is not wrong, aroused many ideas about behavioural economics and won the Nobel Prize as well. In this report, they mentioned their Two Friends Who Changed How We Think About How We Think, and their friends clearly are Daniel and Amos.

I am pretty surprised that I find the connection between those famous and legendary economists and psychologists, and decide to keep digging in their previous studies.

Ideas about Irrational Market Modelling

Continue with the idea that markets are uncompetitive. At the micro-level, the market is constituted by rational players, which takes proportion \(p\) and irrational ones, \(1-p\). They together make the whole market unresponded.

  • A potential study may focus on (1). the drivers of \(p\). (2). modelling the irrational market, establishing a model from micro to macro.
  • For (1), positive feedback or negative feedback may behave differently. Need some psychological knowledge and natural experiment.
  • Using how does market react to positive or negative shocks to distinguish the irrational proportion of people.

近期经济情况 Omicron

  • 当前报道表面Omicron杀伤力较弱。结合其传染力强的特点,有可能帮助全球实现群体免疫。由此US市场普遍对pandemic的预期减弱。
  • 目前Fed政策急转向收紧流动性,减少印钞并加息。市场普遍认为是因为目前美国高通胀。CPI创31年新高(此前是oil crisis)。但是potential reason是,美国就业市场以近饱和,近full employment。继续宽流动性刺激就业会导致hyperinflation。

可以看到labour force participant rate underwent a continuous decrease since 2000. It dropped to the bottom during the pandemic in April 2020 and recovered with the stimulation of public sectors’ policy. However, if taking data before the pandemic, and estimating the decreasing trend (i.e. regress labour force participation rate on time), the forecasted value till current period is about the current value.

That finding implies the labour market has already recovered to the pre-pandemic level. The low level of the labour force participation rate might be that older people do not want to participate in the labour market again and waiting to retire. This implication is also backed by the fact of relatively low level of the unemployment rate.

P.S. there is a negative correlation between the unemployment rate and the federal fund rate. The federal fund rate hikes while the unemployment rate decreases. I would consider that Fed conducts contractionary monetary policy while the economy is close to full employment, controlling the economy not to be overheated.

Based on that, we can find that the Fed calling back the liquidity by increasing interest rate is reasonable. Predict that the Fed would hold a higher federal fund rate, decreasing liquidity and absorbing capital flowing back to the U.S.

Let’s think TAPER and federal fund rate increase together. With an increase in the interest rate in the U.S., money would pour into the U.S. pursuing higher interest rate payments. People would therefore sell assets from other countries for money, resulting in a decrease in the capital market.

Monetarist’s Views Fail

Cash in Advance model中的经济理论结论往往基于Maket clears的基础上,但是当前市场并非达到合理分配也未达到理想中equilibrium情况,于是implications of monetary views collapse.

如,public sector deficits 导致 inflation,因为基于public sector’s budget constraint,deficit produces extra money supply。但是目前国内情况,市场就业情况非常不理想,上下游产品价格与价值严重偏离,此时price level increases并非时由extra导致的,而是由市场的竞争不充分导致。所以基于此,deficits不会导致通胀。同时public sector应该采取政策支持解决上游竞争集中度问题,并且提升市场流动性,支持企业发展以解决就业问题。同时policymaker应该从household信心的角度,支持基础服务及保障措施,解决劳动力市场问题。

近期经济情况(2021总结)

国际问题:

  • Problem 1:疫情带来的uncertainty

股市+油价\(\downarrow\)导致流动性\(\downarrow\),最终导致金融市场失效!

Solution:货币政策财政政策需要支持 :

1. Monetary Policy考虑降准(国内加权约为8.4%,但世界走向0准时代);

2. 财政政策空间巨大 (我国基建水平仅达发达国家30%水平)。CB+Gov合作的模式(中国已无此问题)。P.S. 考虑extra liquid带来的资产净值减少问题

3. Fin-tech + big data,同时考虑 Index Fallacy

4. structure转向more equity finance 因为此结构absorb more risks。同时避免debt转移至private sectors。

  • Problem 2: Hyper-inflation

持续性通胀形成:

1.供给侧: low skill workers短缺(联系产业链)=> low skill wages \(\uparrow\) => all wages \(\uparrow\).

2. 需求侧:国际货币政策放水 导致持续高需求

问题:面对通胀问题,加息应对。但是debts量上限已达到,加息<=>high cost of pay back debt。Fed破产风险

  • Problem 3: 国际供应链问题

呈现两种形式: 1.结构性(如US卡车司机),2.永久性。

Solution:需要进行供应链重塑:多链多节点 代替 单链结构。其中结构性供应链问题同时引发通胀。考虑mechanism design: Government is the key mechanism design

  • Problem 4: 高科技+Green

机会:科技进步5G+通讯互联带来巨大效率提升。

挑战:1. cyber securitiy + risk control; 2. 企业拆分 避免臃肿 specialist; 3. 碳交易制度 <- mechanism design去限制+激励企业。

中国问题

  • 1:中国增长率下行:C+I 下行。仅靠Net Export支撑。需要尽快达成 双循环
  • 2:CPI PPI问题。两者无直接关系。CPI下游消费品(电商物流物联网)且市场竞争,PPI下游3:原材料,且市场垄断。 所以在中国无明显通胀压力,且在中国inflation is not everywhere a monetary phenomenon.
  • 3:就业:巨大问题!20-25岁失业率高。市场主体创造就业岗位少 且 统计数据存在问题(李扬)。
  • 4:中国债务+杠杆率。之前去杠杆导致 1. 企业 不借钱+不经营 =>生产意愿差(若借钱则 高杠杆=>高风险=>财务压力大 无法偿还)。2. low borrowings and low consumption
  • 5:银行缺少资金出口 没有优质资产(此前隔夜市场资金量巨大 在金融体系空转)

解决:

  1. 支持小企业+优质小企业 (高质量发展:1.能确实提高就业+能吸纳资金 值得投资)
  2. 说是(“紧信用 宽货币”),实际对企业和个人(终端)来说是 紧缩的货币财政政策。为此:货币财政政策空间巨大
  3. 降准空间巨大

参考:中国国际金融学会年会

近期经济情况

美国通胀预期反应滞后,但是可能存在hyperinflation。

中国情况:

Idea:

  1. 国有资产+国有公司 behave like a huge government spending, huge public sector, or a combination between public and private sectors.
  2. modelling 国家政府置信度、公信度、(透明度)。E.G. 参考疫情经济对比

Edmund S. Phelps

Edmund S. Phelps (new Keynesian) was awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize for the contribution of intertemporal tradeoffs in macroeconomic policy. The intertemporal tradeoffs are from mainly two parts. One is the tradeoff between unemployment and inflation. The other is about capital accumulation and economic growth.

Expectations-Augmented Phillips Curve

In the early 1960s, economists believed that the tradeoff between unemployment and inflation was stable, as the Phillps curve. In the late 1960s, Phelps challenged this view by considering expectation about future inflation.

One of Phelps’ major contributions to economics was the insight he provided on the interaction between inflation and unemployment. In the Expectations-Augmented Phillips curve, he combines current inflation with future inflation and unemployment.

Previous economists including Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises argued that people adapt their inflation expectations to account for the effects of expansionary monetary, Phelps is recognised as the first to formally model this phenomenon.

In the first period, the government decides to conduct an expansionary monetary policy, inflation would rise and unemployment would fall, based on the simply Phillps curve. However, a second or third time comes, agents would be quick to associate higher inflation with rising salaries in their expectation adjustment. That would anticipate that inflation would drain their purchasing power accordingly, and the monetary policy would have little effect.

A better way of helping low-skill workers is to expand the earned income tax credit, making it more available to more workers. This way would be more superior to the minimum wages.

The long term Phillips curve is vertical because of the potential GDP. The price level keeps increasing as the expansionary monetary policy. The unemployment rate decrease when the policy is released but the effects diminish in the long run.

Intuitively, if the Federal Reserve increased the money supply at a rate that caused a 5% inflation rate, then, with this higher inflation rate, wages offered would be higher than expected also. Unemployed workers looking for work would see wages that they would mistakenly think were higher in real terms and would, therefore, accept jobs at these wages sooner than otherwise. Millions of unemployed workers taking jobs just a few weeks earlier would result in a lower unemployment rate. Then, however, workers’ expectations would be adaptive; that is, they would adjust to reality. They would realize that the wages weren’t as high in real terms as they had thought, and some would quit and look for more lucrative work, thus slowly raising the unemployment rate. In other words, policymakers could temporarily reduce the unemployment rate by making inflation higher than people expected, but they could not achieve a long-run reduction in unemployment with an increase in inflation. In the long run, then, there is no tradeoff between inflation and unemployment. This striking finding is now mainstream economic wisdom.

Related to Robert Lucas’ work: Lucas emphasised “rational expectations” rather than “adaptive expectations”. The idea is that people would try to anticipate the future based on how the monetary authorities had acted in similar circumstances in the past. In this case, Lucas found even stronger results. Lucas’s model implied that the only way that policymakers could use monetary policy to affect the unemployment rate was by being unpredictable.

Golen Rule

Phelps developed the golden rule of the intertemporal tradeoff between present and future consumption as it relates to capital investment and growth. Phelps’s model formally defines the rate of savings and investment that is necessary to create the maximum level of sustained consumption across successive generations.

In the early 1960s, he derived the “Golden Rule” of capital formation. The rule is that if one’s goal is to attain the maximum consumption per capita that is sustainable in the long run, annual saving as a percent of national income should equal capital’s income as a percent of national income. 

In the late 1960s, Phelps did further work in this area with Robert Pollak. They argued that the government should force people to save more than they wish, on the grounds that people put too little weight on their children’s well-being. It seems that the political system, though, does the opposite, especially at the federal level. The federal government taxes the politically powerless younger generation to subsidize—through Medicare and Social Security—today’s politically powerful elderly.

Considering the current economy in China!

Reference

Revisit The Good-Bad Quality Model

Generalise the model

I denote \(c_1, l_1, L_1, y_1\) as the consumption, labour supply and demand, and outputs of relative high-quality goods. Also, denote \(c_2, l_2, L_2, y_2\) as those of relative low-quality goods. Note that the high-low quality stated in this working blog only refers to relative quality.

Consumers maximise their utility function subject to the budget constraint. For a representative consumer, the utility function is,

$$ \max_{c_1, c_2, l_1, l_2} u(c_1,c_2,1-l_1,1-l_2) $$

$$ s.t. \quad (l_1\cdot w_1)^i (l_2 \cdot w_2)^{1-i}\geq P_1 c_1 +P_2 c_2 $$

$$ i\in \{0,1\} $$

The wealth of consumers is in Bernoulli form because we assume each consumer can only provide a unique kind of labour in productions. \(i\) denotes the individual’s decision of providing labour for high-quality products or low-quality one.

Consumers provide labours \(l_1\) or \(l_2\), and consume goods \(c_1\) or \(c_2\).

Firms maximise profits. I simplify the model by considering only labour inputs as the factors input. The model could be further expanded by including capital term and letting the technology term be depending on other factor inputs. E.G. \(F( L, K )\).

$$ \max_{L_1, L_2} \pi = \max_{L_1, L_2} P_1 F(L_1)+P_2 F(L_2) – w_1 L_1 -w_2L_2 $$

Solve the model

Consumer:

$$ \frac{{\partial} \mathcal{L}}{\partial l_1}: u’_3=i\cdot \lambda (w_1 l_1)^{i-1} (w_2 l_2)^{1-i} \quad (1)$$

$$ \frac{{\partial} \mathcal{L}}{\partial l_2}: u’_4=(1-i)\cdot \lambda (w_1 l_1)^{i} (w_2 l_2)^{-i} \quad (2)$$

$$ \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial c_1}: u’_1=\lambda P_1 \quad (3)$$

$$ \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial c_2}: u’_2=\lambda P_2 \quad (4)$$

And I can get,

$$ \frac{u’_4}{u’_3}=\frac{1-i}{i}\frac{w_1 l_1}{w_2 l_2} \quad (5)$$

$$ \frac{P_1}{P_2}=\frac{u’_1(c_1)}{u’_2(c_2)} \quad (6)$$

Firms:

$$ \frac{\partial \pi}{\partial l_1}: P_1 F’_{l_1}=w_1 \quad(7)$$

$$ \frac{\partial \pi}{\partial l_1}: P_2 F’_{l_2}=w_2 \quad(8)$$

And get,

$$ \frac{w_1}{w_2}=\frac{P_1 F’_{l_1}}{P_2 F’_{l_2}} \quad(9)$$

Combine \((5)\), \((6)\) and \((9)\),

$$ \frac{u’_4}{u’_3}\frac{i}{1-i}\frac{l_2}{l_1}=\frac{u’_1}{u’_2}\cdot \frac{F’_1}{F’_2} $$

Apply the markets clearing condition,

$$\int l_1 =L_1$$

$$\int l_2 = L_2$$

$$ y_1=c_1 $$

$$ y_2=c_2 $$

The equilibrium condition could be rewritten as,

$$ \frac{u’_4}{u’_3}\cdot \frac{u’_2}{u’_1}=\frac{F’_1}{F’_2} $$

By aggregating individuals \(l_1\) and \(l_2\), \(i\) could then represent the proportion of people who provide labours for high-quality products or low-quality products. Thus, \(\frac{i}{1-i}=\frac{L_1}{L_2}\).

The Functional Form

Assume \(y_1,y_2=F(l_1,l_2)=A[l_1^{\alpha}+l_2^{\alpha}]\). Production depends purely on labour inputs and

\left\{ \begin{aligned} F’_1=\alpha A l_1^{\alpha-1} \\ F’_2=\alpha A l_2^{\alpha-1} \end{aligned} \right. \quad \Rightarrow \quad \frac{F’_1}{F’_2}=(\frac{l_1}{l_2})^{\alpha-1}

To be continued.

近期经济情况

需求低,PPI高且增速快,CPI增高但增速显著低于PPI增速。于宏观总需求供给考量:

供给侧供给量基本稳定,但是供给侧价格上升(考虑AS曲线上移动)。其中供给侧价格提高来自于原材料价格升高,绿色金融要求对原料限制,以及大宗商品价格与美元绑定美元高通胀。

需求侧,需求量低,工资涨幅无法追赶物价涨幅,不消费。但是高通胀,金融市场规模预期扩大。同时低消费欲望拉低终端产品价格。

最终终端低价,原材料高价,导致生产者低利润。同时平台抽成导致生产者利润再次被压缩。病态经济结构。

解决:1. 从原材料价格入手:长期推断人民币国际化,短期限价补贴生产商(Problematic)。2. 从消费刺激入手:长期扩大内需(考虑Good-Bad Consumption转型),消费结构在转型,需要供给侧同时配合更新产品产品以与消费匹配,短期:新闻宣传(国民文化理念背景下,短期似乎无有效解决方案。可考虑政府购买,政策性囤货,或政府购买转移支付至欠发达地区)。3. 从降低中介平台费用入手(加强反垄断,2021年11月18日国家反垄断局已挂牌成立)。

思考:国家经济发展需要从生产及消费下手。而中间商虽然有加速资产配置消费配置的能力,但是过于泛滥及垄断的中间商(电商平台)同时带来了以下问题。1. 产品劣质。 2. 中间商利润过大,压榨生产者消费者surplus。此时即使市场达到类价格歧视形式,total surplus没有减少。但是由于consumer and producer surplus 减少带来了消费生产意愿降低!联系behavioral study和consumption preference。