Three years ago, the Atlanta Hawks traded Luka Doncic to Dallas in exchange for Trae Young and the right to draft Cam Reddish. Over the next three years, there was an almost universal view among NBA basketball fans that the trade was very lopsided, with Atlanta losing badly.
Last night, Atlanta was eliminated from the playoffs. Nonetheless, one TV commentator suggested that the trade now looks much more even. Young was spectacular in the playoffs before getting hurt a week ago, and while it’s too soon to fully judge Reddish, he looked very good in a couple playoff games after coming off an injury. Atlanta went much further in the playoffs than Dallas.
This example demonstrates something I’ve noticed quite often. People are far too quick to make judgments. Pundits that focus on the economy often proclaim this or that policy to be a success or failure, long before we have enough information to make an informed evaluation.
Consider:
1. During the 1930s, it was widely agreed that the Great Depression demonstrated that unregulated capitalism is unstable. Only in the 1960s was it discovered that the Depression had been caused by tight money, not “the inherent instability of capitalism”.
2. During the 1960s, it was widely agreed that there was a tradeoff between inflation and unemployment, often called the Phillips Curve. Only in the 1970s did we discover that this trade-off is illusionary, at least in the long run.
3. In 1972, it was widely agreed that Nixon’s wage/price controls were an effective means of slowing inflation. A few years later we learned that price controls don’t work.
4. In the early 1990s, it looked like the former communist countries that had reformed quickly had made a mistake. A decade later, it looked like the countries that were slow to reform were the ones that had made the mistake.
5. In 2002, it was almost universally agreed that there had been a massive NASDAQ stock price bubble in 2000. Today, the NASDAQ market of 1999-2000 no longer looks overpriced. Instead, 2002 looks absurdly underpriced.
6. In 2010, it was almost universally agreed that housing prices in 2006 were a “bubble”. Today that claim is far from obvious.
7. In 2013, some Keynesians claimed that fiscal austerity was slowing the economy. By 2014 that claim looked implausible.
8. In early 2014, there were claims that terminating the extended unemployment insurance program was slowing growth. By 2015, it had become clear that employment growth sped up in 2014.
I could cite dozens of similar examples.
It is certainly possible that a year from now Trae Young’s stock will have fallen and Doncic will once again look like the far better player. It’s possible that NASDAQ circa 2000 and the house prices of 2006 will again look like bubbles. All evaluations are provisional, liable to be changed as new information comes in.
I find that evaluations based on time-tested propositions tend to hold up better than other claims. These include the idea that free market economies are best, that monetary policy drives nominal variables, and that money is neutral in the long run. The idea that price controls don’t work. The idea that asset prices tend to be efficient because it’s hard to get rich by consistently beating the market. The idea that paying people not to work tends to discourage them from working.
If you believe in these time-tested principles, don’t let yourself be bullied by pundits suggesting that you are out of date and need to get with the times. Very likely, you’ll be the one proved right in the long run.
PS. I’ve always found the criticism of Atlanta’s decision to be a bit excessive. After all, Sacramento picked Marvin Bagley over both Young and Doncic. It’s like people who complained that money was too tight in 2019, but were silent on the issue in 2008. You may be right about 2019, but where are your priorities?
READER COMMENTS
Jonathan S
Jul 5 2021 at 12:52am
I’ll touch on the NBA comparison and stay away from the economics of the post 🙂
The Hawks definitely impressed this year, but are in the East. The Mavs had a better record and they are in the West. The West for the past two decades has been far superior. If I recall correctly, the East-West season splits have been won by the West in 20 of the past 21 seasons winning over 55% of the games during that period.
Anecdotally, players that go from East to West learn this as well: Lebron (8 straight Finals appearances in the East, only 1 of 3 in the West), Kawhi (Finals win with Raptors to underachieving Clippers), and Jimmy Butler (Timberwolves to center piece of finals appearance with Heat). When players go the other way, if only looking at this year underachieving players find a way to impress: Jerami Grant, Clint Capela, and Jrue Holiday to name a few off the top of my head.
If the Mavs and Hawks switched conferences, the Mavs would be in the Bucks/76ers tier and the Hawks would be in the Grizzlies/Blazers tier. On top of that, the Mavs outside of Doncic needs help and the Hawks outside of Trae Young are actually pretty solid (Capela had more win shares than Trae this year and John Collins had a higher WS/48).
I am indifferent about both the Mavs and the Hawks. I would say that if I am a GM and today someone says you can start your franchise with (A) Doncic or (B) both Trae and Reddish, I would take choice (A) 100 out of 100 times.
Scott Sumner
Jul 5 2021 at 1:56am
Jonathan, I don’t think the Hawks regular season record is at all meaningful. By the end of the season they were far better than earlier on. They beat a pretty good Sixers team.
I don’t think the evidence supports the claim that the West is far better than the East:
https://sports.yahoo.com/nba/standings/
A bit better, but that’s all.
As far as Trae, his game is extremely well suited for the playoffs, and that’s what good teams care about.
But I’d take Doncic as well, as he’s probably slightly better. So I agree with you there. On the other hand, players that give you 40 and 10 assists don’t grow on trees—Trae is really good when healthy.
Scott Sumner
Jul 5 2021 at 1:57am
BTW, I’m a Bucks fan, so I’m not biased in favor of Young, I find his foul hunting to be annoying.
BC
Jul 5 2021 at 6:39am
The cited economic examples are all examples, as Scott says, of premature rejection of time-tested principles. So, they may just reflect anti-market bias rather than rush to judgement. Anti-market pundits latch onto whatever anti-market claim(s) they can find to rationalize their pre-existing anti-market sentiments. Then, those claims get discredited over time.
I don’t really follow the NBA. Did the initial view of the trade reflect some misguided recurring bias?
Scott Sumner
Jul 5 2021 at 12:10pm
No, I think Doncic came right out of the gate looking great, whereas Young has only recently emerged as a superstar. Also Doncic is much bigger.
Ognian Davchev
Jul 11 2021 at 7:40am
Doncic definitely did not fit the stereotype of awesome basketball player. He is a white European doughy faced kid.
He’s been playing and succeeding against grown man in various euro leagues since he was sixteen though.
David S
Jul 5 2021 at 2:20pm
A successful sports franchise will frequently make decisions that drive fans and media crazy because it makes sense in the long run*. Take Tom Brady and the Patriots–it seemed crazy to lose him, but a few years from now I doubt he’ll be playing for any team.
*I’m calling the long run for sports at around 4 to 8 years.
Brian
Jul 5 2021 at 5:03pm
In a Jordan Schneider interview Lawrence Summers said… “In the American context, or the industrial-world context at large, secular stagnation is basically a concern that private saving is excessive relative to the demand for private investment, even at very low interest rates.”
What are suitable measures of this mismatch? If we look at excess bank reserves parked at the Federal Reserve and USD currency in existence, would that be a good indication of the size of the problem?
What about unoccupied or partly unoccupied buildings? It seems that is also a way of keeping wealth in reserve. In the context of some countries should that be added to the measure of mismatch?
Scott Sumner
Jul 5 2021 at 6:09pm
Yes, I am familiar with that theory, but I don’t find it persuasive.
Brian
Jul 6 2021 at 2:27pm
A problem with the secular stagnation theory is that low costs for investment goods (or anything) is supposed to be a good thing.
Weir
Jul 6 2021 at 3:23am
It was only in October of 2019 that the World Health Organisation published its report on “mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza.”
“There is a very low overall quality of evidence that quarantine of exposed individuals has an effect on transmission of influenza; the studies identified in the review reported or predicted variable effectiveness.”
“Home quarantine of exposed individuals to reduce transmission is not recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure, and there would be considerable difficulties in implementing it.”
“In addition, because the incubation period of a novel pandemic influenza strain may be uncertain, home quarantine may at times be implemented for an extended period, which will cause financial burden on families due to work absenteeism.” Tried and true, but just ignored in the stampede.
Pundits felt these ideas were out of date just four months later.
MikeP
Jul 6 2021 at 11:02am
Yes. This is exactly what came to my mind as I read the examples.
A hundred years of epidemiology — completely dismissed over a weekend.
Science was thrown out the window and replaced with experts. Media universally became a mouthpiece of establishment. There is no correlation whatsoever between mandates and per capita deaths, yet any alternatives to the utterly unfounded consensus became the subject of mockery.
And, still, in hindsight, almost all of the public health experts and their governors would do exactly the same thing all over again.
So thanks to this article for a hint of optimism that there will be a return to time tested propositions even on this topic.
Comments are closed.