Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 12/02/2026Thanks. We go into the distinction with Glaeser Luttmer a bit more in the paper. The closest analog is probably Murphy Shleifer Vishny 010 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 12/02/2026I'm super excited for my new paper with Alex Tabarrok and Mark Whitmeyer. tl;dr: price controls cause chaos. That chaos causes misallocation. We develop new tools to measure that misallocation, which is 1-9 the size of the Harberger triangle www.economicforces.xyz/p/price-cont...economicforces.xyzPrice controls cause chaosPrice controls are worse than you think 096 0
Reposted by Brian AlbrechtEARIE @earie-news.bsky.social · 02/02/2026Forthcoming IJIO article by @briancalbrecht.bsky.social & Ryan A. Decker 📖Markups and Business Dynamism across Industries doi.org/10.1016/j.ij... @sciencedirect.bsky.social 011 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 18/12/2025"The China Shock destroyed millions of American manufacturing jobs." At least that's a claim. But prices connect everyone. When you shock one part of the market, the "control" group moves. Today we have 3,000 words on "The Missing Intercept" problem. www.economicforces.xyz/p/the-invisi...economicforces.xyzThe invisible hand screws up your regressionMarkets, diff-in-diff, and "The Missing Intercept" problem 0112 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 17/12/2025So Instacart showed different people different prices for eggs. Shocking? Before the outrage, ignore the Twitter press release. Look at what they actually found. Understand the facts and the economic theory to make sense of it www.economicforces.xyz/p/instacarts...economicforces.xyzInstacart's price discrimination isn't price discriminationOn the meaning of price discrimination 0299 0
Reposted by Brian AlbrechtBen Casselman @bencasselman.bsky.social · 22/08/2025The U.S. has enjoyed a decades-long economic advantage thanks to its reputation as the safest place in the world for investors to put their money and for entrepreneurs to build their businesses. President Trump may be chipping away at that advantage. www.nytimes.com/2025/08/22/b... #EconSkynytimes.comTrump’s Attacks on Institutions Threaten a Bulwark of Economic Strength 5620970 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 21/08/2025Markets must become competitive. The market is a process. This is the core (pun very much intended) idea underlying the shortcut of supply and demand. www.economicforces.xyz/p/markets-mu...economicforces.xyzMarkets must become competitiveOnly through a process do markets become competitive 042 0
Reposted by Brian AlbrechtClaudia Sahm @claudia-sahm.bsky.social · 21/08/2025“I have no intention of being bullied to step down from my position because of some questions raised in a tweet,” Cook said. www.bloomberg.com/news/article... Amen.bloomberg.comFed’s Cook Says She Won’t Be Bullied Into Stepping DownFederal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook signaled her intention to remain at the central bank in defiance of calls for her resignation by President Donald Trump over allegations of mortgage fraud. 621055 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 20/08/2025When I think, “what countries policies should we emulate?” I definitely think The Bahamas and Sudan www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/defaul... 0103 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 19/08/2025“Let me make what appears to have become a radical argument: Simple economics is surprisingly good at making real-world predictions.” trying to break the mold with a defense of economics www.wsj.com/opinion/you-...wsj.comOpinion | You Can’t Break the Laws of EconomicsSupply and demand invariably overcome any effort to defy or outsmart them. 58726 0
Reposted by Brian AlbrechtRudi Bachmann @bachmannrudi.bsky.social · 19/08/2025I love this article by @briancalbrecht.bsky.social in the Wall Street Journal (and not just because I am graciously mentioned by name). He provides a simple but powerful defense of Economics, of the supply and demand framework. 2329 0
Reposted by Brian AlbrechtStan Veuger @stanveuger.bsky.social · 12/08/2025www.axios.com/newsletters/... 14315 0
Reposted by Brian AlbrechtDavid Perez-Reyna @davidperezreyna.bsky.social · 12/08/2025Very nice blog entry by @BrianCAlbrecht Why do economists have "tariff derangement syndrome"? It's not politics—tariffs violate every principle of good taxation we've learned over the past century. 1/8 133 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 09/08/2025And in the meantime, actually add tariffs on Canada, the EU, and a bunch of other allies 070 0
Reposted by Brian AlbrechtAlexandra de Gendre @adegendre.bsky.social · 09/08/2025@briancalbrecht.bsky.social strikes again with a brilliant newsletter on why tariffs are a terrible idea. Put in very simple terms. Read it! 👉🏽 www.economicforces.xyz/p/6-reasons-...economicforces.xyz6 reasons why tariffs are a terrible way to raise revenueSome principles of taxation 353 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 07/08/2025Why do economists hate tariffs more than other taxes? Today's newsletter is 6 reasons why tariffs are a terrible way to raise revenue tl;dr they violate all the main results of how to raise revenue efficiently www.economicforces.xyz/p/6-reasons-...economicforces.xyz6 reasons why tariffs are a terrible way to raise revenueSome principles of taxation 45627 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 04/08/2025Uber is good, actually. From @mattyglesias.bsky.social www.slowboring.com/p/uber-is-go...slowboring.comRide-sharing apps are good, actuallyThe real "cautionary tale" is that the old taxi cartels were bad 181 0
Reposted by Brian AlbrechtAlexandra de Gendre @adegendre.bsky.social · 14/06/2025Another excellent newsletter by @briancalbrecht.bsky.social on whether tariffs are likely to increase innovation, with lots of top references from empirical research (from @rjuhasz.bsky.social , David Autor, Nick Bloom, @johnvanreenen.bsky.social & others) 🔗 www.economicforces.xyz/p/will-tarif...economicforces.xyzWill tariffs spur innovation?Research suggests not. 0115 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 06/03/2025Economics has core insights that get ignored by politicians. The most fundamental? A price isn't just a number—it's a signal wrapped in an incentive. But why do policymakers need to know this? www.economicforces.xyz/p/prices-are...economicforces.xyzPrices are signals (and politicians keep shooting the messenger)Economic policy insight #1: A price is a signal wrapped in an incentive. 0245 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 10/01/2025That's exactly my point. You want to align private and social incentives, not simply reduce traffic no matter what. 100 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 10/01/2025You're right. It's my fault and the subset of the audience who can't bother to read 1k words's fault. 300 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 10/01/2025Basically all of my replies are reenforcing why I wrote the post. People assume any reduction of an externality is good so reducing driving is necessarily good. If that's the goal, you wouldn't shut the fee off at night 1160 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 10/01/2025I'm once again asking people to read what I actually wrote www.economicforces.xyz/p/congestion... 11171 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 10/01/2025I lament this change. Of course. And I don't hold you entirely responsible for it, in case that wasn't clear. 010 0
Reposted by Brian AlbrechtJoshua Goodman @joshua-goodman.com · 10/01/2025Tons of food for thought in this great article by @bencasselman.bsky.social. www.nytimes.com/2025/01/10/b...nytimes.comEconomists Are in the Wilderness. Can They Find a Way Back to Influence?Economists have long helped to shape policy on issues like taxes and health care. But flawed forecasts and arcane language have cost them credibility. 1125 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 09/01/2025Shifting people to MTA benefits MTA commuters? The sharing of fixed costs of the MTA is greater than the congestion costs there 100 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 09/01/2025I acknowledge that issue. I don't think anything changes because of that. Unless you want to assume the optimal amount of driving is zero. 410 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 09/01/2025Not sure why. It's working for me. Try the home page www.economicforces.xyzeconomicforces.xyzEconomic Forces | SubstackPondering price theory, past and present. A weekly newsletter covering all things economics. Click to read Economic Forces, a Substack publication with tens of thousands of subscribers. 100 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 09/01/2025Raising the price of driving reduces driving. NYC's congestion pricing is clearly another W for economic theory. (Many such cases.) But is it a good policy? After all, less driving isn’t the goal. I walk through how to think about the costs & benefits www.economicforces.xyz/p/congestion...economicforces.xyzCongestion pricing reduces driving. That doesn't make it a good idea.I'll take the win for supply and demand. But is it a good policy? 63205 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 08/01/2025Personally I think has implications for our broader discussions about competition and antitrust. High measured markups don't capture everything. Variable markups aren't necessarily bad. We need to understand the full consumer experience before making welfare judgments. 000 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 08/01/2025Products that SUBSTITUTE for time (think meal prep vs restaurants) -> too few firms enter. Why? Consumers can switch to using their own time, increasing demand elasticity and killing some efficient firms. 100 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 08/01/2025When time and money are COMPLEMENTS (think video games) -> too many high-cost firms enter. Why? Firms know consumers won't substitute away. They need both product and time. Those high markups support inefficient entry. 100 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 08/01/2025When products need lots of customer time (complements), too many high-cost firms enter. When time and products are substitutes, too few firms survive. 100 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 08/01/2025Consumers in this economy do not internalize that their decisions to allocate labor between off-market time and market production affect firms’ profits and the incentives to enter. This is an additional economic force that is not present in models without off-market time. 100 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 08/01/2025Our key, framing insight: When consumers provide time to use products, posted prices aren't the whole story. We need to look at "holistic markups" that account for both the money price AND the time cost to consumers. 100 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 08/01/2025The standard monopolistic competition model says firms need constant markups for efficiency. Once you add consumer time use, variables markups can be efficient and constant markups can be inefficient. 110 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 08/01/2025When you buy a product, you pay twice: 1. Money to the company 2. Time to actually use it Most economics ignores #2. With Tom Phelan and Nick Pretnar, we show how this consumer time use changes markups, firm entry, and efficiency. 🧵 www.briancalbrecht.com/Albrecht_Phe... 1113 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 07/01/2025Also, I have another new paper where markups don't measure the distortion in the economy. Unfortunately, prices don't either, so not sure what to do with that. www.briancalbrecht.com/Albrecht_Phe...briancalbrecht.com 010 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 07/01/2025And it's not like markups are a good proxy for other things. My work www.briancalbrecht.com/Albrecht_Dec... Also the Conlon et Al paperbriancalbrecht.com 000 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 07/01/2025The real issue is that market power (at least if we mean something like markups) isnt necessarily hurting anyone. Cutting costs by 20% and only dropping prices by 10% is not harm. I don't know how this isn't the end of the discussion around say Posner's argument to focus on market power. 200 0
Brian Albrecht @briancalbrecht.bsky.social · 07/01/2025I agree. And the focus on market power has been overblown. Even on its own terms, the evidence isn't strong www.economicforces.xyz/p/what-we-kn...economicforces.xyzWhat we know about the rise in markupsIt's not much. 100 0
Reposted by Brian AlbrechtHerb Hovenkamp @sherman1890.bsky.social · 07/01/2025eg, Bhattachara, et al (2023). Even in concentrated markets (HHI>2000), 25% yield lower prices, 25% higher ones, and 50% no real change. In this concentration range, supports inference that roughly 75% produce cost reductions sufficient to reverse price effects. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....papers.ssrn.comMerger Effects and Antitrust Enforcement: Evidence from US RetailWe document the effects of a comprehensive set of US retail mergers. On average, prices increase by 1.5% and quantities decrease by 2.3%, with significant heter 042 0