Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- I. Introduction -- II. The Macroeconomic Effects of Wartime Fiscal Policy in the United States -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Historical War Episodes -- 2.3 The Model Economy -- 2.4 Model Calibration and Welfare Cost Calculation -- 2.5 Economic Analysis of Government Policies -- 2.6 Summary and Conclusions -- III. The Macroeconomic Effects of World War II Monetary Policy: Price Controls, Rationing, and Inflation -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Monetary Policies During U.S. Wars and Design of Counterfactual Policy -- 3.3 World War II Rationing and Price Controls -- 3.4 The Model Economy -- 3.5 Calibrating the Model with Price Controls -- 3.6 Economic Analysis of Monetary Policies -- 3.7 Summary and Conclusions -- Appendix A - Solution Technique -- Appendix B - Model Calibration -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index

"We build a new quarterly dataset of aggregate hours worked consistent with standard NIPA constructs for 14 OECD countries over the last fifty years. We find that cyclical features of labor markets across countries differ markedly from the accepted empirical facts reported in the literature based on either just U.S. hours data, or based on cross-country employment data. We document that total hours worked in many OECD countries are about as volatile as output, that a relatively large fraction of labor market adjustment takes place along the intensive margin outside the United States, and that the volatility of total hours relative to output volatility has increased over time in almost all countries. We use these data to re-assess productivity and labor wedges during the Great Recession and during prior recessions. We find that the Great Recession in many OECD countries is a significant puzzle in that labor wedges are quite small, while those in the U.S. Great Recession - and those in previous European recessions - are much larger. These new data indicate that understanding cyclical labor fluctuations in OECD countries requires understanding why hours fluctuate so much more than previously considered, how and why labor markets changed so much in the last few years, why cyclical adjustment of hours per worker in countries with large firing costs is not even larger than observed, and why the Great Recession differs so much across countries"--National Bureau of Economic Research web site

"Between 1929 and 1933, real output per adult fell over 30 percent and total factor productivity fell 18 percent.This productivity decrease is much larger than expected from just extrapolating the productivity decrease that typically occurs during recessions.This paper evaluates what factors may have caused this large decrease, including unmeasured factor utilization, changes in the composition of production, and increasing returns.I find that these factors combined explain less than one-third of the 18 percent decrease, and I conclude that the productivity decrease during the Great Depression remains a puzzle"--Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis web site

In October 2011, the Congressional Budget Office published a report, "Trends in the Distribution of Household Income between 1979 and 2007," showing that, during the period studied, aggregate income (as defined by the CBO) in the highest income quintiles grew more rapidly than income in the lower quintiles. This was particularly true for the top one percent of earners. This CBO study has been cited by the media and politicians as confirmation that income inequality has increased "substantially" during the period studied, and has been used to support President Obama's claim that income inequality is a serious and growing problem in the United States that must be addressed by raising taxes on the highest income earners. We will show that much of what has been reported about income inequality is misleading, factually incorrect, or of little or no consequence to our economic well-being. We will also show that middle-class incomes are not stagnating; in fact, middle-class incomes have risen significantly over the 29 years covered by the CBO study. Lastly, we will address assertions that the rich are not paying their "fair share" of taxes. In our view, Americans should care about the well-being of the nation as a whole rather than whether some people earn more than others. To that end, the focus of public policy should not be on equality of income but on equality of economic opportunity. Policies designed to reduce income inequality inevitably involve redistribution of income through increases in transfer payments and marginal tax rates. But these policies discourage hiring and investment, which depresses economic growth and opportunity. In sharp contrast, policies designed to enhance equality of opportunity will increase economic well-being for all, most particularly those in lower income households. Adapted from the source document.