Tyler Cowen is skeptical about the possibility of a pure land-value tax, even though it has many theoretical benefits. In particular, Cowen points to a host of what we might call “Public Choice NIMBY” issues. In the real world, the same political forces that drive all of the current urban planning issues would either prevent it from being implemented at all, or prevent it from actually being implemented the way Henry George would have wanted.
I grant all these objections, but I do note that there have been multiple YIMBY successes in recent years, particularly in California where NIMBY forces are probably the strongest in the country. Still, if Cowen is mostly correct, are there any real-world options that offer some of the benefits of a LVT? In short, the main benefits are that the deadweight loss of the tax is very small, and that land is more likely to be used for its highest-valued use (which in many cases will mean more density, though this intersects with zoning policy).
Yes. For the clearest example, look to Pennsylvania. Cities are allowed to implement what is called a “split-rate property tax.” It does not only tax land, as a pure LVT would do, but instead taxes land at a higher rate than improvements. A ratio around 5:1 is typical (meaning land is taxed at 5 times the rate of improvements), though some cities have been as high as 26:1.
The stock market drools and rips higher at the slightest sign that inflation is abating, since that portends rate cuts instead of rate hikes by the Fed, and a return to the golden days of easy money. But what do the latest data show? Here I’ll show several charts to show what we know so far.
The last couple months’ data points in the lower chart show that inflation (as estimated by CPI) has essentially leveled out and may be starting to decline a little. That is fine but it still leaves inflation far above the Fed’s 2% target. Victor defines a Fed “pivot” not as actually cutting rates, but simply a halt to raising them. By that somewhat anemic definition, sure, a Fed pivot could well come in the next few months. But that leaves rates still very high by recent standards. The real question is when will inflation come down low enough to justify significant rate cuts. The Fed screwed up so abysmally last year with its ridiculous “this inflation is only transitory supply chain issues” that they really cannot afford to relent too soon, and let inflationary psychology take hold.
Side comment: the big “blowout” jobs number for January (last bar on the right, on the top chart above) caused a huge buzz. But there are strong reasons to discount it as an artifact of “ revisions, adjustments, control factors, and recoding “, per Jeffrey Snider.
On the other side of the bull/bear divide, Wolf Richter published a glass-half-empty article noting how the Bureau of Labor Statistics recently revised its CPI numbers, and the changes shifted the numbers so as to undermine the argument that inflation has started to drop rapidly:
The chart above with revisions (red line) shows core CPI barely declining over the past 9 months or so, and no trend for an acceleration in that decline. The chart below shows CPI for Services (where we consumers spend most of our money, and which is closely correlated to wages) is holding nearly steady around a red-hot 0.55%/month or about 6.6% annualized. It could be longer than the market thinks before there are substantial rate cuts.
And from the Eurozone, there is this chart, courtesy of Bloomberg via Yahoo, depicting the results of polling economists as to the future course of inflation there:
The consensus view is that inflation in Europe will not approach the 2% target until well into 2024. The European Central Bank is expected to hike by 0.5% in March, followed by another 0.25% to reach 3.25%. (This is much lower than the Fed’s interest rates, but that is probably because the U.S. is still working off the orgy of COVID-related payments that dumped trillions in peoples’ pockets here in 2020-2021). Cuts by the ECB are not expected until the second quarter of 2024.
THIS JUST IN: The January CPI data just came out today (2/14), and pretty much matches up with the picture presented above. Inflation is falling, but ever so slowly, and so it becomes more likely that the Fed will keep its rates higher for longer:
“The Consumer Price Index (CPI) for January showed a 0.5% increase in prices over the past month, an acceleration from the prior reading, government data showed Tuesday. On an annual basis, CPI rose 6.4%, continuing a steady march down from a 9.1% peak last June. Economists had expected prices to climb 6.2% over the year and jump 0.5% month-over-month, per consensus estimates from Bloomberg. …
Core CPI, which strips out the volatile food and energy components of the report, climbed 5.6% year-over-year, more than expected, and 0.4% over the prior month. Forecasts called for a 5.5% annual increase and 0.4% monthly rise in the core CPI reading.”
(For another recent take on the inflation picture, see James Bailey’s The Murky Macro Picture, on this blog).
I like Patrick Maholmes and, all else equal, prefer the Kansas City fan base if for no other reason than they seem less interested in settting things on fire.
But alas, the Eagles are probably going to win because the value of quarterback play became so dominant that the incentives to innovate and invest in alternative strategies has finally resulted in an equilibrium where the opposing team is dominant in every other area of play. Which is a long-winded way of saying that annoying old people who rail on about line play, running the ball, and defense, who have been consistently wrong about everything for 20 years, finally get to have their moment in the sun and say “I told you so” and you, smart person who values your mental health, will simply smile and nod and not take the bait to argue with them further.
Or maybe Maholmes’s ankle is back to 70% and they win? Who knows? We’re talking about a sport that, 19 games deep, is almost entirely determined by the two interacting random probability generators: injuries and general luck.
Enjoy the excuse to socialize and eat junk food, which for many of us is 90% of the utility proposition in watching the game.
I live in southwest Florida where it is quite tropical. We don’t have four seasons. We mark the passage of time with the rainy season for 8 months and the dry season for 4 months. We also mark time with ‘season’. Season is when the snow-birds – those who live in places further north – migrate to and occupy Florida for about 4-5 months. During those times the roads are more crowded and the grocery store customers are less friendly. We can also mark the passage of time with mosquitos. January has fewer mosquitos. The rest of the year we know not to go outside at dusk.
Therefore, we have the Collier Mosquito Control District. This little government entity does several things. But I want to focus on spraying. On some nights, more so during the rainy season, the CMCD flies airplanes and sprays our inland bodies of water that are susceptible to mosquito infestation. Let’s put aside for the moment any alleged negative human health effects that spraying might cause.
Last June I wondered if we were seeing the peak of inflation, and by at least one major measure I called the peak exactly:
At the moment, though, I’m feeling more confused than prophetic. The big question a year ago was how long it would take the Fed to get inflation down to reasonable levels, and how much collateral damage they would do to the real economy in that effort. Today most current indicators make it look like they pulled off the miraculous “soft landing”. Inflation over the last 12 months is still high, but over the last 6 months we’re nailing the Fed’s 2% annualized target. This has hit a few sectors of the real economy hard, with housing slowing dramatically and tech doing mass layoffs, but the overall picture is great: GDP growth was around 3% the last 2 quarters, and the 3.4% unemployment is the lowest since 1969.
What’s confusing about this is that we have a hard time believing we really got this lucky. Its like your plane lost power, you diverted course for an emergency crash landing, and once you touch down and find yourself seemingly unharmed you look around and wonder if the plane is about to explode. Consumer sentiment is worse than it was in the depths of Covid; business sentiment has been falling for over a year and is almost down to March 2020 levels. Betting markets forecast a 50% chance of a recession in 2023, and the yield curve is strongly inverted (one of the best predictors of a recession, though the guy who first noticed this says it might not work this time):
Finally, M2 money supply is shrinking for the first time since at least 1960, and I believe the first time since the Great Depression. This bodes well for inflation continuing to moderate, but its also one more indicator of a potential recession.
To sum up, most of the indicators of the current state of the economy look great, while most indicators of its near-term future look awful. So which do we trust?
My guess is that we avoid recession in 2023, but honestly this is mostly the gut feeling of an optimist. There’s no one knock-down piece of data I’d point to in support; its more that things are currently going well, and usually the best prediction is that tomorrow will be like today unless you have a good reason to think otherwise. The main reason people expect a slowdown is because of the Fed’s actions to fight inflation. The Fed itself predicts that they will cause a slowdown, but not a recession. Their most recent summary of economic projections from December predicts GDP growth slowing to 0.5% in 2023 and unemployment rising to 4.6%.
I think the “so what” outlook is also murky. Stocks have already fallen a lot from their highs and a recession already seems somewhat ‘priced in’, so even if I thought one was coming I wouldn’t necessarily sell stocks. On the flip side US stocks are still quite expensive by historical standards, so I don’t want to buy more on the assumption that they’ll rise more on good economic news this year. You might want to lock in decent rates on long-term bonds if you think the Fed will cut rates in response to a recession, but the inverted yield curve shows this is already somewhat priced in. 1-year bonds yielding almost 5% seems decent in either scenario, I have some and I’ll probably buy more, but 5% returns are nothing to get excited about. I’d like to hear suggestions but to me the small direct betting market on a potential recession is the clearest “so what” for anyone who does have a confident view about this year’s macro picture.
Black families are the poorest major racial or ethnic group in the US. With a median income of $59,541, a Black family only has about 59 percent of the income of a White, Non-Hispanic family. That’s the same proportion, 59 percent, as was true in 1972, the earliest date that we have comparable data. (For most of the data in this post, I will be using Table F-23 from the Census Bureau’s Historical Income Tables.) That’s almost 50 years with no closing of the racial gap in total money income for families.
Of course, what this also means is that family incomes of both Black and Whites grew at the same rate from 1972 to 2021. They both are about 50 percent larger than in 1972, and that’s after accounting for inflation (using the CPI-U-RS). As a first point of optimism, this very much goes against the typical narrative of income stagnation since the early 1970s.
To be sure, some of this growth is because families have more earners today, but even so: they have a lot more income. Having two earners does mean that you must spend more on some consumption categories, such as daycare when kids are young, possibly more on dining out or prepared meals. But even with those additional expenses, these families will have significantly more disposable income than their 1970s counterparts.
There is an ever more optimistic fact that we need to point out for Black families today: there are many, many more rich Black families today than in 1972. There are more rich families in absolute terms and as a proportion of the total. Here is the basic data from the Census Bureau (it goes back to 1967, the earliest date available for Blacks).
I just ran across the 1Q2023 “Guide to Markets” issued by J. P. Morgan Asset Management. This compendium of financial data is issued by a large team of their Global Market Insights Strategy Team. It consists of some seventy pages of data-packed charts, covering through December 2022. This information is selected to be of use to investors, both individual and institutional.
I was like a kid in a candy store, scrolling from one page of eye candy to the next. Without further ado, I will paste in some charts with minimal commentary.
One thing that caught my attention here was the persistence overestimation of earnings by Wall Street analysts. “Why do they keep doing that?” I wondered. A brief search led me to a 2017 article on Seeking Alpha by Lance Roberts titled “The Truth About Wall Street Analysis”.
Policies can create their own entrenched consituencies, bad policies doubly so. Restrictions have long strangled the supply of housing in California, much to the detriment of the states inhabitants. This cost, of course, was spread across the entire population, while the resulting dramatic increase in housing prices proved to be a windfall for incumbent property owners. The immediate constituency of beneficiaries, however, has probably been less important than the capital committed property owners that followed, taking on larger and larger debt obligations, each generation of new homebuyers more terrified than the last that the rug might be pulled out from under them, more committed to maintaining an obiviously terrible status quo that they nonetheless found themselves bought into.
Economists refer to this as a transitional gains trap. Once the effects of the policy are internalized into the market, no one subsequent to the first generation of incumbent beneficiaries ever benefits. But, and this is most important, if the policy is *undone*, those who bought into the market after the policy was in place stand to lose. In the case of California housing, the potential losses could be significant.
Now imagine you just bought this house today, only to read this headline tomorrow:
Darrell Owens gives all the necessary details. The point isn’t whether this or other policy eventswill the be the final blow to the California housing blockade. Or this legal case. Or this political agenda. The point is that the walls are closing in. Transitional gains traps depend on sufficiently concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. It may be the simple case that the costs of the California housing are so enormous that they are economic crippling for the majority of the population. The costs are too big to politically diffuse.
Transitional gains traps are impossible to costly get out of. Someone always loses. All you can really do is try not to fall in them yourselves. Even if the house actually does have good bones.
I’m reading The Property Species by Bart Wilson. I like chapter 4 “What is Right is Not Taken Out of the Rule, but Let the Rule Arise Out of What Is Right,” partly because I got to play a small part in this line of research.
Along with several coauthors, Bart Wilson has run experiments in which players have the ability to make and consume goods. According to the instructions that all players read at the beginning of the experiment, “when the clock expires… you earn cash based upon the number of red and blue items that have been moved to your house.”
Property norms can emerge in these environments, and sometimes subjects take goods from each other in an action that could be called “stealing.” The experimental instructions do not contain any morally loaded words like “stealing,” but subjects use that word to describe the activities of their counterparts.
Here is a conversation from the transcript of the chat room players can use to communicate while they produce and trade digital goods:
E: do you want to do this right way?
F: wht is the right way
E: the right way is I produce red you make blue then we split it nobody gets 100 percent profit but we both win
Economist Writing Every Day 