readings

• Selhání ekonomie? Štěpán Jurajda, poznámky v rámci panelu ČSE 4.12.2009

http://home.cerge-ei.cz/jurajda/panelCSE2009.pdf

Ekonomie na tom nikdy nebyla lépe, i přes současnou kritiku spojenou s finanční krizí. Za prvé,
většina našeho vědního oboru nemá nic společného s makroekonomií a dovoluje vyvracet hypotézy na základě metod
, které se i díky pokroku v posledních desetiletích blíží zlatému standardu vědy
(v rámci možností sociálních věd). Za druhé byla i teoretická a makro‐ekonomie (již před lety)
slušně připravena vysvětlit jevy, ke kterým došlo, a nabízí dobrá vodítka pro nastavení efektivních opatření (regulací), které donedávna chyběly
, a které do budoucna podobné anomálie významně omezí.

• The Unification of the Behavioral Sciences

http://www.cerge-ei.cz/pdf/events/papers/090402_t.pdf

• Paul A. Samuelson, Groundbreaking Economist, Dies at 94
  

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/economy/14samuelson.html

• Gregor

http://clickbeetle.blogspot.com/2009/12/obsluhoval-jsem-pokeroveho-krale.html

• Wake up, gentlemen’, world’s top bankers warned by former Fed chairman Volcker

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6949387.ece
As bankers demanded that new regulation should not stifle innovation, a clearly irritated Mr Volcker said that the biggest innovation in the industry over the past 20 years had been the cash machine. He went on to attack the rise of complex products such as credit default swaps (CDS).
“I wish someone would give me one shred of neutral evidence that financial innovation has led to economic growth — one shred of evidence,” said Mr Volcker, who ran the Fed from 1979 to 1987 and is now chairman of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/30/the_fp_top_100_global_thinkers

• Tax Cuts Might Accomplish What Spending Hasn’t Mankiw
  

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/economy/13view.html?_r=1

The report in January put numbers to this conclusion. It says that an extra dollar of government spending raises G.D.P. by $1.57, while a dollar of tax cuts raises G.D.P. by only 99 cents. The implication is that if we are going to increase the budget deficit to promote growth and jobs, it is better to spend more than tax less.

But various recent studies suggest that conventional wisdom is backward.

One piece of evidence comes from Christina D. Romer, the chairwoman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers. In work with her husband, David H. Romer, written at the University of California, Berkeley, just months before she took her current job, Ms. Romer found that tax policy has a powerful influence on economic activity.

According to the Romers, each dollar of tax cuts has historically raised G.D.P. by about $3

My Harvard colleagues Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna have recently conducted a comprehensive analysis of the issue. In an October study, they looked at large changes in fiscal policy in 21 nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. They identified 91 episodes since 1970 in which policy moved to stimulate the economy. They then compared the policy interventions that succeeded — that is, those that were actually followed by robust growth — with those that failed.

The results are striking. Successful stimulus relies almost entirely on cuts in business and income taxes. Failed stimulus relies mostly on increases in government spending.

both increases in taxes and increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending. This effect is difficult to reconcile with Keynesian theory.