Martin Feldstein just resigned as head of the National Bureau of Economic Research a couple of weeks before the release of my new book, The Confiscation of American Prosperity.
I devote a large part of one of my later chapters to exploring the history of the Bureau and the career of Martin Feldstein.
I wonder who tipped him off?
ReplyDeleteWhy is the book so expensive?
ReplyDeletePublishers don't know their "product". I had to fight to get it this low.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know about Feldstein until now. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to find out and understand more about the way governments provide 'risk intermediation' for large corporations; making it possible for these private corporations to access endless loans that are effectively underwritten by the taxpayer.
In Tasmania the Government Business Enterprise 'Forestry Tasmania' effectively makes risk-free profit available to the 'forestry' (forest rape) corporations. It does this by providing guaranteed access to native forests and agricultural land, sets the price of the public forest and land resource so low that the corporations can't help but make a profit. Government turns a blind eye to breaches of regulations, prohibits public particpation in auctions for resources, redrafts laws should corporate abuses be successfully challenged in court etc.
One thing I have overlooked till now is that this behaviour makes it very easy for the forestry corporations to access endless lines of credit. This credit, in turn, can be used to continuously expand an already unviable enterprise until the inevitable reckoning comes - a systemic economic crash for the whole state economy.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteEarlier this decade, did the NBER's Cycle Dating Committee modify the relative weights given unemployment and GDP growth rate, placing more emphasis on the latter than had been the case?
Juan, I had not heard that. If someone knows about this, I would like to know.
ReplyDeleteMichael,
ReplyDeleteTrying to be more specific, and perhaps nothing to it, but the Cycle Dating Committee's November 26, 2001 report of 'the business-cycle peak' noted:
"The committee gives relatively little weight to real GDP because it is only measured quarterly and it is subject to continuing, large revisions"
http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/
Same report, no mention of Macroeconomic Advisers.
But, moving to the October 21, 2003 Dating Procedure report, we find:
"The committee views real GDP as the single best measure of aggregate economic activity."
http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html
along with multiple mention of Macroeconomic Advisers, apparently as provider of monthly real GDP estimates.
My impression was that a change in method had taken place. Thinking back, and I can't recall the source but believe a NYTimes article, I recall mention of tensions within the NBER that were in some way related to above.