Fair and balanced after all? The bias of the US press. Fair and balanced after all? The bias of the US press. Riccardo Puglisi, James M. Snyder, Jr., 1 September 2011 Citizens typically obtain information about relevant policy issues via the mass media. Moreover, they might make judgements about the relative importance of issues – whether crime or the economy is the most important problem facing society, for example – by comparing the relative amount of media coverage issues receive, otherwise known as “agenda-setting” (McCombs and Shaw 1972). Of course, journalistic norms dictate objectivity in coverage. But objectivity might fail in practice. If (i) media bias is mainly driven by the preferences of owners, editors, or journalists, (ii) most media outlets are biased in the same direction, and (iii) the media have some persuasive power, then media bias may have pervasive and long-term political and policy effects. Groseclose and Milyo conclude that the US media display an overall liberal bias, i.e. most media outlets are to the left of the average American voter.
Figure 1 Figure 2. "A New look at the Industrial Revolution" I'm curious to read the comments on this one: Opening Pandora’s box: A new look at the industrial revolution, by Tony Wrigley, Vox EU : The most fundamental defining feature of the industrial revolution was that it made possible exponential economic growth – growth at a speed that implied the doubling of output every half-century or less. This in turn radically transformed living standards. Each generation came to have a confident expectation that they would be substantially better off than their parents or grandparents. Yet, remarkably, the best informed and most perspicacious of contemporaries were not merely unconscious of the implications of the changes which were taking place about them but firmly dismissed the possibility of such a transformation. The classical economists Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo advanced an excellent reason for dismissing the possibility of prolonged growth.
Figure 1. Source: Wrigley (2010). A New look at the Industrial Revolution" I'm curious to read the comments on this one: Opening Pandora’s box: A new look at the industrial revolution, by Tony Wrigley, Vox EU: The most fundamental defining feature of the industrial revolution was that it made possible exponential economic growth – growth at a speed that implied the doubling of output every half-century or less. This in turn radically transformed living standards. Each generation came to have a confident expectation that they would be substantially better off than their parents or grandparents. Yet, remarkably, the best informed and most perspicacious of contemporaries were not merely unconscious of the implications of the changes which were taking place about them but firmly dismissed the possibility of such a transformation. The classical economists Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo advanced an excellent reason for dismissing the possibility of prolonged growth.
Smith and Ricardo as growth pessimists Breaking free from photosynthesis Pandora’s box? Why Lagarde is right: Bank recapitalisation is the best strategy. Harald Hau, 2 September 2011 The latest proposed solution to the Eurozone crisis is Eurobonds. This column argues that such a move would be politically poisonous and would shift the losses of the continent’s richest to the taxpayer. Instead, Europe’s policymakers should follow the strategy outlined by the new IMF chief Christine Lagarde. She calls for the recapitalisation of banks so that they can absorb the worst of the losses should Eurozone countries default. Full Article: Why Lagarde is right: Bank recapitalisation is the best strategy The May 2010 Greek policy was a mistake It is increasingly clear that avoiding the default of Greece and the creation of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) was a big policy mistake (see Wyplosz 2010 and 2011). Why Lagarde is right: Bank recapitalisation is the best strategy.
The latest proposed solution to the Eurozone crisis is Eurobonds. This column argues that such a move would be politically poisonous and would shift the losses of the continent’s richest to the taxpayer. Instead, Europe’s policymakers should follow the strategy outlined by the new IMF chief Christine Lagarde. She calls for the recapitalisation of banks so that they can absorb the worst of the losses should Eurozone countries default. "Those who seek to defend everything defend nothing" Prussian Reformer and General Gerhard von Scharnhorst. The quote above is a fair characterisation of the policy response of European heads of state and the ECB to Europe's sovereign debt crisis. European guarantees for Spanish or Italian public debt are just unacceptable to the French, German, or Dutch taxpayer because of the magnitude of the risk involved. Some believe a Eurobond could rescue the situation, but this is akin to magical thinking.
Why There Is No ‘V’ Rebound This Time. Before looking at some worrisome comparisons in the Economic Letter from Mark Wynne of the Dallas Fed indicating we are in for a protracted recovery, it's probably good to remember this from Charles Evans: It bears keeping in mind that ... predictions of a slow recovery are based on historical averages of macroeconomic performances across many different countries... They highlight a challenge we face today, but from the standpoint of the underlying economic analysis, there is nothing pre-ordained about these outcomes. They are not theoretical predictions—rather, they are reduced form correlations. The economy can perform better than it did in these past episodes if policy responds better than it did in those situations.
Here's the Letter: The Sluggish Recovery from the Great Recession: Why There Is No ‘V’ Rebound This Time, by Mark A. Conventional wisdom holds that severe recessions are usually followed by strong recoveries. How does recent U.S. experience compare? Why There Is No ‘V’ Rebound This Time. Before looking at some worrisome comparisons in the Economic Letter from Mark Wynne of the Dallas Fed indicating we are in for a protracted recovery, it's probably good to remember this from Charles Evans: It bears keeping in mind that ... predictions of a slow recovery are based on historical averages of macroeconomic performances across many different countries...
They highlight a challenge we face today, but from the standpoint of the underlying economic analysis, there is nothing pre-ordained about these outcomes. They are not theoretical predictions—rather, they are reduced form correlations. The economy can perform better than it did in these past episodes if policy responds better than it did in those situations. Here's the Letter: The Sluggish Recovery from the Great Recession: Why There Is No ‘V’ Rebound This Time, by Mark A.
Conventional wisdom holds that severe recessions are usually followed by strong recoveries. How does recent U.S. experience compare? "A Genuine Revolution in Human Thinking" Marshall and Keynes brought about "a genuine revolution in human thinking": ...Alfred Marshall, the man most responsible for Keynes’s career choice, was also the one most responsible for the new way of thinking.
To paraphrase a great American economist, Paul Samuelson: before Marshall, economics was about what you couldn’t change. The new economics was about what you could. Consider the dismal science when Marshall took it up. There was no cheering up Karl Marx... The British founders of political economy were scarcely less glum. John Stuart Mill ... doubted whether democratic reforms or technological progress could have much effect on how the average Briton lived. ...
The new,... social science that Marshall pioneered and Keynes and others innovated was a genuine revolution in human thinking... It seems to me that the current crisis is, to a large extent, reversing the economics of hope. I refuse to give up. John Maynard Keynes - His sunny optimism shaped economists’ approach to depression. Bundesverfassungsgericht hilft Bundesregierung bei der Griechenlandhilfe aus der Patsche und erhebt die Maastricht-Regeln auf Verfassungsrang. Durch eine eigenmächtige Umdeutung des Wortlauts des Euro-Stabilitätsgesetzes retten die Karlsruher Richter die Bundesregierung vor dem politischen Desaster, bei der Griechenlandhilfe gegenüber den europäischen Partnern einen Rückzieher machen zu müssen. Andererseits erhebt das höchste Gericht die dem Maastricht-Vertrag zugrundeliegende ökonomische Lehre des Monetarismus geradezu auf Verfassungsrang und verbaut damit einer makroökonomischen Zusammenarbeit auf dem Feld der Finanz- oder Wirtschaftspolitik in einer Währungsunion unter Berufung auf das Grundgesetz den Weg.
Von Wolfgang Lieb Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat die Verfassungsbeschwerden der fünf Euro-Gegner Wilhelm Hankel, Wilhelm Nölling, Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider, Dieter Spethmann und Joachim Starbatty und Peter Gauweiler zurückgewiesen. Um so mehr wird das Haushaltsrechts des Parlaments in den Verfassungshimmel gehoben: Das Budgetrecht des Parlaments stelle ein zentrales Element demokratischer Willensbildung dar. Bundesverfassungsgericht hilft Bundesregierung bei der Griechenlandhilfe aus der Patsche und erhebt die Maastricht-Regeln auf Verfassungsrang 8. September 2011 um 10:51 Uhr Bundesverfassungsgericht hilft Bundesregierung bei der Griechenlandhilfe aus der Patsche und erhebt die Maastricht-Regeln auf Verfassungsrang Verantwortlich: Wolfgang Lieb Durch eine eigenmächtige Umdeutung des Wortlauts des Euro-Stabilitätsgesetzes retten die Karlsruher Richter die Bundesregierung vor dem politischen Desaster, bei der Griechenlandhilfe gegenüber den europäischen Partnern einen Rückzieher machen zu müssen.
Andererseits erhebt das höchste Gericht die dem Maastricht-Vertrag zugrundeliegende ökonomische Lehre des Monetarismus geradezu auf Verfassungsrang und verbaut damit einer makroökonomischen Zusammenarbeit auf dem Feld der Finanz- oder Wirtschaftspolitik in einer Währungsunion unter Berufung auf das Grundgesetz den Weg. Im Übrigen seien die Mitwirkungshandlungen der Bundesregierung an den Beschlüssen des Rates der Europäischen Union keine von den Klägern mit einer Verfassungsbeschwerde angreifbaren Akte öffentlicher Gewalt. Artikel 38: Countdown to Financial Armageddon - The Way of All Debt by John Gray | A Review of Margaret Atwood's Payback: Debt And The Shadow Side of Wealth. The Way of All Debt by John Gray. Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth by Margaret Atwood Toronto: House of Anansi, 230 pp., $15.95 (paper) A perturbation arising from the American market in subprime mortgages has spread through the banking system to disrupt economic activity throughout the world.
The pattern of cause and effect will be debated for many years, with historians asking when and how the global economy was set on the path that led to its current condition. Already there are some who trace the crisis to decisions of Alan Greenspan, chairman of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006, when he responded to events such as the collapse in the late 1990s of a hedge fund, Long Term Capital Management, and the subsequent bursting of the dot-com bubble by creating a climate of easy borrowing, which in turn inflated another bubble in the housing market. These accounts are not mutually exclusive, nor are they in any way exhaustive. "The Importance of Economic History" The importance of economic history. Paul Krugman is upset about some pretty fanciful accounts of what supposedly happened during the Great Depression, and I don’t blame him.
He also wonders whether economics is a progressive science (I am using the word ’science’ in its German sense). Well, one of the things that philosophers of science have argued about in the past is whether, when you have a paradigm shift, you end up losing knowledge, and it’s pretty clear what has happened in this instance. I recently came across this quotation from Mark Blaug’s 1980 book on the methodology of economics which seems worth quoting, given when it was written: At this point, it is helpful to note what methodological individualism strictly interpreted…would imply for economics. In effect, it would rule out all macroeconomic propositions that cannot be reduced to microeconomic ones, and since few have yet been so reduced, this amounts to saying goodbye to almost the whole of received macroeconomics.