"The introverts have taken over the US economy."

That's the provocative title of a recent Bloomberg column from economist Allison Schrager. As she looked into the data on how Americans have been spending their time since the pandemic, she noticed that they are spending less time socializing with their friends on weekends and more time in front of screens. Even when they do go out, it's increasingly for an early dinner. That's all in addition to the bigger share of Americans who now work remotely, a trend that accelerated during the pandemic and is unlikely to ever fully reverse.

Who are the winners and losers from these trends? And what's going on?

Obvious explanations include pandemic experimentation, smartphones, better entertainment and telecommunications technologies. But Allison also likes to see these trends through the prism of risk. She tells Cardiff that the "risk-free rate" that Americans can earn from indoor, introverted activity has climbed. With so much choice over the movies, music, and books you can consume in your home, not to mention access to social media and swipe-able dating apps, you are guaranteed to have at least a pretty good time by staying in. Going out means making an "investment" with possibly more upside (meet the love of your life, see a memorable live performance, attend an epic party) but also a vastly more uncertain payoff.

Allison and Cardiff discuss these ideas and whether the economy's new introvert-friendliness is likely to stay. They also talk about other trends that could soon favor extroverts, the risks of AI and automation in the labor market, and the skills and traits that will matter for the jobs of the future.

Related links:

• The Introverts Have Taken Over the US Economy (Bloomberg column)
• Known Unknowns (Allison's newsletter)
• An Economist Walks Into a Brothel (Allison's book about risk)

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When people talk about the crisis at the border between the US and Mexico, what specifically are they referring to?

The Department of Homeland Security keeps track of a statistic called “border encounters” at the US border with Mexico. This includes primarily the large number of people who try to cross the border without documentation, or illegally, and aren't crossing at a formal port of entry. It also includes people who do try to cross the border at a port of entry but who are then found not eligible to be admitted into the US. 

In the past three years, under the Biden administration, the number of these border encounters each year has been more than quadruple the average of what it was throughout most of the previous decade, under the Trump and Obama administrations. 

The system for processing all these migrants has been entirely overwhelmed. And if you’re a politician or a pundit or someone else pushing an agenda, the temptation is to make it political. To argue that this is either all Joe Biden’s fault for being "too soft" on immigration, or the fault of Donald Trump for not fixing the problem sooner, or Congress for refusing to collaborate on a bill that would address the issue.

Today’s guest does something different altogether. Andrew Selee is the head of the Migration Policy Institute, or MPI, which is the think tank Cardiff turns to when he wants factual, nonpartisan, non-stupid commentary on immigration—but especially when he just wants to inform himself on the topic outside the nonsense of how debates on immigration tend to play out in public.

So Cardiff speaks with Andrew about the real, fundamental reasons behind the crisis at the border, and what can be done about it.

They also talk about legal immigration, which despite many problems has actually been a kind of quiet success of recent years.

Other topics they discuss include the two eras of border management, the multi-layered effects of the pandemic on immigration, and a new idea for how to reform immigration to become more responsive to the needs of the US labor market.

Related links:

• Biden at the Three-Year Mark
• Shifting Realities at the U.S.-Mexico Border
• Migration at the U.S.-Mexico Border: A Challenge Decades in the Making
• A New Way Forward for Employment-Based Immigration: The Bridge Visa

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Who is the Magic Johnson of economics? Who was the Adam Smith of basketball?

On this fun and oddball episode of The New Bazaar, Cardiff speaks with Tyler Cowen, economist and author of GOAT: Who is the Greatest Economist of all Time and Why Does it Matter?

Inspired by the sportswriter Bill Simmons, Tyler wrote his book from the standpoint of a fan—having fun, taking sides, admitting biases, unapologetically trying to entertain the reader instead of presenting sober (boring) analysis.

Cardiff and Tyler—both huge basketball fans—first discuss Tyler's ranking of the great economists and his lament for what economics used to be. Tyler also gives his reasons for releasing the book as a ChatGPT trained on its text, the first such book of its kind.

Then begins the fun. They take turns finding analogs for the great economists from the history of the NBA. And they do the same in reverse for basketball's own GOATs. Which economist changed the nature of the field similar to the way Steph Curry set off the three-point revolution? Is there an economist whose comprehensive genius rivaled the ability of LeBron James to engineer exactly the outcome he wants on the court? What basketball player matched the charisma, brilliance, and even investment success of Keynes?

And why does Cardiff argue that Tyler himself is the Charles Barkley of economists despite their differences in personality, size, and other obvious dimensions?

All throughout the chat, Tyler and Cardiff are exploring the common traits that define greatness in both hoops, the social sciences, and perhaps other domains. A treat for fans of either economics or hoops, or who simply enjoy the virtues of fandom itself.

Related links:

• GOAT
• Marginal Revolution
• The Book of Basketball
• The Kobe Question

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Seth Stephens-Davidowitz has unusually written an unusual book.

The data analysis included in "Who Makes the NBA?: Data-Driven Answers to Basketball's Biggest Questions" normally would have taken Seth, a trained economist, multiple years of writing and running code. But because of new artificial intelligence tools, he finished the book in just thirty days. And he used AI tools not just for the coding, but also for the artwork, copy editing, and even to write the appendix.

He discusses with Cardiff the lessons he learned about using AI, and what such accelerated productivity might mean for the future of the labor market.

Then they discuss the actual findings in the book, an investigation into the backgrounds of the basketball players who make it to the NBA and succeed when they get there. How much of success is genetic? What accounts for the NBA's market failures—the traits of players who get paid too much and too little relative to their contributions? Why do some foreign countries have such astonishing success at sending players to the NBA? Does the choice of college really matter for future success?

The answers to these questions are surprisingly revealing about the experiences of non-basketball players, and about the relationships between luck, skill, parenting, undiscovered talent, the economy, and other familiar variables.

Related links:

• Seth's home page
• Who Makes the NBA? (Amazon page)

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Martha Gimbel and Gopi Shah Goda were formerly economists within the White House Council of Economic Advisors, or CEA. 

They look back on their time inside an important economic policymaking institution, telling Cardiff about:

• Their favorite projects
• Toughest assignments
• The relationship between CEA and other economic policymakers
• The difference between academia and policy work 
• What they might change about it
• Common misconceptions about the work of economists

And Martha clears up a big misunderstanding about an infamous graph controversy. All this and more!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Angus Deaton—Scottish immigrant, Nobelist, and one of Cardiff's favorite economists—has written a new, forthcoming book titled Economics in America: An Immigrant Economist Explore the Land of Inequality.

It’s great, if also hard to categorize.

Partly it’s a memoir, about his humble origins in Scotland, where he was born; his studies at Cambridge with better-heeled peers; and his subsequent decades as a Princeton University, Nobel Prize winning economist.

The book is also partly a reflection on a lifetime of practicing economics, and the good and bad of the economics profession. There's plenty of both.

And finally it’s a series of observations about the American economy, including a fascinating self-analysis of his own ambivalence towards the US, his adopted country—the many great things here, including the lives that he and his family have led; and also, yes, some of the devastatingly grim things about life here for so many others. 

Related links:

• Economics in America, by Angus Deaton (available for pre-order)
• The Great Escape, by Angus Deaton
• Mortality and the economy, featuring Anne Case and Angus Deaton

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last summer, Cardiff interviewed Malcolm Gladwell for another podcast that he hosts called The Next Chapter, by American Express Business Class. 

On that show, Cardiff interviews bestselling book authors (like Gladwell) to find out what they’ve been up to since their earlier book was published, and to learn what they would add to it now that some time has passed—hence the “Next Chapter” of the title.

And in the case of Gladwell, what he’s been up to in the last few years is podcasting. Specifically, he co-founded Pushkin Industries, a podcast production company for which he hosts his own excellent show, called Revisionist History, and has written an audiobook, The Bomber Mafia.

As it happens, Gladwell and Cardiff have the same favorite dead economist, Albert O Hirschman. And since Hirschman comes up a few times in their chat, and because the chat also covers a number of fascinating economic themes generally, it's the perfect episode to also air on The New Bazaar. The chat was recorded at Gladwell’s offices in Hudson, New York, last year. 

And if you like the episode and want to hear more of these interviews, please consider subscribing to The Next Chapter on your podcast app of choice. There you'll find other interviews hosted by Cardiff with guests like Adam Grant on how to think creatively; David Epstein on why it’s good to be a generalist; Susan Cain on introversion; and Mashama Bailey and John O Morisano on entrepreneurship and partnership in business. 

Here's a few places where you can find the show: 

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4ILMYVnqfO0g9aVkFFqfa2?si=4eef0597c6f4466d

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-next-chapter-by-american-express-business-class/id1627810508

Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-next-chapter-by-american-express-business-class

Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS9aODFMX0ZldA

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

These are confusing times for the economy and for financial markets—and for the relationship between the economy and financial markets. 

At the moment the economy is doing well. The labor market is still creating hundreds of thousands of jobs each month. Unemployment is low. Inflation has come down over the past year. And economic growth has been stronger than a great many economists and others had forecast heading into the year. 

But that’s just how the economy is doing right now. What about six months from now? Or a year? Forecasting is always hard, and it may well be impossible. But economists sometimes look at “leading indicators” that are meant to give at least a sense of where the economy is headed. And some of those are flashing red, suggesting we might be headed for a recession in the near future. Then again, those same indicators have looked bad for a while now, and still the recession is nowhere in sight, so who knows.

Meanwhile, look at the US stock market. It collapsed last year. But it’s come roaring back this year—and this despite the Federal Reserve continuing to raise interest rates aggressively. Is the stock market now overpriced, too expensive? Is it underpriced, a good time to get in? And what happens if we do go into recession? 

What about bonds and other markets? What happened to crypto and all those meme stocks? 

Returning to the show to discuss all this and more is William Bernstein. Bill is the author of no fewer than three of Cardiff's favorite books on finance and the economy, including “The Four Pillars of Investing”, which just came out in a second edition roughly two decades after the first. It has all new updated information, data, and charts, plus the lessons learned in the intervening years. 

Related links:

• The Four Pillars of Investing
• Bill's other books and writings

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Within economics, there's a semi-famous quote from the economist Paul Krugman: “Productivity isn't everything, but in the long run, it's almost everything.”

Krugman’s point is that ultimately, how much productivity climbs each year—roughly speaking, how much more efficient an economy’s workers become at producing goods and services—is also what determines how much our living standards also rise from year to year. And so in the long run, there really is almost nothing that matters more. 

Unfortunately, since about the early 1970s productivity has climbed much more slowly than in the earlier postwar decades. We have been stuck in a period that economists have labeled The Great Stagnation. And a big reason why is that the pace of innovation—the kind of scientific and technological innovation that leads to fast productivity growth—has also been slow. 

But now, there’s now a lot of people—including Cardiff!—who are optimistic that maybe the Great Stagnation is ending. That we’ll get back to the faster productivity growth of the past. Among other reasons why:

1. The economy in the last few years has become more dynamic. There’s been a boom in the number of startups that entrepreneurs launch every month. 
2. There has been quite a bit of experimentation in the workplace for how to get things done, most obviously the rise of remote work. 
3. Incredible new technologies like mRNA vaccines have emerged. These also include things like GPT-4 and other language learning models, suggesting that artificial intelligence could soon have a noticeable effect on the economy. 
4. And finally, an intellectual shift, partly brought on by higher inflation, has compelled many people (including policymakers) all across the ideological spectrum to really emphasize the importance of expanding the economy’s capacity for growth, and to figure how best to do that. 

Which policies and institutional designs can best lead to new technologies and innovations? How do we reform public institutions like the National Institutes of Health, with its $47 billion budget, to fund the kind of science research and development that leads to transformative new technologies? What have we learned about the way science is actually done now?

In other words, how do we get right the economics of innovation? 

That effort is where today’s two guests come in. Heidi Williams is an economist and the director of science policy at the Institute for Progress, a think tank. Caleb Watney is the co-founder and co-CEO of the Institute for Progress. 

They discussed with Cardiff not only the Great Stagnation, but also recent industrial policies passed by the US government, like the Chips and Science Act (which is aimed at developing a domestic semiconductor industry) and the Inflation Reduction Act (which will spend money to develop new clean technologies, among other things). 

And they discussed new ideas for how the country’s existing scientific institutions—its commercial labs, universities, and public bodies—should approach the process of scientific discovery.

Related links:

• Heidi's page and work at the Institute for Progress
• Caleb's page and work at the Institute for Progress

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.