Suchergebnisse

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the federal government in the United States took over airline security in all but five airports and dictated standards even for those airports with private security. The federal government regulates in two main ways: by checking passengers with carry-‐on items for bombs, guns, knives, etc. and by checking checked bags for explosives. There has been much discussion of the rationales and efficacy, and even some cost‐benefit analyses of these measures. But no one in the literature has made a clearcut externality argument for government provision of or regulation of airline security.

What caused the United States to abandon its long tradition of a volunteer military, with some conscription by local and state governments, and to impose a harsh, federally run draft for almost forty years of the twentieth century? There were three major causes: (1) the existence of a much stronger central government, (2) a change in the political philosophy held by the elite, and (3) the Civil War draft. In this article, I document how each of these causes helped to bring about a harsh, ruthless draft in 1917, during the first year of U.S. participation in World War I.

What caused the United States to abandon its long tradition of a volunteer military, with some conscription by local and state governments, and to impose a harsh, federally run draft for almost forty years of the twentieth century? There were three major causes: (1) the existence of a much stronger central government, (2) a change in the political philosophy held by the elite, and (3) the Civil War draft. In this article, I document how each of these causes helped to bring about a harsh, ruthless draft in 1917, during the first year of U.S. participation in World War I. Adapted from the source document.

Dean Baker, a left-of-center economist who is co-director of the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research, is well known for his blog, Beat the Press. On this blog, he regularly criticizes, and often ridicules, in an entertaining way, economics reporting in the mainstream press, particularly in the New York Times and the Washington Post. Now he has written a short book, Taking Economics Seriously, in which he discusses some of the issues he has blogged about. I take Dean Baker seriously. Why? In part, because many on the left do. But mainly because he is a thoughtful economist who has flashes of wisdom and often an independent take on policy issues. Taking Economics Seriously shows some of this wisdom. Some of his proposals for health care, for example, are refreshingly pro-free-market, and he backs them up well. It also, however, shows his tendency to set up policy issues by excluding certain free-market options. The result is that, with some exceptions, he plays economics between the 40-yard lines. Adapted from the source document.

Working paper No. 10-52, September 2010 ; A federal government runs a large deficit. Deficits are so large that the ratio of federal debt to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) approaches 70 percent. A constituency of voters have gotten used to large federal spending programs. Does that sound like the United States? Well, yes. But it also describes Canada in 1993. Yet, just 16 years later, Canada's federal debt had fallen from 67 percent to only 29 percent of GDP. Moreover, in every year between 1997 and 2008, Canada's federal government had a budget surplus. In one fiscal year, 2000–2001, its surplus was a whopping 1.8 percent of GDP. If the U.S. government had such a surplus today, that would amount to a cool $263 billion rather than the current deficit of more than $1.5 trillion.

Working paper No. 10-67 ; We often hear that big cuts in government spending over a short time are a bad idea. The case against big cuts, typically made by Keynesian economists, is twofold. First, large cuts in government spending, with no offsetting tax cuts, would lead to a large drop in aggregate demand for goods and services, thus causing a recession or even a depression. Second, with a major shift in demand (fewer government goods and services and more private ones), the economy will experience a wrenching readjustment, during which people will be unemployed and the economy will slow.

Fair trade – paying a price premium for commodities based not on quality but on employment and other conditions – is counterproductive and unfair. It results in consumers getting a lower‐quality product. Much of the gain from the price premium goes to the fair‐trade bureaucracy rather than to the producer. Fair trade may even, if effective, destroy the banana industry. A better solution for consumers and third‐world producers is to abolish all remaining trade barriers.

Examines US federal spending in terms of the deficit, which is seen to be driven largely by Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It is argued that the deficit will not take up enough slack & that government spending rather than taxes will have to give. Adapted from the source document.