Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

Macro Roundup


Thursday, April 7, 2016

AI Summary. Twin-based estimates attribute 54–65% of individual differences in UK national exam scores at the end of compulsory education to genetic factors, compared with 14–21% for shared environments such as home and school. Intelligence at age 16 is estimated to be 56% heritable, with shared environment accounting for 5%.

Kaili Rimfeld, Yulia Kovas, Philip S. Dale, and Robert Plomin Scientific Reports
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Genetic factors account for 54-65% of individual differences in academic performance at the end of compulsory education, compared to 14-21% for shared environmental factors.

How much of exam performance differences do genetic factors explain?

Core argument: Heritability estimates for General Certificate of Secondary Education exam performance at the end of compulsory education range from 54–65%, compared with 14–21% for shared environmental factors such as home and school.

At the end of compulsory education, genetic factors account for a significant portion of individual differences in academic performance, with heritability estimates for GCSEs ranging from 54-65%, compared to 14-21% for shared environmental factors like home and school. Intelligence at age 16 also shows high heritability at 56%, with shared environmental influences contributing only 5%. These findings suggest that genetic differences play a more substantial role than previously understood, potentially influencing educational policy and resource allocation by highlighting the need for personalized learning approaches that consider genetic predispositions. Understanding the genetic basis of educational outcomes could lead to more effective strategies in addressing educational disparities and optimizing student potential.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Heritability estimates for General Certificate of Secondary Education exam performance at the end of compulsory education range from 54–65%, compared with 14–21% for shared environmental factors such as home and school.
  2. Intelligence measured at age 16 shows heritability of 56%, with shared environmental influences contributing 5%.
  3. The authors suggest genetic differences play a more substantial role in academic outcomes than previously understood, with implications for educational policy, resource allocation, and personalized learning approaches.

"...All GCSEs were highly heritable, demonstrating that genes explain a larger proportion of the individual differences (54-65%) than shared environmental factors, such as home and school environment combined (14-21%), as illustrated in Fig. 1.Intelligence at 16 also demonstrates substantial heritability (56%), with negligible effect of shared environmental influences (5%). (Twin intraclass correlations and full model fit statistics with confidence intervals are shown in Supplementary Table S1.)..."

Rimfeld, Kaili, Yulia Kovas, Philip S. Dale, and Robert Plomin, "Pleiotropy across academic subjects at the end of compulsory education,"Scientific Reports, 2015, http://www.nature.com/articles/srep11713

Ed Comment:Eureka! I hate when studies show it's 50% heredity and journalist write as if the other 50% is shared environment when it's split between shared, not shared, and unexplained, where unexplained is generally the largest of the 3 components.

AI Summary. Immigrants founded 44 of the 87 privately held U.S. startups valued at $1bn or more, firms collectively worth $168bn, and are key members of management or product development teams at 62 of the 87. Each immigrant-founded company has created roughly 760 U.S. jobs on average.

Scott Anderson National Foundation for American Policy
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Immigrants have started more than half of the nation’s $1bn+ startup companies, creating 760 jobs on average per company & holding a value of $168bn, nearly half Russia’s stock market value.

How large is immigrants' role in founding billion dollar US startups?

Core argument: Immigrants founded 44 of the 87 privately held U.S. startups valued at over $1bn as of January 1, 2016, and those immigrant-founded firms are collectively worth $168bn, nearly half the stock market value of Russia or Mexico.

Immigrants have significantly contributed to the U.S. economy by founding more than half (44 of 87) of the nation's startup companies valued at $1bn or more. These immigrant-founded firms collectively hold a value of $168bn, nearly half the stock market value of Russia or Mexico. Immigrants are also key members in over 70% (62 of 87) of these companies' management or product development teams. On average, each immigrant-founded company has created approximately 760 jobs in the U.S., underscoring their role in job creation and economic growth. The data, derived from interviews and information on 87 privately-held U.S. startups valued at over $1bn as of January 1, 2016, highlights the critical role immigrants play in fostering innovation and entrepreneurship in high-value sectors, including software and industrial firms like SpaceX. These companies, backed by venture capital, have the potential to become publicly traded, further enhancing their economic impact.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Immigrants founded 44 of the 87 privately held U.S. startups valued at over $1bn as of January 1, 2016, and those immigrant-founded firms are collectively worth $168bn, nearly half the stock market value of Russia or Mexico.
  2. Immigrants hold key management or product development roles at 62 of the 87 U.S. billion-dollar startups, which span software and industrial firms including SpaceX.
  3. Each immigrant-founded billion-dollar startup has created roughly 760 jobs in the U.S. on average, based on interviews and data covering the 87 venture-backed companies.

"...Immigrants play a key role in creating new, fast-growing companies, as evidenced by the prevalence of foreign-born founders and key personnel in the nation’s leading privately-held companies.Immigrants have started more than half (44 of 87) of America’s startup companies valued at $1 billion dollars or more and are key members of management or product development teams in over 70% (62 of 87) of these companies.The research finds that among the billion dollar startup companies, immigrant founders have created an average of approximately 760 jobs per company in the United States. The collective value of the 44 immigrant-founded companies is $168 billion, which is close to half the value of the stock markets of Russia or Mexico. The research involved conducting interviews and gathering information on the 87 U.S. startup companies valued at more than $1 billion (as of January 1, 2016) that have yet to become publicly traded on the U.S. stock market and are tracked by The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones VentureSource. The companies, all privately-held and with the potential to become publicly traded on the stock market, are today each valued at $1 billion or more and have received venture capital (equity) financing...."

Anderson, Scott, "Immigrants and Billion Dollar Startups,"National Foundation for American Policy, March 2016. Available at:http://nfap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Immigrants-and-Billion-Dollar-Startups.NFAP-Policy-Brief.March-2016.pdf
--

the measure is current unicorns (so excludes now public firms) they included privately held firms that were valued > $1 as of 1.1.2016 (total of 87) some of these firms are hardly startups (some are over a decade old) and they are broadly software firms but some are industrial - say SpaceX

Friday, April 8, 2016

AI Summary. Public investment in advanced OECD countries declined from an average of 4.5% of GDP in the 1970s to about 3% by the late 1990s, while selected Latin American countries were more volatile, peaking near 6% in the early 1980s before falling to roughly 2.5% by 2000.

IMF Staff International Monetary Fund
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Public investment as a percentage of GDP in advanced OECD countries declined from 4.5% in the 1970s to 3% by the late 1990s, while selected Latin American countries experienced more volatility.

Has public investment declined as a share of GDP across advanced economies?

Core argument: Public investment in advanced OECD countries fell from an average of 4.5% of GDP in the 1970s to 3% by the late 1990s.

From 1970 to 2000, public investment as a percentage of GDP in advanced OECD countries showed a declining trend, dropping from an average of 4.5% in the 1970s to 3% by the late 1990s. In contrast, selected Latin American countries experienced more volatility, with public investment peaking at 6% of GDP in the early 1980s before falling to around 2.5% by 2000. This divergence highlights differing fiscal policy approaches and economic conditions, with OECD nations focusing on fiscal consolidation and efficiency, while Latin American countries faced economic instability and debt crises. The data underscores the importance of stable fiscal policies in maintaining sustainable investment levels, which are crucial for long-term economic growth and infrastructure development.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Public investment in advanced OECD countries fell from an average of 4.5% of GDP in the 1970s to 3% by the late 1990s.
  2. Selected Latin American countries saw public investment peak at 6% of GDP in the early 1980s before falling to roughly 2.5% by 2000, a more volatile path than the OECD's.
  3. The divergence is attributed to OECD nations focusing on fiscal consolidation and efficiency while Latin American countries faced economic instability and debt crises.

See: Figure 1. Investment Trends in Advanced OECD and Selected Latin American Countries, 1970-2000 (In percent of GDP). (Page 7)

International Monetary Fund, "Public Investment and Fiscal Policy," March 12, 2004.https://www.imf.org/external/np/fad/2004/pifp/eng/pifp.pdf