Yuriy Gorodnichenko speaks at the Markus Academy (hosted at Princeton University), Friday, February 2, 12:30 PM ET. Yuriy Gorodnichenko is the inaugural Quantedge Presidential Chair in Economics at UC Berkeley.
(December piece on combat losses and implications by Gorodnichenko and Sologoub at Project Syndicate, here).
CEPR Ukraine Initiative here.
In my humble opinion, arms to defend Poland and the Baltic states would not be effective expended thousands of mile east of the Vistula.
Those arms need to be funded and produced in the EU.
Make Putin operate at the end of a long line of communication.
Don’t really understand what you’re trying to say.
I’m a fan of brevity, but I need more words here.
He does not understand what he wrote. He never does.
Poland should prepare to defend themselves, if I were planning defense I would not rely on Kyiv!
I thought it was interesting that FT said Poland central bank is purchasing a lot of gold recently.
We have asked you before to stop writing such utter stupidity. Go away. Do not return.
Any war between a NATO member and Russia would end in a big nuclear BOOOM before the first 10,000 shells had been fired. The production of those 10,000 shells can be made wherever, as long as they are stored close enough to the front line to be of use. The reason Ukraine and their friends in NATO has been caught flat footed is that nobody ever expected to need conventional ammo for a years long fight. That is still true with regards to NATO, but Ukraine surprised everybody with their ability to resist Russia. Gearing up the production of conventional arms in NATO countries that won’t need them is not smart. Set it up in Ukraine and let them be able to produce and use those weapons.
I completely disagree with you. There are potential conflicts all over the world, and those conflicts will not end in a nuclear boom. Or should not anyway. If the US and NATO do not have conventional arms, then nukes are more likely to be used. That’s really bad. The reason Putin keeps rattling his nuclear sword is because he’s seeing that the only things keeping Moscow from being sacked are NATO’s restraint and his nukes. We don’t want to be in that position. China has eyes on Taiwan. If that blows up, it best not involve nukes. Unless there’s plenty of conventional arms, it will. Same with any potential conflict with Iran. I sure hope none of those things happen. Making sure they don’t involves giving potential opponents a clear understanding of the teeth and claws they will face.
Picking a fight you can’t win is dumb. Making sure potential opponents know that they are far likelier to lose and lose badly is cheaper than fighting a war because somebody decided we are weaker.
Anything that is not under NATO protection or not a direct conflict between Russia and a nuclear power – has the potential of becoming a Ukraine like war. However, armed conflict between Russia and NATO will quickly end up with nuclear weapons. Not as a rational decision but as an inevitable escalation. There is a huge advantage to making the first nuclear strike, so those who hesitate put themselves at a catastrophic disadvantage. So regardless of how much conventional force you have, the conflict goes nuclear in a very short timeframe.
Even Russia has been caught flat footed and is scrambling to get conventional weaponry to cover this war effort. They have been desperately trying to get enough supplies from other countries (Iran and North Korea) and build up their own production. They know that their window of opportunity; while they are still overwhelmingly ahead of Ukraines supply, is not that much longer.
Anonymous: By my reckoning, the Vistula is only 400 miles west of the Russian/Byelorussian border.
Off topic –
We’ve known for some time that Exxon and other fossil fuel companies have engaged in a campaign of denying climate science since the 1970s. Documents newly unearthed from the Caltech archive show that fossil fuel companies paid for and were aware of the findings of climate science research in 1954.
Have a look:
New Evidence Reveals Fossil Fuel Industry Sponsored Climate Science in 1954
https://www.desmog.com/2024/01/30/fossil-fuel-industry-sponsored-climate-science-1954-keeling-api-wspa/
An excerpt:
“…despite being warned about the potential climate impacts of CO2 in 1954, 35 years later numerous members and sponsors of the Air Pollution Foundation (including API, the Automobile Manufacturers Association, Chevron, and BP) participated in a multi-million dollar campaign attacking climate policies aimed at tackling global warming and promoting denial of the science they themselves had helped to fund. ”
We still see commenters here carrying water for climate-change denialists. One of them got himself banned, others still try to keep the lies going.
No worries, BlueStatesKopits and Bruce “Yah, I’m Dumb Enough to Buy Ford Products” Hall will be hovering over the site and ready to mislead at any moment.
On an unrelated sidenote, check out James Carville on “Politicon’s” YT channel. It’s like a flashback to pre-Reagan times having breakfast and coffee down at the small town truckstop diner, When people could still read newspapers and distill the truth.
Thanks Moses, but I really expected pgl to be the one with the snide, stupid comment. Have another Bud Light and all will be well in the world. But so as not to disappoint and to remind you that not everyone has a lemming mentality:
https://judithcurry.com/2024/01/19/mann-vs-steyn-and-simberg-discussion-thread/
I’m more a Bud Ice guy than a Bud Light guy. Or even Modelo or Heineken. Truthfully what creepy uncles like me used to call “wine coolers” back in the early ’90s ‘cuz then I can have about 8% vs 5.5%.
https://www.desmog.com/2024/01/30/at-manns-defamation-trial-defendants-are-doubling-down-on-climate-denial/
Am I to take it that you are on Mark Steyn’s side??—whose flavor of “argumentation” is comparing respected climatology scientists to pedophiles?? Why are Republican men obsessed with labeling everyone with different views either “gay” or “pedophile”?? Do you think that makes you appear “masculine” Bruce?? I’m not sure if fawning over donald trump makes people like you or Tim Scott look any more “masculine” than you do now.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/tim-scott-engaged-fiancee-trump-new-hampshire-primary.html
What I’m curious is, could Lindsey Graham be the real cure to the loneliness Tim Scott suffers from?? Only Tim’s conversion therapy specialist knows for certain. As for you Bruce, I don’t know if conversion therapy is the answer for you or not. I’m hopeful though.
I was trying to figure out for the life of me, why Mark Steyn would appeal to Bruce so much?? Is it the non-college grad part that has Bruce getting all dizzy and weak in the knees over Steyn???
https://www.desmog.com/mark-steyn/
“Steyn regularly appears on television including The Rush Limbaugh Program and The Sean Hannity Show, in addition to a weekly appearance on The Hugh Hewitt Radio Show.”
Well that was before his show was cancelled by even right wing outfits.
Brucie’s hero has one blog post after another bragging about being the defendant in this defamation suit?
Famed Climatologist Michael Mann Finally Faces His Detractors in Court
He long ago sued climate denialists who compared him to a molester and cast his work as fraudulent.
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2024/01/michael-mann-climate-scientist-defamation-trial-denial/
The litigation targets two writers: Rand Simberg, analyst at the rightwing thinktank Competitive Enterprise Institute, who published a piece comparing Mann to a convicted serial child molester, and the National Review blogger Mark Steyn, who in a blog post favorably quoted Simberg and called Mann’s research “fraudulent.” (Mann originally went after both publishers as well, but in 2021 a court ruled that neither the Competitive Enterprise Institute nor National Review could be held responsible for the attacks.) The case comes amid concerns that online abuse of climate scientists has increased in recent years while misinformation about the climate crisis is also on the rise.
The attacks on Mann came as part of a wider campaign against him by a network of climate skeptics connected to the fossil fuel billionaire Charles Koch, experts have said. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which claims to fight “climate alarmism,” has financial ties to the Charles Koch Foundation, while the National Review regularly publishes articles dismissing climate concern science as alarmist and has also accepted Koch-linked funding. After the renowned scientist co-published the famous “hockey stick” graph in 1998, which showed unprecedented global warming in the last century, a slew of groups in the Koch network also bombarded Mann with freedom of information requests. A Republican congressman who was backed by a PAC established by Koch also served him with a subpoena. Opening statements in the case began on Thursday and were livestreamed, with the trial scheduled to run through at least February 6, and its completion to be decided by a jury verdict.
Brucie’s hero is attacking a lot like Trump during E. Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit. Hey Donald – how did that work out? Brucie boy better hope that the defense attorneys are not bimbos like Alini Habbi.
Moses, I’m no big fan of Mark, but I find it very interesting that Mann felt the need to sue over a disagreement of science. Shouldn’t the evidence be aired from both sides and let the “science” decide?
@ Bruce Michael Mann is not suing “over the science” He’s suing because Steyn equated him to a pedophile. So if all of us here on the blog said “Bruce Hall has the morals of a pedophile” you’d be cool with that and not think of hiring a lawyer?? ‘Cuz it strikes me most people, unless they were afraid of people poking around in their private business, would not tolerate that kind of label.
And a non-college grad running around saying “Gravity doesn’t exist, Isaac Newton was a supporter of pedophilia for saying gravity exists” Is not a “disagreement over science”. It is the kind of batshit crap a MAGA lemming in Michigan would say. Honest to God Bruce, why did your grade school teachers even bother with teaching you to read?? Do you even believe 10% of the crap you type?? Because I cannnot believe anyone could be authentically as dumb as you present yourself to be.
I always wondered how serious a “jury of his peers” really was? Mark Steyn would love it if the jury was made up of mental midgets who think this is a trial about the science and the science casts serious doubt over climate change. Hey – Bruce Hall would be the perfect juror for the defense.
Judith Curry’s credentials were a sick joke but applauding the stupidity of Mark Steyn? Come on Brucie – fess up, You’ve down an entire case of Bud Lights.
pgl, I know that Curry’s credentials as an economist are probably on par with yours as a climate scientist.
@ pgl
Do not slander, smear, and disparage the virtuous eminence of beer. Shame on your Sir.
“Stance on Climate Change
August, 2014
“Now I don’t consider myself a big credentialed expert or anything. I simply looked at a graph Michael E Mann hadn’t been anywhere near and drew the obvious conclusion. Gave it two minutes’ thought … ”
Yea – he is no expert but he gave this 2 minutes of thought more than you could ever had done. Come on Brucie – has Kelly Anne Conway stopped feeding you that daily dose of garbage for you to recite?
“…to remind you that not everyone has a lemming mentality”…writes the guy with the lemming mentality.
The point of what was found in the Caltech archive, since you seem to have missed it, is that the fossil fuel industry has been deceiving lemmings like you since the 1950s. Evidence has been available since the 1980s. You just can’t seem to see past the lemming in front of you.
Gosh. I have a little Ford van. It works just fine for me for now. I must be kinda dumb, but then everyone knew that already.
There’s a youtube link for Gorodnichenko’s speech. Just do a search for “markus academy princeton” on YT and it should be very near to the top to click on.
Terrific heads up Menzie, Thank you.
Moses, you asked about news of bank runs in China. Looks like you were onto something. Not runs, exactly, but massive banking sector consolidation:
https://en.ryt9.com/s/iq29/3489610
You’ll see the translation is pretty shoddy, and the calendar year is weird. Bloomberg has the same story, but behind a paywall:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-31/china-merges-hundreds-of-rural-banks-as-financial-risks-mount
BBG reports that 2,100 rural banks are being merged into larger banks as a way of dealing with debt problems.
So when China pulled a story about the merger of three large bad debt firms, maybe it was because there was a larger story?
Pettis has twitted about this, but I can’t find the twit.
Oh, and there was reportedly heavy intervention in USD/CNY today to defend the yuan. And the CSI 300 has hit a 5-year low despite coordinated intervention by big investment funds:
https://www.streetinsider.com/dr/news.php?id=22697660
In major indices outside of China, losses in stock market value despite big professional-account inflows means retail investors are fleeing the market. A retail blowout is bad news. Whether this is the case in China, we may never know, other than to see whether big quasi-official inflows can stop the market decline.
But here’s a thought about household asset management: If owners of EverGrande contracts thought they still had value, but have changed their minds due to the liquidation order, they may have decided de-risking is their only course. Stocks are headed down, and inflation is, too. Both housing and stocks are treated as savings anti-inflation alternatives to bank accounts, which don’t kept up with inflation most of the time. In deflationary times, you shed assets and hold cash. That response keeps asset deflation going.
Sometimes I have great luck getting past FT paywall, other times no luck. Would love to find the link/title to this excerpt that Brad Setser shares:
https://twitter.com/Brad_Setser/status/1752251644312764419?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
It is a kind of stereotype that Chinese have a jones for gambling. I have to say, while I was over there, the stereotype was somewhat confirmed. I was amazed at how many of my teacher friends would bet money playing Mah Jong or even I knew some who played real estate markets (near the top of the bubble I might add). I knew another teacher (who spied on me for the dept dean, and thought I was too dumb to figure it out) who tried to get me to play farm commodities markets with him. How much is Beijing willing to gamble to save themselves from a large markets crash?? I would guess we would be surprised at the level of risk Beijing officials are willing to go to— as in not “doubling down”, but more like “tripling down” to keep the facade going.
China’s response to economic and financial problems is accelerating. Having seen the official response in the West to various periods economic and financial bloopers, China’s response looks familiar, and rather like our 2008-9 behavior.
The value assigned to residential real estate and the sheer number of properties are way out of line with fundamentals. Credit problems associated with residential
real estate have piled up.
China is now engaged in one of four large fiscal expansions in its modern history. Stock values are at their lowest point in five years. A large intervention in asset markets is underway, as is intervention in the FX market.
All very familiar.
What is not the same is that Chinese financial instruments are not held outside of China on anything like the scale that U.S. assets were held in the run-up to the mortgage crisis. That not only limits spill-over through financial channels, but also limits feedback to China. That makes dealing with this problem easier than dealing with the GFC. The goods market is another matter entirely.
Another similar episode was Japan’s property bubble. Real estate seems prone to bubbles.
Lessons from those earlier episodes include:
1) Go big with monetary stimulus, and go early. This was Bernanke’s conclusion from the Japan bubble. “Dry powder” is a dumb metaphor, especially when you issue debt in your own currency.
2) Ignore Larry Summers. In other words, go big with fiscal stimulus, and go early. This is the conclusion reached by Biden from the GFC.
3) Don’t play politics when you’ve set the world in fire. This is the conclusion reached by members of Congress after the first TARP vote.
4) Don’t let high-flying swindlers walkaway with the money the made by creating the problem. This is the lesson of the Tea Party, the Freedom (sic) Caucus and Trump. There was plenty of partisan bitterness before the GFC, but the GFC and the absence of accountability amplified that bitterness.
Oh, and when Johnny trots out “schadenfreude” in an effort to pretend that nothing can go wrong in his second favorite authoritarian state, see 3 above.
Worthy of a read:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-profound-influence-of-christian-extremists-on-mike-johnson?ref=home?ref=home
Yep. That’s him.
No wonder he was the “Oh, well, the other guys don’t like him either” fall-back choice for Speaker. Problem is, he does have institutional power, and that could have consequences. If both chambers fall under GOP control in 2025, let’s not have this fruitcake running the House, OK?
He will be a gold mine for democratic attack adds even at the national level.
Came across an interesting summarization of total commitments to Ukraine (through July, 2023) of $233 billion. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-233b-in-ukraine-aid/
Of course, there has been more aid since then and Congress is wrangling about how much more from the US.
For reference, Ukraine’s GDP (actual and projected):
https://www.statista.com/statistics/296140/ukraine-gross-domestic-product/
It’s interesting that Ukraine has received in one year well over its average annual GDP since the start of the war. Unfortunately, there wasn’t a presentation to be seen below this, perhaps because it hasn’t yet occurred:
“Watch the full presentation below. You can also watch all Markus’ Academy webinars on the Markus’ Academy YouTube channel.”
I thought even you could understand posted calendar dates and clock times Bruce. It seems I’ve underestimated your idiocy once again.
Moses, I fail to understand your comment. The graphic clearly states January 24, 2022 through July 31, 2023. The total commitments during that period were $233 billion. 2/3 of that would be roughly $155 billion which is in the ballpark of Ukraine’s average GDP for quite a few years.
Now if you have another issue, please clarify. Or maybe I didn’t write what I intended originally. Anyway, I think you should be able to understand that contributions to their war effort have been on the order of their GDP. Given that, it seems reasonable to at least question the level of continued support. Note that $233 billion doesn’t include the last 5 months of 2023 so that rate of commitment may be higher or lower than the 18 months covered.
Incidentally, I thought all would be interested in RFK, Jr’s take:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/758426426344697
BTW, I’ve notice a lot of talk about Ukraine/Russia/Putin/Trump, but nary a word about Gaza/Israel/Iran/Biden.
Thanks and enjoy your Bud.
“Unfortunately, there wasn’t a presentation to be seen below this, perhaps because it hasn’t yet occurred:”
Everyone but the Michigan MAGA rube saw the time. Once again Bruce proves to all the blog readers, he’s a complete idiot. He should proudly proclaim himself a 365 days a year chronic drunk, At least THEN Bruce would have an excuse for being so g*ddamned brainless.
Brucie boy has JohnH disease – failure to read his own damn links. This should have given Brucie a little pause:
‘the European Union institutions have been the biggest donor, sending over $90 billion through various mechanisms such as loans or grants’
Hey Brucie – the graph shows that a lot of that alleged aid is in the form of loans which is a bit different from the concept of “aid”. I might try to explain it to you but then you are clearly too stupid to get the difference.
pgl, I believe the first word I used was “commitments” not “aid”. Now looking at the graphic, I’d think a “reasonable” person would consider commitments of money and materials pretty much as “aid” given the war situation and the real possibility that none of those commitments could be repaid. But, hey, I understand that you sleep with your economist’s thesaurus and have an overwhelm need to pick nits.
‘I believe the first word I used was “commitments” not “aid”.’
OK – you used weasel words so you would not have to take any responsibility for your deception. I’d love to play poker with you as I’d take your lunch money and life savings to boot. After all – you routinely fold like a cheap rug whenever anyone calls your bluff.
Let us know if you ever wish to make a real point – assuming you have the mental capacity of doing so.,
pgl, look at the graphic; in large letters it said “Aid”. It’s how a reasonable person would look at those commitments.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-233b-in-ukraine-aid/
I never expect you to be reasonable, so there’s that.
“It’s interesting that Ukraine has received in one year well over its average annual GDP since the start of the war.”
The war at the time had been going on for 17 months not a year. Oh wait you calculated inflation as the change in the price level for a 17 month period so we can see how you got confused.
BTW moron – your first link clearly showed a lot of that total figure was loans not the normal meaning of aid.
Brucie – you have a habit of posting the dumbest comments ever but this one really took the cake!
Did I say 17 months? From Brucie’s own link:
‘This graphic uses data from the Ukraine Support Tracker to visualize the top 10 donors to Ukraine between Jan 24, 2022, and July 31, 2023.’
That would be 18 months and a week. Which of course is a year for little Brucie especially when calculating the annual rate of change of the price level.
Oh, pgl, you did say 17 months. That was a mistake for everyone to notice. Should I gloat? Or should I just accept the fact that sometimes we write one thing when we obviously mean another based on the whole of the comment?
So 18 months is a Bruce Hall year now. Inflation is 14 percent. YEA
Per your last statement I guess it was too much for little Brucie to notice:
DATE & TIME
FEBRUARY 2, 2024
Brucie – we get you are dumb but that’s tomorrow. BTW that link allows people to see past debates between Krugman and Summers. But of course little Brucie is too dumb to follow their discussions of inflation.
Is that somehow relevant to anything being discussed? Are articles never pre-dated? Does that vitiate the data in you mind? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Bruce says: “So what if while looking up into a clear sky at high noon I told you that I couldn’t see the sun?? How does that relate to anything??”
It was YOUR statement. Bruce Hall – folds like a cheap rug whenever called out.
Putin waged a war in Chechnya for nine years (1999 to 2009) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War He is using the same strategy since he invaded and took Crimea and parts of the Donbass in 2014.
Putin’s puppets in the U.S. (Trump, MTG, Sen Ron Johnson, Sen Vance, Tubreville, MAGA etc and Fox) are trying to convince the right wing bubble universe that Putin is a friend of the U.S., eggs cost $27 a dozen, and some desperate people crossing the border is a crisis etc. etc. (Scroll down to section “My Appearance on The MeidasTouch Network, Calling Out Republican Idiocy and Cowardice” https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/my-appearance-on-meidastouch-rising
As Simon Rosenberg says in the link “Republicans want Putin to win, the West to lose. The border to stay open. The economy to crash. Women, people of color to lose more freedoms and rights. The planet to warm faster. etc and to end American democracy for all time…..”
Meanwhile – in the real world ” The United States economy grew faster than any other large advanced economy last year — by a wide margin — and is on track to do so again in 2024. America’s outperformance is rooted in its distinctive structural strengths, policy choices, and some luck.” (please note the media giving a small shout out to “policy choices” i.e. Bidenomics) https://www.axios.com/2024/01/31/us-economy-2024-gdp-g7-nations
Irwin cites Adam Posen. Posen says rapid labor turnover has moved lots of workers into more productive jobs. But we know that manufacturing jobs are highly productive relative to most others, and that manufacturing has struggled through the recession and the recovery. Is Posen wrong?
Nope:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1f9Gg
The private sector overall has become more productive despite the drag on productivity from the factory sector. That means that, outside the factory sector, Posen is right, in spades. It’s a pretty remarkable performance.
And that’s mostly the result of immediate pressures from a tight labor market. One of the insights which motivated the Blinder/Rivlin/Greenspan growth experiment was that by bringing marginally attached workers firmly into the labor marker and by moving workers into more demanding jobs, we would improve the skills of the workforce. So in addition to the immediate results from shaking the labor-market box, over time, we will reap the productivity benefits of this tight labor market, too. Average wages will be higher along with productivity.
High interest rates work to cool inflation in large part by suppressing labor demand and wages. So if Johnny has his way and the Fed leaves policy tight, both productivity and real wages may suffer. Posen’s point about the productivity gains during the Covid era is an unambiguous argument for lower rates relative to a less productive economy.
It’s a very interesting point that tight labor markets will not just increase wages and consumption but also productivity. EU has less growth and a higher unemployment rate than US, at the same inflation rate.
Tight labor markets give workers an opportunity to move and be trained into jobs that can better use their talents. Employers may also be forced to change procedures and workflows to get more productivity out of less worker hours. The later could help reduce the inflationary pressures from increased salaries.
Looks like the EU is going to divert profits from frozen russian assets back to ukraine. Well done. Johnny Will probably cry about how unfair it is to take russian assets and give them to Ukraine. Russia must be getting bullied here is his argument. But russia will continue to pay for its immoral war for generations to come.
Better to liquidate a single ill-gotten asset than to curse the darkness.