Archive for the Economics Category

  • A A A
  • Editor

    By historical standards, the current recovery from the recession that began in 2007 has been disappointing. This is part 3 of a three-part series with John Taylor of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and Department of Economics.

    Taylor puts the recovery in historical perspective and explores possible explanations for why the recovery has been so mediocre.

    In Part 1 of this discussion of the recovery, Taylor quantified how unusual this recovery is by historical standards. In Part 2, Taylor looked at a number of standard explanations for the sluggish recovery.

    Here in part 3, Taylor argues that the slow pace of the recovery is due to poor policy decisions made by the Bush and Obama administrations that have increased the amount of uncertainty facing investors, consumers, and employers. Examples include the rising debt forecast, the fiscal cliff, expiring tax provisions, and quantitative easing. Taylor argues that the uncertainty surrounding these policies in the future along with increased regulation have held back the recovery.

    Print Friendly
    Editor

    Over the next week, Advancing a Free Society will publish a series of pieces related to the Supreme Court’s decision in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius. The Forum will cover the law, the medicine, the economics, and the politics surrounding this landmark ruling.

    Below, renowned legal scholar and Hoover Senior Fellow Richard Epstein reviews the decision on the Medicaid expansion. According to Epstein, this decision is “welcome,” although not perfect, after the “unhappy performance” of Chief Justice Roberts on the individual mandate.

    Earlier today, Hoover research fellow Bill Whalen provided his assessment of what this generally unexpected Supreme Court decision means for the presidential campaigns and, perhaps, Election Day.

    Follow The Hoover Forum on the Supreme Court’s health care ruling by subscribing to the Advancing a Free Society RSS feed or subscribing to the new Hoover Daily Report.

    Print Friendly
    Editor

    Data Matters: The 1986 Tax Reforms

    This week’s installment of Data Matters features data presented by Tammy Frisby, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution who also teaches in the political science department and public policy program at Stanford.

    This week on Capitol Hill, there was renewed attention to the looming Taxmaggedon (or Taxmageddon; take your pick), which involves, among other pending tax code changes, the scheduled expiration of lower tax rates on income, dividends, and capital gains, and the end of the extended payroll tax holiday. There is now more public talk from senators and members of Congress about using the threat of Taxmaggedon in January 2013 to build a legislative coalition for a sweeping tax overhaul that would preempt the economic and political damage that Taxmaggedon would wreak.

    For all the uncertainty about what will come of this talk, this is a safe bet: the next six-and-a-half months will be filled with comparisons to the last major tax code reforms in 1986.

    Tammy Frisby has shared with us a pair of tables, which she used as a starting point for her own ongoing research on the politics of tax reform. These tables present the major changes made to the tax code with the 1986 tax reform law. The tables compare major provisions in the individual and corporate tax codes before the reforms and as passed in the 1986 law. The middle data two columns in each table show the proposed changes by two main administration plans (“Treasury I” and the plan out of the Reagan White House). Compare these plans to the final law to see where administration reformers hit political obstacles.

    As we point out in the tables’ titles – the 1986 tax overhaul created a cleaner – but not a clean – tax code. Tax reformers in 2012 face prodigious challenges to reach even the success of the Reagan-era reforms, challenges that are no less daunting than Taxmaggedon.

    Click on the images to enlarge.


    Tammy Frisby is a regular contributor to Advancing a Free Society. You can read her analysis of policy making and elections here. She also provides analysis of the 2012 election in audio and video podcasts that are part of Hoover’s 2012 In Perspective series.

    With Data Matters, we highlight data relevant to public policy that Hoover fellows are using in their research. We feature original data, data from another source that Hoover fellows are presenting in a new way, or data that fellows find helpful in shaping their own thinking. Visit the Data Matters archive here.

    Sign up for the Advancing a Free Society RSS feed to follow our data stream.

    Print Friendly
    Editor

    Here is the second installment in our new series Data Matters.

    Following last week’s inaugural post of data from John Cogan, this week Edward Lazear, a Hoover Senior Fellow, Stanford Professor of Economics, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, offers us a comparative assessment of U.S. economic growth since the summer of 2009. The chart shows average GDP growth in the G-7 countries, including the Q1 2012 preliminary figures.

    Since we began to emerge from the economic wreckage of the Financial Crisis, the U.S. has experienced stronger economic growth than France, Italy, Japan, and the U.K. But economic growth in Germany and Canada has outstripped growth in the U.S. The pattern in the data is materially the same if we move our end point back to Q4 2011.

    Click on the image below to enlarge.

    The potential for a stronger economic recovery demonstrated by two of our peers supports a reassessment of the U.S. government’s response to the Financial Crisis and economic policy actions over the last three years.

    With Data Matters, we highlight data relevant to public policy that Hoover fellows are using in their research. We feature original data, data from another source that Hoover fellows are presenting in a new way, or data that fellows find helpful in shaping their own thinking.

    Sign up for the Advancing a Free Society RSS feed to follow our data stream.

    Print Friendly
    Editor

    Today, we add a new weekly feature to Advancing a Free Society. Each week, we will highlight data relevant to public policy that Hoover fellows are using in their research.

    Our inaugural data post is a graph generated by John F. Cogan, the Leonard and Shirley Ely Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor in the Public Policy Program at Stanford University. The graph shows federal government outlays as a percent of GDP from 1994 to 2022. The graph presents historical outlays and the striking contrast between two different future scenarios: one that follows the Obama administration’s budget and the other that follows the budget path that would be created under Paul Ryan’s plan.

    Click on the image below to enlarge.

    Sign up for the Advancing a Free Society RSS feed to follow our data stream.

    Print Friendly
    Terry Anderson

    The Sport of Kings

    I am planning a trip to Spain to archery hunt for Spanish ibex, a magnificent wild goat. The hunt will cost several thousand dollars, not counting the money for airfare, hotels, and food. I’m wondering, however, if I should still go or cancel the trip and follow the lead of Spain’s King Juan Carlos by recanting my sin of hunting.

    King Juan Carlos recently went on safari to Botswana where he allegedly hunted elephant. While there he broke his hip and returned home for treatment. Spanish newspapers reported the story including a picture from a previous hunt showing the king standing in front of a dead elephant with a rifle.

    The story sparked outrage from citizens who feel the king abdicated his responsibility by enjoying himself on safari while his subjects suffered under the Spain’s worsening financial crisis. Socialist Party leader, Tomas Gomez, said the king should choose between his “public responsibilities or an abdication.”

    In response the king appeared on television as he left a Madrid hospital saying, “I’m very sorry, I made a mistake. It won’t happen again.”

    The outrage goes beyond the economy to the environment. The king is the honorary president of the Spanish branch of WWF, one of the world’s largest environmental groups. Because of his hunting escapade, members have gathered 65,000 signatures on a petition calling for Juan Carlos to resign his honorary presidency.

    Click to read more.

    Print Friendly
    Tom Church

    Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal op-ed by Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez received quite a reaction. Diamond and Saez advocate raising the top marginal tax rates on the rich to between 50-70%. Their recommendation is based on a 2011 paper they published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives (PDF) where they advocated 1) Raising marginal tax rates on the very rich, 2) Subsidizing earnings (phasing out at a high rate) for low earners, and 3) Taxing capital. Their paper was widely discussed when it was published, and it is serving as a justification for many on the left to raise taxes on high-income earners. It’s their first recommendation that I would like to address.

    There are several key limitations with the authors’ methodology used to conclude that raising marginal tax rates is optimal social policy. Two I’ll mention here are the dynamic effects of raising marginal tax rates in the medium and long term, and the volatility that comes with higher rates on a small portion of the population.

    First, and this is the most important issue with the paper, Profs. Diamond and Saez are unable to produce estimates of the effect higher marginal tax rates have on economic growth or tax revenues in the medium or long term. (I’d note that Scott Sumner highlighted the following excerpt months ago. Still, it should be front and center of the criticism of their recommendation.) From their paper:

    It is conceivable that a more progressive tax system could reduce incentives to accumulate human capital in the first place. The logic of the equity-efficiency trade-off would still carry through, but the elasticity e should reflect not only short-run labor supply responses but also long-run responses through education and career choices. While there is a sizable multiperiod optimal tax literature using life-cycle models and generating insights, we unfortunately have little compelling empirical evidence to assess whether taxes affect earnings through those long-run channels.

    Translated: We don’t know what will happen in a few years as a result of this change.

    Click to read more.

    Print Friendly
    Paul Gregory

    A Caveat for Krugman

    Critics of my blog post How Krugman Would Ru(i)n Steve Jobs’ Apple point out that Paul Krugman has a Nobel prize in economics and I do not. I should shut up in the face of a superior authority. If Krugman were writing about his specialty, international trade theory, I might indeed shut up. When Krugman puts on his political hat, he is fair game.

    In his Jobs, Jobs, and Cars, Krugman uses bad economics that would shame an introductory economics lecturer. He criticizes Apple because its labor force is too productive. (His figures show that Apple has about the same sales revenue as GM but has one fifth the work force).  By being so productive, Apple creates too few jobs! Let economists chew that one over. Krugman would be in agreement with Marx’s discredited technological unemployment.  I guess the solution is for Apple employees to become as unproductive as GM workers.

    In the same article, Krugman criticizes Apple for outsourcing routine manufacturing operations to Asia. Isn’t this what trade economists call the international division of labor? How can a trade theorist be against this practice? I guess he thinks Apple should keep routine manufacturing jobs at home even if it means higher consumer prices, loss of market share and profits.

    Krugman seems to hold the strange opinion that the business of business is to create as many jobs as possible. Last time I looked at a principles of economics text, I learned that business are there to produce products that people want as cost-effectively as possible, in the course of which the business earns profits for its owners. I guess we need to recall all economics texts.

    Click to read more.

    Print Friendly
    Charles Blahous

    Today Avik Roy of Forbes kindly provided me with a forum for responding to some of the questions that have arisen about my study showing that the 2010 health care reform law will add substantially to federal deficits.

    The full paper, again, is here.

    The Forbes blog is here.

    Excerpts from the Forbes blog post:

    The paper was subject to a double-blind peer review process, which means I did not know who was reviewing the paper, and the reviewers did not know who had written it.  Prior to this review process, I also independently had the paper reviewed by several fellow federal budget and health care financing experts to confirm that the analysis was correct.  Few of the criticisms of the paper have been substantive. I do not believe the few substantive criticisms hold water for the following reasons:

    Click to read more.

    Print Friendly