Economics (Theory and Philosophy)

More stories

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Consumers Hate ‘Price Discrimination,’ but They Sure Love a Discount

    by

    The Wendy’s debacle is a warning shot for brands: If you want to play with prices, make sure to communicate why and whom it could help.It’s been a strange and maddening couple of years for consumers, with prices of essential goods soaring and then sinking, turning household budgets upside down.Listen to this article with reporter commentaryOpen this article in the New York Times Audio app on iOS.Perhaps that’s why, in late February, the internet revolted over Wendy’s plan to test changing its menu prices across the day. If the Breakfast Baconator winds up costing $6.99 at 7 a.m. and $7.99 three hours later, what in life can you really count on anymore?The company later issued a statement saying it would not raise prices during busy parts of the day, but rather add discounts during slower hours. Nevertheless, the episode won’t stop the continued spread of so-called dynamic pricing, which describes an approach of setting prices in response to shifting patterns of demand and supply. It might not even stop the growth of “personalized pricing,” which targets individuals based on their personal willingness to pay.And in many circumstances, customers may come around — if they feel companies are being forthright about how they’re changing prices and what information they’re using to do it.“There’s a need for some transparency, and it has to make sense to consumers,” said Craig Zawada, a pricing expert with PROS, a consultancy that helped pioneer dynamic pricing by airlines in the 1980s and now works across dozens of other industries. “In general, from a buyer standpoint, there has to be this perception of fairness.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Three Lessons From a Surprisingly Resilient Job Market

    by

    The recovery from the pandemic lockdowns has prompted economists to consider whether their playbook is outdated or just missing a page.The pandemic created an economic crisis unlike any recession on record. So perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that the aftermath, too, has played out in a way that almost no economists expected.When unemployment soared in the first weeks of the pandemic, many feared a repeat of the long, slow rebound from the Great Recession: years of joblessness that left many workers permanently scarred. Instead, the recovery in the labor market has been, by many measures, the strongest on record.In early 2021, some economists foresaw a surge in inflation. Others were skeptical: Similar predictions in recent years — in some cases from the same forecasters — had failed to come true. This time, however, they were right.And when the Federal Reserve began trying to tamp down inflation, there were warnings that the job market was sure to buckle, as it had threatened to do every time policymakers began raising interest rates too rapidly in the decade before the pandemic. Instead, the central bank has raised rates to their highest level in decades, and the job market is holding steady, or perhaps even gaining steam.The final chapter on the recovery has not been written. A “soft landing” is not a done deal. But it is clear that the economy, particularly the job market, has proved far more resilient than most people thought probable.Interviews with dozens of economists — some of whom got the recovery partly right, many of whom got it mostly wrong — provided insights into what they have learned from the past two years, and what they make of the job market right now. They didn’t agree on all the details, but three broad themes emerged.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Unemployment usually rises when job openings fall. Not this time.
    Notes: Job openings are shown as a share of employment. Unemployment is shown as a share of the labor force. All data is seasonally adjusted.Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York Times

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    The racial unemployment gap is narrowing
    Note: Data is seasonally adjusted.Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York Times

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Job growth has far surpassed prepandemic expectations
    Notes: Change since fourth quarter 2014. Projection based on 2015 Congressional Budget Office forecast.Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Congressional Budget OfficeBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Can America Turn a Productivity Boomlet Into a Boom?

    by

    After drooping in 2022, the output of U.S. businesses per worker has surged. Economists wonder if the trend can continue, and who will benefit most.Kevin Rezvani came of age in kitchens: spending summers at his grandfather’s bakery in Japan, doing work-study in his college cafeteria and working for years as a line cook at mid-tier restaurants, along with some stints in fast food.By his late 20s, the biggest takeaway Mr. Rezvani had from his experience “working in every kind of thing in food” was the industry’s widespread inability to reconcile the art of a kitchen, and the science of a restaurant, with the math of a business.Too many ventures, he says, are not profitable enough to justify all the work hours needed from managers and employees to stay afloat, much less grow. In other words, they fall short on productivity.“There’s a very fine line between doing OK, and doing well in this business,” said Mr. Rezvani, now 36. “And if you’re doing OK, it’s not worth your time.”He and two partners opened a casual sit-down restaurant near Rutgers University a few years after his graduation. But in early 2020, they split from him over personal and business disagreements, and he was on his own.To pay bills, he worked for a moving company and made deliveries for Amazon, which was booming during the lockdowns, as people idled at home spent their disposable income on buying goods.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 88 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Climate Change Takes Center Stage in Economics

    by

    With climate change affecting everything from household finances to electric grids, the profession is increasingly focused on how society can mitigate carbon emissions and cope with their impact.A major economics conference this month included papers on wind turbine manufacturing, wildfire smoke and the stability of electricity grids.From left: Joe Buglewicz for The New York Times; Earl Wilson/The New York Times; Zack Wittman for The New York TimesIn early January in San Antonio, dozens of Ph.D. economists packed into a small windowless room in the recesses of a Grand Hyatt to hear brand-new research on the hottest topic of their annual conference: how climate change is affecting everything.The papers in this session focused on the impact of natural disasters on mortgage risk, railway safety and even payday loans. Some attendees had to stand in the back, as the seats had already been filled. It wasn’t an anomaly.Nearly every block of time at the Allied Social Science Associations conference — a gathering of dozens of economics-adjacent academic organizations recognized by the American Economic Association — had multiple climate-related presentations to choose from, and most appeared similarly popular.For those who have long focused on environmental issues, the proliferation of climate-related papers was a welcome development. “It’s so nice to not be the crazy people in the room with the last session,” said Avis Devine, an associate professor of real estate finance and sustainability at York University in Toronto, emerging after a lively discussion.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

  • 163 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    New Normal or No Normal? How Economists Got It Wrong for 3 Years.

    by

    Economists first underestimated inflation, then underestimated consumers and the labor market. The key question is why.Economists spent 2021 expecting inflation to prove “transitory.” They spent much of 2022 underestimating its staying power. And they spent early 2023 predicting that the Federal Reserve’s rate increases, meant to cure the inflation, would plunge the economy into a recession.None of those forecasts have panned out.Rapid inflation has now been a fact of life for 30 consecutive months. The Fed has lifted rates above 5.25 percent to hit the brakes on price increases, but the economy has remained surprisingly strong in the face of those moves. Americans are working in greater numbers than predicted, and recent retail sales data showed that consumers are still spending at a faster clip than just about anyone expected. For now, there is no economic downturn in sight.The question is why experts so severely misjudged the pandemic and postpandemic economy — and what it means for policy and the outlook going forward.Economists generally expect growth to slow late this year and into early next, nudging unemployment higher and gradually weighing inflation down. But several said the economy had been so hard to predict since the pandemic that they had low confidence about future projections.“The forecasts have been embarrassingly wrong, in the entire forecasting community,” said Torsten Slok at the asset manager Apollo Global Management. “We are still trying to figure out how this new economy works.”Economists were too optimistic on inflation.Two big issues have made it difficult to forecast since 2020. The first was the coronavirus pandemic. The world had not experienced such a sweeping disease since the Spanish flu in 1918, and it was hard to anticipate how it would roil commerce and consumer behavior.The second complication came from fiscal policy. The Trump and Biden administrations poured $4.6 trillion of recovery money and stimulus into the economy in response to the pandemic. President Biden then pushed Congress to approve several laws that provided funding to encourage infrastructure investment and clean energy development.Between coronavirus lockdowns and the government’s enormous response, standard economic relationships stopped serving as good guides to the future.Take inflation. Economic models suggested that it would not take off in a lasting way as long as unemployment was high. It made sense: If a bunch of consumers were out of work or earning tepid pay gains, they would pull back if companies charged more.But those models did not count on the savings that Americans had amassed from pandemic aid and months at home. Price increases began to take off in March 2021 as ravenous demand for products like used cars and at-home exercise equipment collided with global supply shortages. Unemployment was above 6 percent, but that did not stop shoppers.Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 exacerbated the situation, pushing up oil prices. And before long, the labor market had healed and wages were growing rapidly.Economic models did not take in to account that people were saving money during the pandemic that enabled them to buy goods even when unemployed.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesThey were too pessimistic on growth.As inflation showed staying power, officials at the Fed started to raise interest rates to cool demand — and economists began to predict that the moves would plunge the economy into recession.Central bankers were lifting rates at a speed not seen since the 1980s, making it sharply more expensive to take out a mortgage or car loan. The Fed had never changed rates so abruptly without spurring a downturn, many forecasters pointed out.“I think it’s been very seductive to make forecasts that are based on these types of observations,” said Jan Hatzius, Goldman Sachs’s chief economist, who has been predicting a gentler cool-down. “I think that understates how much this cycle has been different.”Not only has the recession failed to materialize so far, but growth has been surprisingly fast. Consumers have continued shelling out money for everything from Taylor Swift tickets to dog day care. Economists have regularly predicted that America’s shoppers are near a breaking point, only to be proved wrong.Part of the issue is a lack of good real-time data on consumer savings, said Karen Dynan, an economist at Harvard.“It’s been months now that we’ve been telling ourselves that people at the bottom of the income distribution have spent down their savings piles,” she said. “But we don’t really know.”At the same time, fiscal stimulus has had more staying power than expected: State and local governments continue to divvy out money they were allocated months or years ago.And consumers are getting more and better jobs, so incomes are fueling demand.Economists are now asking whether inflation can slow sufficiently without a pullback in growth. A landing so painless would be historically abnormal, but inflation has already cooled to 3.7 percent in September, down from a peak of about 9 percent.Normal may still be far away.Still, that is too quick for comfort: Inflation was about 2 percent before the pandemic. Given inflation’s stubbornness and the economy’s staying power, interest rates may need to stay elevated to bring it fully under control. On Wall Street, that even has a tagline: “Higher for longer.” Some economists even think that the low-rate, low-inflation world that prevailed from about 2009 to 2020 may never return. Donald Kohn, a former vice chair of the Fed, said big government deficits and the transition to green energy could keep growth and rates higher by propping up demand for borrowed cash.“My guess is that things aren’t going to go back,” Mr. Kohn said. “But my goodness, this is a distribution of outcomes.”Neil Dutta, an economist at Renaissance Macro, pointed out that America had a baby boom in the 1980s and early 1990s. Those people are now getting married, buying houses and having children. Their consumption could prop up growth and borrowing costs.“To me, it’s like the old normal — what was abnormal was that period,” Mr. Dutta said.Fed officials, for their part, are still predicting a return to an economy that looks like 2019. They expect rates to return to 2.5 percent over the longer term. They think that inflation will fade and growth will cool next year.The question is, what happens if they are wrong? The economy could slow more sharply than expected as the accumulated rate moves finally bite. Or inflation could get stuck, forcing the Fed to contemplate heftier interest rates than anyone has gambled on. Not a single person in a Bloomberg survey of nearly 60 economists expects interest rates to be higher at the end of 2024 than at the end of this year.Mr. Slok said it was a moment for modesty.“I think we have not figured it out,” he said. More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Claudia Goldin Wins Nobel in Economics for Studying Women in the Work Force

    by

    Her research uncovered the reasons for gender gaps in labor force participation and earnings. She is the third woman to win the prize.The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded on Monday to Claudia Goldin, a Harvard professor, for advancing the world’s understanding of women’s progress in the work force.Dr. Goldin is the third woman to have won the economics Nobel, which was first awarded in 1969, and the first one to be honored with it solo rather than sharing in the prize.Who is the winner?Claudia Goldin, 77, is the Henry Lee Professor of Economics at Harvard University. She has long been a trailblazer in the field — she was the first woman to be offered tenure in Harvard’s economics department, in 1989.She was asleep when the call informing her of the prize came in — she had gotten up earlier to let the dog out but had gone back to bed. She said in an interview that she was “delighted.”She saw a woman winning the economics award on her own as a sort of “culmination” after years of “important changes” toward more gender diversity in the field.Why did the committee say she received the prize?The Nobel committee announced the award in Stockholm. The committee praised Dr. Goldin for her research into female employment, which showed that employment among married women decreased in the 1800s, as the economy moved away from agricultural and toward industry. Women’s participation then increased in the 1900s, as the service sector began to expand as a part of the economy.She also illustrated that the process of closing the gender wage gap has been uneven over the course of history. Recently, progress in closing it has been halting: Today, Women in the United States make a little over 80 cents for every dollar a man makes.In the past, gender wage gaps could be explained by education and occupation. But Dr. Goldin has shown that most of the earnings difference is now between men and women in the same jobs, the Nobel committee said. Notably, it kicks in after the birth of a woman’s first child.In a 15-year study of business school students at the University of Chicago, for instance, Goldin and her colleagues found in one paper that the gap in pay started to widen a year or two after a woman had her first baby.“Claudia Goldin’s discoveries have vast societal implications,” said Randi Hjalmarsson, a member of the committee and professor of economics at the University of Gothenburg.Dr. Goldin said that she hoped people would take away from her work how important long-term changes are to understanding the labor market.“We see a residue of history around us,” she said, explaining that societal and family structures that women and men grow up in shape their behavior and economic outcomes.While there has been “monumental progressive change, at the same time there are important differences,” she said, and those differences often tie back to women doing more work in the home. “We’re never going to have gender equality until we also have couple equity.”Who won the 2022 Nobel for economics?Last year, the award went to Ben S. Bernanke, the former Federal Reserve chair, along with Douglas W. Diamond of the University of Chicago and Philip H. Dybvig of Washington University in St. Louis. They won for work that has reshaped how the world understands the relationship between banks and financial crises.The economics prize was established in memory of Alfred Nobel by Sweden’s central bank and is awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.Who else has won a Nobel Prize this year?The award for physiology or medicine went to Katalin Kariko and Drew Weissman for their discoveries that led to the development of effective vaccines against Covid-19.The prize in physics was shared by Pierre Agostini, Ferenc Krausz and Anne L’Huillier for techniques that illuminate the subatomic realm of electrons.The award for chemistry went to Moungi G. Bawendi, Louis E. Brus and Alexei I. Ekimov for the discovery and development of quantum dots, nanoparticles so small that their size determines their properties.The literature prize went to the Norwegian novelist, poet and playwright Jon Fosse “for his innovative plays and prose which give voice to the unsayable.”The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Narges Mohammadi, Iran’s most prominent human rights activist and an inmate in the country’s notorious Evin Prison, “for her fight against the oppression of women in Iran and her fight to promote human rights and freedom for all.” More

  • 63 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    The Pandemic’s Job Market Myths

    by

    Remember the “she-cession”? What about the early-retirement wave, or America’s army of quiet quitters?For economists and other forecasters, the pandemic and postpandemic economy has been a lesson in humility. Time and again, predictions about ways in which the labor market had been permanently changed have proved temporary or even illusory.Women lost jobs early in the pandemic but have returned in record numbers, making the she-cession a short-lived phenomenon. Retirements spiked along with coronavirus deaths, but many older workers have come back to the job market. Even the person credited with provoking a national conversation by posting a TikTok video about doing the bare minimum at your job has suggested that “quiet quitting” may not be the way of the future — he’s into quitting out loud these days.That is not to say nothing has changed. In a historically strong labor market with very low unemployment, workers have a lot more power than is typical, so they are winning better wages and new perks. And a shift toward working from home for many white-collar jobs is still reshaping the economy in subtle but important ways.But the big takeaway from the pandemic recovery is simple: The U.S. labor market was not permanently worsened by the hit it suffered. It echoes the aftermath of the 2008 recession, when economists were similarly skeptical of the labor market’s ability to bounce back — and similarly proved wrong once the economy strengthened.“The profession has not fully digested the lessons of the recovery from the Great Recession,” said Adam Ozimek, the chief economist at the Economic Innovation Group, a research organization in Washington. One of those lessons, he said: “Don’t bet against the U.S. worker.”Here is a rundown of the labor market narratives that rose and fell over the course of the pandemic recovery.True but Over: The ‘She-cession’Women lost jobs heavily early in the pandemic, and people fretted that they would be left lastingly worse off in the labor market — but that has not proved to be the case.

    Note: Data is as of June 2023 and is seasonally adjusted.Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesIn the wake of the pandemic, employment has actually rebounded faster among women than among men — so much so that, as of June, the employment rate for women in their prime working years, commonly defined as 25 to 54, was the highest on record. (Employment among prime-age men is back to where it was before the pandemic, but is still shy of a record.)Gone: Early RetirementsAnother frequent narrative early in the pandemic: It would cause a wave of early retirements.Historically, when people lose jobs or leave them late in their working lives, they tend not to return to work — effectively retiring, whether or not they label it that way. So when millions of Americans in their 50s and 60s left the labor force early in the pandemic, many economists were skeptical that they would ever come back.

    Notes: Percentages compare June 2023 with the 2019 average. Data is seasonally adjusted.Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesBut the early retirement wave never really materialized. Americans between ages 55 and 64 returned to work just as fast as their younger peers and are now employed at a higher rate than before the pandemic. Some may have been forced back to work by inflation; others had always planned to return and did so as soon as it felt safe.The retirement narrative wasn’t entirely wrong. Americans who are past traditional retirement age — 65 and older — still haven’t come back to work in large numbers. That is helping to depress the size of the overall labor force, especially because the number of Americans in their 60s and 70s is growing rapidly as more baby boomers hit their retirement years.Questionable: The White-Collar RecessionTechnology layoffs at big companies have prompted discussion of a white-collar recession, or one that primarily affects well-heeled technology and information-sector workers. While those firings have undoubtedly been painful for those who experienced them, it has not shown up prominently in overall employment data.

    Note: Data is seasonally adjusted.Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesFor now, the nation’s high-skilled employees seem to be shuffling into new and different jobs pretty rapidly. Unemployment remains very low both for information and for professional and business services — hallmark white-collar industries that encompass much of the technology sector. And layoffs in tech have slowed recently.Nuanced: The Missing MenIt looked for a moment like young and middle-aged men — those between about 25 and 44 — were not coming back to the labor market the way other demographics had been. Over the past few months, though, they have finally been regaining their employment rates before the pandemic.That recovery came much later than for some other groups: For instance, 35-to-44-year-old men have yet to consistently hold on to employment rates that match their 2019 average, while last year women in that age group eclipsed their employment rate before the pandemic. But the recent progress suggests that even if men are taking longer to recover, they are slowly making gains.False (Again): The Labor Market Won’t Fully Bounce BackAll these narratives share a common thread: While some cautioned against drawing early conclusions, many labor market experts were skeptical that the job market would fully recover from the shock of the pandemic, at least in the short term. Instead, the rebound has been swift and broad, defying gloomy narratives.This isn’t the first time economists have made this mistake. It’s not even the first time this century. The crippling recession that ended in 2009 pushed millions of Americans out of the labor force, and many economists embraced so-called structural explanations for why they were slow to return. Maybe workers’ skills or professional networks had eroded during their long periods of unemployment. Maybe they were addicted to opioids, or drawing disability benefits, or trapped in parts of the country with few job opportunities.In the end, though, a much simpler explanation proved correct. People were slow to return to work because there weren’t enough jobs for them. As the economy healed and opportunities improved, employment rebounded among pretty much every demographic group.The rebound from the pandemic recession has played out much faster than the one that took place after the 2008 downturn, which was worsened by a global financial blowup and a housing market collapse that left long-lasting scars. But the basic lesson is the same. When jobs are plentiful, most people will go to work.“People want to adapt, and people want to work: Those things are generally true,” said Julia Coronado, the founder of MacroPolicy Perspectives, a research firm. She noted that the pool of available workers expanded further with time and amid solid immigration. “People are resilient. They figure things out.” More

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Harry Markowitz, Nobel-Winning Pioneer of Modern Portfolio Theory, Dies at 95

    by

    He overturned the traditional approach to buying stocks by examining the relationship between risk and reward.Harry M. Markowitz, an economist who launched a revolution in finance, upending traditional thinking about buying stocks and earning the Nobel in economic science in 1990 for his breakthrough, died on Thursday in San Diego. He was 95.The death, at a hospital, was caused by pneumonia and sepsis, Mary McDonald, a longtime assistant to Dr. Markowitz, said.Until Dr. Markowitz came along, the investment world assumed that the best stock-market strategy was simply to choose the shares of a group of companies that were thought to have the best prospects.But in 1952, he published his dissertation, “Portfolio Selection,” which overturned this common sense approach with what became known as modern portfolio theory, widely referred to as M.P.T.The heart of his research was grounded in the basic relationship between risk and reward. He showed that the risk in any portfolio is less dependent on the riskiness of its component stocks and other assets than how they relate to one another. It was the first time that the benefits of diversification had been codified and quantified, using advanced mathematics to calculate correlations and variations from the mean.This breakthrough insight and its corollaries have now permeated all aspects of money management, with few professionals unfamiliar with his work.“Modern portfolio theory has gone from the halls of academia to investment management mainstream, or from gown to town,” Robert Arnott, chief executive of Research Associates, a large investment manager in Newport Beach, Calif., said in a videotaped interview with Dr. Markowitz.When Dr. Markowitz heard one of his peers describe how his work had brought “a process” to what had been, until the 1950s, the “haphazard” creation of institutional portfolios, he knew he deserved his reputation as the father of modern portfolio theory, he said.“That moment was one of these things where you feel a chill run up your spine,” he said. “I understood what I had started.”In 1999, the financial newspaper Pensions & Investments named him “man of the century.”Related work on investments led Dr. Markowitz to be regarded as a pioneer of behavioral finance, the study of how people make choices in practical situations, as in buying insurance or lottery tickets.Recognizing that the pain of loss typically exceeds the joy of comparable gain, he found it crucial to know how a gamble is framed in terms of possible outcomes and the size of the stakes.Dr. Markowitz won renown in two other fields. He developed “sparse matrix” techniques for solving very large mathematical optimization problems — techniques that are now standard in production software for optimization programs. And he designed and supervised the development of Simscript, which is used for programming computer simulations of systems like factories, transportation and communications networks.In 1989 Dr. Markowitz received the John von Neumann Theory Prize from the Operations Research Society of America for his work in portfolio theory, sparse matrix techniques and Simscript.His focus was always on applying mathematics and computers to practical problems, particularly involving business in uncertain conditions.“I’m not a one-shot Nobel laureate — only doing one thing,” Dr. Markowitz said in an interview for this obituary in 2014. Although he was 87 at the time, he was embarked on a monumental analysis of securities risk and return. The seminal 1952 paper, in The Journal of Finance, was expanded into his best-known work, “Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversification of Investments,” in 1959.Harry Max Markowitz was born on Aug. 24, 1927, in Chicago, the only child of Morris and Mildred Markowitz, who owned a small grocery store. In high school he began to read the original works of Darwin and such classical philosophers as René Descartes and David Hume. In financial terms, Hume’s work lay behind the maxim that past performance is not a guide to the future.He continued on this track in a two-year bachelor’s program at the University of Chicago, where, inspired in part by Hume’s focus on the uncertainty of knowledge, he decided to pursue economics.It was in graduate school, where he studied under Milton Friedman and other eminent economists, that a chance conversation on possible dissertation topics led to his work applying mathematical methods to the stock market.The basic concepts of portfolio theory came to Dr. Markowitz one afternoon in the library while reading an investment book by the economist John Burr Williams.Dr. Markowitz was awarded the Nobel in economic science in 1990, sharing it with Merton H. Miller and William F. Sharpe.Sandy Huffaker for The New York Times“Williams proposed that the value of a stock should equal the present value of its future dividends,” Dr. Markowitz wrote in a brief autobiography for the Nobel committee. “Since future dividends are uncertain, I interpreted Williams’s proposal to be to value a stock by its expected future dividends.”But if investors were interested only in the expected values of securities, he figured, then that implied that the best, or maximized, portfolio would consist of the single most appealing stock.“This, I knew, was not the way investors did or should act,” he concluded. “Investors diversify because they are concerned with risk as well as return.”He set out to measure the relationships among a diverse assortment of stocks to construct the most efficient portfolio, and to chart what he called a “frontier,” where no additional return can be obtained without also increasing risk.At the RAND Corporation, during stints in the 1950s and ’60s, Dr. Markowitz worked on practical problems in American industry that required the development of simulation methods; he created the Simscript language to reduce their programming time.He went on to work for IBM and General Electric, where he built models of manufacturing plants. In 1962 he co-founded the California Analysis Center Incorporated, a computer-software company that would become CACI International.Dr. Markowitz’s first two marriages, to Luella Johnson and Gloria Hardt, ended in divorce. In 1970 he married Barbara Gay. She died in 2021.Mr. Markowitz is survived by two children from his first marriage, Susan Ulvestad and David Markowitz; two from his second, Laurie Raskin and Steven Markowitz; his wife’s son from a previous marriage, James Marks; 13 grandchildren; and more than a dozen great-grandchildren. He lived in San Diego.Dr. Markowitz in his office in 2012. “I’m not a one-shot Nobel laureate — only doing one thing,” he said in an interview in 2014.Sandy Huffaker for The New York TimesIn 1968 Dr. Markowitz began to manage a successful hedge fund, Arbitrage Management Company, based on M.P.T., that is believed to have been the first to engage in computerized arbitrage trading.Dr. Markowitz was a professor at Baruch College of the City University of New York when he was awarded the Nobel in economic science, sharing it with Merton H. Miller and William F. Sharpe. He also served on the faculties of Rutgers University, the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, the University of California at Los Angeles and finally at the Rady School of Management at the University of California, San Diego.After submitting his landmark dissertation, Dr. Markowitz took a job at RAND and was fully confident that “I know this stuff cold” when he returned to Chicago in 1955 to defend it.Within a few minutes, however, Professor Friedman told him that while he could find no mistakes, the topic was extremely novel. “We cannot award you a Ph.D. in economics for a dissertation that is not economics,” he said.At this point, Dr. Markowitz recounted, “my palms began to sweat” and he was sent into a hallway, where he waited for about five minutes.Finally, a panel member emerged and said, “Congratulations, Dr. Markowitz.”Dr. Markowitz insisted that he had not suspected the joke.Alex Traub More