Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 02/02/2025As you can see in my chart in the piece, I am referring to per-capita GDP, a commonly used indicator of living standards. The two countries’ statistical agencies are the source as noted in the chart note. 000
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 20/12/2024We need to immediately abolish the eSafety Commissioner. 071
Reposted by Steven HamiltonMike Masnick @masnick.com · 20/12/2024I... am going to suggest some vendor sold a load of bullshit to Australia's eSafety Commissioner. www.npr.org/2024/12/19/n... 59652135
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 17/12/2024The audience for this thread was people who might referee my paper. 010
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 17/12/2024Yes, that would be included in the complement of our spending measure. You are not typical! 110
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 17/12/2024However, it's nice that the broad swathe of the calibration results is consistent with previous versions of our paper. Thanks for getting this far! Please read the paper, circulate to those who might be interested, and let us know what you think. /Fin 100
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 17/12/2024We think this more comprehensive modeling exercise does a better job of reflecting the practical features of the program we study (now including retirement and endogenous withdrawal). And incorporating preference heterogeneity allows us to better match the data and recent work. 100
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 17/12/2024These results make sense. Withdrawal is easy to reconcile but the size and sharpness of the (mostly non-durable) spending response is not. Liquidity constraints are necessary but not sufficient. Present bias by nature reconciles discordant stocks (liquidity) and flows (spending). 100
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 17/12/2024Our fourth main calibration result: the calibration frequency is critical. We use weekly transaction data to observe a sharp spending response (90% within 4 weeks), so we calibrate at a monthly frequency. At a quarterly frequency, the exponential version almost matches the data. 100
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 17/12/2024Our third main calibration result: the present-bias version of the model does a much better job of matching the joint distribution of liquidity and spending responses, with parameter values across the whole distribution that are in the ballpark of those in the recent literature. 100
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 17/12/2024Our second main calibration result: however, only the present-bias version of the model is able to simultaneously match the pre-withdrawal liquidity distribution and the size and speed of the observed spending response. Note the difference in predicted MPCs in the bottom row. 100
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 17/12/2024Our first main calibration result: both heterogeneous impatience and heterogeneous present bias can predict the withdrawal patterns we observe given average parameter values (discount factors and present-bias parameters) that are in the ballpark of those in the recent literature. 100
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 17/12/2024We model the policy as a temporary reduction in the (arbitrarily high) cost of withdrawing from the retirement account. We compare two types of preferences in the model: heterogeneous exponential discounting (impatience) and heterogeneous hyperbolic discounting (present bias). 100
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 17/12/2024To do so, we develop a heterogeneous-agent model incorporating retirement, two assets, idiosyncratic income risk, borrowing constraints, and preference heterogeneity, and use it to study the effects of the early superannuation withdrawal program on both withdrawal and spending. 100
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 17/12/2024On the face of it, there may be many reasons to observe these withdrawal and spending patterns. For this new version, we overhauled our calibration exercise, in which we seek formally to discern the roles of liquidity constraints and preferences in driving the observed responses. 100
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 17/12/2024The empirical results are unchanged since the first version from March 2023. The key results are: 1) strong selection into withdrawing retirement savings on the basis of poor financial health; and 2) a very large and sharp spending response, positively correlated with selection. 100
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 17/12/2024During the pandemic, Australia for the first time allowed people to withdraw up to $20k from their normally illiquid mandatory private retirement saving accounts. 1 in 6 people withdrew a total of 2% of GDP. We use admin and bank transaction data to study withdrawal and spending. 100
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 17/12/2024Here's a new version of our paper on Australia's pandemic pension withdrawals, our third major revision. This revision brings a new title, a narrative reframing, and a major overhaul of our calibration exercise. 🧵 static1.squarespace.com/static/59b0b... 3183
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 15/12/2024More from me on this in tomorrow’s Financial Review. 191
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 15/12/2024Rather than the 44% nuclear cost saving claimed by the coalition, the true nuclear cost saving claimed by the modelling is actually just 12%. But because the modelling uses an implausibly low capital cost and high capacity factor for nuclear, even this 12% claim isn't credible. 181
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 15/12/2024The coalition's nuclear plan released on Friday achieves its claimed cost savings not primarily by nuclear being cheaper than firmed renewables but by replacing firmed renewables with existing coal power. That results in an additional 1 billion tonnes of emissions (worth ~$180b). 12411
Reposted by Steven HamiltonTom Crowley @tomiscrowley.bsky.social · 11/12/2024Opening a book on Chalmers RBA Board appointments. Taking submissions (this is not a real thing): Jeff Borland $1.50 Cherelle Murphy $3.50 Stephen Koukoulas $5.20 Angela Jackson $6.00 Craig Emerson $9.00 Nicki Hutley $21.00 Zac Gross $51.00 Richard Holden $51.00 Steve Hamilton $1001.00 12303
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/2024Yes. Government spending as a percentage of GDP has risen from 24.5% of GDP, around its historic average, to more than 27% of GDP in just two years. The public sector is exploding. 110
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/2024Inflation has fallen under elevated interest rates, which have caused the private sector to contract, as I described. That’s the problem. 000
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/2024I agree. I don’t understand how this is inconsistent with anything I wrote. 010
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/20242. No. If you extend the series back the explosion is unique and pronounced. This is literally the fastest non-market employment growth on record and some of the weakest market employment growth on record. Meanwhile, government spending was stable at ~24.5% and has risen to >27% in 3 years. 110
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/20241. Nobody claimed it’s 0% private employment. That’s why it’s labeled “non-market”, not private. Australia has a mixed economy. Those “non-market” jobs are overwhelmingly directly provided by or heavily subsidized by govt. There is no mystery here—government spending has exploded concomitantly. 100
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/2024No it’s about the *change* in spending. Spending has risen by 3 percentage points of GDP during an inflation crisis! That’s exactly the opposite of what Keynesian counter-cyclical fiscal policy would suggest! 100
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/2024The fact the only thing people could latch onto is the one sentence about Reddit gives me a little additional confidence that the substantive point I am making is sound. 91% of new employment in non market jobs totally a sign everything is fine? Nothing at al problematic about any of this? 100
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/2024Greg is in my experience quite a nasty and personally offensive individual who I really have no interest substantively engaging with. Honestly, I don’t think about him at all. 111
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/2024I would have preferred higher living standards yes. 010
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/2024Literally just ask someone you know. I had two people I know well immediately message me and tell me medical services they use charge the ndis double for whatever they charge private customers. The point of the Reddit comment is it’s extremely widespread. Why does it cost $50b per year? 110
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/2024I will frequently appear, so look forward to that. 000
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/2024Speech is protected in the US, so defamation suits are much less common. Don’t misrepresent me and you are safe. What you said is completely wrong and not based on anything. Go and read a broad swathe of what I have written. 000
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/2024You just called me a conservative economist (false) and said I want to sacrifice sick and disabled people (also false). Indeed the piece argues explicitly against that. Delete your post or I will send a concerns notice. 100
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/2024What are you talking about? I’m literally arguing against rent seeking. 120
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/2024Growth in the public sector is crowding out the private sector. One of the areas of growth has been the ndis. Had ndis spending been significantly more prudent, interest rates would be lower and private sector growth would have been much stronger. Don’t see how you could disagree. 210
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/2024Did you deliberately defame me just now or was it by accident? 200
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/2024No I don’t say that at all. Did you read the piece? 110
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/2024I think the piece makes that clear, but if you don’t there’s not much else I can do for you, sorry. 100
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/2024Well only one is an instrument of government. So in making decisions, it ought to think about how it affects the private sector. Do you think it should ignore that? 100
Steven Hamilton @shamilton.bsky.social · 09/12/2024Well you can divide the economy into private and public. Only the private side is doing badly. The public side is doing extraordinarily well. And that expansion is the reason the private side is doing badly. Now I realize I’m just restating the piece. 100
