Another interview, this one with Sir Professor Charles Bean, former Deputy Governor at the Bank of England and past President of the Royal Economic Society. I thought this one went well.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Monday, May 18, 2015
Efficiency matters! It can make the economy better off. Understanding efficiency in manufacturing and retail markets can help guide policy, according to prize-winning research by Daniel Muller and Fabian Herweg in The Economic Journal. See the summary here: http://www.res.org.uk/details/mediabr...
The interview was recorded at the Royal Economic Society annual conference at The University of Manchester in Spring 2015 and produced by Econ Films.
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Koen Jochmans of Sciences Po speaks to Mark Thoma about his research and winning the Sargan Prize for outstanding research in the Econometric Journal. http://www.res.org.uk/details/econome...
The interview was recorded at the Royal Economic Society annual conference at The University of Manchester in April 2015 and produced by Econ Films.
[This is the first of three interviews I did -- will save the best for last.]
Friday, May 15, 2015
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
A widening gap between haves and have-nots is shrinking the American middle class and making it tougher than ever to move up the economic ladder. The U.S. problem reflects a worldwide concentration of wealth. The top 1 percent control 48 percent of the world's assets, up from 44 percent in 2009. Disparate voices ranging from Pope Francis to IMF Director Christine Lagarde warn that the gulf between rich and poor diminishes hope and raises serious political and economic issues. Some companies are listening. Late last year, Walmart Stores pledged to end minimum-wage pay by raising the hourly rate of 500,000 workers. Other companies followed with similar increases for their lowest-paid workers. Will their announcements spur broader efforts to reduce income equality? What else can be done to lift the standard of living for the working poor?
Moderator: Alan Schwartz, Executive Chairman, Guggenheim Partners
Speakers: Jared Bernstein, Economic Policy Fellow, Milken Institute; Senior Fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Former Chief Economist to Vice President Joe Biden, Beth Ann Bovino, U.S. Chief Economist, Global Economics and Research, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, Arthur Brooks, President, American Enterprise Institute, Jeff Greene, Investor and Philanthropist, Kristin Oliver, Executive Vice President, People, Walmart U.S.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
In this session, Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer of Facebook, interviews former U.S. Treasury Secretaries Timothy Geithner, Henry Paulson and Robert Rubin about global economic trends, public finance and capital markets.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Rethinking Macro Policy III: Session 3. Monetary Policy in the Future
Chair: José Viñals, Ben Bernanke, Gill Marcus, John Taylor
Rethinking Macro Policy: Session 4. Fiscal Policy in the Future
Chair: Vitor Gaspar, Marco Buti, Martin Feldstein, Brad DeLong,
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Friday, April 10, 2015
"Thomas Piketty and Joseph E. Stiglitz discuss the causes of, consequences of, and remedies for inequality. With opening remarks from Clive Cowdery, George Soros, OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria, Institute President Rob Johnson and Institute Board Members Anatole Kaletsky and Lord Adair Turner."
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
"In a panel discussion moderated by Dean Rich Lyons, Laura Tyson, professor of business administration and economics at the Haas School of Business, and Emmanuel Saez, economics professor and head of the Center for Equitable Growth at UC Berkeley, focus on income inequality, drawing from ideas central to Thomas Piketty's bestselling book Capital in the Twenty-First Century."
[Note: The discussion is summarized here.]
Monday, October 27, 2014
This is from INET:
The Consequences of Money-Manager Capitalism: In the wake of World War II, much of the western world, particularly the United States, adopted a new form of capitalism called “managerial welfare-state capitalism.”
The system by design constrained financial institutions with significant social welfare reforms and large oligopolistic corporations that financed investment primarily out of retained earnings. Private sector debt was small, but government debt left over from financing the War was large, providing safe assets for households, firms, and banks. The structure of this system was financially robust and unlikely to generate a deep recession. However, the constraints within the system didn’t hold.
The relative stability of the first few decades after WWII encouraged ever-greater risk-taking, and over time the financial system was transformed into our modern overly financialized economy. Today, the dominant financial players are “managed money”—lightly regulated “shadow banks” like pension funds, hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds, and university endowments—with huge pools of capital in search of the highest returns. In turn, innovations by financial engineers have encouraged the growth of private debt relative to income and the increased reliance on volatile short-term finance and massive uses of leverage.
What are the implications of this financialization on the modern global economy? According to Adair Lord Turner, a Senior Fellow at the Institute for New Economic Thinking and a former head of the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority, it means that finance has become central to the daily operations of the economic system. More precisely, the private nonfinancial sectors of the economy have become more dependent on the smooth functioning of the financial sector in order to maintain the liquidity and solvency of their balance sheets and to improve and maintain their economic welfare. For example, households have increased their use of debt to fund education, healthcare, housing, transportation, and leisure. And at the same time, they have become more dependent on interest, dividends, and capital gains as a means to maintain and improve their standard of living.
Another major consequence of financialized economies is that they typically generate repeated financial bubbles and major debt overhangs, the aftermath of which tends to exacerbate inequality and retard economic growth. Booms turn to busts, distressed sellers sell their assets to the beneficiaries of the previous bubble, and income inequality expands.
In the view of Lord Turner, we have yet to come up with a sufficiently robust policy response to deal with the consequences of our new “money manager capitalism.” The upshot likely will be years more of economic stagnation and deteriorating living standards for many people around the world.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Monday, September 08, 2014
Matthew O. Jackson, Stanford University Social and Economic Networks: Backgound
Daron Acemoglu, MIT Networks: Games over Networks and Peer Effects
Matthew O. Jackson, Stanford University Diffusion, Identification, Network Formation
Daron Acemoglu, MIT Networks: Propagation of Shocks over Economic Networks
Thursday, September 04, 2014
Wednesday, September 03, 2014
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Posting the video mysteriously causes formatting problems for the blog, so took it down and replaced it with link to the video:
Chris Sims: Inflation, Fear of Inflation, and Public Debt
Friday, July 18, 2014
Thursday, June 05, 2014
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
I can't watch this, so have no idea how foolish I look, or not, or what parts of the interview they chose to include:
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
This panel brings together prominent economists to debate a range of issues with global scope: from inequality and emerging markets to austerity policies and the impact of technology on employment. This will be a free-ranging discussion focused on where the world is headed and what can be done to improve economies and people's lives everywhere.
- Speakers: Ken Rogoff, Professor of Economics, Harvard University; Former Chief Economist, International Monetary Fund
- Nouriel Roubini, Chairman, Roubini Global Economics; Professor of Economics, Stern School of Business, New York University
- John Taylor, Mary and Robert Raymond Professor of Economics, Stanford University; George P. Schultz Senior Fellow in Economics, Hoover Institution
- Moderator: Gerard Baker, Managing Editor, The Wall Street Journal; Editor-in-Chief, Dow Jones & Company
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
If you want a tutorial on how the political right responds to inequality and mobility concerns, this video is for you (Chrystia and Jared do their best to respond, and Jared has a nice summary of all of the potential causes of inequality in his opening remarks):
Income inequality has diminished in many parts of the world--Chile, Turkey, Mexico and Hungary being a few examples. But in America, the gap has widened. Ironically, the same forces may be responsible for both: globalization and technology, which have eased poverty in the developing world but led to the loss of unskilled but well-paying middle-class jobs in the United States and other developed nations. For the first time in nearly a century, the top 10 percent of American earners take home more than half the nation's income. New research suggests that it's harder than ever for the poor to move up into the middle and upper classes, an issue that has potential consequences for our economy, government, institutions and people. What can--or should--be done to narrow this disparity? Is education the key? With many Americans falling behind, these questions are stirring concern among policymakers and the business community as well. This panel will examine the magnitude of this complex challenge and strategies for reversing the trend.
- Speakers: Jared Bernstein, Economic Policy Fellow, Milken Institute; Senior Fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Former Chief Economist to Vice President Joe Biden
- Edward Conard, Author, "Unintended Consequences"; Former Senior Managing Director, Bain Capital
- Robert Doar, Fellow in Poverty Studies, American Enterprise Institute; Former Commissioner, Human Resources Administration, City of New York
- Chrystia Freeland, Member of Parliament, Canada; Author, "Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else"
- Moderator: Alan Schwartz, Executive Chairman, Guggenheim Partners
This session, as I thought it would be before it started, was annoying:
America's Debt and the Economy: A Hard Look at Public Spending and Finance: With mandatory programs consuming 13.6 percent of GDP and rising, security spending at 5 percent, debt service at 1.5 percent (under benign interest-rate conditions), and revenue at 19 percent, there is little or no room in the nation's budget to fund the discretionary programs that support competitiveness and growth over the long term. That will require investment in infrastructure, technology, environmental protection, education and job training, among other areas. Despite the shutdowns and threats of default, both Republicans and Democrats understand that our future prosperity demands a responsible focus on these imperatives. But how can the government's budgeting process move beyond short-term fixes? This discussion will identify areas for strategic bipartisan collaboration to put the U.S. on track for meaningful reform, leading to the creation of a budget that better addresses our challenges and reflects our priorities.
- Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum; Former Director, Congressional Budget Office; Former Chief Economist, Council of Economic Advisers
- Maya MacGuineas, President, Committee for Responsible Federal Budget
- Steven Rattner, Chairman, Willett Advisors; Former Counselor and Lead Auto Advisor to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury
- Gene Sperling, Former Director, National Economic Council, The White House
- Moderator: Maria Bartiromo, Anchor and Global Markets Editor, Fox Business Network
I heard things such as:
Need to get spending under control to create a good investment climate.
Large spending programs are crowding out discretionary programs such as defense and infrastructure.
One of the most serious issues we face.
Wait until rates go up.
Nobody in Washington is interested in talking about it.
We have to cut entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security).
Our economic growth is lower because of the debt. Our economy is worse off because of it.
Huge benefit right now from cutting deficit.
Anyone who is sensible would agree with us.
Neither Bush nor Obama has been willing to explain to the public what a huge problem the debt is.
We need to do this, it is an important thing for our children.
President needs to make this a national priority, like it did with income inequality.
With all the problems in the world, is now the time to be cutting defense spending?
Simpson Bowles was a very, very, very good plan.
You get the idea. There was very little about tradeoffs, e.g. higher unemployment when we reduce the debt during a not so robust recovery, though Sperling did address this a bit, not enough on revenue enhancement, and -- though it did come up at times -- the relationship between health care costs and our long-term debt problems was not made as clear as it should have been.
When it comes to recovering from the recession, these people are the problem, not the solution.
But maybe I'm just being cranky (and biased from the start) -- watch the video and tell me what you think...
Thursday, April 24, 2014
"The French economist Thomas Piketty discussed his new book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century at the Graduate Center. In this landmark work, Piketty argues that the main driver of inequality—the tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growth—threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values. He calls for political action and policy intervention. Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, and Steven Durlauf participated in a panel moderated by Branko Milanovic."
Friday, April 18, 2014
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
This is worth watching:
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Information technologies and infrastructure play an increasingly important role in daily life. But at the same time, cyber security is becoming increasingly threatened. How does society deal with these conflicting challenges.
This keynote INET panel features speakers Steven Bellovin, Yvo Desmedt, Amir Hertzberg, and Bart Preneel, moderated by Thomas Ferguson.
Wednesday, April 09, 2014
Monday, April 07, 2014
For those of you who just can't get enough of Larry Summers (his talk starts at the 9:00 mark):
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Saturday, February 08, 2014
Wednesday, January 08, 2014
I can't watch myself, so have no idea if this is horrible or not, but in case it's of interest:
Sunday, December 08, 2013
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Since Larry Summers is all the rage these days, here he is on how history will view QE:
Saturday, November 09, 2013
Paul Krugman says to watch this tribute to Stan Fischer:
And here's PK's talk on Currency Regimes, Capital Flows, and Crises:
Monday, August 12, 2013
Central banks across the planet are engaging in a robust agenda that would have been unrecognizable just a few years ago. Quantitative easing, macro prudential monitoring, asset market support in Europe have all made it much more difficult to understand what a central bank does and does not do.
Can central banks easily mop up liquidity and shrink their balance sheets when the world economy begins to recover, or will inflationary dynamics emerge? In the mystical realm of money, are central banks courting controversy that will threaten their credibility and stature within society? If they lose their leading role what will markets condition their expectation upon?Charles Goodhart - Professor, London School of Economics (Paper)
Richard Koo - Chief Economist of Nomura Research Institute (Paper)
Liu Mingkang - Distinguished Fellow, Fung Global Institute
Adam Posen - President of the Peterson Institute for international Economics
Moderator: Andrew Sheng - President, Fung Global Institute
[NGDP targeting fans may be interested in what Goodhart has to say.]
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Monday, May 20, 2013
Note: The video starts around the 43 minute mark
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
I thought this session on electronic payments was interesting:
The Future of Money: What's in Your Digital Wallet?
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:30 AM - 10:30 AM
- Eric Dunn, Senior Vice President, Commerce Network Solutions, Intuit
- Paul Galant, CEO, Citi Enterprise Payments
- Mark Lavelle, Senior Vice President, Strategy and Business Development, PayPal
- Ed McLaughlin, Chief Emerging Payments Officer, MasterCard
Moderator: Lauren Lyster, Co-Host, "Daily Ticker," Yahoo! Finance
Money is by nature symbolic - representing the erratic value of goods and services - but will it become entirely electronic? Some digital evangelists, touting the frictionlessness of cashlessness, think so. E-transactions are burgeoning along with the capabilities and reach of the Internet. Software engineering has fused with financial engineering and online communities are creating new forms of digital currency. Yet cash in circulation is also rising. Hand-held currency is an easy, uncomplicated means to know what you have and get what you want, which is all the more appealing in an era of economic insecurity and bitcoin chaos. Why rely on intermediaries and invisible transactions? Why trust if one can't readily verify? This panel will explore the forces that are changing money and, at the same time, keeping it in its traditional forms.
This shouldn't be overly surprising, but Nouriel Roubini is pessimistic about the global economy (bubble/boom for two years, then a big crash):
Lunch Panel: Global Overview
Monday, April 29, 2013 12:00 PM - 1:45 PM
Introduction By: Michael Klowden, CEO, Milken Institute
- Pierre Beaudoin, President and CEO, Bombardier Inc.
- Scott Minerd, Managing Partner and Global Chief Investment Officer, Guggenheim Partners
- Nouriel Roubini, Chairman and Co-Founder, Roubini Global Economics; Professor of Economics and International Business, Stern School of Business, New York University
- Geraldine Sundstrom, Partner and Portfolio Manager, Emerging Markets Strategies Master Fund Limited, Brevan Howard
Moderator: Paul Gigot, Editorial Page Editor and Vice President, The Wall Street Journal
As mid-2013 comes into view, the crisis sparked by the international mortgage meltdown is receding into memory, spreading a sense of relief. In the eurozone, the debate is about austerity versus spending, but not dissolution. Meanwhile, living conditions are rising in many parts of the globe as millions join a swelling middle class. The expanding availability of healthcare could have a profound effect as well. Yet some regions continue to struggle. In our annual big-picture look at the world economy, we'll discuss whether China and the U.S. can pull other players along and how the debt bomb can be defused. What are the most potent trends steering capital markets? Which industries are rising, which are fading, and what governments are demonstrating they know how to solve problems? Can the flare-up in the Middle East be contained and give way to democracy and economic growth?
Saturday, April 06, 2013
Here's the video I mentioned in the post "Is China's Growth Model Sustainable":
The Chinese economy has developed at a remarkable pace over the last 30 years. The integration of China into the world economy has led to extraordinary flows of foreign direct investment, infrastructure buildup, and an impressive export capacity. As we look to the future, both domestic and international considerations bear on the capacity for China to continue on this robust course and for the world to adjust to China’s growth and changed role. The differences in philosophical, legal, and governance systems between China and the West suggest that the challenges will be formidable and that cooperation and mutual benefit will require extraordinary attention.
- Daniel A. Bell - Professor, Tsinghua University
- Jan Kregel - Senior scholar at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College
- Huang Yiping - Professor of Economics, National School of Development, Peking University
- Yu Yongding - Director, Institute of World Economics and Politics, CASS
- Moderator: Xiao Geng - Director of Research and Senior Fellow, Fung Global Institute
Friday, April 05, 2013
I went to a different breakout session, but heard very good things about this one on "psychological considerations in economics":
Many of our global problems – from climate change to financial crises – arise from people’s failure to cooperate adequately to achieve socially desirable outcomes. There is a widespread recognition that we need a deeper understanding of human nature in order to discern new opportunities for human cooperation. The Kiel Institute and the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig are developing an interdisciplinary program with INET to examine new avenues of how psychological and neuroscientific knowledge about human motivation, emotion and social cognition can inform models of economic decision making. How can a profounder understanding of human motivation and preferences lead to a broader appreciation of our prospects for pro-social and sustainable economic behaviors?
- David Tuckett - Training and Supervising Analyst in the British Psychoanalytical Society
- Inske Pirschel - Research Assistant, Christian-Albrechts University of Kiel
- Gert Pönitzsch - Research Assistant, Kiel Institute for the World Economy
- Cars Hommes - Professor of Economics Universiteit van Amsterdam
- Moderator: Dennis Snower - President, Kiel Institute for the World Economy
Adair Turner calls for "overt monetary finance":
Saturday, March 02, 2013
Greg Mankiw's post today reminds me that I meant to post this interview with Emmanuel Saez on "taxing away inequality":
Taxing Away Inequality, Interview by David Grusky: David Grusky: In the thirteen years since you secured your PhD, there have been two big developments: first, your research on income inequality, especially its recent takeoff, has taken the world by storm. And, second, the national conversation about income inequality has completely shifted. In fact in the last presidential election it was one of the key topics. I would argue that those two developments are related in the sense that you’re the one, more than anyone else, who has brought about precisely that change in the national conversation.
That said, I suspect that there are some features of your work that you think have been misunderstood or, at the least, inadequately addressed in current debates about inequality. Could you talk a bit about this underappreciated side of your work?
Emmanuel Saez: I did this key work on income concentration in the United States with my colleague Thomas Piketty, and we were indeed quite surprised by how successful our research has been in the public debate. Initially this was really academic work building on the long tradition of the famous economist Simon Kuznets, who started the data series back in the 1950s. So we never approached it in a way that would necessarily be easy for the broader public and the press to use. We had to adjust over time to try to talk to the public and present our findings in a way that was the simplest, because we’ve discovered that to have an impact in the broader world, the way you present your research—the design, the framing—has a tremendous impact.
Naturally the public has focused mostly on the very recent period. But the key goal of our study was to show a very long perspective—a century long perspective—and to think about long-term changes rather than year-to-year changes. And I think there’s a lot to learn about how those long-term changes are related to policy making and government action.
DG: I’m prompted by your last point to suggest that another underappreciated feature of your work is that it delivers rather provocative hints about the causes of the increase in inequality. That is, it not only lays out the descriptive trajectory of income inequality, but also suggests what’s driving that descriptive trajectory.
We participated in a Boston Review debate on one account of the sources of the recent takeoff, namely the expansion of rent, where rent is understood as sweetheart deals, corruption, backdating stock option contracts—all sorts of pay-setting practices that permit those at the top to secure more than they would in a competitive market. On the basis of your research, do you think that rent is an important source of the recent growth in income inequality?
ES: If we define rent in terms of situations where pay doesn’t correspond to what economists call ‘marginal productivity’—that is, the economic contribution a person is providing—I would say yes, because the evolution of income concentration over time and across countries has a number of features that are inconsistent with the story where pay is everywhere equal to productivity. The changes in income concentration are just too abrupt and too closely correlated with policy developments for the standard story about pay equaling productivity to hold everywhere. That is, if pay is equal to productivity, you would think that deep economic changes in skills would evolve slowly and make a gradual difference in the distribution—but what we see in the data are very abrupt changes. Basically all western countries had very high levels of income concentration up to the first decades of the 20th century and then income concentration fell dramatically in most western countries following the historical narrative of each country. For example, in the United States the Great Depression followed by the New Deal and then World War II. And I could go on with other countries. Symmetrically, the reversal—that is, the surge in income concentration in some but not all countries—follows political developments closely. You see the highest increases in income concentration in countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, following precisely what has been called the Reagan and Thatcher revolutions: deregulation, cuts in top tax rates, and policy changes that favored upper-income brackets. You don’t see nearly as much of an increase in income concentration in countries such as Japan, Germany, or France, which haven’t gone through such sharp, drastic policy changes. ...[continue]...
There's also, as Greg notes, a video:
Emmanuel Saez discusses income equality at Stanford’s Center for Ethics in Society. (Jan. 24, 2013)