Archive for February 25th, 2019

Econfip: A network of academic economists committed to an inclusive economy and society..

February 25, 2019

Interesting initiative by a team of economists. It is named Econfip or Economists for inclusive prosperity.

We live in an age of astonishing inequality. Income and wealth disparities between the rich and the poor in the United States have risen to heights not seen since the gilded age in the early part of the 20th century. Technological changes and globalization have fueled great wealth accumulation among those able to take advantage of them, but have left large segments of the population behind. Advances in automation and digitization threaten even greater labor market disruptions in the years ahead. Climate change fueled disasters increasingly disrupt everyday life.

This is a time when we need new ideas for policy. We think economists, among other social scientists, have a responsibility to be part of the solution, and that mainstream economics – the kind of economics that is practiced in the leading academic centers of the country – is indispensable for generating useful policy ideas.

Much of this work is already being done. In our daily grind as professional economists, we see a lot of policy ideas being discussed in seminar rooms, policy forums, and social media. There is considerable ferment in economics that is often not visible to outsiders. At the same time, the sociology of the profession – career incentives, norms, socialization patterns – often mitigates against adequate engagement with the world of policy, especially on the part of younger academic economists.

We believe the tools of mainstream economists not only lend themselves to, but are critical to the development of a policy framework for what we call “inclusive prosperity.”

While prosperity is the traditional concern of economists, the “inclusive” modifier demands both that we consider the interest of all people, not simply the average person, and that we consider prosperity broadly, including non-pecuniary sources of well-being, from health to climate change to political rights.

Hmm…Surprised that something like this has come so late…

There are policy briefs on different topics as well on the website.

 

Advertisements

RIP: Nestor A. Espenilla Jr Governor of Central Bank of Philippines

February 25, 2019

Mr Espenilla, running Governor of the central bank of Philippines passed away on 23 Feb 2019.

In a special meeting held on the same day, the Monetary Board designated Deputy Governor Maria Almasara Cyd Tuaño-Amador as BSP Officer-in-Charge effective immediately until such time that President Rodrigo Duterte shall have designated an OIC or appointed a successor.

How the great fire of London created the insurance industry…(and moving towards a creative economy)

February 25, 2019

As usual good speech by Andy Haldane of Bank of England.

The key to his speech is that humans have managed to be very creative in response to the several challenges posed to them. The same approach is needed to the challenges posed by the 4th industrial revolution.

He points how humans reacted creatively to the Great Fire in London. There were 3 responses:

(more…)

Why did Milton Friedman win the Nobel Prize?

February 25, 2019

The  Committee awarded Milton Friedman the prize for his work on:

“fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.”

Profs. James Forder and  Hugo Monnery of University of Oxford (Balliol College) in this paper review the prize to Friedman. They say his work on consumption analysis and monetary history are well known. It is third one on stabilization policy which needs explanation:

The citation for Milton Friedman’s Nobel Prize of 1976 points to three contributions. In two cases, the principal works the Committee must have had in mind are easy to identify. The question of what was intended by the third – ‘his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy’ – is considered. It is argued that, contrary to what might be suspected, this does not refer to any work on the Phillips curve; but the work to which it does refer is identified. The reasons that particular work is less well-remembered than the other work mentioned in the citation are considered.


%d bloggers like this: