Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Next BLOG discussion - The Unbroken Window
Transcript
Economic Education http://www.ncee.net/ About Ron and things http://www.johnson.cornell.edu/news/waldman.html “academia is often a receptacle for people who don't like competition and want more security than they'd get working in industry.” anon As President Bill Clinton once remarked, “Promising too much can be as cruel as caring too little.” “Thank God we don’t get all the government we pay for.” - Will Rogers Ronald Coase said in The Firm, The Market and the Law , "In my youth it was said what was too silly to be said may be sung. In modern economics it may be put into mathematics." My next web rant: How people really screw up when the benefits of a program are concentrated and the costs are widely distributed and when the costs of an action are concentrated and the benefits are widely distributed. archive old pieces - make new web page and link to anchors on that page... Artificially high wages in developing industrial sectors due to collective bargaining, unions … sweatshops … what to do to help the poor ??? maybe ask simple question of what impact of boycotts will be on poor factory workers … what should we do if we care? Next BLOG discussion Based on your readings and some of the material covered in class, apply what you know about development and the various development theories to speculate on the following “gedankin” (i.e. thought) experiment. What if anything might be different about today’s international economic order if the Spanish had colonized North America and the English had colonized South America? Developing countries today have an advantage over the developed countries at the time of their development because the developing countries today have the experiences of the developed countries to draw from. Economic Historian Angus Maddison estimated economic growth and income levels for the world economy as far back as 500 A.D. According to him, average world income in 1500 was the same as it was in 500 – a growth rate of ZERO for 1,000 years. The next 320 years (to 1820) were only slightly better, with world income per capital growing at 0.04% per year for a total increase of 15%. China and India were the world’s richest countries in 1500 – but fell behind Europe and Western offshoots by 1820..Rapid economic growth as we know it began in 1820. Until 1990, avg world income grew by 1.2% per year. BLOGS http://www.thesportseconomist.com/ http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/ http://econlog.econlib.org/ http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/ http://newmarksdoor.typepad.com/mainblog/ http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/index.html http://www.marginalrevolution.com/ http://www.mises.org/blog/ http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/blog/blog.shtml http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/cat_outsourcing.html http://windsofchange.net/archives/005533.php RESOURCES for Economists http://www.wanniski.com/ssu.asp http://www.econlib.org/ http://www.onpower.org/ http://www.friesian.com/econ.htm http://www.nationmaster.com/ http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/ http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/ Links http://www.improb.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html Martin Feldstein http://www.nber.org/feldstein/index.html#papers Steven Levitt http://www.src.uchicago.edu/users/levit/ Caroline Hoxby http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/ Greg Mankiw http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw/mankiw.html Hal Varian http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/hal/articles.html Richard Wagner at George Mason http://mason.gmu.edu/~rwagner/editorials.html Peter Boettke http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/pboettke/ Bryan Caplan Freedom Links www.cato.org http://www.freedomworks.org/ On my desk The Other Path Fair Play, Landsburg On my nightstand It’s Not About the Bike I am Charlotte W Crossing to Safety-* When Character Was King http://ecedweb.unomaha.edu/teach-ec.htm More about me http://www.econphd.net/rank/rlabor.htm News GDP growth slows in 2Q new CNN Economy Headline Economy Grows at Slower Pace Than Expected Yahoo (US Economy) new Economic fallout of $50 a barrel new CS Monitor (Economy) El Paso Could Sell More Assets new Forbes (Economy) Analysis and Commentary: Organizations New Article new Brookings: Economic Studies Administration’s Proposed Deduction For Long-Term Care CBPP: Website Insurance Premiums Likely To Be Ineffective and Costly, and Of Primary Benefit To Higher-Income Individuals Brown: A Great Decision—Except for Schools Hoover Institution (Essays) Analysis and Commentary: Individuals The Liberal Media: It's No Myth Robert Barro (Website) The Economist's Duty to Raise the Level of the Debate Brad DeLong (Website) Tax Cuts? new John Irons (ArgMax.com) America's Failing Health new Paul Krugman (NYTimes) The $100 Terrorist Insurance Plan Steven E. Landsburg (Slate) Donations Can Buy You Profits, August 25, 2004 new Hal Varian (Web/NYTimes) Library of economics and liberty Alan Krueger Media & Organizations New York Times Yahoo U.S. Economy News http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=business&cat=us_economy Hoover CBPP Brookings Economics Links http://www.dallasfed.org/ Simulations Supply and Demand http://www.digitaleconomist.com/equilibrium.html#1 Plotting Curves http://www.digitaleconomist.com/graphing.html Demand Curves – Elasticities http://www.digitaleconomist.com/elasticity.html#1 Price Elasticity of Demand http://www.digitaleconomist.com/elasticity_tutorial.html Consumer Surplus http://www.digitaleconomist.com/cs_tutorial.html Production Possibilities http://www.digitaleconomist.com/ppf_4010.html#1 Maximization Problem http://www.digitaleconomist.com/optimization_x.html Consumer Utility Max http://www.digitaleconomist.com/co_tutorial.html Producer Profit Max http://www.digitaleconomist.com/po_tutorial.html Production – Isoquants http://www.digitaleconomist.com/prod_lr.html#1 Production and Cost http://flashecon.org/production/production_main.html Short Run Profit Max http://flashecon.org/profitB/profitB_main.html Short Run P-Max II http://flashecon.org/profitA/profitA_main.html Cost Curves http://www.campbell.berry.edu/faculty/economics/CostCurves/CostCurves.htm#Footnote %201 Comparative Advantage http://flashecon.org/advantage/advantage_main.html Autonomy vs. Specialization http://flashecon.org/DIVINCI/autonomy2.html Solow Growth Model http://www.digitaleconomist.com/solow.html Keynesian Cross http://www.digitaleconomist.com/ae_4020.html#1 Multiplier http://www.digitaleconomist.com/s_mult.html Experiments Libertarian test http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/purity.cgi http://www.free-market.net/ Freedom Pages FREEDOM Across the Atlantic Airstrip One Asymmetrical Information Belmont Club Colin Beveridge Biased BBC Tim Blair Blithering Bunny Blognor Regis Blogs of War Brian's Culture Blog Brian's Education Blog British Spin Cafe Hayek Mike Campbell Antoine Clarke's Election Watch Sasha Castel Catallaxy Files Centre for the New Europe Chris' Libertarianism Blog Civitas The Commons Conservative Commentary CrozierVision Cut on the Bias Daily Pundit Karen de Coster Dissecting Leftism Dissident Frogman Dodgeblogium Don't Hold Your Breath Andy Duncan Edge of England's Sword End the War on Freedom EU Referendum Eursoc FEE Free Market Foundation Sean Gabb Gold and Silver Harry's Place The Holy Blog It comes in pints? HUBlog David Hume Institute Iberian Notes IEA Instapundit ISIL Joanne Jacobs Michael Jennings Knappster Kolkata Libertarian Laissez Faire Books Ken Layne Liberal Democrat Watch Libertarian Alliance The Libertarian Enterprise Libertarian International Libertarian Party Libertarian UK Liberty The Liberty Log Little Green Footballs Rachel Lucas Marginal Revolution Alex Massie Ilana Mercer Mises Institute Mises Blog Andrew Olmsted One Hand Clapping On the Third Hand Slugger O'Toole OxBlog Pathetic Earthlings PC Watch Policy Institute The Politburo Diktat Stephen Pollard Virginia Postrel Powerline Public Interest Random Jottings Rantburg Rathouse Lew Rockwell Lew Rockwell Blog Samizdata Schoolhouse Adam Smith Blog Adam Smith Institute Social Affairs Unit Social Affairs Unit Weblog Social Scrutiny Natalie Solent Squander Two Sgt Stryker Andrew Sullivan TaxPayers' Alliance Transport Blog Truck and Barter Truth Laid Bear Unqualified Offerings USS Clueless White Rose Winds of Change WHISKY Bigger Government Leads to Bigger Campaign Spending by Patrick Basham Patrick Basham is senior fellow in the Center for Representative Democracy at the Cato Institute. Campaign spending is skyrocketing. According to Larry Noble of the Center for Responsive Politics, the 2004 presidential and congressional campaigns will collectively cost about $3.9 billion, a 30 percent increase over 2000. Noble attributes that spending to "the increase in giving by individuals to candidates and parties." But his reasoning confuses the symptom with the disease and reflects the conventional lack of wisdom on campaign spending. The most important factor driving campaign spending upward isn't the increase in individual campaign donations permitted by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. Rather, the most important factor is bigger government. The growth of government spending fosters the growth in campaign spending. Taxes and regulations on society have increased the ambit of government at all levels. As scholarly studies have shown, increasing government activity leads to more efforts to influence political decisions, including increased spending on campaigns. As government does and spends more, individuals try to influence government, both to advance their causes and to protect themselves from abuse. Government has grown enormously over the past few decades. Collectively, Americans today pay more than two-and-a-half times (in real terms) the amount in federal taxes that they did in 1970. On the expenditure side, federal government spending will reach $2.4 trillion in the 2005 fiscal year, a 950 percent nominal increase in 35 years. Government has assumed the additional power to regulate all kinds of private conduct, especially regarding economic life. The cost of complying with those federal regulations exceeds $700 billion. The high levels of taxation and regulation indicate that government has vast power over many aspects of American life -- from wealth redistribution to the nature of housing, agriculture, education and health care, to trade, energy and telecommunications, to gun ownership, to the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and drugs. Almost 70,000 government bodies are authorized to impose taxes on Americans. So is it any wonder that several billion dollars are spent lobbying politicians during each election cycle? The desire to gain benefits or avoid costs from regulation pushes campaign contributions upward. There is solid empirical evidence that expanding government results in increases in campaign spending. Economist John Lott Jr. found that 87 percent of the rise in federal campaign spending between 1976 and 1994 was attributable to the $1,101 per-capita rise (in real terms) in federal government spending that occurred over that time. The recent correlation between government spending and campaign spending is even stronger. The 30 percent increase in campaign spending since 2000 closely corresponds to the 31 percent increase in federal government spending during the past four years. Is there a solution to increased campaign spending? Within the current policy environment, it is impossible to reduce campaign spending. Our legislators' demonstrated lack of commitment to limited government ensures that the upward momentum of campaign spending will continue unabated for the foreseeable future. We will only reduce the amount of money flowing within the tributaries of our political system by reducing the incentive for private interests to directly and indirectly support candidates and parties. Therefore, the only plausible solution is to limit the size of government. Anything else merely treats the symptom without addressing the underlying disease of the body politic. Lower government spending will lead to lower levels of campaign contributions. In turn, that will result in lower levels of campaign spending. All other efforts to limit campaign spending will be futile.
