Thursday, October 4, 2007

Has Mark Thoma Sipped from the Supply-side Kool Aid?

Mark Thoma features the Iraq War surtax proposal endorsed by James McGovern. As a member of the deficit hawk wing of the Democratic Party, I like this idea. Mark objects:

While it's certainly true that someone will have to pay for the war at some point - somebody, someday, somewhere will have to give up something to pay the bills - raising taxes right now is not good short-run economic policy given the current weakness in the economy. Driving the economy into a recession would show sacrifice, but that's not the best way to show our support.


If this had been written by someone in the White House, I’d expect Mark to actually mock this suggestion. But this is Mark making the statement and as much as I respect his insights on these matters, it’s my turn to do some mocking. Sure we have seen some recent weakness in aggregate demand growth. But is an increase in national savings necessarily recessionary? Has easy monetary policy lost all of its potency? After all, lower interest rates could encourage more investment as well as even more dollar devaluation with its encouragement of more net exports.

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Absurd Interpretation of Fairness

This article condemns Radiohead for ripping off consumers by allowing them to pay what they think is appropriate to download the group's new album. Apparently, some consumer might pay Radiohead money that should rightfully go to the major labels. Read this and laugh.

"Will Radiohead leave fans high and dry? It may sound preposterous to accuse the British rockers of gouging their followers. The band is letting them decide how much to pay for a downloaded version of new album "In Rainbows." But early indications suggest that Radiohead's loyal followers are paying too much for the band's seventh disc."

"According to a poll conducted by United Kingdom music magazine NME, the average fan appears to be willing to pay $10 for a digital copy. Now, that may not sound like a blow out. It's the going price for most records on Apple's iTunes. And that price, in turn, looks to be about right for a digitally downloaded album."

"Consider the economics of the average CD. It retails for about $16 and costs about $6.40 to manufacture, distribute and sell in a store, research outfit Almighty Institute of Music Retail says. These costs are essentially zero when music is sold online. That's why iTunes can charge roughly $10 for a downloaded album."

"Radiohead's fitter, happier approach slices out even more cost. The band pulled the ripcord on EMI, so it doesn't have to share profits or help pay the label's overhead. As a well-known band it's also able to take the knives out on marketing and promotion costs, cutting these by as much as two-thirds. Subtract these expenses and Radiohead may be able to distribute an album for as little as $3.40 a copy."

"Now, fans may be delighted to pay $10 because they think the album is

so good and Radiohead deserves the extra cash. But Radiohead prides

itself on its anticorporate and anti-materialistic ethos. To avoid letting down fans, it might be more productive to adopt a no-surprises policy and fix a simple, fair charge for its record."

Cyran, Robert, Rob Cox and Mike Verdi. 2007. "What Price a Download? Given the Option to Name Their Own Price for Album, Radiohead Fans Overspend." (3 October): p. C 14.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119136863867147050.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Heterodoc Speaks

from INSIDE HIGHER EDUCATION, 10/3/07, by Andy Guess:

>That label ["heterodox"] is sometimes reserved for a coterie of economists who go further, rejecting even some of the basic founding principles of economics. Sequestered in departments at the University of Notre Dame, the New School and others, the heterodox economists often complain that they aren’t respected in the field and are systematically kept out of mainstream debates. Most find it difficult to publish in mainstream journals or present at major conferences.

> “It’s kind of like the third parties in politics,” said James Devine, a professor at Loyola Marymount University who describes his approach as within the heterodox tradition.


>But, as with any vaguely defined term, “heterodox” can be used to mean anything. It’s “an ambiguous term,” Gordon said. “What’s heterodox changes over time,” said Avinash K. Dixit, at Princeton, who is the president-elect of the AEA. Sure enough, the Association for Heterodox Economics lists researchers who approach the discipline from an Austrian perspective — like some at George Mason.

>“Very conservative people can be heterodox,” added Devine, whose areas of interest include labor economics and Marxian political economy. “We’re basically seen as consumers. That’s the dominant [view] and I don’t think that’s going away in the near future, but there is some change, an opening, towards heterodox views, and that comes mostly from experimental economics and behavioral economics,” he said.

>As Devine sees it, the neoclassical model that dominates economics has a subset — laissez-faire market economics — that he calls “more of a political commitment” than a scholarly consensus. So within the field, he said, economists like Blinder and Card (who subscribe to most of the mainstream tenets) are rebelling against that political orthodoxy, while the “experimentalists” working in behavioral economics or more fringe heterodox circles are chipping away at the neoclassical foundations themselves.<

-- Jim

EADS Insider Trading and Rule 10b-5

I find this shocking:


Shareholders and executives at Airbus parent EADS engaged in "massive" insider trading, a press report said Wednesday, citing a document that also alleges the government had been aware of difficulties at EADS prior to the lucrative sale of shares … It cited the AMF as describing the selling, which took place between November 2005 and March 2006, as "simultaneous and massive" in scale. It said problems in the key Airbus A380 superjumbo programme that led to a June 2006 profit warning had been raised as early as June 2005 in an EADS board meeting.

I don’t know anything about security laws in France but I am aware of what the U.S. calls Rule 10b-5:

This provision defines when a purchase or sale constitutes trading "on the basis of" material nonpublic information in insider trading cases


Financial economists define an efficient market as a market in which security prices reflect all available information and adjust instantly to any new information. But what happens when the senior management of a company fails to disclose material information in a timely fashion? Fraud on the market can occur in a couple of ways. Perhaps the easiest to grasp is the case when an insider provides information that is false. For example, the CEO of a pharmaceutical company might try to claim their in-process R&D is about to garner regulatory approval for a hit new drug even though he knows the recent lab tests were discouraging. His fraudulent information sends the stock price soaring, which allows the CEO to cash in by selling his stock at a price above the true value of the firm based on full and correct information. This EADS situation is a good example where had negative information been provided in a timely way, the stock price would have declined as soon as the negative information was realized both by insiders and the public. However, the insiders here decided not to let this negative information become public, which means the stock price remained about what it would have been under full information.

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Nice discussion of my new book

David Warsh, longtime reporter with the Boston Globe, covering economics rather than the economy, discussed my new book, comparing it favorably to recent works by Krugman and Chait.

http://www.economicprincipals.com/issues/07.09.30.html

Quick Thoughts on Carbon Sequestration

Carbon sequestration is an excessively expensive and probably technically impossible method of capturing significant amounts of carbon. Planting trees is another popular suggestion for sequestering carbon, but a more traditional method has not been mentioned to the best of my knowledge.
Building up the soil is a simple low-tech technique for sequestering carbon. For centuries, careful farmers have realized how to build up the fertility of the soil, not really thinking in terms of carbon sequestration.
Commercial US agriculture is largely based on "robbery agriculture," as the great German chemist of the century and a half ago, Justus von Liebig, put it. When I published my book, Farming for Profit and a Hungry World, 30 years ago, I discovered that US agriculture was eroding about 30 pounds of soil for every pound of food it delivered to an US table. At the same time, my research for the book found that US agriculture was burning about 10 calories of fuel for every calorie of food that it was delivering to a US table.

I have no reason to believe that these imbalances have gotten any better since then. I strongly suspect that they have gotten worse.
So, the plan for reducing carbon by way of agriculture is to grow corn, perhaps the most industrialized crop, in order to produce ethanol. This process produces more energy than it consumes, only if a lot of credit is given to the energy value of the residues, which are fed to cattle. Even then, the net gain in energy is minimal and ignores the intensive consumption of water and the carbon released from the soil.
Yet, careful agriculture, by putting more organic matter back into the soil, builds up fertility, while sequestering carbon. This kind of traditional agriculture uses less mechanization.
Does this technology mean that society must revert to turn more people into downtrodden farmworkers? Capitalism might impose such an imperative, but the technology certainly does not. After all, many Sunday newspapers have a special section devoted to gardening because people find that sort of activity pleasant.
Final caveat: I do not pretend to have developed detailed data on how much a rational and cultural system could contribute slowing down global warming, but I do know that the direction we are heading is wrong.

You Say Militia, I Say....?"

Let me see if I understand this. When someone in Iraq or some other such country hires a private army, we call it a militia. When someone in the US hires a private army and sells it to the highest bidder, we call it a security firm. And the reason is?

Jaw-dropping

Josh Marshall :


10.01.07 -- 2:55PM // link

Parody Surge Hits Mil Contractors in Iraq

A few days ago the State Department released what it called a "first blush" report on the Blackwater incident in Baghdad, a report which largely exonerated the Blackwater personnel involved.

I noted at the time that "first blush" was something of an understatement since the report was based exclusively on statements the State Department took from Blackwater operatives on the scene. In other words, the Blackwater employees who did the shooting gave State an account that largely exonerated themselves. A truly shocking development.

But it seems that I was behind the curve on the level of caricature and self-parody that is the military contracting biz in Iraq these days.

The report was written out of the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the folks who hired Blackwater to provide security for US diplomats in Iraq. But it turns out that the State Department employee who interviewed the Blackwater folks and wrote the report, Darren Hanner ... well, he wasn't a State Department employee. He was another contractor from Blackwater.

So yes, you've got that right. We've now reached what can only be called the alpha and the omega of contracting accountability breakdown ridiculousness. We're outsourcing our investigations of Blackwater to Blackwater.

Exchange Rates, Monetary Policy, and Fiscal Policy




Our graph shows how fall the dollar has declined over the past few years and well as the dollar appreciation during 2000 and 2001. The first six paragraphs of a recent op-ed from the New York Times does a reasonable job of describing how easy monetary policy leads to lower interest rates, dollar devaluation, and rising net exports. Dean Baker, however, objects to paragraph seven of the eight page op-ed:



Dollar weakness is home-grown. It is rooted in the borrow-and-spend behavior of the United States government and American consumers and in a corollary lack of domestic savings that necessitates foreign borrowing.

Huh? And I was always taught that fiscal stimulus led to higher interest rates. Now textbook description continues with the suggestion that this decline in national savings may indeed led to net export crowding out (foreign borrowing) but the channel for this effect is a stronger dollar – not a weaker one. I love to bash the Bush Administration for fiscal irresponsibility as much as the next guy – but this attempt to blame the Federal deficits for the dollar decline falls short.

Monday, October 1, 2007

President Clinton’s Social Security Surplus

If Hillary Clinton is elected President and serves two terms, I predict she’ll leave her successor with about $8 trillion in Social Security Trust Fund reserves and that these reserves will still be growing. Dean Baker is more worried about her plans to deal with space invaders than he is about the alleged Social Security crisis. Dean is mocking the latest insanity from the Washington Post, which makes this claim:

Since President Bush took office, she noted, the insolvency date has moved from 2055 to 2041. "So the first thing is, let's get back to doing what worked in the '90s to shore up Social Security."


Did Senator Clinton actually makes this claim as it differs from what Robert Greenstein noted here? The year when the Trust Fund is expected to be exhausted is indeed 2041 but that compares to a prediction from the 1997 report that the predicted year of exhaustion was 2029. Also notice that the “year costs exceed tax revenue and interest” is predicted to be 2027 – well after the next President Clinton leaves office.

Perhaps the Washington Post should be spending more time asking the Presidential candidates in the other party how they would fund their endless wars, keep tax rates as the current levels or lower, and address the rather massive General Fund deficit.

Shameless Self-Promotion: My New Book

My new book, The Confiscation of American Prosperity, will appear tomorrow.
This book resembles a crime story in four parts. The first part, The Plunder, uses the example of the regressive redistribution of income in the United States since 1970 -- a redistribution that quantitatively dwarfs the Russian or the Chinese Revolutions -- to give a sense of the extent of the right wing revolution, which has remade all branches of government, the legal system, and perhaps most of all, the way people understand their condition in society. In the process, I show how the official statistics fail to capture the scope of this revolution, using examples such as corporate jets for executives and excessive fees and interest rates charged to the poor.
The second part, The Plot, tells the story of the right wing takeover in the United States from the perspective of political economy.
The third and most extensive part, Retribution, explains how this right wing revolution is laying the foundation for the next Great Depression, a cataclysm that will cost everyone dearly, even intended beneficiaries of the revolution.The final part, The Impotence of the Economics Profession, tells the story of the missing cop on the beat the economics profession -- showing how we economists have nurtured a trained incapacity for doing what should be our most important work, warning about dangerous tendencies in the economy and pointing to a better way.



The Confiscation of American Prosperity:
From Right‑Wing Extremism and Economic Ideology to the Next Great Depression
Prologue
For the last three and a half decades a tiny minority of people has captured the lion's share of the fruits of economic growth in the United States. At the same time, the middle class is disappearing and much of the rest of society is rapidly falling behind, producing a level of inequality that has not been seen since the eve of the Great Depression. Business leaders, along with most politicians and economists, celebrate this new state of affairs, and pretend the benefits are certain to trickle down soon to the rest of society.
This book does not belabor the obvious injustices of inequality; instead, it describes the extent of this confiscation of wealth, how the perpetrators managed to pull it off, and finally how this confiscation is setting the stage for a catastrophic depression. Leaders in the world of business and government, as well as professional economists, seem oblivious to the dangers ahead. The extreme inequities in society breed a hubris that prevents them from even considering the possibility that they are contributing to a catastrophe. All the while, the economics profession seems unable to comprehend the depth of the problem.
Unless strong actions are taken, the calamity that currently afflicts the poor is certain to trickle up, engulfing even the very rich. I do not mean the very rich will become destitute; only that the losses they will eventually experience will far outweigh the vast amount of extra wealth and income that they now claim for themselves.
Despite the dangers ahead, the United States still possesses the most powerful economy the world has ever known. The unique conditions that once made the US economy so effective are already beginning to unravel. People in power commonly realize that the US economy has fallen considerably short of its promise. In terms of traditional measures, such as Gross Domestic Product, the economy has modestly progressed, but the rate of growth is disappointing at best, especially considering the proliferation of new technologies. The quality of life for the majority of society has deteriorated.
In many respects, the gross inequities of United States society are coming to resemble some of the more impoverished countries in the world. Amidst splendid opulence, we find declining industries, unemployment, and even squalor. With so much potential, providing a decent standard of living for everybody should be a simple matter.
Despite these unpleasant symptoms, the deeper problems are not yet obvious. The dangers that I will explore do not appear in the media ‑‑ not even in the business press.
In his justly famous farewell address, President Eisenhower identified the main problem identified in this book as the "disastrous rise of misplaced power." At the time, he was referring to the military‑industrial complex. Today the pathology has advanced much further. The complex now includes a vast network of corporate power, political parties, well‑financed think tanks, and religious movements. This network has also enjoyed the support of much of the media and even a good part of academia. These parties did not have identical goals in mind, but they all shared a distaste for the sociopolitical climate of the late 1960s. The result was a conservative revolution.
The US had already been on a steady path to the right. Indeed, since the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, every Democratic administration with the exception of Lyndon Johnson's has been more conservative ‑‑ often far more conservative ‑‑ than the previous Democratic administration. Similarly, every elected Republican administration, with the single exception of George Herbert Walker Bush's, has been more conservative than the previous Republican administration. Although the national election in 2006 appears to be a repudiation of the right‑wing agenda, the most important factors in the election were the disastrous war in Iraq and a multitude of scandals that damaged the Republicans.
Given this relentless drift to the right, the policies of Richard Nixon now appear to the left of those of Bill Clinton. Yet by the time Nixon took office, business was distraught. Many business leaders at the time were under the impression that socialism would soon triumph in the United States. The first part of the book will explain this paradox.
In the early 1970s, business successfully launched an aggressive campaign to take a firmer hold on the levers of power. Instead of the gradual drift toward more conservative economic policies, revolutionary changes became the order of the day. Within a couple of decades, a right‑wing revolution had swept aside much of the New Deal.
These right‑wing revolutionaries professed conservative ideals, including a more modest role for the state. In practice, their willingness to use state power was hardly modest, except insofar as the state might otherwise inconvenience the interests of the corporations and the super rich. Backed up by the strict dogma of economic theory, conservatives categorically promised markets would cure all social ills. Markets, however, pay attention only to commercial activities, ignoring considerations such as quality of life or environmental degradation. Markets also disempower people from making political choices.
Rules and regulations provide a counterweight to market forces, creating a means to keep the harmful effects of markets in check. By this standard, the United States certainly has the most market‑friendly economy in the world.
Regulations can protect people's health and safety and limit fraud; however, rules and regulations are not necessarily positive. They can also be used to shore up the corporate power to the detriment of society. The right‑wing revolution has gone a long way toward dismantling the protective regulatory layers, while hardening the procorporate parts. This book emphasizes the importance of regulations as a check on some of the destructive speculative forces that can unleash depressions.
This reformulation of the ground rules of the system has given birth to a grotesque form of crony capitalism, which has been metastasizing for many decades. Under this crony capitalism, markets lack the capacity to discipline the most powerful players, which is supposedly one of the greatest benefits of capitalism. A wave of corporate manipulation and government favoritism will eventually wreak havoc on the economy.
This book explains the evolution of this system, while analyzing the deeper but often less obvious consequences of this deformed economy. It also shows the inevitability of a disaster so extreme that it will devastate even the most affluent who are benefiting the most from the current economy. The last part of the book explains why economists are unable to come to grips with this dangerous slide into disaster.
The trajectory of The Confiscation of American Prosperity resembles a crime story. The first part, The Plunder, describes the caper. The second part, The Plot, shows how brilliantly it was organized. The third part, Retribution, explains how it is going to blow up in the faces of the perpetrators, and finally the book turns to the presumptive cops on the beat, the economists, who should have known to have spoken up.
But this is not really a crime story. Although a few of the major players may have violated the law, most of what happened was perfectly legal. People combined raw power with dazzling tactics to engineer a right‑wing takeover. While they mastered the short term tactics necessary to achieve their objectives, their ambition and greed blinded them to the long‑run consequences of their actions.
Overview
The first part of this book describes how the conservative revolution permitted a small number of people to plunder the lion's share of three decades of economic growth ‑‑ perhaps the greatest confiscation of wealth and income in the history of the world.
The second part begins with the economic crisis in the late 1960s that pushed business to go on the offensive. Economists refer to the period following World War II as the "Golden Age" because conditions at the time were so exceptional. During that period, both business and the majority of the economics profession had been under the impression that with proper management, including government intervention in the economy, the good times could last forever.
Unfortunately, this faith was groundless. Business, political, and economic leaders were caught unaware of the inevitable unraveling of the Golden Age. No market economy, even with the most intelligent management, has ever achieved the kind of stability people came to expect during the Golden Age. Instability, even if punctuated by periods of calm, is a natural part of capitalism.
As the Golden Age ended, profits shrunk and business first became despondent then launched a furious campaign to reshape the social and economic structure of the United States in an effort to restore corporate power to its pre‑Depression level.
This victory was even more impressive because the right wing managed to induce many people to support an agenda that was sure to undermine their own economic welfare. The right succeeded in this effort in large part because the deteriorating economic conditions left many working‑class people confused and angry. Taking advantage of this mood, the right wing electoral machine caused many people to lose sight of their own economic interests by effectively railing about the contentious social conditions of the 1960s.
By the time Richard Nixon came to office in 1968, everything seemed aligned to allow conservatives to take political power. The Democrats had discredited themselves with an unpopular war and had done little to address the real needs of their political base.
Building upon the grass roots movement begun in the wake of Barry Goldwater's defeat in 1964, the Nixon administration launched a frontal attack on the New Deal coalition by appealing to the culture war of the day. Now the rich and powerful appeared poised to win support for their agenda.
These divisive machinations seemed to have cleared the way for an economic revolution, except a problem remained. Although part of the working class was antagonized by the upheavals of the 1960s, a growing antiwar movement and an energized civil rights movement presented serious challenges. The emergence of the environmental movement with the broad sympathy of much of the middle class complicated matters even more. Nixon moved to placate the environmental movement to appear to be more inclusive. Within this contentious political climate, he did not dare to carry out a broad offensive against labor.
Suddenly, the conflict took a decisive turn. A small group of business interests carefully engineered a conservative takeover of the main organs of power in the United States beginning in the 1970s. Using a combination of well‑financed think tanks, racist demagoguery, and sophisticated political maneuvering, business countered the modest progressive successes of the 1960s. These institutions worked to change the political climate of the country by influencing the media. Even more importantly, business used its newfound powers to counter a falling rate of profit by turning back many of the reforms dating back to the New Deal.
The third part concentrates on how the right‑wing revolution set in motion the destructive forces that are responsible for many of the difficulties that the US economy already faces and why the future damage will be far more extreme. I will also explain why not just ordinary working‑class people will suffer from its harmful consequences, but even the intended beneficiaries of the right‑wing revolution ‑‑ business and the very wealthy ‑‑ will pay a price.
In some cases, the costs of the right‑wing revolution are already relatively obvious. For example, the obscene military budget crowds out important social and economic programs while military adventurism promises to make even greater demands on the economy in the future. In other cases, such as the undermining of the educational
system, the effect is less immediate, but just as devastating.
The right‑wing revolutionaries express vehement hostility toward the government. Indeed, the ability of t
he government to regulate some of the worst business abuses is now practically non‑existent. Today, public agencies are less capable of protecting the environment, providing education, and promoting science and technology ‑‑ all of which are essential ingredients of a vibrant economy. All the while, bu
siness shameless
ly wallows in generous government subsidies and other forms of favoritism.
In the fourth and final part, I discuss the impotence of the economics profession. This part recounts the evolution of the economics profession in the United States, including the long‑standing suppression of critical voices. Despite intense and even acrimonious debate about minor issues, economics evolved into a narrow orthodoxy. I also discuss how the largely ideological nature of modern economics has more or less led the discipline into a dead end, leaving it incapable of dealing with the emerging economic catastrophe.

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Military Contractors for Peace

Adam Smith argued that greed generates positive outcomes. According the New York Times, contractors' greed undermined the military's effort to militarize space.
"President Ronald Reagan issued a call on March 23, 1983, to make enemy missiles “impotent and obsolete.” His research effort, scorned by critics as “Star Wars,” after the movie, cost taxpayers more than $100 billion. John D. G. Rather, a laser expert who was an official at a military contractor during that era, said corporate greed undermined the effort from the start. “It became a tug of war,” he recalled, “where everybody and their brother wanted a piece of the action".”
Broad, William J. 2007. "From the Start, the Space Race Was an Arms Race." New York Times (25 September): p. D 1.

Intellectual Property vs. Medical Progress

Here is a Wall Street Journal article that describes how an important medical treatment for brain injuries got no support, in part because it depended on a naturally occurring chemical rather than a potentially patented blockbuster drug.
Burton, Thomas M. 2007. "One Doctor's Lonely Quest to Heal Brain Injury: After 40 Years, Skeptics Back Hormone Therapy." Wall Street Journal (26 September): p. A 1."Decades of research -- often conducted in his spare time and with piecemeal funding -- led him to a surprising hypothesis: that progesterone, a natural female hormone that protects fetuses in the womb, may actually protect and heal injured brains. His work slowly helped overturn medical orthodoxy that states that brain tissue, once injured, stays that way. Now he and colleagues plan a large-scale human trial over the next several years. While the outcome is far from assured, the effort could produce a new treatment for the estimated 10 million people world-wide who suffer traumatic brain injuries each year."
"Dr. Stein's journey shows just how difficult it is to challenge the medical establishment, which often begrudges ideas outside the mainstream. It also underscores how difficult it is for a lone researcher to persevere without drug-company or other major financial support: For many years, Dr. Stein held administrative jobs and had to moonlight to continue his research. Drug companies tend to focus more on blockbuster drugs they design than on naturally occurring ones with minimal profit potential."
After decades of neglect, his work was finally subjected to experimental trials. Here is what happened:
"Over the next three years, the study focused on 100 head-injured patients who had been brought into the emergency room at Grady Memorial Hospital in downtown Atlanta. Some patients received standard treatment to control bleeding and fevers along with state-of-the-art head-injury treatment. Others were also given intravenous progesterone, at triple the highest natural levels at the end of pregnancy. One Saturday morning in 2005, Dr. Stein was driving north of Atlanta on a shopping trip with his wife when a stern-sounding Dr. Kellermann called him. Dr. Kellermann said he had just learned the study's findings, adding, "Pull over to the side of the road."
"Dr. Stein froze, fearing that decades of research with animals would prove useless, that progesterone might have turned out to raise the death rate in humans for some unforeseen reason. His heart was thumping as Dr. Kellermann told him the results: Patients on progesterone had a death rate of just 13% from their head injuries, less than half the 30% death rate of those on standard treatment. And progesterone showed no negative side effects. The 100-subject study was too small to prove that progesterone caused the lowered death rate, but the findings were consistent with animal research. Don Stein was so elated that he had to ask his wife to take over the driving.""In the respected journal "Annals of Emergency Medicine" this past April, Dr. Stein and his researchers summarized the study: "Moderate traumatic brain injury survivors who received progesterone were more likely to have a moderate to good outcome than those randomized to placebo."

Friday, September 28, 2007

The SCHIP Debate

Greg Mankiw weighs in on this controversy with the following exam question:


With medical costs skyrocketing, the middle class struggling, and heartless Republicans running the government, what has happened to the percentage of children without health insurance over the past seven years?

He then asks us to look at figure 1 from this source, which shows that this percentage has declined over the past decade. Greg then suggests to his readers:

Feel free to suggest your hypotheses to explain these data in the comments section.

Greg got some good answers including one from Marshall Derks, which simply said: “Simple answer, SCHIP was created in 97”. A longer answer came from Mike: “Partisan hackery at its worst, Dr. Mankiw. Shame. As bob put it, the correct question is what will happen in the two scenarios going forward”. These replies only go to show you what happens when you don’t drink the White House Kool Aid.

Shut up and Listen!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4LBDbcCR-E