dolanecon.bsky.social
Economist, Senior Fellow at Niskanen Center. Political economy, social policy, environmental economics and more.
317 posts
992 followers
2,238 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
3/3 Or a little of both? Here's my take: www.milkenreview.org/articles/the...
comment in response to
post
2/3 Or just learn to live with fewer people, like the Japanese? wapo.st/3Ggi5rO
comment in response to
post
2/2 ... and here is a good critique of the old one www.mercatus.org/research/res...
comment in response to
post
Also this meduza.io/en/feature/2...
comment in response to
post
2/2 Interestingly, Zwolinski's embrace of the Hayekian option stops short of dismissing the label "libertarian" altogether, as Hayek himself did in his famous "Why I Am Not a Conservative." www.cato.org/sites/cato.o...
comment in response to
post
2/2 For more about tax cliffs and disincentive deserts in the US, see here: www.niskanencenter.org/work-disince...
comment in response to
post
2/2 Appelbaum is right. Here is a piece I wrote on the subject a few years ago to point out that a surprisingly small share of tax-advantaged giving goes to the needy, and that tax incentives have less effect on actual giving than one might think. www.niskanencenter.org/charitable-d...
comment in response to
post
4/4 The bottom line: It seems to me that the 3% growth of "core GDP" is not after all a "clean" measure of growth. Am I missing something here?
comment in response to
post
3/4 If so, would core GDP not be distorted if some of the extra imports go right through to final consumers and fixed investment? It seems almost as if you are assuming all the incremental imports are going into inventory, which may be true for some but not all ...
comment in response to
post
2/4 I can see the logic in omitting Gov purchases and inventory investment, but don't both consumption and private fixed investment include purchases of both imported and domestic consumption and investment goods? ...
comment in response to
post
Love it, that's us in upper right!
comment in response to
post
No taxes for the rich, not FEMA for the rest of us. Sigh.
comment in response to
post
2/2 Some in MAGA want to make a token gesture at recognizing this inequality by increasing income tax on millionaires. But the truly rich don't pay income taxes -- they live off untaxed capital gains. Even the MAGA populists are afraid to touch them. www.washingtonpost.com/business/202...
comment in response to
post
Sad but too often true
comment in response to
post
Yes, K is sometimes partisan, but I would not discount his views on this one, which is his home turf as an economist. Also, this, interestingly, is not a partisan issue, with many Dems (eg Whitmer, Sanders) supporting tariffs for the same wrong reasons as Trump, and many in GOP opposing them.
comment in response to
post
Thanks. Cavallo seems to suggest that Phi is close to zero in some of his tables, does not seem plausible to me. But his bottom line is clear: Americans pay the tariff, not foreign sellers.