Category: Uncategorized

Four months ago today on July 29 my blog post, “economics is a disgrace,” went viral.

I’d never meant to share it publicly. Weeks earlier I’d sent it to Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke, and Peter Rosseau–all leaders of the American Economics Association and the economics profession and role models. Pop Your Collar!

Four months ago yesterday I woke up with no intention to blog. I hit publish before I went to sleep. Why? I was talking that day with two friends about their new paper. Then because I am the way I am, I sent them my reflections. One replied me, “You need to share this.” So that was that. I touched it up, redacted some names, and hit publish.

I went to sleep and woke up to a news alert. Bloomberg wrote a piece on my post, “Ex-Fed Economist Says Profession Is Racist, Sexist, Elitist.” UH OH. My phone was blowing up with texts, emails, and DMs. Friends reminded me the Fed’s press conference was that afternoon and said there’d surely be question about my post. NO WAY. No one cares about it. My friends were right, as usual. Fed Chair Jay Powell was asked for his reaction to my post. SHIT. Again my phone blew up. Powell’s answer was fine and well scripted. It was mainly about the great things the Fed is doing to improve diversity and inclusion. Yes, and please do more.

To say that day was a blur is a major understatement. I honestly thought no one would care about my post. No one cared in 2011 when I imploded. They cared about me (thank you!!), but saw it as my problem and not the Board’s problem. It was different this time. My teen’s first reaction was, “Wow, mom. You wrote a hit piece!” NO, I DID NOT. “Mom, it’s 2020. It’s a thing now.” Others near me were exasperated, “What were you thinking?!!?” My reply, “I wasn’t. I was feeling.”

It was the next day when my life really became a rollercoaster ride. I am not here today to share the good, the bad, the ugly from that. Frankly, it’s too much inside baseball and too personal to be of interest. Most importantly, it would take attention away from what matters: making economics better. My last blog post was not for me. It was for everyone who comes to me for advice or simply needs someone to listen to them. I had mentors listen to me (thank you!!).

I will sum up my last four months in a story. Someone else’s story. It’s Elizabeth Warren’s dinner conversation in 2009 with Larry Summers then director of Obama’s National Economic Council:

“Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice,” Ms. Warren writes. “I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People — powerful people — listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders.

I had been warned,” Ms. Warren concluded.”

A Fighting Chance by Elizabeth Warren

I’d heard that story. Obviously I do not blame Larry for the insiders-outsiders rule. Welcome to DC. We all choose to grin and bear it at times.

Moving from being an insider to an outsider can b good. I could never have written my blog post while at the Fed. It would have been embarrassing and something of a betrayal. Heck, I could not even talk about monetary policy until I left the Fed. I do now at The New York Times. Finally, Fed officials, if they want to, can read what I think of their policy decisions. Free disposal.

Being an insider and acting like an outsider can be bad. My blog post broke, err smashed, the insider-outsider rule. I took a swing at the top of the house and knocked it out of the park. I called out men who are on prestigious manels; who are name candy for advisory committees; who are on the nightly news; and who are top advisers to policymakers. And I did that while working at an economic policy think tank. It was a personal post. It was not my job to write it. Some might say it was my job was NOT to write it. No regrets. I own it.

I want to be clear that the highs of my four-month roller coaster have far exceeded the lows. I wrote my post for our next generation. I want them to have the space to bring their new ideas to economics. I heard from hundreds of them. I met some later over Zoom and the phone. I answered the emails and DMs I got. They shared horrible experiences and excellent experiences. Every note I got meant the world to me.

Several thanked me for my blog post and often said,” You are so brave.” (I was not. I was angry.) Many shared how they had felt alone when they had gotten hurt. They told me, “I read your post and I now know I am not alone.” That’s it. That’s my message to the next generation and to those pushed to side, “YOU ARE NOT ALONE.” I care. Many other people care.

That’s not enough. We need everyone to care. We need institutions to change. Think carefully about the power you hold over others. We all hold power over someone. Be respectful and be responsible with your privilege. Think about what your words and actions will do to someone else not what you intend. You can be critical and constructive. Or you can be critical and an asshole. Do not be an asshole. Hold people accountable. Hold yourself accountable.

Economics is a disgrace. And economics is a hope. You choose.

Send people money. Now.

The coronavirus is here.  People are sick and more will be in the coming weeks. Some will die. We are not helpless, but  we are not invincible either.

No amount of test kits and face masks; soap and water; or thoughts and prayers will keep people from getting sick. The suffering will not stay in hospitals, nursing homes, and quarantine zones. It will be show up in bank accounts too. Getting sick for many Americans is a serious blow to their finances, threatening their ability to pay the bills, including for medical care. People must to go to the hospital if they get the coronavirus and they must keep their jobs and their homes.

I made the case this week for the federal government, as well as state and local governments to act. We should treat the coronavirus like we would a recession. We need to move fast and stay the course. The government uses many tools in a recession and we need to strengthen these tools and turn them on as soon as recession hits. We are not in a recession today but we could be if we let the coronavirus go unchecked.

Get money to people now would be a front line financially.  The easiest way is to cut federal tax withholding for the next two months. In 1992, George H. W. Bush issued an executive order, employers used the new withholding tables, and within weeks people got a bump in their paychecks. It worked, people spent the money.

President Trump could sign a similar executive order today. Money would be in paychecks fast and might get there faster than the coronavirus. Once the virus is under control, withholding would be increased. By the end of the year, people could have set aside the same amount for taxes due next year. They would get more money now, when they need it most. No change in the federal budget, so action doesn’t need Congress.

The Administration in interviews this week said it does not  want to use a broad brush approach. They want to target the support. I want both. Money to everyone now and more money to people who get sick later.

Next, let’s think about Congress. Unfortunately, Congress cannot get money to everyone so quickly. In past recessions, Congress has passed various tax cuts. Even if they voted today, the money would not reach families for months. We are in the middle of tax filing season and the Internal Revenue Service does not have bandwidth to send out extra payments. At the earliest, people could get the money in May. The coronavirus will not wait. This week Congress enacted $8.3 billion for public health efforts. It’s an insult. We need hundreds of billions of dollars flowing out to fight the virus directly and financially support anyone caught in its path. That’s what they can do now.

So how else could we get money to everyone fast? The Federal Reserve. They have acted already and stand ready to do more. Tuesday, three hours after a call of the G-7 financial ministers and central bank leaders, the Federal Reserve cut the federal funds rate 1/2 percentage point. The Fed did not wait until their next vote on March 18. They cut.

The problem is cutting rates is not as good as getting people money. The Fed’s tools from the fed funds rate to large-scale asset purchases are not as effective as in the past. Long-term interest rates are at historic lows. A decrease in cost of borrowing, by any means, is not going to help much. It was cheap to borrow before the rate cut and cheap after it. Besides, who wants to buy a new car or take on a mortgage when the stock market is gyrating and coronavirus is advancing? The Fed pushing down interest rates is too weak, too blunt, and too slow to work against the coronavirus.

Monetary policy is not targeted or timely. We need to get ahead of the coronavirus. We need fiscal policy. The Fed could do it. What? Yes, it could.

Say hello to “money-financed fiscal policy.” Basically, the Fed prints money and gives it to people. Before you start a ‘Go Fed! Go!’ cheer, let’s be real. This policy only exists in some academic papers and is the source of Ben Bernanke’s nickname, Helicopter Ben. It has never been used. But it is possible, even without the Administration or Congress.

Here is a sketch of my ‘blue sky’ plan.

• The Federal Reserve buys $165 billion in U.S. Treasuries and adds them to its balance sheet. (The plan starts like the asset-backed purchases the Fed has used.)
• Then the Fed gets the money to banks, using its existing infrastructure. One way is at its discount window, a place where banks can get loans from the Fed. In this one special case, banks would ‘borrow’ money from the Fed at negative 1 percentage point interest rate (to cover the bank’s administrative costs).
• Banks would then have four weeks to give the money to people. If they do, the Fed writes off the loan and the bank does not repay the Fed. If not, they have to return the money to the Fed.
• People will go to a bank, show identification, and get $500.  For each child, again show a birth certificate, then get another $500. The person does not have to be customer. They simply have to go get their money. (People who take more than their fair share will have it taken out of future tax refunds or wages.)

Within weeks, the Fed would get $165 billion, that is $500 for each of the 327 million people who live in the United States.

This is not a plan. It is a Hail Mary. We should NOT have to throw a Hail Mary.

WE NEED TO THROW A HAIL MARY. DO SOMETHING BIG AND NEW!

We have a real-life plan:

• The President signs and Executive Order to cut federal tax withholding to zero over the next two months, up to a cap of $500 per month, to raise take home pay. Only employees being paid will benefit; however, this extra money could get to people within weeks, before many people are quarantined or become ill.
• Congress should pass legislation to MASSIVELY increases federal funding for public health and financial support to people directly affected by the coronavirus.
  • They should use existing systems, so the aid can begin immediately.
  • They should declare disaster areas, where mass outbreaks occur and use the Federal Emergency Management Agency to support people in those areas.
  • They should increase Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentages across the country, giving state governments money for local public health campaigns.
• The Fed should cut the federal funds rate another 1/2 percentage point at their meeting on March 18. They should go to zero by June, if needed. They should not conserve their ammo. The current situation is why they have ammo.

This plan will work, if the government works together, now.

 

This post is for job market candidates. You need to spend more time editing your abstract and introduction. It will be worth more than your fourth robustness check. Promise.

I have commented on TEN macro job market papers this month. Seven to go (three more spots open). Amazing research on important macro topics. As job market candidates, YOU  are the most tech-up, cutting-edge economists. YEAH future is bright.

Sadly, it is clear that economics departments and dissertation committees are NOT teaching their doctoral students how to communicate their research. I had an excellent advisor who taught me the structure of economics research papers. He expected good writing and I wanted to write well. Writing takes time, effort, and resources. The Board hires a professional writing coach to run a week-long course for all economists. We also have an in-house editing team. Good economics does not speak for itself. You must.

EVERY job market paper I read lacked a well-structured, well-written introduction and abstract. Many of these papers are from top schools and from native English speakers.

Here I extend and tailor my earlier post on communication for job market candidates. Please share and know you are not alone. Writing is hard.

MOST IMPORTANT ADVICE:

Be PROUD of your research. Tell us about YOUR research.

 

Zen for Job Market Candidates:

• “The quality of your job market paper is orthogonal to the quality of your person.” ~John DiNardo #RIP
• “You only need one job. The first offer you get is the best job. Re-evaluate only if you get a second offer.” ~Matthew Shapiro (best and my only chair)

Title:

• Should signal the main finding in your paper.
• Aim for compelling not cute.
• Get feedback from others.

Structure of Introduction (in order):

THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF YOUR PAPER

1) Motivation (1 paragraph)

• Must be about the economics.
• NEVER start with literature or new technique (unless econometrics).
• Be specific and motivate YOUR research question.

2) Research question (1 paragraph)

• Lead with YOUR question.
• THEN set YOUR question within most relevant literature.
• My favorite is an actual question: “My paper answers the question …”
• Popular and acceptable: “My paper [studies/quantifies/evaluates/etc] …”

3) Main contribution (2-3 paragraphs, one for each contribution)

• YOUR main contribution:
  • MUST be about new economic knowledge.
  • Lead with YOUR work, then how it extends the literature.
• New model, new data, new method, etc.:
  • Can be second or third contribution.
  • Tools are important, not most important.
• Each paragraph begins with a sentence stating one of YOUR contributions.
• THEN follow with three or four sentences setting YOUR contribution in literature.
• Most important should be first (preferred) or last (sometimes most logical).
• YOUR contributions are very important. Make them clear, compelling, and correct.

4) Method (1-2 paragraphs, one for each method)

• Each paragraph begins with a sentence or two summarizing one of YOUR methods.
• Lead with YOUR most important model, identification, or empirical method.
• THEN follow with a few sentences that sets YOUR method in literature.
• Save technical points, model assumptions for the model section.

5) Findings (2 to 3 paragraphs, one for each main finding)

• Each paragraph begins with a sentence or two summarizing one of YOUR findings.
• Most important should be first (preferred) or last (sometimes most logical).
• THEN follow with three or four sentences setting YOUR finding in literature.
• YOUR findings are very important. Make them clear, compelling, and correct.

5) Robustness Check  (optional 1 paragraph)

• Choose robustness check that best supports YOUR most important finding.

6) Roadmap of paper (1 paragraph)

• One sentence for each section of YOUR paper.
• Be specific to YOUR paper, if possible.

PS My structure is NOT only structure that works well. See other excellent writing advice here. Your chair may disagree. LISTEN to people who decide on your PhD. Look at best papers in general-interest journals from best researchers in your field. Innovate on economics, not on structure of YOUR paper.

PPS set YOUR research in context of prior research. We stand on the shoulders of giants. Even so, do NOT bury YOUR contribution after two sentences (or two paragraphs, yikes!) on others’ contribution. Do not share YOUR research in the order you did it.

Structure of Abstract (in order):

ALSO VERY IMPORTANT PART OF YOUR PAPER

• Write AFTER you are happy with YOUR introduction.
• Same structure as introduction, but sentences not paragraphs.
• Use main points from YOUR introduction. Focus on YOUR work

Did YOU see a pattern? Yes, YOUR job market paper is about YOU!

 

Tables and Charts

• Font size must not cause eye strain.
• ABSOLUTELY NO acronyms ANYWHERE in tables and charts.
• ABSOLUTELY NO equation symbols or variables names without WORDS too.
• Must convey takeaway within 10 seconds, without main text.
• Try to make charts for YOUR main findings. Here are examples.
• Label EVERY axis. Label EVERY column header.
• Use as few decimal places as possible.
• Must be clear what line goes with what label, including when print black and white.

 

Other Random Economist Tips (not in any order):

• Your paper is ALWAYS about YOUR work. Lead with YOU and then others.
• Get feedback on YOUR abstract and introduction:
  • Ask classmate (different field)
  • Professor (in addition to chair)
  • Follow-up nicely until they do.
• Let READER decide what is “important,” “obvious,” “surprising,” etc.
• Do NOT annoy reader by being grandiose. NO bait and switch.
• NO causal words for NON-causal estimates.
• NO shame in non-causal results. We can’t run experiments (thank goodness) for many questions in economics. Solid empirical work MATTERS.
• Do NOT trash prior research or call out its limitations or mistakes. TONE matters. Tell us what YOUR paper ADDS. They added too or you wouldn’t cite them.
• Do NOT have stand-alone literature review section (unless adviser demands).
  • Integrate literature throughout your paper to set YOUR work in context.
  • Describe YOUR contributions, methods, and results before related literature.
• NO acronyms.
  •  MPC is widely known in economics. I still use “spending propensity” or “spent $0.X0 out of every additional dollar within two weeks of receipt.”
• ABSOLUTELY NO acronyms for terms:
  • YOU create. (Avoid creating new terms.)
  • Terms created in last 25 years.
• NO economic jargon in introduction and abstract until explain in people words.
  • Know people words for economic jargon that YOU use.
  • MUST explain what is source of  “endogenous,” or “endogeneity”.
• Use jargon (and use it correctly) in the body of the paper.
  • Show that YOU know YOUR technical stuff.
  • Still useful to explain most important point in generalist economist words.
  • Macro folks be careful here, we are less beloved.
• Latex folks: Do NOT embed hyperlinks to your references.
  • Many read from PDF. Annoying to accidentally click and land far away.
  • Do NOT annoy reader and do NOT waste their time.
  • Who cares when the old farts got finally their paper published? Obsessed will simply check references for their name.
  • If you (still) want these links, make back buttons. Tips here, here, and here.
• Cite papers most related to YOUR paper. YOU are not writing a survey.
  • Use standard citations in text: (Author-Name, Paper-Year).
  • Cite most recent version of papers.
  • Check results YOU cite remain in their latest version.
• Make sure YOUR tone is NEUTRAL and stick to the facts.
• Use “my paper” not “this paper.” After citing others, “this” is ambiguous.
• Save policy implications for conclusion.

 

Other Random Anyone Tips:

• Say what YOU need to say and no more. Delete extra sentences.
• Keep sentences short. Make one point.
• Break long sentences or ones with more than one point in multiple sentences.
• Avoid “There are/is.” Re-write and shorten sentence. For example, change “There are problems.” to “Problems exist.”
• Be sparing with adverbs and adjectives.
• Avoid clauses at beginning of sentence. Start “my paper” “I model” “I find.”
• NO acronyms. Acronyms exclude new people.
• Read first sentence of every paragraph. Together they should tell YOUR paper.

 

All the best on the job market!!