One of my favorite restaurants is Bern’s Steak House in Tampa. If you don’t order any wine, you could probably get out of there for $120 per person including tax and tip (menu with some $50 entrees, but you’re going to need an appetizer and you can’t go to the separate dessert room without ordering dessert (and you can’t go to Bern’s without going to the dessert room!).
How is $120 plus wine underpriced? You need to book 90 days in advance to get a table (we recently tried for a Tuesday and a Wednesday evening, a week in advance and then a month in advance, and failed on both attempts). Bern’s would have to raise prices substantially to reduce demand to the point that the restaurant was full and bookable by those who can’t plan their meals three months in advance.
Maybe it was always like this? Not in 2014. A group of us made a last-minute reservation while at Sun ‘n Fun in nearby Lakeland.
Maybe they’re afraid to raise prices to what would ordinarily be considered a market-clearing level, even if they can discount during slow summer months. They wouldn’t want people to walk away saying “The food wasn’t any better than at a restaurant with lower menu prices.”
What if they auctioned the seats, though, the way that a European discount airline does? Charge people a reservation or booking fee, that could be $1 (90 days in advance of a Monday night in the summer), $75 per person (3 days in advance of a Friday night in December), or $150 per person (last-minute Saturday night table). By the time the bill for the actual meal comes, the customer might have forgotten the pain of having paid for the reservation. Right now it seems as though the restaurant is leaving at least $30 per customer in pure profit on the sidewalk as well as disappointing those who are willing to pay the market-clearing price.
Related:
From 2014 (“BB” (Before Bidenflation)) … “Want To Dine Out? You May Need To Buy Tickets — Or Bid On A Table” (NPR): Other restaurants are even pondering auctions for tables, selling them off to the highest bidder. And even though Alinea doesn’t do that, bidding already occurs for Alinea tickets on other websites. … A new ethics-challenging startup called ReservationHop is another. In its initial form, ReservationHop booked tables at popular restaurants under assumed names, and then sold those reservations on its website.
Chatting with some pilots and aircraft owners this evening, one mentioned that he’d ordered an $18,245 Garmin 750Xi. This has some computing power, some flash memory storage, a touchscreen display (926×834 pixels), a GPS receiver, and two radios that can operate on a range of VHF frequencies. In other words, all of the same things that you get when you buy a $200 Android phone (except that the phone has higher resolution and the radios operate on higher frequencies).
What’s more painful than paying $18,245 (plus installation!) for this basket of capabilities? The retailer quoted him 9 months for delivery.
You’d think that if there are people willing to pay $18,245 for what is mostly a 10-year-old box of electronics that Garmin would cheerfully deliver a container load of them tomorrow. There are huge development and FAA certification costs for most things in aviation, so every additional sale should be great from a marginal profits perspective. The crypto miners aren’t buying the same chips that go into an airplane GPS. I am doubtful that any TSMC 5nm parts are in there. Why can’t Garmin harvest the fruits of its certification labor?
The lack of supply was confirmed by checking Aircraft Spruce, which sells a slightly different package for experimental aircraft: “no stock” and with an expectation of shipping June 2.
It can’t be that there was a huge surge of demand for these items. There weren’t suddenly a lot more airplanes built in which to put them.
Related:
“Global Supply Chain Issues Reach Aviation” (Fall 2021): Legacy Aviation Service’s RJ Gomez said a big Garmin retrofit provides a good example. The shop quoted a $200,000 upgrade, and he said the customer was pleased with the quote except for one major problem—Legacy couldn’t get the units delivered for between four and seven months.
My favorite part of the mass.gov page is the list of the impoverished towns that will receive “free” tests. Weston, Massachusetts is on the list. Back in 2019, the town had a median household income of $207,702 per year (Census; using pre-Biden dollars). What will the good burghers of Weston do with the test kits? After the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency and Massachusetts National Guard drive away,
Each city or town will determine how best to distribute tests within their community, with an emphasis on increasing access for individuals and families who are facing financial hardship.
In New York, hospital administrators at NewYork-Presbyterian, N.Y.U. Langone and Mount Sinai all said in recent days that they would stop giving patients the two most commonly used antibody treatments, made by Eli Lilly and Regeneron, according to memos obtained by The Times and officials at the health systems.
Federal health officials plan to assess at the end of this week whether to pause shipments of the Eli Lilly and Regeneron products to individual states, based on how dominant Omicron becomes in different regions of the country, according to a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Already in high demand even before Omicron arose, the supply of sotrovimab is very limited for now. But the situation is likely to improve somewhat in the coming weeks. The Biden administration is in talks with GlaxoSmithKline about securing more doses to be delivered by early next year, the administration official said.
The central planners are getting you antibodies for Christmas, but it might be Christmas 2022…
Related:
Trouble in public health paradise… “Mass. Medical Society calls for statewide mask mandate for all indoor public settings” (Boston.com, 12/14): The president of the Massachusetts Medical Society is recommending that state officials require the use of masks in all indoor public settings, regardless of vaccination status, in the face of worrying COVID-19 trends in the commonwealth. The call to bring back an indoor mask mandate came a day after Gov. Charlie Baker said he has “no plans to bring back the statewide mask mandate,” despite the urging of health experts to do so. In recent weeks, Massachusetts has seen a sharp increase in COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations to levels that have not been seen since the surge last winter, prompting state officials to order hospitals facing capacity constraints to cut elective procedures by 50 percent. Some municipalities, including Boston, have since brought back indoor mask mandates in response to the COVID-19 trends seen in their local communities. Starting Monday, Salem is also requiring all individuals entering a public or municipal building to wear a face covering, regardless of their vaccination status.
Merry Christmas to Israelis who celebrate this holiday… “For a growing number of Jews in Israel, it’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas” (Times of Israel): You ask Yaeli Amir, a seven-year-old Jewish girl growing up in a rural town in Israel, what her favorite holiday is, and she won’t name any of the almost countless Jewish ones. Instead, she’ll say, without hesitation, “Christmas!” (Tisha B’Av is a tougher sell to 7-year-olds?)
In Inflation harms the elite, the working class, or the poor? I posit that the coverage of inflation by elite-controlled media suggests that inflation harms the elite more than it harms the poor (who might never see a bill for rent, health care, food, or smartphone!).
With inflation now rising faster than at any time in the last four decades, economists are debating which group suffers more from inflation, the poor or the rich. This kind of economy-wide question is not easy to answer, especially when rates of inflation have been so low in recent times and hard data are scarce. Nor is it obvious how exactly to compare the losses to the poor to the losses to wealthier groups. Nonetheless, the arguments suggest that the poor are likely to take a beating.
One major factor: The poor is the socioeconomic group that finds it hardest to purchase a home, and real estate seems to be one of the best inflation hedges. U.S. real estate prices have been on a tear for some time, including through the recent inflationary period.
Rents are rising at a rapid clip, due to the mix of rising demand and bottlenecked supply. The biggest losers there will be the poor. And if poorer people are trying to live somewhere relatively prosperous, perhaps to enjoy future economic mobility for themselves and their children, rising rent will eat up an especially large share of their incomes.
As noted above, I’m not sure it makes sense to talk about the “poor” paying rent. If they live in government-owned “public” housing, what do they care about the nominal dollars that their apartments might fetch in a market economy? It is Americans who aren’t quite poor enough to be officially “poor” who get killed by higher rents. (i.e., the chumps who work 60 hours per week to end up with a spending power just 15 percent higher than someone who doesn’t work at all and/or someone who had sex with a dentist).
Professor Cowen makes a great point about the richest of the nouveau-est riche:
Another asset class that has risen in value recently is crypto. There is no good data on who is buying crypto, but it seems likely that the poor are underrepresented here as well, if only because they have less disposable income.
The rise in crypto prices is mainly due to factors incidental to current retail price inflation, but a more general point applies: The poor hold a disproportionate share of their assets in pure cash, which has no potential for price appreciation and is hit hard in inflationary times.
He makes another good point about cars. Anyone who is at least upper middle class has a car that can last for 10 more years if necessary:
The poor do buy fewer cars than do the wealthy — but they also buy lower-quality cars, and find it harder to postpone a car purchase for a few years if they do not wish to pay a higher price. This is yet another illustration of the point that the poor can have a harder time making adjustments in an inflationary environment.
He counters my big argument, i.e., that real Americans bury themselves in debt and therefore will be delighted to pay back creditors with near-worthless dollars:
Probably the strongest argument in favor of the notion that the poor are less affected by inflation is that inflation can, under some circumstances, lower the real value of debt. If prices go up 7%, and your income goes up 7%, all of a sudden your debts — which typically are fixed in nominal value — are worth 7% less.
This mechanism is potent, but it assumes that real wages keep pace with inflation. Right now real wages are falling, and with higher inflation may continue to do so. Furthermore, many poor people roll over their debts for longer periods of time. Repaying those debts will eventually be cheaper in inflation-adjusted terms, but not anytime soon.
His conclusion is powerful. Countries that have high levels of inflation aren’t packed with cheerful poor people:
I’ve been focusing on the U.S., but elsewhere in the world the general correlation is that high inflation and high income inequality go together. Correlation is not causation, but those are not numbers helpful to anyone who wishes to argue that inflation is a path to greater income equality. Have very high levels of inflation done much for the poor in Venezuela and Zimbabwe? And if you ask which group would benefit from an improvement in living standards prompted by higher rates of investment, as might follow from a period of stability — it is the poor, not the wealthy.
Whether my original post was correct or, as seems more likely, Professor Cowen’s article, Joe the Plumber will still be living comfortably! (from Legoland Florida, just outside the restrooms)
Whom does inflation harm? It has to be bad for someone, right? Otherwise it wouldn’t be front page news. In fact, you would have to scroll down five times to reach “Migrant Truck Crash in Mexico: ‘They Were All Cadavers’”, a story about “a horrific crash that killed at least 54 migrants.” The NYT story that was much more important than 54 deaths:
The Consumer Price Index is rising sharply, a concern for Washington policymakers and a sign of the rising costs facing American households.
Inflation jumped to the highest level in nearly 40 years, fresh data released on Friday showed, as supply chain disruptions, rapid consumer demand and rising housing costs combined to fuel the strongest inflationary burst in a generation.
As housing and other day-to-day costs rise, workers may begin to ask for raises to help offset the financial blow. Employers are competing for laborers at a time when job openings far exceed the number of people actively looking for jobs, and wages are rising at a brisk pace. The Employment Cost Index, a measure the Fed watches closely, picked up notably in the three-month period that ended in September.
Increased pay has not been enough to fully offset inflation for most people: Wage gains are up sharply, especially for low earners, but are not rising quickly enough to keep up with the acceleration in prices.
The language gives the reader the impression that inflation is most detrimental to the American rabble. Let’s look at some of the language:
American households
laborers
people actively looking for jobs
low earners
On the other hand, if it is front page news in a newspaper controlled by elite Americans, shouldn’t we suspect that elites are being harmed? Throughout coronapanic, for example, the NYT advocated for public schools to be closed (#AbudanceOfCaution), thus depriving non-elite children of an education even as elite kids continued in their private schools or with home tutors.
Let’s consider someone on the bottom rung of the American income distribution. He/she/ze/they is entitled to free public housing, free health care via Medicaid, free food via SNAP/EBT, and a free smartphone (Obamaphone). If the market value of his/her/zir/their apartment in Cambridge, Maskachusetts, Manhattan, or San Francisco is $3,000 per month and rises to $30,000 per month, what difference does that make to someone who isn’t paying rent? Similarly, if someone on Medicaid had been getting hepatitis meds for $84,000 in pre-Biden money, what does he/she/ze/they care if the price goes up to $840,000?
What about a working-class wage slave who has borrowed up to his/her/zir/their eyeballs, like any true American? The house was bought with a mortgage and then a home equity loan siphoned out the gains due to inflation. The driveway contains three vehicles, all of them purchased with borrowed money. The wage slave was gulled into three years of college and never finished. He/she/ze/they is left with $45,000 in debt from that debacle. Maybe his/her/zir/their wages won’t quite keep pace with galloping inflation, but all of the debt is effectively wiped out.
What if we get to the above-median end of the American income and wealth spectrum? By definition, someone with “wealth” is a saver, at least on net. Savings, especially if kept in bonds, are attacked by inflation. Stocks generally fell during America’s previous experiment with rampant inflation (printing money to finance Lyndon Johnson’s new comprehensive welfare state and also the Vietnam War that JFK and Johnson embroiled us in). Here’s a chart of the S&P in constant dollars (source; the gray regions are recessions). It doesn’t recover its 1972 value until 1987:
How about the government itself? Inflation makes it easy for the government to pay bondholders ($29 trillion in federal debt isn’t so bad if a Diet Coke costs $29 billion). Inflation enhances capital gains tax receipts, since the U.S. taxes capital gains without adjusting the basis price for inflation. An asset bought 50 years earlier, even if it went down slightly in real value, will be taxed at 33 percent (federal plus state in California) on essentially the entire value when sold. As evidenced by their low quit rate, government workers are paid much higher salaries than they would earn for comparable work in the private sector. Inflation, especially when combined with a fraudulent CPI formula, allows the government to quietly cut employees’ wages.
The effects are certainly going to be uneven, but it is fair to say that generally the powerful inflation that our leaders are brewing is a force for redressing the inequality that the same leaders decry?
(Separately, let me remind readers that all of my ideas are stupid. Back in January 2021, I cautioned a friend who had borrowed money to buy a factory new $3 million Cirrus Jet. I lived for so long in New England that I developed a Yankee idea that you shouldn’t borrow for a personal airplane. In nominal dollars, the jet is now worth far more than he paid, of course, so essentially he is being paid by the lender (and bondholders behind the lender?) to fly around in his jet.)
… is it fair to say that MMT is actually the mainstream economic philosophy in the U.S. and has been since at least March 2020? (In other words, the folks who run the U.S. economy profess belief in neoclassical economics, but their actions reveal a belief in MMT.)
The infrastructure act signed into law last week marked a defeat for the faction of progressive economists in ascendancy in 2020. For these advocates of modern monetary theory, the insistence by both political parties that all the $550 billion of new spending be matched by offsetting revenue, known as “payfors,” goes against their belief that money is merely a tool for government.
This is a temporary rhetorical setback. The reality is that MMT’s ideas have insinuated themselves deep into government, central banking and even Wall Street—and the infrastructure act is in fact deficit-financed anyway.
MMTers detest payfors as wrongheaded thinking about money. Money only exists because of government spending, and under MMT, the government should just create as much as it needs to finance its projects. In a tight economy—like we have now—MMT might want offsets to new spending. But higher taxes or lower spending elsewhere would be aimed at avoiding inflation, not at balancing the budget.
The government hasn’t embraced MMT. But important elements of it are now accepted by much of the economic and financial establishment, with major implications for how the economy is run.
“Governments have lost their fear of debt,” says Karen Ward, chief market strategist for EMEA at JPMorgan Chase’s asset-management arm. “They were terribly worried about bond markets and investors punishing them. What they saw last year was record high levels of debt at record low levels of interest rates.”
Central banks that had struggled for a decade to boost inflation using monetary tools found that fiscal tools were far more powerful. Government spending does far more for inflation than quantitative easing, it turns out, and central-bank calls for more fiscal action to boost the economy are more likely to be accepted next time deflation looms.
In the next downturn it is going to be very difficult for governments to resist calls to provide huge support, now that it has been shown that bond markets don’t care. That should mean recessions are shallower, debt is higher, the government is more involved in the economy and, assuming the Fed doesn’t accept that its tools are useless, interest rates are higher on average than in the past. Bond markets aren’t pricing in anything of the sort, though. The 30-year Treasury yield is only 2%, well below the 3.2% average of the 10 years up to 2020.
MMTers mostly aren’t worried about President Biden’s spending plans causing inflation anyway. But MMT prescribes that if tax rises are needed to slow demand, billionaires wouldn’t be the target: The rest of us would.
This guy predicts a future of higher interest rates and higher tax rates for the upper-middle class! (on the other hand, how can the bond markets be so wrong?)
Note that MMT doesn’t have to be correct for the WSJ article to be right and/or relevant. MMT just has to be the prevailing belief among those who direct the U.S. economy (roughly 50 percent of which is now direct government spending or government-controlled (health care, arguably banking)).
Speaking of inflation, some Bitcoin enthusiasts with whom I spoke at a Miami Beach party recently estimated that the inflation rate as perceived by a middle class American is 10-14 percent and closer to 22 percent for a high-income or wealthy individual. The house is on a side street, which became littered with exotic cars (you could be parked in by a Ferrari and a Mercedes G-Wagon), many of which had California plates and/or dealer insignia from California. One California refugee had recently moved into a condo that is part of high end hotel. A Web search revealed a price range of $7-50 million for the various condos, but it is unclear if those were pre-Biden prices or current. “Did you sell some of your Bitcoin to buy the condo?” I asked. “No,” he replied. “I sold a bunch of Sh*tcoin.”
The crypto enthusiasts disagreed about various technical topics (trust in financial transactions is problematic if you can’t be 100 percent confident that certificate authorities won’t be hacked into or grabbed by a central government), but one thing that they all agreed on was that it was insanity to hold dollars. “You’ve lost at least 20 percent on any cash dollars that you held this year,” one pointed out. (See above for the 22 percent inflation estimate. Consistent with this estimate, the S&P 500 is up roughly 23 percent over the past 12 months.) I don’t think they’d be any happier to hold a U.S. Treasury bond, even one that is pegged to the official CPI.
We’re told that house prices across the U.S. are up by 20 percent compared to a year ago (see Inflation would be 10 percent per year if house prices were included). Yet in our neighborhood here in the Florida Free State, both prices and rents are up closer to 50 percent. A community built for middle class (town houses) and upper middle class (single-family homes) now has single-family homes listed for more than $2 million (would have been $1 million two years ago).
Vast areas of the U.S. are blighted and undesirable, yet one could still buy a house in those areas and those house prices presumably feed into the statistics. What if we looked at areas that have at least some of the following characteristics:
good public schools
convenient to jobs
walkable
low crime
convenient to services for the middle class and above
Would the inflation rate still be only 20 percent?
A Long Island man who only ever made one mortgage payment has deftly used the courts to stay in the house for 23 years — for free, according to legal papers.
Guramrit Hanspal, 52, has filed four lawsuits and claimed bankruptcy seven times to avoid being booted from the 2,081-square-foot East Meadow home he “bought” for $290,000 in 1998.
So far, it’s worked: Two different banks and a real estate company have owned the three-bedroom, 2.5-bath home since Hanspal was foreclosed upon in 2000. But Hanspal remains.
Hanspal’s not the only occupant of the home leveraging the US Bankruptcy Code’s “automatic stay” rules, which give debtors a temporary reprieve from all collection efforts, harassment and foreclosures.
At least three other people listing the home at 2468 Kenmore St. as their address have also filed for bankruptcy in Brooklyn federal court, winning the “automatic stay,” only to have the claims eventually dismissed, court records show.
And a good deal: Hanspal, who had an initial 7.375 percent interest rate on the $232,000 adjustable-rate mortgage, likely saved himself upwards of $440,000 by not paying his bills.
Meanwhile, in 2004, Hanspal transferred the deed of the home to a friend, Rajender Pal, even though he had no legal right to do so, according to court papers. Pal, using the Kenmore Street address, filed for bankruptcy in 2005, staving off eviction yet again.
By May 2018, Chase unloaded the property to Diamond Ridge, which offered Hanspal $20,000 to leave. He didn’t take the deal, and instead, filed for bankruptcy again in 2019 and 2020. Another purported occupant of the house, Boss Chawla, filed bankruptcy four times in 2019, as did another resident — allegedly named John Smith — who filed once.
“The history of this case going on for approximately 20 years must come to an end,” Nassau District Judge Scott Fairgrieve wrote in a December 2019 housing court proceeding.
The last one is my favorite! The judge says “it must end”, but Messrs. Hanspal, Pal, and Chawla are still there two years later.
Loosely related… the happening downtown neighborhood of Delray Beach, Florida (I stopped there for dinner after teaching a class that ends at 9:20 pm):
Someone at Disney did not get the memo about the official inflation rate being 6 percent. Email received today:
A 14 percent increase is especially painful for those of us who do not have TVs. Why do they need the extra money if they’re moving to Florida and won’t be paying California’s 13.3 percent state income tax rate?
Happy Halloween! It has felt like Halloween for the past 20 months or so, with ordinary Americans dressing up as surgeons or asbestos remediators in masks.
I’ve recently had occasion to take some prison galley-style JetBlue flights, in which flight attendants walk up and down the aisle looking for people who aren’t wearing masks correctly. The ticket counter at PBI has a high clear plastic barrier that makes communication between agent and customer almost impossible (while simultaneously providing no protection against COVID, according to the New York Times). The workers behind the plastic, have been stuck wearing masks for 8 hours per day for all 20 months of “14 days to flatten the curve.” I asked a 13-year veteran of the ticket counter how many of her colleagues had quit. “Everyone who could retire has done so,” she responded. She was sick of wearing a mask, found it frustrating to try to make herself understood, and did not think the mask was effective at preventing COVID infection. Like most other customer service businesses, the airport is extremely short staffed and, despite a reduced passenger volume, lines can get long (except at TSA, which seems to have infinite capacity!).
There has been a lot of media coverage regarding how few Americans are working. And, indeed, the stats do show that Americans are passionate about relaxing at home:
What I find confusing, however, is that so many Americans are working at these masks-all-day jobs (though I am grateful for their service!). It can’t be because the masks don’t bother them, since the people I’ve talked to say that they do find the masks uncomfortable. It can’t be because there aren’t any no-mask-required jobs available because, at least here in Florida, there are plenty. It shouldn’t be because it is too hard to transition to disability, because “Long COVID” is a recognized disability and the symptoms encompass almost any medical malady.
I’m not saying that labor force participation should be 0%. After all, there are plenty of high-paid masked jobs (surgeon) and plenty of medium-paid no-mask jobs (work from home, e.g.). But why isn’t labor force participation rate down closer to the Puerto Rican number (42 percent)? It can’t be fun to spend the whole day wearing a mask and asking in-a-rush airline passengers to repeat themselves.
Related:
“4.3 million workers are missing. Where did they go?” (WSJ, 10/14; paywall-free version): More than a year and a half into the pandemic, the U.S. is still missing around 4.3 million workers. That’s how much bigger the labor force would be if the participation rate—the share of the population 16 or older either working or looking for work—returned to its February 2020 level of 63.3%. In September, it stood at 61.6%. … Of 52 economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal, 22 predicted that participation would never return to its pre-pandemic level.
The Fall and Rise of China, a course by Richard Baum (late professor at UCLA), asks how it was possible for an empire that had been so successful for 1,000 years to fall apart in about 100 years. The decline of China relative to Europe was anything but predictable, in his view, and the real question is why China didn’t continue to lead the world economy.
The professor’s thesis is that population growth doomed China. The Manchus improved the control of floodwater from China’s major rivers, thus enabling more stability in agriculture. Instead of an improved standard of living, however, this lead to a huge increase in what had been a stable population size, from about 125 million to 450 million over 200 years (1700 to 1900). Agricultural productivity per acre did not improve significantly and the cultivated land per person fell, thus reducing both the standard of living for the typical citizen and tax revenues for the government (people at a Malthusian level of subsistence can’t pay tax).
(The doom was accelerated to some extent, according to Professor Baum, by the corrupt and incompetent Empress Dowager Cixi, who ruled China for 47 years and obstructed efforts to modernize the military (partly by stealing money that had been appropriated for that purpose). Without her, China might have had a chance to go more in the Japanese direction.)
I’m not sure that the “overpopulation” answer is correct, but the question seems like the right one to ask. How did a country that was so far ahead of the rest of the world suddenly (when viewed through the lens of history) collapse?
Venezuela certainly didn’t thrive once its oil wealth was divided by a larger population. Chart from the World Bank:
Venezuela was producing roughly 2.5 million barrels of oil per day in 2010 at about $80 per barrel. That would have been $36,000/year in walking-around revenue for a family of 4 if total revenue were divided by the 1960 population of 8 million. Divided by 28 million, though, and revenue per family was down to $10,000 (and don’t forget that Venezuelans had to take care of the Big Guy and his family before oil revenue could be distributed more widely).
Are there lessons for the U.S.? As the U.S. population has grown (10 million in 1820, 180 million in 1960, 333 million today), Americans have gotten fatter, not thinner. We’re not running out of food like the Chinese did. On the other hand, folks who show up in the U.S. expect an endowment of land/housing. The standard of living to which Americans believe themselves entitled is now, absent taxpayer-funded subsidies, out of reach of roughly half of the people who live in the U.S. and the situation gets worse every day (see “Hundreds of Haitians arrive in Massachusetts from southern border lacking housing, health care” (Boston Globe, 10/10/2021), for example: “Advocates scramble to find homes and help for the new arrivals.” (if every Massachusetts homeowner with an “immigrants welcome” lawn sign and a spare room would host just one Haitian, a substantial fraction of the 1.1 million Haitians in the U.S. could be accommodated in just this one righteous state!).)
The NYT, 8/10/2021 says the situation is dire, but Biden’s central planners have a plan to fix this and we just need “a once-in-a-generation effort”. Harvard agrees that Biden, whose name occurs 6 times in this report, will make all of our housing dreams come true. The NYT article cites Japan favorably. Rents in Tokyo are no higher than they were 20 years ago (it looks as though the indices are adjusted for inflation because San Francisco rent is up only 150 percent and New York up only 100 percent). Not mentioned is that Japan’s population, over the last 20 years, is essentially flat (127 million down to 126 million). You shouldn’t need the world’s finest central planners to manage housing for a constant-sized population.
The Chinese, according to the professor, also suffered from insularity. They mostly stopped traveling to foreign countries (compare to our border-crossing restrictions since February 2020). They didn’t keep up with the Industrial Revolution (compare to our current dependence on Asia to fabricate semiconductors). Due to Internet, container ships, and air freight, however, it is tough to imagine the U.S. ever being truly disconnected from innovation centers around the world.
So history may not repeat itself nor even rhyme, but it is still an interesting question to ponder. Why were Michelle Faraday and Katherine Clerk Maxwell the pioneers in electromagnetism rather than physicists in Beijing? Why was it Mileva Marić who explained the photoelectric effect and figured out that gravity distorts spacetime, rather than someone in Shanghai? Why was it Louise-Hélène de Lesseps who created the Suez Canal rather than the Chinese, who had more than 2000 years of canal experience.
