Mitt Romney, take out your wallet.
A quick quiz on income inequality:
It's a clarifying analogy, but as much about cable packages as about entrees.
John Maynard Keynes was right about the future. But he was wrong about how we'd be spending it.
I want to try to broker some peace.
Here's the other post we discuss in Wonktalk: Why do people hate deficits?
So here's some bad news: The rise in wealth inequality? It's permanent.
Unless it turns out to be wrong.
Full results, with further commentary from the polled economists, here.
Federal data suggests that friend isn’t quite telling the truth.
The first part of the op-ed reprises the argument from an earlier paper Hasset and Hubbard released on behalf of the Romney campaign: While financial crises might lead to slow recoveries internationally, they don’t lead to slow recoveries in the United States. Again, the citation goes to ”an extensive study of recessions in the United States” by Michael Bordo of Rutgers University and Joseph Haubrich of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, which found that the recovery from this recession has been unusually slow.
This post has been updated to clarify aspects of Oh and Reis’ paper
Yet there’s still plenty about economic inequality that’s not well understood. What’s actually driving the gap between the richest and poorest? Does it hurt economic growth, or is it largely benign? Should it be reversed? Can it be reversed? Surprisingly, there’s little consensus on how to answer these questions — in part because good data on the topic is hard to come by.
Related: The stimulus bill, three years later.
Every estimate you’ve heard of who is being helped and who is being hurt by the tax cuts proposed by the various Republican presidential campaign is telling you, at best, only half the story. And that’s because these estimates only look at one side of the ledger: who gets the tax cuts. But there’s another side to the ledger: Who pays for them, and how? That side is at least as important as who gets the tax cuts, but it’s almost always ignored.
turned a blind eye as industry after industry consolidates into two or three dominant firms. And for years, fee-driven corporate lawyers and investment bankers have been knocking on boardroom doors peddling the notion that they can win approval for any merger just by divesting a subsidiary or two or establishing some fictitious “Chinese wall” to prevent one division from knowing what the other is doing. (Alas, we’re even importing our metaphors from China!)
I wrote this two years ago, when I was doing a column for the Post’s food section. But it’s as relevant today as it was then. Happy Thanksgiving!
The best place to start is the Nobel Prize site, which has a lucid breakdown of the work of the prize winners: “Sargent’s awarded research concerns methods that utilize historical data to understand how systematic changes in economic policy affect the economy over time. Sims’s awarded research [focuses] on distinguishing between unexpected changes in variables, such as the price of oil or the interest rate, and expected changes, in order to trace their effects on important macroeconomic variables.”
Robert Frank: It’s exactly that. Sometimes collective and individual interests coincide, as when keen eyesight develops in one hawk and then moves to the rest of the species. That’s analogous to product-design innovation in the free market. It originally benefits the individual that introduces it but as it spreads it benefits everybody. The story doesn’t end there, though.