Greg Mankiw

Here are the blogs I'd start with: For behavioral and general economics, my two favorites are Tyler Cowen and The Big Picture http://www.marginalrevolution.com/ http://bigpicture.typepad.com/ For Development/Macroeconomics two great ones (besides Becker/Posner) are Greg Mankiw & Danny Rodrik http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/ http://rodrik.typepad.com/ Mankiw is a bit more traditional than Rodrik, so they tend to have some great back & forth, and when the discussion jumps above college-level they tend to link/explain things. </econ nerd>

the best selling book is currently Mankiw's Principle of Economics (Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/6euszg). i highly recommend his blog too (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/)

The amazing thing to me are the comments. There is little disagreement on the existence of rampant cheating, and more about how and why. Quotes from the comments: "Harry Lewis can also be part of the problem. He is, along with Bob Scalise and Tom Stemberg, one of the three biggest cheerleaders on campus in favor of lowering academic standards to produce a championship basketball team." "Not only are "less than As" at Harvard occasionally seen as a sign that the student isn't smart or isn't working hard, but actual As aren't recognized or appreciated that much because they've been set as the status quo. This means that no matter what the grade, students here can feel the need to keep pushing themselves and striving for that elusive recognition and appreciation." "Here's my thought on why cheating is so widespread here: I think that the motivation is simple, and is rooted in the fact that before coming here, we were among the very best at our high school. Then, when we got here, most of us still wanted to be among the best, to still get all A's while being a leader in extracurriculars, and so on. However, courses here are probably much harder than what we dealt with in high school." It was also strange seeing Mankiw under the bus. Like or dislike his politics, he is a prolific blogger which generally suggests being in touch. http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/ Again from the comments: "Harry Lewis is correct in stating that students cheat more in classes where they…

Will recipients need to treat these outlays as taxable income? If so, it’s worth bearing in mind that many of the eligible people will face a very high marginal tax rate [0] if they lose access to government problems as a result, especially if one or both of the chosen states didn’t expand Medicaid under the ACA [1]. [0] https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2018/06/an-effective-marginal-tax-rate… [1] https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsured-po…

I would suggest Greg Mankiw's Principles of Economics.He also has a blog here http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/

It depends if you're looking for a textbook or more entertaining general-audience book. If the former, check out Principles of Economics, as mathoda suggested. If the latter, here are Mankiw's recommendations: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/summer-reading-list.html

Greg Mankiw: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/ The Electric Sheep Company: http://blogs.electricsheepcompany.com/sheep/

The _effecitve_ marginal tax rate for the poor can be much higher than it is for the rich. > the effective marginal tax rate when a person moves from the bottom to the middle quintile is 1 - (15.4-12.9)/(12.6-2.2), or 76 percent. http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2018/06/an-effective-marginal-tax-rate.… If you believe in basic economic concepts like: 1) people react to incentives, 2) diminishing marginal utility of income, or that 3) perceived fairness is important for the functioning of the society, you should look at the effective marginal tax levels in different income categories and at least even it out and maybe add more to the richest. Another way to increase taxes and level the playing field would be to remove loopholes in taxation with sweeping taxing reform. Combined with higher marginal tax rate for very high income individuals, Warren's proposal would probably generate even more income than $2.75 trillion over decade. Almost all economists agree, that the best way to tax the rich is taxing the land and property. All taxation has some negative effects but property tax has least harm and would be net positive. From this perspective Sanders has the best proposal, but Warren's is also good.

Again, I see no data that supports rapsey's claims, namely that 1. Protectionism resulted in greater economic growth for the US, Germany, Japan, and China. The example of China is particularly egregious since it was China's economic liberalization reforms in the 1980s and 1990s, including opening up to foreign investment and lifting protectionist policies, that resulted in massive economic growth and massive poverty reduction. 2. There is a positive correlation between protectionism and development in African countries. This is ironic because protectionism is a major source of harm for African countries. From the introduction of [5]: In recent years, as African governments and development advocates have stepped up their campaign to reform the trade policies of rich countries, the issue of agricultural protectionism has come to the forefront. This is a highly divisive issue, with rich countries resisting poor countries' demands for major changes... Critics highlight the hypocrisy of rich countries giving lip service to free trade while maintaining tariff barriers and paying subsidies to their farmers. Their argument that agricultural protectionism places an unfair burden on Africa is becoming a mainstream view. There is a consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare [1][2][3][4], so rapsey's extraordinary claim to the contrary requires extraordinary evidence. As Gregory Mankiw says [6], "Few propositions…

It's pretty easy to find research coming to a different conclusion than the Card/Kreuger paper that most pro-minimum-wage-increase people cite: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/06/sperling-on-minimum-wage.html http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/new-study-casts-doubt-on-card-krueger.htm… http://rjwaldmann.blogspot.com/2009/12/in-which-i-disagree-with-paul-k… But the best reasoning I've seen on the subject is Bryan Caplan's: "Suppose you have a weak prior about the disemployment effects of the minimum wage. Suppose further that you think that the best empirical work in economics is very good indeed. Doesn't existing evidence then oblige you to admit that the minimum wage has roughly zero effect on employment? "Hardly. Why not? Because there is far more 'existing evidence' than meets the eye. Research doesn't have to officially be about the minimum wage to be highly relevant to the debate. All of the following empirical literatures support the orthodox view that the minimum wage has pronounced disemployment effects:" http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/the_vice_of_sel.html

Lots of good examples here. Ariely's first 2 TED talks are great, but be careful with behavioral economics. For most start-ups, thinking about pricing in terms of hardcore microeconomic theory is probably a better route. The fact that so many digital goods truly have a marginal cost of 0 for the producer brings life back to the "Let's assume we have a constant marginal cost" phrase so many bright eyed Principles of Microeconomics students (and MBA students) have heard coming out of their economics professors' mouths. My point is that if something is a fact and not an assumption, then that's one less assumption you have to make. In most markets, I'd say that setting the price for a product almost always boils down to 2 general concepts: market power and price elasticity. Market power comes from producer theory and, generally speaking, refers to how much control you have over the price of your product. One way to think about market power is to start by thinking about the monopoly case. A monopolist, by definition, is the only firm in the market. A monopolist maximizes their profit at the quantity, call it Qx, where [MR = MC] OR [dTR/dQ = 0]. However, unlike a firm in a competitive market, a monopolist sells their good at the price associated with Qx in their own demand function (which for a monopolist is the market demand). Geometrically speaking, in a less-than-competitive market the "spread" that exists in the space below the demand function but above the marginal revenue…

The article explicitly states that pre-tax inequality is greater in Germany than the US. I don't know why you insist otherwise. And, I've never said that Europe has a fairer tax policy. However, I'm happy to say that the US should NOT emulate the EU's abysmal per-capita GDP. I'll come to the consequences of that at the end. You're the one who thinks that progressiveness is a virtue yet prefer a less progressive tax policy. Let's review. The original table (in http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html) had international comparisons for the mid 2000s. It showed that the top 10% in the US got 33.5% of the income and paid 45.1% of the income taxes. The ratio, 1.35, was the highest of the (selected) OCED countries. (Yes, including the majority of the EU countries.) You found articles showing that the top 10% had a greater fraction of income in other years and assumed that that somehow contradicted the above table or at least the conclusion. (You implied that the original table's income numbers were wrong, but since they're for different years....) However, progressivity is a relationship between two numbers and you didn't bother to look for the second number, the tax revenue share. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html table 1 has the US numbers for 2009, when the top 10% had a higher fraction of income than in the mid-2000s. That fraction, 43.2%, is roughly the same as your articles. However Table 1 also has the fraction of income taxes. It's…

A carbon tax is more free market, because it just puts a price on the externality and lets the market decide how to respond. Cap and trade involves setting a limit by fiat and allocating the initial permits. Some on the left see those attributes as features, because they get to pretend to control total emissions, and help "deserving" companies. In reality I expect cap and trade would be corrupted by rent seekers to a far greater extent than a carbon tax would be. Economists generally view carbon taxes and cap and trade regimes as equivalent I agree with Greg Mankiw that cap and trade equals carbon tax plus corporate welfare: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/05/reading-for-pigou-club_18.html I think this reflects a belief that raising the gas tax is political suicide and completely impossible. Could be. From the conservative wonks I read there's a surprising amount of support for a higher gas tax, but you're right that it would be a hard sell to the public, compared to regulations where the costs are much easier to hide.

The trouble is, cheap central bank credit also led to the Great Depression and the 1970's stagflation, yet no one seems to learn the lesson. Perhaps that's why Austrians tend to sound like a broken record. I think the reason no one learns the lesson is that cheap credit is just too tempting for politicians ( and the people that vote for them). It seems like a free lunch - until the malinvestment piles up and the credit pyramid starts to topple. Also, I'd note that Austrians tend to be much more knowledgeable of "mainstream" economics than mainstream economists are of Austrian economics ( see http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/04/austrian-economics.html and http://www.slate.com/id/9593, the latter article by Paul Krugman shows a stunning ignorance of what the Austrians are saying ). The three biggest economic issues today are: 1) the stagnation of the American standard living since 1970 2) the massive trade deficit and the hollowing of the American economy 3) the financial crisis All three of these problems are related to fiat currency, maturity mismatching, and inflationary policies by various banks. That's why I think the Austrians, while not perfect, are much closer to the truth than the other economic schools.

It's old, but I suspect we still have pretty widespread agreement among experts: "If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly. (85% [of economics agree])"[0] A 3% rule doesn't strictly violate this, but it's obviously violating the basic principle: some years you should go higher, and some years you should go lower. [0] https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/news-flash-economists-agree.ht…

What is the relationship across those income ranges between income and parental IQ? https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/08/least-surprising-correlation-o… Saying that SAT scores correlate closely with income in response to someone claiming that SAT scores measure IQ could be a statement of agreement or disagreement, depending on the relationships among the various measures.

Honestly, the concept is probably too simple to write an entire book on it, but Greg Mankiw (author of the most common econ textbook) has a good blog post on it: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2016/07/a-quick-note-on-univeral-basic-…

Not Japan, for instance: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2022/05/an-inflation-puzzle.html

Cap-and-trade is just carbon tax + corporate welfare (existing polluters get to sell their right to pollute) + trading vigs for Wall Street http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/08/fundamental-theorem-of-carbon-t…

Checking my rss reader ... https://feld.com/ (VC, but wide ranging) https://mapbrief.com/ Snarky GIS content https://randsinrepose.com/ Management advice for a level I'll never get to :) http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/ Right of center economics https://ultrasaurus.com/ Tech https://www.eugenewei.com/ Big pic tech and society

Apologies, I think I'm describing something more like the EITC which is phased out. I remember reading something by Mankiew briefly describing their equivalence. http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2016/07/a-quick-note-on-univeral-basic-…

Why is agreement a measure of how scientific a field is? I would argue that if there are no conflicting views, no progress can be made. I would also argue that the older a science is, the more consensus there will be for fundamental things, and since economics is a rather new science, there are fewer things economists can agree on. Besides, there are actually a lot of things that economists agree on: https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/news-flash-economists-agree.ht…

I think this misses the point and lets legislators off too easy. Economics tends to be concerned with maximizing the size of the pie, not distribution of benefits. That’s generally seen as government’s domain, with the idea that (with proper distribution) growth can genuinely make everyone better off. As it happens, legislators (and their appointees) seem to be willing to implement the growth-oriented ideas, but not the programs that retrain/etc people who lost out. Tangentially, there are some nice lists out there of things economists do agree on - here is one of them: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/news-flash-economists-agree.htm…

Obligatory post from 2009: https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/news-flash-economists-agree.ht…

That's the big thing that jumps out at me. There are very, very few serious economic policies that have this level of agreement among economists. Greg Mankiw did a list a while back about what economists agree on: https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/news-flash-economists-agree.ht…

Also http://gregmankiw.blogspot.ca/2016/09/trumponomics.html by Mankiw, a former chair of CEA under Bush.

Yeah, but where do those loophole savings go? They flow to shareholders in the form of earnings, which get taxed again, or to consumers in the form of lower costs. You really need to look at total tax revenue per GDP, and we're at the low end of that, but when you consider our high GDP per capita (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/03/taxes-per-person.html), we're in the middle of the pack. We're actually not that stingy on education either: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=…

To the contrary. The top 10% in Switzerland make 23% of the income but pay 21% of the taxes. In the U.S. the top 10% makes 33% of the income but pays 45% of the taxes. See: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-nation-has-most-progressiv…

And many people believe the draft is morally equivalent to slavery (which they do not support either).[1] [1] http://gregmankiw.blogspot.ca/2006/11/rangel-and-friedman-on-draft.htm…

> conservatives using "extreme snow" during winter as an argument against climate change but that liberals using exceptional heat during summer The 'extreme snow' was limited to certain parts of the US - the west coast got very little on the whole. Whereas this high temperature data is a global average. So they're not really the same thing. > I think we should start focusing on real solutions. Sounds good to me. Taxes, it must be said, are also a way to spur innovation, because it can focus people's attention on using less of the taxed resource. Here's Greg Mankiw's take on that. He's a Republican economist. http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto.html