원문 보기
we may be looking at some fairly significant changes in terms of the composition of the economy you're probably well familiarized with sort of the amount of venture capital funding that has gone into what's called the shared economy if we were to look at companies such as and uber or a companies such as an air B&B boomers involved with autos Airbnb is involved with housing historically both the economic multipliers associated with both autos and housing have been amongst the highest relative to different industries and if we're looking at a transition here where there's more share use than the capacity of the existing base the utilization of that is going to go up but obviously the impact is going to be to minimize the mana on a go-forward basis do you see this as being a significant matter for policymakers to take into account I have a simple example that brings all this to life Hilton Corporation we're all familiar with the Hilton brands it took him a hundred years to provide 700,000 rooms to their clients around the world 100 years $7,000 a B&B six years in million rooms Airbnb never built a hotel never managed order they were able to disrupt the hospitality industry from another world the people behind Airbnb didn't understand hospitality as well as they understood three things one is how powerful technology is true is how people like to be empowered these things they like being able to have greater control over their own destiny and three years there's lots of existing assets that are underutilized 'über exactly the same thing went to one way exactly the same thing so we are seeing a phenomenon where people can disrupt an industry from the outside that's a very powerful phenomenon that has to be taken seriously and we have done we don't understand it enough at least in the United States we enable it in Europe then complete denial see what's happening to over in certain European countries and you see that they don't even want to embrace the fact that this is the way the world is changing now if you depending on which side of the equation you're on you feel very different if you consume of uber if you're consumed of Airbnb this is great you have greater choices and you have better choices if you are from the old industry and you're being disrupted that's not so good but if you now suddenly able to use your car more effectively or use your house more effectively that's wonderful so composition issues are going to matter a great deal just an observation with respect to say uber in terms of shared use of automobiles about to see whether this has any possible benefit in terms of countries meeting their Paris Accord requirements but that remains to be seen as we look at technologies disruption across a wider range of sectors do you think from a policy standpoint at proposals such as a universal minimum income would be something that may make sense in order to help sustain demand during these periods of what might be termed not too cyclical but secular transition this is such a hot issue this issue of the ubi universal basic income whether you should guarantee the basic income to people in the zoo range of reasons and it's interesting because you're seeing both people from the left and the right lined up behind you beyond on the left they think that it's right to protect workers that are being disrupted on the right I think that's a much better way to do welfare so let me give you two realities about ubi one is really expensive and two is we not quite sure yet how changes incentives more generally I think it's gonna be a long time coming but this is actually I speak to other economists to say you know we need to understand this better and in particular understand the incentive elements in order to help this debate because this debate isn't gonna go away it's just funny relative to everything we've talked about if one's an individual investor how do you go about given all these circumstances constructing a sensible long-run investment portfolio 60/40 no longer seems to make sense how should one act it's hard to answer this question without knowing the particular circumstances of the investors but but here's a few things to be guarded by one is this is no longer just about how well can I do this is also about a question that we don't like asking which is if I end up making a mistake can I survive my mistake and that's a really important question and in markets that have been distorted to such an extent to deliver negative interest rates everybody has to ask the question can I afford the mistake that can happen and that's a really tough question to ask and I suspect most people will find out that when they ask that question they have to be less aggressive in the way to allocate that capital they'll find that cash belongs in the strategic allocation not just a practical allocation which is against all conventional wisdom the second thing that you have to realize is that correlations have been changed to such an extent between asset classes the diversification is no longer good risk mitigator we have come from a period where - exactly a little bit but whether you invested in bonds or whether these investment in stocks we did be well and that shouldn't happen there should be some negative correlation between the two and we could be in a world where it goes the other way so realize that you have to be more tactical realize that cash belongs in the strategic asset allocation and realize diversification while necessary is no longer sufficient you use these principles and then come up with something that makes sense relative to what how your other assets or other liabilities and obligations stand out last question it's after the November 2016 the u.s.
presidential election which do you think be the most interesting job and why chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers secretary of the Treasury managing director of the International Monetary Fund or president of the World Bank so all of them would be really interesting because they'll reflect key positions in a world that's very fluid and we're improbable and unthinkables are becoming reality you know I have a biased because I worked for 15 years at the IMF and I think that the IMF has a unique perspective when it comes not just to individual countries but how the whole system adds up or these days doesn't add up so I would be inclined to say either the IMF or bank but all four are fascinating fascinating jobs and why not chairman of the Fed I think because the Fed is going to find itself if it's not careful very close to what Japan is today when the Bank of Japan meets and I'm gonna exaggerate but just a little to make the point it has a choice between two options either to be ineffective or to be counterproductive it can no longer be effective that's not a great choice to have you know you won't be ineffective or didn't we counterproductive you know and that is where the Bank of Japan has ended up and if we're not careful that is where the ECB is going to end up and that's where the feds gonna end up so the feds aim destiny is no longer in its hands it's in the hands of the other policymaking entities which means the politicians as to whether they come in and carry the burden they should be carrying in terms of economic governance so a central bank chair of the Fed maybe interesting but you'll find that we have fewer and fewer degrees of freedom because of what has occurred so far because of the failure of the politicians to respond I'll have a tellurian thank you for joining us for this conversation with investopedia you
Comments 0