Economics (Theory and Philosophy)

Latest story

163 Shares55 Views

Economists Are in the Wilderness. Can They Find a Way Back to Influence?

by

Economists have long helped to shape policy on issues like taxes and health care. But flawed forecasts and arcane language have cost them credibility.Partway through a panel discussion at a recent economics conference in San Francisco, Jason Furman, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, turned to Kimberly Clausing, a former member of the Biden administration and the author of a book extolling the virtues of free trade.“Everyone in this room agrees with your book,” Mr. Furman said. “No one outside of this room agrees with your book.”The academics and policy wonks gathered in the hotel conference room laughed, but the comment captured something real: After decades of helping to shape policy on weighty matters like taxes and health insurance, economists find that their influence is at a low ebb.Free trade is perhaps the closest thing to a universally held value among economists, yet Americans just voted to return to office a president, Donald J. Trump, who has described tariffs as “the most beautiful word in the dictionary” and who often seems to view trade through a mercantilist lens that the field has considered outdated since the days of Adam Smith.The president he will replace, Joseph R. Biden, was hardly a free-trade zealot himself: He kept in place many of the tariffs that Mr. Trump imposed in his first term, and moved in his final days in office to block the takeover of U.S. Steel by a Japanese company — a decision his own economic advisers opposed.It isn’t just trade.Economists overwhelmingly favor immigration as a source of innovation and growth, yet Mr. Trump wants to seal the border and deport potentially millions of unauthorized residents.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

More stories

  • 75 Shares50 Views

    in Economy

    Can Low Unemployment Last Under Trump?

    by

    Hiring has slowed, but joblessness remains at levels defying economic norms. Big policy changes under a new administration could test that resilience.For a time, not too long ago, it was the central question animating economic forecasts and bets laid by investors in financial markets: Will the U.S. economy avoid a recession?Now, for many in the business world, that question feels almost passé, part of an earlier, more fretful era of narratives.After a superlative run of hovering below 4 percent for more than two years, the unemployment rate — at 4.2 percent — has ticked up since last spring. But only by a bit so far; the December reading will come on Friday. While hiring has slowed, layoffs remain low by long-term standards.Inflation, having calmed substantially, is still being eyed warily by the Federal Reserve, which began steeply raising interest rates in 2022 to combat price increases. But at three consecutive meetings in the final months of 2024, the Fed slightly lowered the key interest rate it controls — an attempt to surgically take some pressure off commercial activity and support employment.Predictions of a downturn, once omnipresent, were mostly absent from the year-ahead forecasts that major financial firms typically send around to clients over the holidays.Near the start of 2024, Jeremy Barnum, the chief financial officer at JPMorgan Chase, told listeners asking about U.S. economic vitality during a conference call, “Everyone wants to see a problem — but the reality is we aren’t seeing any yet.”

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

    Unemployment rate
    Note: Data is seasonally adjustedSource: Bureau of Labor StatisticsKarl RussellWe 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

  • 125 Shares145 Views

    in Economy

    Richard A. Easterlin, ‘Father of Happiness Economics,’ Dies at 98

    by

    He put forth the so-called Easterlin paradox, finding that the richer you are doesn’t mean the more satisfied you’ll be with your life.Does getting a year-end bonus or raise make you happier? Does the lift it gives you tend to quickly fade, especially if others around you also won out in the annual compensation sweepstakes?If the answer is that a boost in income doesn’t greatly improve your sense of well-being, then you are a proof point of the Easterlin paradox, the economic theory that more money, over the long run, won’t buy more happiness.The paradox was put forth by Richard A. Easterlin, an economist, a demographer and a seminal figure in the field of academic research into happiness. The University of Southern California, where he was an emeritus professor, called him the “father of happiness economics” in announcing his death. He died at 98 on Dec. 16 at his home in Pasadena, Calif.Mr. Easterlin’s work challenged both conventional wisdom and a core economic tenet that economic growth in a society leads to a general improvement in feelings of well being.Economists, policymakers and ordinary citizens had long taken it as a given that increasing a nation’s gross domestic product — its total economic output — improves its people’s happiness.But in the 1970s, Mr. Easterlin, then at the University of Pennsylvania, published research showing that even though incomes in the United States had risen dramatically since World War II, Americans said in surveys that they were no happier.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

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Have Paychecks Kept Up With the Cost of Living?

    by

    On average, pay has risen faster than prices in recent years. But the overall picture is complicated — and it’s not just facts versus “vibes.”Have Americans’ paychecks kept up with the cost of living over the past several years?It is a surprisingly difficult question to answer.According to most Americans, the answer is a clear “no.” In polls and interviews ahead of the presidential election, people of virtually all ideologies and income levels say inflation has made it harder to make ends meet, eclipsing whatever raises they have managed to win from their employers.According to economic data, the answer appears, at least on the surface, to be “yes.” Income and earnings have outpaced inflation since the start of the pandemic, according to a variety of both government and private-sector sources. That is especially true for the lowest earners — a partial reversal of the rising inequality of recent decades.But this is not a simple case of facts versus “vibes.” Economic statistics are based on broad averages. Dig deeper, and the story becomes more complicated. How a given family or individual has fared over the past five years depends on a litany of factors: whether the earners own their home or rent; whether they had to buy a car or send a child to day care; whether they were able to change jobs or demand a raise.“I feel like some people are being very dismissive, saying, ‘Oh, people are wrong — there has been all this real wage growth,’ but that is a simple average,” said Stefanie Stantcheva, a Harvard economist who has studied how people experience inflation. “It’s actually very, very hard to say people are wrong — I would almost never say that.”The bottom line: Most American workers are probably making more money today, adjusted for inflation, than they were in 2019. But not all have seen their pay keep up with their own cost of living, and many — perhaps most — are lagging behind where they would be if prepandemic trends had continued unabated. Those complications may help explain why so many Americans believe they have fallen behind.

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

    Change since end of 2019 in various earnings measures
    Notes: After-tax income is per capita and excludes government transfer payments and is adjusted for inflation by the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index. Hourly earnings are for production and nonsupervisory workers and are adjusted for inflation by the CPI-W. Median weekly earnings are for full-time workers and are adjusted for inflation using the CPI-U. Average weekly earnings are for all workers and are also adjusted using the CPI-U. All series are monthly except for median weekly earnings, which are quarterly.Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal Reserve Bank of New YorkBy 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;
    }

    Change in inflation-adjusted weekly earnings by wage level, 2019-2024
    Note: Change is measured in the third quarter of each year, not 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;
    }

    Median weekly earnings vs. prepandemic trend
    Notes: Earnings are shown in 2023 dollars and are for full-time workers. Data is seasonally adjusted. Trend line is based on 2014 to 2019 data.Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy 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

  • 150 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    The Best Books About the Economy to Read Before the 2024 Election

    by

    Voters are forever worried about the economy — the price of homes and groceries, the rise and fall of the stock market, and, of course, taxes — but the economic policies that affect these things often seem unapproachable. Donald Trump wants to cut taxes and raise tariffs. Kamala Harris wants to raise taxes on high-income households and expand the social safety net. But what does that mean? And what are they hoping to achieve?Part of what makes economic policy difficult is the need to understand not just the direct impact of a change but also its many indirect effects. A tax credit to buy houses, for example, might end up benefiting home sellers more than home purchasers if a surge in demand drives up prices.The mathematics and jargon that economists use in journals facilitate precise scientific communication, which has the indirect effect of excluding everyone else. Meanwhile, the “economists” you see on TV or hear on the radio are more often telling you (usually incorrectly) whether the economy will go into recession without explaining why.But some authors do a good job of walking the line between accessibility and expertise. Here are five books to help you crack the nut on the economy before Election Day.The Little Book of EconomicsBy Greg IpThe best way to understand things like the causes of recessions and inflation and the consequences of public debt is to take an introductory economics course and do all the problem sets. The second-best way? Read “The Little Book of Economics.” Don’t be fooled by its compact form and breezy writing: This book, by the Wall Street Journal chief economics commentator Greg Ip, manages to pack in just about everything you wanted to know but were afraid to ask about the gross domestic product.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

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Nobel Economics Prize Awarded to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson

    by

    Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson shared the award for their work on explaining the gaps in prosperity between nations.Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson received the prize for their work on explaining inequality between countries.Christine Olsson/TT News Agency, via Associated PressThe Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded on Monday to Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, both of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and to James Robinson of the University of Chicago.They received the prize for their research into how institutions shape which countries become wealthy and prosperous — and how those structures came to exist in the first place.The laureates delved into the world’s colonial past to trace how gaps emerged between nations, arguing that countries that started out with more inclusive institutions during the colonial period tended to become more prosperous. Their pioneering use of theory and data has helped to better explain the reasons for persistent inequality between nations, according to the Nobel committee.“Reducing the huge differences in income between countries is one of our times’ greatest challenges,” Jakob Svensson, chairman of the economics prize committee, said while announcing the award. Thanks to the economists’ “groundbreaking research,” he said, “we have a much deeper understanding of the root causes of why countries fail or succeed.”According to the researchers, prosperity today is partly a legacy of how a nation’s institutions evolved over time — which they studied by looking at what happened to countries during European colonization.Countries with “inclusive” institutions that protected personal property rights and allowed for widespread economic participation tended to end up on a pathway to longer-term prosperity. Those that had what the researchers called “extractive” institutions — ones that helped elites to maintain control, but which gave workers little hope of sharing in the wealth — merely provided short-term gains for the people in power.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

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Why Low Layoff Numbers Don’t Mean the Labor Market Is Strong

    by

    Past economic cycles show that unemployment starts to tick up ahead of a recession, with wide-scale layoffs coming only later.As job growth has slowed and unemployment has crept up, some economists have pointed to a sign of confidence among employers: They are, for the most part, holding on to their existing workers.Despite headline-grabbing job cuts at a few big companies, overall layoffs remain below their levels during the strong economy before the pandemic. Applications for unemployment benefits, which drifted up in the spring and summer, have recently been falling.But past recessions suggest that layoff data alone should not offer much comfort about the labor market. Historically, job cuts have come only once an economic downturn was well underway.

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

    Layoffs per month
    Data is seasonally adjusted.Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesThe Great Recession, for example, officially began at the end of 2007, after the bursting of the housing bubble and the ensuing mortgage crisis. The unemployment rate began rising in early 2008. But it was not until late 2008 — after the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the onset of a global financial crisis — that employers began cutting jobs in earnest.The milder recession in 2001 offers an even clearer example. The unemployment rate rose steadily from 4.3 percent in May to 5.7 percent at the end of the year. But apart from a brief spike in the fall, layoffs hardly rose.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

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Harris and Trump Have Differing Plans to Solve Housing Crisis

    by

    The two presidential nominees are talking about their approaches for solving America’s affordability crisis. But would their plans work?America’s gaping shortage of affordable housing has rocketed to the top of voter worry lists and to the forefront of campaign promises, as both the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, and the Republican candidate, Donald J. Trump, promise to fix the problem if they are elected.Their two visions of how to solve America’s affordable housing shortage have little in common, and Ms. Harris’s plan is far more detailed. But they do share one quality: Both have drawn skepticism from outside economists.Ms. Harris is promising a cocktail of tax cuts meant to spur home construction — which several economists said could help create supply. But she is also floating a $25,000 benefit to help first-time buyers break into the market, which many economists worry could boost demand too much, pushing home prices even higher. And both sets of policies would need to pass in Congress, which would influence their design and feasibility.Mr. Trump’s plan is garnering even more doubt. He pledges to deport undocumented immigrants, which could cut back temporarily on housing demand but would also most likely cut into the construction work force and eventually limit new housing supply. His other ideas include lowering interest rates, something that he has no direct control over and that is poised to happen anyway.Economist misgivings about the housing market policy plans underline a somber reality. Few quick fixes are available for an affordable housing shortfall that has been more than 15 years in the making, one that is being worsened by demographic and societal trends. While ambitious promises may sound good in debates and television ads, actual policy attempts to fix the national housing shortfall are likely to prove messy and slow — even if they are sorely needed.Here’s what the candidates are proposing, and what experts say about those plans.Harris: Expand Supply Using Tax Credits.Ms. Harris is promising to increase housing supply by expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, providing incentives for state and local investment in housing and creating a $40 billion tax credit to make affordable projects economically feasible for builders.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

  • 150 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    Kamala Harris Blames ‘Price Gouging’ for Grocery Inflation. Here’s What Economists Say.

    by

    Price increases when demand exceeds supply are textbook economics. The question is whether, and how much, the pandemic yielded an excess take.In detailing her presidential campaign’s economic agenda, Vice President Kamala Harris will highlight an argument that blames corporate price gouging for high grocery prices.That message polls well with swing voters. It has been embraced by progressive groups, which regularly point to price gouging as a driver of rapid inflation, or at least something that contributes to rapid price increases. Those groups cheered the announcement late Wednesday that Ms. Harris will call for a federal ban on corporate price gouging on groceries in an economic policy speech on Friday.But the economic argument over the issue is complicated.Economists have cited a range of forces for pushing up prices in the recovery from the pandemic recession, including snarled supply chains, a sudden shift in consumer buying patterns, and the increased customer demand fueled by stimulus from the government and low rates from the Federal Reserve. Most economists say those forces are far more responsible than corporate behavior for the rise in prices in that period.Biden administration economists have found that corporate behavior has played a role in pushing up grocery costs in recent years — but that other factors have played a much larger one.The Harris campaign announcement cited meat industry consolidation as a driver of excessive grocery prices, but officials did not immediately respond on Thursday to questions about the evidence Ms. Harris would cite or how her proposal would work.There are examples of companies telling investors in recent years that they have been able to raise prices to increase profits. But even the term “price gouging” means different things to different people.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