Setting aside the rancor of the political class, several economists argue that $7.25 an hour is far too lowSummary of proposals. Well researched report.
The verdict is in: austerity economics is a global loser.AlterNet
Earlier this month the Athens Development and Governance Institute and the Levy Economics Institute held a forum on the eurozone crisis: “Exiting the Crisis: The Challenge of an Alternative Policy Roadmap.” Below are the remarks [on video] delivered by senior scholars Jan Kregel and James Galbraith.Multiplier Effect
A new interview with Jamie Galbraith (and also Leo Panitch), on the possibilities of a New 'New Deal' (part II here). Not much of chance, by the way. Part of the story is that the New Deal was fundamental in institution building, and these very institutions saved us from a crisis similar to the Depression, creating less of a perceived need for continuous reform.Naked Keynesianism
Failure to Prosecute Fraud Causes Economic DownturnsWashington's Blog
Leading economist slams austerity policiesNew Europe
The most dangerous conventional wisdom in the world today is the idea that with an older population, people must work longer and retire with less.
This idea is being used to rationalize cuts in old-age benefits in numerous advanced countries -- most recently in France, and soon in the United States. The cuts are disguised as increases in the minimum retirement age or as increases in the age at which full pensions will be paid.
Such cuts have a perversely powerful logic: "We" are living longer. There are fewer workers to support each elderly person. Therefore "we" should work longer.
Jim Kessler makes the case for the Third Way New Democrat approach to entitlements against Jamie Galbraith. The president, like President Clinton, is a Third Way New Democrat. Revealing.Read it at The New York Times | Opinion
Before 1980, few academics in the United States gave much thought to the idea of economic inequality. It just wasn’t a glaring concern. But in the last 30 years, the incomes of the nation’s wealthiest 1 percenthave surged, and more and more economists have been paying attention.Read it at The Washington Post | Wonk Blog
Yet there’s still plenty about economic inequality that’s not well understood. What’s actually driving the gap between the richest and poorest? Does it hurt economic growth, or is it largely benign? Should it be reversed? Can it be reversed? Surprisingly, there’s little consensus on how to answer these questions — in part because good data on the topic is hard to come by.
In his fascinating new book, “Inequality and Instability,” James K. Galbraith, an economics professor at the University of Texas at Austin, takes a more detailed look at inequality by assembling a wealth of new data on the phenomenon. Among other things, he finds that economic inequality has been rising in roughly similar ways around the world since 1980. And this rise appears to be driven, in large part, by the financial sector — and the changes that modern finance has forced in the global economy. We talked by phone recently about his book.
Technology and education, says Timothy Noah. But unemployment and the rules governing wages may matter more.Read it at Salon
