The Economist’s Free Exchange column drops in on the question of an economic motherhood penalty from childbirth. It is nice to see that the Economist correctly distinguishes between two distinct economic motherhood penalties, both of which can be traced to the interplay between evolutionary forces and modernity, where the latter in this case is defined as an environment with rapidly increasing returns to investment in human capital and education. The first, between fathers and mothers, emerge because the cost of child-rearing especially in the early part of a child’s life overwhelmingly falls on the mother, a conclusion which follows from Trivers (1972). This is true in terms of the cost during pregnancy and immediately after too. It is also true before we consider the possibility that the resource allocation trade-off for many women shifts in the wake of motherhood. The second motherhood penalty occurs between women. Put simply, in an economic structure where childless women have the ability to devote all their resources to somatic investment and take advantage of the above-mentioned increasing returns to human capital investment, the wage and wealth divergence between women who have many children and those who have none will widen significantly, at least in theory. For more on this, I cover the theory in more detail in my essay on fertility and sexual selection; see here.
Read MoreI think Simon Ward is right to predict that a downturn in investment will be the next shoe to drop in developed market business cycles, even as easing inflation offers respite for households’ inflation-adjusted disposable income and spending. This has been a key theme for me and my colleagues at Pantheon Macroeconomics for a while. In the U.S., Ian Shepherdson believes that this will drive the economy into a mild recession, while we are a bit more sanguine in Europe for the simple reason that the euro area economy effectively has been close to recession since the end of last year. Simon Ward notes that the capital goods component of the global PMI hit a new low in April, that inflation-adjusted profits in G7 slowed sharply last year, and that nominal money is contracting. Crucially, he adds that credit standards are now tightening significantly in Europe, as well as across the pond. Flat-lining profits in inflation-adjusted terms, a contraction in nominal deposits, the lagged effect of higher interest rates and tightening credit standards is bad news for private capex, including inventories, as measured by the national accounts. The silver lining is that a slowdown in investment should, combined with softening inflation, persuade DM central banks to kick back from the table on rate hikes. The key question, however, remains whether a slowdown in investment and aggregate demand is adequately priced-in by equities. I doubt it.
Read MoreIn my day-job I am forced to write my economic outlook for the new year in December, alongside most other economists. This is part of a long-standing sell-side tradition, and at Christmas time, you don’t change traditions. The real way to do it, however, is to way a few weeks into January to see where the dust settles and how investors vote with their money in the early sessions of the year. I thus present the Alpha Sources version; five key questions for 2023, and as many answers. I’ll start with the war in Russia, asking what in fact Russia will achieve, if anything. I then ask whether 60/40 portfolio will rebound in 2023, and whether the leadership in global equities is changing. I then qualify my answer with a question on geopolitics and the free flow of goods and capital between China and the US, before asking whether Covid is over.
Read MoreWhat’s happening in Ukraine is important. The fog of war remains thick, but the incoming news is increasingly clear. Ukraine’s counteroffensive is progressing more quickly than even the most optimistic experts had predicted. The latest reports suggest that Ukraine is on the brink on retaking Donetsk, and its airport, which would be extraordinary. There are now signs that Ukraine’s success on the battlefield is being admitted on Russian state TV. Assuming this news out of Ukraine is even partly true, we are now, in my view, in a very dangerous phase of the conflict. I am saying this precisely because Ukraine’s offensive itself is morally and politically unchallengeable. Ukraine has a right to defend itself, and to exploit its military initiative. Considerations about Russia’s potential response to what can only be described as a humiliation are absent, in both Kyiv and Western capitals. Such considerations might arise soon enough, but for now the sentiment is clear. Russia is getting a good beating and it had it coming. I wholeheartedly agree.
Read More