Politics

The End of Erdogan? Forecasting the Turkish Election

James BaileyLeave a comment

Predicting elections is hard. Poll aggregators and prediction markets can help. Many of the usual suspects like FiveThiryEight and PredictIt aren’t covering Sunday’s election in Turkey, partly due to their own issues, and partly because US organizations often ignore foreign elections. But we do have several good predictors to consider, and they all list opposition candidate Kiliçdaroglu as a slight favorite.

Polymarket is most optimistic for the opposition, giving them a 67% chance. British betting site Smarkets gives them a 61% chance. Play-money site Manifold Markets gives them 56%. Finally, no-money prediction site Metaculus gives a 60% chance that the opposition wins, and a 79% chance that Erdogan leaves office if he loses the election. I’m not sure how the count the Swift Centre, a small closed panel of forecasters, but they are the exception in seeing Erdogan as a slight favorite.

My economist’s instinct is to trust the real-money markets more here, although Manifold and Metaculus outperformed them in the 2022 US midterms. The usual bias is to predict a win for the candidate you like more (which for Westerners on these markets means betting against Erdogan), and have real money on the line can help counteract this. On the other hand, some might use betting markets as a hedge and bet on the outcome they don’t want. In this case the betting markets are slightly more favorable to the opposition, but the gap is small.

Of course, the biggest real-money markets are those that don’t ask directly about the election: the markets for Turkish stocks and bonds. These have generally performed well in the past year as the opposition’s chances have risen, which may indicate that markets think a new Prime Minister with more conventional economic views will get inflation under control.

Highlights from #EconTwitterIRL

James Bailey1 Comment

Last weekend fellow Temple University economics PhD Adam Ozimek hosted the inaugural #EconTwitterIRL conference. He managed to get 100+ people, including many big names, to come to his bowling alley / arcade in Lancaster, PA.

The overall demographic of Econ Twitter people appears to be youngish professionals, mostly male, surprisingly social and normal-looking (surprising to me because I retain the ’90s-era stereotype that people who write a lot online are nerds who don’t want to talk to anyone IRL).

Adam opened with a history of EconTwitter, which to him is not just about Twitter, but is anywhere where communities of people write about economics online. This starts with the comment sections of the earliest blogs, like Brad DeLong’s, in the early 2000’s. Then in the late 2000’s many commenters start their own blogs, like Karl Smith at Modeled Behavior. In the 2010’s Econ Twitter comes into its own. It may persist or a new forum might take over, but either way the discussion and community will live on.

While it was cool to see a live recording of Odd Lots, and a panel on innovation with MacArthur Genius Heidi Williams, my favorite panel was the one on immigration, because it saw the most serious disagreement. Garett Jones and Daniel Di Martino argued for reforms to the immigration system that would move it away from a focus on family reunification and toward a focus on skills and other indications (like country of origin) that immigrants would benefit the US economy. In contrast, Leah Boustan argued that the current system has worked well, including for assimilation and economic growth, and we should be wary of making big changes to it. Moderator Cardiff Garcia pointed out the oddity of the economists from George Mason and the Manhattan Institute arguing for a “socialist” system where the government determines what the economy needs when it comes to immigration, while the Princeton economist argues against. Garett Jones noted that the rest of his department at Mason disagree with him, but he’s glad to have the freedom to disagree.

While the panel saw intense disagreement about what the ideal system looks like, all panelists shared a frustration with parts of the current system that seem to pointlessly slow or prevent high-skill immigration. Some of this is bureaucracy slowing the process for immigrants who are legally allowed already. Some is politicians refusing to make the smallest, simplest, most common-sense fixes unless they are part of a comprehensive immigration reform that hits their big priority. The big priorities differ by party, but the commitment to holding simple fixes hostage is bipartisan.

Hopefully discussions like this can start to change things. That might sound naive or idealistic, but on an earlier panel Matt Yglesias noted that we should be both impressed and slightly scared of how aware Capitol Hill staffers are about the opinions of Econ Twitter.

Source. Got 2nd at trivia as part of team Acemoglu et al (actual Acemoglu not included).

The magic of all this is that you never know what can come from a post. You might make a friend, make an enemy, get a job, lose a job, influence public policy, get a job in the White House… even make (or lose) a million dollars. So we keep poasting, and once in a while see the results IRL.

China To Squeeze West by Restricting Export of Essential Rare Earths

Scott Buchanan1 Comment

Rare earths are a set of 17 metals with properties which make them essential to a swathe of high-tech products. These products include lasers, LEDs, catalysts, batteries, medical devices, sensors, and above all, magnets. Rare earth magnets are used in electric motors and generators and vibrators, making them essential to electric cars, wind turbine generators, cell phones/tablets/computers, airplanes, phones, and all sorts of military devices. 

China happens to have large amounts of rare earth oxide ores for mining, relatively lax environmental standards, and a large, compliant workforce. The Chinese government has harnessed these resources to make the nation by far the largest producer of rare earths. Their massive, relatively low-cost production has suppressed production in other countries. This has been a conscious policy, to achieve global control over a vital raw material.

The first time China used this effective monopoly as a political weapon was in a maritime dispute with Japan in 2010. China cut off exports of rare earth metals to Japan for two years, crimping the Japanese electronics industry.  Other nations took note of this threat, and since then have been a number of half-hearted (in my opinion) efforts in various Western nations to develop some domestic capacity and to redesign motors to reduce dependence on rare earth materials.

 China’s share of rare earth ore mined is down to 60%, but they totally dominate processing the ore to metals, and subsequent fabrication of magnets from the metal.  Nearly all of the ore mined in the U.S. is shipped over to China for processing, mainly because of environmental regulations here.  

According to the Asia Times,

The PRC still dominates the entire vertical industry and can flood global markets with cheap material, as it has done before with steel and with solar panels. In 2022, it mined 58% of all rare earths elements, refined 89% of all raw ore, and manufactured 92% of rare earths-based components worldwide.

There is no other global industry so concentrated in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party, nor with such asymmetric downstream impact, as rare earths.

It seems the only way for the West to blunt the Chinese monopoly in rare earths is with large, long-term subsidies (since the Chinese can always undersell the rest of the world on a free market basis) and probably some pushing past environmental objections.

Alarmed by the rapid buildup of Chinese military forces (towards a possible invasion of Taiwan), the U.S. and its allies have begun restricting exports of the highest-power silicon chips to China. In retaliation, China has reportedly made plans to restrict exports of rare earths, starting in 2023. If they follow through, that move would crush fabrication of magnets and of magnet-dependent devices like motors and generators in other countries; the rest of the world would have to come crawling to China for all these items.

This move would in turn cause the rest of the world to accelerate its plans to produce rare earths outside China, but there would be several years of great disruption, and Chinese-made final devices like motors and generators would always have a huge price advantage, due to their cheaper raw material inputs.

I suspect there may be a high-stakes game of brinksmanship going on behind the scenes. The Chinese leadership presumably knows that they can only play this rare earth export ban card once, and the West does not really want to plow a lot of resources into producing large amounts of rare earths much more expensively than they can be bought from China. So maybe we will see some relaxation in chip export controls for China in exchange for them not pulling the final trigger on a rare earth export ban.

We live in interesting times.

Spending Like a…

Zachary Bartsch2 Comments

Is the federal government spending at a faster rate? Your answer probably has more to do with your biases than with anything else. Most people don’t know the numbers or they imagine some more appropriate past. Below is logged current federal expenditures (this does not include government fixed investment, only consumption. Yes, we can argue about measures. This doesn’t include transfers).

The line of best fit is about 1.6% per quarter or 6.4% per year. Golly! Our spending is rising so fast! But, US federal spending grew relatively slowly in the 90s – maybe due to that fiscal conservative, Bill Clinton. And our federal spending grew even more slowly between 2010 and 2016 – maybe due to that other fiscal conservative, Barack Obama.

But, inflation varied over this period. What about real, inflation adjusted federal spending? See Below.

Continue reading →

Why States Hate Nursing Homes

James Bailey3 Comments

Medicaid is a health insurance program for those with low incomes, funded largely by states. Overall it accounts for less than 20% of US medical spending. But there is one area where it is the dominant payer: nursing homes. Nursing homes are expensive, and Medicare (the typical insurance for those over 65) won’t cover them after the first hundred days, so most nursing home residents end up paying out of pocket until they burn through all their savings and wind up on Medicaid. At which point, Medicaid pays about $100,000 per year to the nursing home for the rest of their life.

States are responsible for up to half of that cost, and so start looking for ways to save money. One idea they have is to make it harder to build nursing homes: if there aren’t beds available, potential nursing home patients will have to stay home instead, where they can’t rack up Medicaid spending the same way. In fact, some states go all the way to a complete moratorium on new nursing homes:

Source: Institute for Justice

Some other states allow new nursing homes, but only with a special permission slip called a Certificate of Need (CON). CON is often required for other types of health facilities as well, like hospitals or dialysis centers. Research by me and others has generally found that CON doesn’t work as a way to reduce spending, and in fact actually increases it. CON might reduce the number of facilities, but that reduction of supply and competition gives the remaining facilities more power to raise prices.

So which effect dominates- does the smaller number of facilities reduce total spending, or do the higher prices increase it? It depends on the elasticity of demand:

In health care demand is typically quite inelastic, so the price effect dominates, and spending goes up:

But nursing homes could be an exception here. Elasticity of demand could be relatively high because of the number of potential substitutes- home care or assisted living for those with relatively low medical needs, hospitals for those with relatively high medical needs. Plus this is the one type of health care where Medicaid is the dominant payer. They could be especially resistant to price increases here, both due to their market power and their willingness to keep prices so low that facilities won’t take Medicaid patients (another way to save money!).

A new paper by Vitor Melo and Elijah Neilson finds that this is indeed the case. Indiana, Pennsylvania, and North Dakota repealed their nursing home CON requirements in the ’90s, and at least for IN and PA their Medicaid spending went way up. The paper uses a new “synthetic difference in difference” technique that seems appropriate, and creates figures that seem confusing at first but get a ton of information across:

They correctly note that they don’t evaluate the welfare effects of the policy; it’s possible that the extra nursing home beds following CON repeal bring huge benefits to seniors that are worth the higher spending. But nursing homes could be the exception to the general rule that CON fails to achieve the goals, like reduced spending, that advocates set for it.

Hospitals Just Got Easier to Build in West Virginia

James Bailey1 Comment

West Virginia just repealed their Certificate of Need requirement for hospitals and birthing centers. Until now anyone wanting to open or expand a hospital needed to apply to a state board for permission. The process took time and money and could result in the board saying “no thanks, we don’t think the state needs another hospital”.

Now anyone wanting to open or expand a hospital and birthing center can skip this step and get to work. This means more facilities and more competition, which in turn leads to lower health care spending relative to trend.

Of course, the rest of West Virginia’s Certificate of Need requirements remain in place; if you want to open many other type of health care facilities, or purchase major equipment like an MRI, you must still get the state board to approve its “necessity”. In some cases, you shouldn’t even bother applying; West Virginia has a Moratorium on opioid treatment programs. Ideally West Virginia would join its neighbor Pennsylvania in a complete repeal of Certificate of Need requirements.

But making it easier to build hospitals and birthing centers is a major step. Hospitals are the largest single component of health spending in the US, and improved facilities might help reduce West Virginia’s infant mortality from its current level as the 4th worst state.

Update 4/7/23: A knowledgable correspondent suggests that the law may only allow existing hospitals to expand without CON (while totally new hospitals would still require one), citing this article. The text of the bill itself seems ambiguous to me. The section “Exemptions from certificate of need” adds “Hospital services performed at a hospital”. For birthing centers by contrast, new construction is clearly now allowed by right: exemptions from CON now include “Constructing, developing, acquiring, or establishing a birthing center”.

Whiteboard Macroeconomics

Jeremy Horpedahl1 Comment

There’s nothing that economists love more than a good blackboard (or in modern times, a whiteboard) to work out some basic models of how we think the world works. Supply and demand rules in microeconomics, but macroeconomics has a few good blackboard models too.

So I was excited to see when a member of Congress was using a whiteboard to work through some basic economic logic, as Rep. Katie Porter did in this video she tweeted using the textbook macroeconomics aggregate demand and aggregate supply model:

However, while I haven’t taught macroeconomics in about a decade, it seems there are a few flaws in her analysis. Flaws enough that this probably wouldn’t get a passing grade on an oral exam. I could detail them myself, but… I will leave this to the readers as an exercise! For fun, even if you don’t think this is the best model in the world, just assume it’s a good model. What did Rep. Porter miss? Leave a comment.

Renting From the Government?

Zachary Bartsch2 Comments

When I was younger, and a more disagreeable libertarian, I was staunchly against almost all taxes. And not just all taxes in general. Each type of tax was a specific affront to human dignity in its own egregious way.

  • Sales taxes represented government meddling in private contracts.
  • Income taxes represented government stealing people’s time.
  • Property tax represented that living on land was a privilege provided by the state landlord. Private property was a myth.

I won’t win the fight over whether the state governments should be spending money. But, given that we have to pay for services, I can definitely opine on the desirable and undesirable traits of one tax or another. Economists tend to like sales taxes because they encourage saving, investment, capital formation, and greater output. Maybe that’s a good idea. But it’s not clear to me that we should incentivize consumption tomorrow at the cost of consumption today.  There is no singular right answer to that tradeoff.

I would love to have a per-adult lump sum tax in which everyone pays the same dollar figure no matter what. I would also love to receive a million dollars – and that ain’t going to happen either. In lieu of a lump sum tax on people, I think that the next best thing is a lump sum tax on land. Each acre in a county can pay the same tax bill. On the margin, firms would economize on land and tend toward density. That would bring lots of agglomeration and economies of scale. Jeremy wrote recently about land taxes, which have a lot of proponents. I share the concerns about estimating land value and I think that it’s a non-trivial challenge.

Continue reading →

Land-Value Taxes in the Real World: Split-Rate Taxes

Jeremy Horpedahl7 Comments

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.

Continue reading →

Itching to Change (Property Rights)

Zachary BartschLeave a comment

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.

I want to talk about taxes.

Continue reading →