Showing posts with label debt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debt. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Say's Law, finance in macro, the elderly, and Pfizer.

Say's Law has gotten a lot of attention recently! Nick Rowe, Robert Waldmann, and David Beckworth. Poor Say, these guys are just piling on. It's not Say's fault he assumed a barter economy! DeLong even invokes Friedman.

Thoma points us to another person talking about the need to take into account financial factors in macroeconomic models. My first reaction is, "Duh," but why haven't I seen any serious attempts to do just that? I've talked about this before. Thoma also provides us with a growing list of people talking about the state of macro. Interesting stuff.

The elderly are the reason why we have a national debt, says Bruce Bartlett. That'll get some people angry. I don't think he's particularly young, either. I wonder if he's banking on the idea that most of the elderly won't be online.

Bad business articles annoy me. Pfizer pays $2.3 billion to settle a lawsuit, but that's less than three weeks of sales. It seems that the author doesn't realize that this is a lot of their sales. He may want to look into how many weeks of profit it'll be. Pfizer's first quarter profit this year was$3.7 billion. That's right, they paid out two months of profit. Ouch.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Macro debates, national debt, and media regulation

Quiggin on macro wars. Yes, another one. I find them interesting, though.

Here's a global debt clock. Neat! Check out your country's debt, and compare it to other countries.

Here are some interesting thoughts on media and regulation. I'm not sure that they authors have thoroughly thought out the implications of a corrupt government, though. That might be something that's hard to capture in traditional economic analysis, though.

Yet more thoughts on the current state of macro (pdf). Arguably, I think these may be some of the most compelling thoughts on the future of macro--Kocherlakota talks about the research of relatively young macroeconomists at top universities. I think most of the complaining has been about how "most" macroeconomists view things, and how macroeconomics has affected policy, which are more likely to reflect a slightly older brand of the field. Still, this is a great read.