National Incomes vs Global Incomes

Some of my favorite data visualizations are the charts produced by Branko Milanovic, which compare national income distributions to global income distributions. So I was thrilled to discover this website (created by Boris Yakubchik) which transforms Milanovic’s data into an interactive format where users can select which countries they want to graph. Below is a sample that I created using some of my favorite countries.

It can take a minute to understand what is going on, so here’s a brief primer and some examples. The vertical y-axis displays PPP-adjusted income and global income percentile, while the horizontal x-axis displays national income percentile. Let’s look at some examples from my chart:

  • An American earning $5,000/year is in the 8th percentile of American earners, but in the 70% percentile globally.
  • An Indonesian earning $3,000/year earns more than 90% of Indonesians, but only more than 60% of people globally.
  • A Dane earning $20,000/year is a very average Dane (~50% percentile), although they are close to the top 5% of earners globally.

It is easy to see that even poorer Americans and Danes are generally wealthier than the richer Indians, Indonesians, and Nepalis. This is just one observation made about a handful of countries, but there are many more ideas to takeaway from this data. Check out the website and create your own!

Giving More, Tomorrow

For one reason or another, people often share with me that they want to start donating money or increase the amount that they are donating. This is always great news, but often accompanied by real and/or perceived challenges. A few common ones that I hear include:

  • I want to start donating, but I don’t feel like I can right now.
  • I’m donating x% of my income. I feel compelled to give >x% of my income, but I don’t think I can do that right now.
  • I want to give $x, but my spouse is not on board with that.

In an ideal world, we could all just start donating our desired amount or increase to our desired amount at any time. Sometimes, we are unable to make these changes immediately or are looking for a more gradual approach. Several years ago, Shlomo Benartzi gave a TED Talk titled “Saving for Tomorrow, Tomorrow,” which relates to saving, but it could just as easily apply to giving.

Benartzi’s basic recommendation is to commit to saving a percentage of future increases in income (like raises and bonuses). Saving a portion of an increase requires no sacrifice today and takes the edge off of future sacrifices because net income still increases (because the new saving is just a portion on the increased amount). As an example, let’s say that I make $50,000 and want to save $5,000. It may be difficult to save 10% of my income immediately, but I could commit to saving 50% of my next raise. If I get a $1,000 raise, then I’ll save $500. Even though I’ve stuffed $500 into savings, I’m still netting an additional $500 of income. 

As mentioned, we could easily apply the same principles to giving. Below are some examples:

  • Someone who’s currently donating 10% of their income could try to get up to 12% by donating 20% of their future increases in income until their overall giving hits 12%.
  • Someone who wants to start donating could commit to donating 100% of any bonus.
  • There are all sorts of derivations and room for creativity. Suppose someone wanted to donate 6% of their income this year. They could donate 1% of income in Month 1, 2% of income in Month 2, and so on until Month 12 when they donate 12%. This is both gradual and would get them to their 6% annual giving target in Year 1 (a great feat). AND, the person would feel some relief when they drop their 12% donation rate back down to 6% in Month 13 (assuming they want to donate 6% each month in Year 2).

Sometimes getting started is the hardest part. Hopefully, the above is helpful in thinking about how to start giving or how to give more generously.

“Never Waste A Good Worry”

I joined a book discussion group and read the following in this week’s book: “As the world’s population reaches seven billion people, the earth is filled. Not only is the earth filled, human population is in danger of overwhelming the earth, and of making life exceedingly difficult for future generations.” The author seems thoughtful and concerned and his point seems reasonable. The only problem is that it’s completely wrong.

The aforementioned population problem (called the “Malthusian Trap”) is the crux of “Malthusian Theory,” which argues that the human population will overwhelm the available resources. These terms are named after Thomas Robert Malthus, who warned about these dangers in…1798. Or, put another way, over 220 years ago. This fear of overpopulation has been around for at least 220+ years and there are still people worrying about it. “Just wait,” they say. 

Another issue people have worried about for centuries is the national debt. Ever since Alexander Hamilton led the federal government’s decision to assume the colonies’ Revolutionary War debts (called “assumption”), Americans have been worrying about the debt. Thomas Jefferson famously opposed assumption, railed against the national debt, and even tried to pay it down while in office (just a couple years after Malthus penned his theory). Yet, like Malthus, Jefferson’s fear has not yet been realized after 200+ years. The national debt has been an issue in nearly every political election for 200 years, often framed as an imminent threat that is out of control. Yet, America grew from 13 rebel colonies to the wealthiest most powerful nation on earth. Of course, these debt worriers also say, “Just wait.”

Perhaps the global population will overwhelm the available resources or the national debt will drive America to ruin. But I wouldn’t bet on those things. I’d bet that agriculture and technology continue to improve as they always have and that we will not run out of resources. I’ll bet that the national debt will not harm the US in my lifetime. I could be wrong on either issue, but other side has been wrong for 200+ years on both issues. 

So, what does this have to do with investing? There are fears based on real risks and there are fears based on perceived risks. I obviously believe the above two issues are way more perceived than real, but there are many other less obvious examples where we tend to fear unnecessarily. Add in that humans are wired to overreact to fear, pessimism often sounds more convincing that optimism, and that we are easily seduced by logic and theories even when reality, history, and empirical evidence doesn’t agree. Clearly, there are times to be cautious and exercise caution, but not always.

To close, I’ll share that I was a worrisome kid (heck, I’m still a worrier). Whenever I shared a worry or fear with my dad, he nearly always gave me the same advice: “Matt, I’ve learned that most of my fears are never realized. Most of my worries never come to pass. I learned to ‘never waste a good worry.'”

The Credit Card Points Game

Photos from 2018 and 2019 trips that have been paid for with points. Clockwise from top left: trekking to Gokyo-Ri in Nepal (Everest in the background), family trip to Osaka in Japan, family trip to the Dolomites in Italy, diving off the coast of Belize. That’s 10 roundtrip tickets that I’ve bought with points in the past 18 months, plus 4 more to Hawaii very soon.

My family of four is headed to Hawaii this summer and our airfare is free. Well, I should clarify that we are technically paying for the airfare, but we are paying with points rather than dollars. I’ve written about my Hawaii strategy in the past, but the reality is that most of the international trips that I’ve taken over the past decade have been paid for with points. Playing the “credit card points game” is a great way to save on travel costs and I’ve certainly benefited from participating.

Without getting into the details of where the points come from, who pays for them, or how to maximize their value (check out or for in-depth knowledge and strategies) below are some general guidelines for playing the credit card points game.

  1. The biggest value is in the sign-up bonuses. Opening a new card and spending some specified dollar amount within a few months typically yields tens of thousands of points. Although there are opportunities to arbitrage the difference in airfares that are denominated in points vs those denominated in dollars, most points are worth 1-3 cents each. Thus, the bonus from opening a new card can easily be worth over $1,000. Points can also be accumulated by spending, but a simple cashback card will often deliver the same value as a card offering points (~2 cents per dollar spent). A common strategy (called “churning”) is to open a new card and spend enough to collect the bonus, before moving on to another card, and repeating this over and over.
  2. Keep a spreadsheet. Many cards charge an annual fee upon account opening or after one year. These fees can offset a portion or even all of the benefit from sign-up bonuses, so it is important to cancel each card before an avoidable fee hits. Tracking multiple cards and when to cancel them can be difficult without a spreadsheet.

I should note that the credit card points game is not for everyone as the benefits can be more than offset in the following cases:

  1. Someone who cannot keep a spreadsheet and cancel cards as needed. Fees could wipe out the potential benefits.
  2. Someone who has trouble regulating their spending. Accumulating points could become an incentive to spend more than one would otherwise and could more than offset the benefit.
  3. Someone who needs the very best credit score. Churning is not typically impactful to someone’s credit score in the long-term, but I would not recommend opening multiple cards in quick succession immediately before applying for a mortgage as the lower score and resulting higher mortgage rate could more than offset the benefits from points.

Also, a final word of caution: the credit card points game can become a hobby in and of itself, similar to investing, sports, or politics. Just ask my wife, who instagrammed the below from a recent wedding:

Currency Issuers vs Currency Users

I’ve heard a lot of tax policy debates lately, perhaps due to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act or perhaps due to growing concerns about inequality. Of course, debating taxes is something of a national pastime (going back to British tax policies preceding the American Revolution) and I live in California (a state known for high income taxes).

An important foundational concept that is almost always overlooked in these debates is that there are two types of taxing authorities. There are currency issuers and there are currency users.

Countries like the US, the UK, Japan, China, Switzerland, and so on create their own currency. They are currency issuers. They do not need to collect taxes in order to spend or operate.

Cities, US states, and members of currency unions (like Eurozone members) use currency, but do not create their own. They are currency users. They cannot operate without tax revenue (unless they have credit and can borrow). 

Failure to distinguish between currency issuers and currency users or speaking about their respective policies synonymously is to misunderstand the nature of taxes.

RIP: Jack Bogle

Jack Bogle’s impact on investing is difficult to overstate. Although best known for founding Vanguard and launching the first retail index fund, Bogle’s largest impact may have been saving investors more money than anyone else in history. It still amazes me that someone would willingly turn down the opportunity for millions and billions for no reason other than to give it to others. Bogle was a rare breed and we are lucky to have his example (especially those of us working in the financial services). 

Rather than keeping ownership of Vanguard to himself, he structured the firm as a mutual company effectively owned by its funds’ investors. Bogle could have assured himself a much higher income and would have almost certainly become a billionaire many times over had he owned Vanguard outright. Instead, those billions and billions of potential profits subsidized the expenses of Vanguard’s funds and drove investor costs down. Of course, Vanguard has also driven costs down across the entire money management industry. It is difficult to say what the world would look like without Bogle or Vanguard, but I suspect we would all be paying a lot more expenses. So where does this extreme generosity come from?

Despite growing up in difficult circumstances during and after The Great Depression, Bogle always felt he had enough (he even wrote a book on the topic titled “Enough”). One of Bogle’s favorite stories to share was this one: 

At a party given by a billionaire on Shelter Island, the late Kurt Vonnegut informs his pal, the author Joseph Heller, that their host, a hedge fund manager, had made more money in a single day than Heller had earned from his wildly popular novel Catch 22 over its whole history. Heller responds, “Yes, but I have something he will never have . . . Enough.” 

Bogle shared that Kurt Vonnegut had also taught him that:

“we should catch young people before they become CEOs, investment bankers, consultants, and money managers (and especially hedge fund managers), and do our best to poison their minds with humanity.”

Bogle had enough and he spent a lot of time imploring others to think and reflect on their professional responsibilities (as opposed to their business interests) and recognize the “true treasures” of life (rather than money). 

History is filled with “philosopher” kings and many billionaires grace us with their opinions that we should all adopt a mindset of enough. Yet, Bogle lived it until the very end. Just a few weeks ago, Bogle shared this in an interview:

Jane Wollman Rusoff: Any regrets?

Jack Bogle: No regrets. I’m not a “trillionaire” like Abby Johnson [Fidelity chairwoman], who is supposed to be worth [$15.4 billion]. I wouldn’t even know what to do with a number like that. We have a nice, small house. We have shelter when it rains, snows or is windy. The kids and grandkids are well. I have the Armstrong Foundation, which has now reached a decent size — and I feel like it could do some good for others.

RIP Jack.

Inflation Rates vs Interest Rates

While recent posts have myth-busted the narratives that money printing causes inflation and money printing drives up rates, even a quick glance at the same data shows that there is a stronger relationship between inflation and interest rates. The conventional view is that long-term rates move in response to inflation, although it is worth noting that long-term rates are less volatile than the inflation rates that drive them. Thus, the R² (or goodness of fit) is not that high, but there is a visible correlation nonetheless.

We’ll start with the world’s largest economy, the US:

And the Euro Area:



And finally, the UK:

Do Increases In The Money Supply Drive Up Interest Rates?

Similar to last week’s post, we’ll be asking if increases in the money supply lead to higher interest rates?

Let’s look at the money supply and 10-year interest rates in the five largest economies. First up: the US.

The Eurozone:



The UK:

The verdict: increases in the money supply do not necessarily lead to higher interest rates. In fact, the above data from the five largest economies during a period of unprecedented expansion in the monetary base shows zero evidence that increases in the money supply drives rates higher. Apologies to the self-described bond vigilantes and Tea Partiers for the cognitive dissonance.

Do increases in the money supply cause or accelerate inflation?

Do increases in the money supply cause or accelerate inflation?

Let’s consider the evidence…

First, a chart of the annualized percentage changes in the money supply (M1) and consumer price index (CPI).

We can also look at the same data, but use the absolute value of the money supply. Again, inflation does not seem correlated with increases in the money supply.

Let’s look at other economies and monetary bases. First up: the Eurozone.

A look at China:

A look at Japan:

And finally, the UK:

Verdict: increases in the money supply do not necessarily cause or accelerate inflation. The above charts represent decades of data from the five largest economies during a period of unprecedented increases in the money supply. I understand that there is a logical rationale and belief that printing money leads to inflation, but it is simply not true. I am not sure what more evidence can be provided, yet the myth persists nonetheless.