Posts tagged reviews
Posts tagged reviews
Frederic Mari blogs as the Red Banker. He gives a positive take on my first post "What is a Supply-Side Liberal?" in his post "Supply Side Liberalism: The Interesting Case of Dr. Kimball and Mr. Miles." However, Frederic questions whether limited government is politically possible, saying
People oppose government spending but support all of its public good provision.
Here I wished he had discussed my central proposal for keeping the burden of taxation down while providing abundant public goods: a public contribution system that raises taxes rates, but lets people avoid 100% of the extra taxes by making charitable donations focused on doing things the government might otherwise have to do. These two posts lay out how a public contribution system would work:
Also, my post
is best understood in this context.
I discuss a few other ideas for how to reduce the burden of taxation based on the ways in which human psychology departs from over-simplified views of homo economicus in this popular post:
The bottom line is this: In my book, it isn’t Supply-Side Liberalism without a serious effort to lower the burden of taxation for any given level of revenue, using everything we know about human nature.
Confession of a Supply-Side Liberal is ranked 61st in this list of influential economics blogs. That seem pretty good to me, since the readership of my columns on Quartz itself would not be counted. On that score, note that at the end of June 2012, just a month after I started blogging, Confessions of a Supply-Side Liberal was ranked 31st.
On the decline in ranking since the last list, Andreea Moldovan makes this note:
This site is a dynamic network graph. When you hover over a name, it shows connections among the top 500 Economic influencers on Twitter. Very cool.
I am on line 11.
Update: You can see what I have to say in the wake of Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash and Robert Pollin’s critique of Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff’s work on national debt and growth in my column "An economists mea culpa: I relied on Reinhart and Rogoff." (You can see my same-day reaction here.) Also, on the substance, see Owen Zidar’s nice graph in his post "Debt to GDP & Future Economic Growth." I sent a query to Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff about whether any adjustments are needed to the two figures from the paper with Vincent Reinhart that I display below, but have not yet received a reply to that query. I think that covers most of the issues that recent revelations raise.
Note that I have revised "What Paul Krugman got wrong about Italy’s economy." This post is now the go-to source for what I originally said there, relying on “Debt Overhangs, Past and Present” (which has Vincent Reinhart as a coauthor along with Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff). My original passage is in an indented block a little above the colorful pictures your eye will be drawn to below.
In a world where people wrote frankly, Noah Smith has written the response to my Quartz column "What Paul Krugman got wrong about Italy’s economy" that Paul Krugman should have written:
instead of what Paul actually wrote in response to my column:
(The brief summary of my column is that electronic money could help the UK and the Federal Lines of Credit could help both Italy and the UK stimulate their economies without the problems that might arise from adding substantially to their debt by a simple increase in government spending, as indicated by my original title: “How Italy and the UK Can Stimulate Their Economies Without Further Damaging Their Credit Ratings.”)
In response to my latest Quartz column
Paul wrote a post
taking aim at my reliance on Carmen Reinhart, Vincent Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff’s paper “Debt Overhangs, Past and Present.” I plan to write a reply to Paul at some point. In the meanwhile, I appreciate Niklas Blanchard coming to my defense in his post
Not surprisingly, I like Niklas’s post. But Niklas also takes me to task for my reliance on the paper "Debt Overhangs, Past and Present." (Update: Niklas tweeted that his title about lack of nuance was directed at Paul, not me. I interpreted it as my not being careful enough in my discussion of Reinhart, Reinhart and Rogoff.) Among other discussions about the interaction with Paul, you can see my attempt to justify myself to Niklas in these storified tweets:
For the record, here is the passage in question in my post:
And national debt beyond a certain point can be very costly in terms of economic growth, as renowned economists Carmen Reinhart, Vincent Reinhart, and Kenneth Rogoff convincingly show in their National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper “Debt Overhangs, Past and Present.”
Where do the United Kingdom and Italy stand in relation to the 90% debt to GDP ratio Reinhart, Reinhart and Rogoff identify as a threshold for trouble?
For comparison, here is the abstract for "Debt Overhangs, Past and Present"
We identify the major public debt overhang episodes in the advanced economies since the early 1800s, characterized by public debt to GDP levels exceeding 90% for at least five years. Consistent with Reinhart and Rogoff (2010) and other more recent research, we find that public debt overhang episodes are associated with growth over one percent lower than during other periods. Perhaps the most striking new finding here is the duration of the average debt overhang episode. Among the 26 episodes we identify, 20 lasted more than a decade. Five of the six shorter episodes were immediately after World Wars I and II. Across all 26 cases, the average duration in years is about 23 years. The long duration belies the view that the correlation is caused mainly by debt buildups during business cycle recessions. The long duration also implies that cumulative shortfall in output from debt overhang is potentially massive. We find that growth effects are significant even in the many episodes where debtor countries were able to secure continual access to capital markets at relatively low real interest rates. That is, growth-reducing effects of high public debt are apparently not transmitted exclusively through high real interest rates.
Here is a link to my 13th column on Quartz: “John Taylor is wrong: The Fed is not causing another recession.” It is the two-paragraph précis of yesterday’s post "Contra John Taylor."
Twitter provided some reviews of these two pieces that I liked. Here are a few:
Bonnie puts me at #14 on her list. She writes:
Miles Kimball, an economics professor at the University of Michigan, always brings a thoughtful take to economic issues.
In his November 6, 2012 post on National Review Online, Reihan Salam begins this way:
Miles Kimball has written a stimulating, and quite convincing, short article for Quartz arguing that governments should swap electronic currency for physical currency as the “unit of account,” i.e., as the “yardstick for prices and other economic values.” While paper currency could be retained for everyday transactions, its value would fluctuate relative to the electronic currency that would serve as an anchor.
And I especially like his later phrase:
Kimball’s discussion is nuanced…
In addition to his November 26 post, Reihan also tweeted this today:
I’m a big fan of the @mileskimball to replace paper money with electronic money as the unit of account: http://qz.com/21797/the-case-for-electric-money-the-end-of-inflation-and-recessions-as-we-know-it/ …
This blog is #19 on the list.