Historical GDP Growth v Top Marginal Tax Rates

How about this chart?

Should we raise the top marginal tax rate?

Is there a positive correlation between the top marginal tax rate and GDP growth? Cursory analysis says yes.

Also note that for over 60 non-consecutive years (70 years with an 8 year gap in the middle), the top marginal tax rate was over 50%.

Recession, tax revenue, the Economist, and Monopoly.

Glenn Rudebusch, at the FRB San Francisco, answers five key questions. The financial crisis is over. The recession is most likely over. We won't return to normal employment for some time. Inflation will not be too high. The Fed has an exit strategy to undo its recession-fighting policy actions.

Federal revenue as a share of GDP is at its lowest point since 1950. It's an interesting graph, and I want to see how the percentage federal revenue has fluctuated with GDP growth and also with the change in tax rates. The top tax rate was slashed a lot in the 60s, but you don't see much of a change.

The Economist's forecast. No big surprises, I think. Still, an interesting read. I might expect a slower increase of the federal funds rate than they do, though.

Free Exchange on the history of Monopoly, Anti-Monopoly, and Hasbro.

Tires, Nobel Prize, macro debates, and solar cells.

Garth Brazelton defends the tire tax as a Pigouvian tax. I'd be interested to see if there was any data to show that Chinese tires are significantly less safe than American tires. Since they both presumably have to meet some sort of standard, should we just make tougher standards? If Chinese tires are less safe than American tires, would the tax not apply to safe Chinese tires, or would the tax be repealed when Chinese tire makers improved their tires?

Tyler Cowen starts thinking about the Nobel Prize for Economics. I'm eager to see everyone's thoughts.

Krugman talks about freshwater economists while David Warsh says there isn't as much vitriol as we might think. Warsh links us to an interesting paper that thinks about 1978 macro (link to Thoma).

Solar energy is apparently getting off to a slow start. Overinvestment due to a subsidy combined with a recession led to dropping prices, whic wasn't good for the industry. Does that mean we'll see solar energy picking up again as the world recovers? I've been seeing more articles about solar-powered things anyways, so maybe China is picking up a large degree of the slack from Spain.

Taxes and unemployment, the recession, health care, income, and advertising.

Krugman reports that there is no correlation between taxes and the unemployment rate. Looks like, if anything, there might be a negative correlation.

Though the specifics vary slightly, things are looking a little better now for Krugman and Hamilton.

Health care is a pretty tough issue, politically.

Political Calculations has data on how your income will increase each year.

Karl Smith continues discussion on the advertising industry. I think he's wrong when he says that people aren't easily swayed--though, they may not be so easily swayed as advertisers may think. I think people can be swayed to at least try a new cereal, even if it costs 20 cents more. They may not be swayed in buying a car. When you're talking about relatively cheap, quickly consumed goods, advertising can be powerful. Advertising may actually convince us to try a new restaurant, or a new brand of deodorant.

Macroeconomics, taxes, and auto insurance

Keeping you up-to-date on some of the interesting things around the econoblogosphere.

Another article jumping on the macro-bashing bandwagon. I'd like to see more people offer solutions, or at least helpful criticism. Menzie Chinn offers his insight.

The Wall Street Journal seems to think that executives should pay more in payroll taxes. That's refreshing.

When we're worried about our economic situation, we're willing to try more innovative ways to make society more efficient. Pay-as-you-go auto insurance sure sounds efficient, though people are worried about privacy issues. Presumably, someone knows where you're driving? I think the privacy issue is interesting--lack of privacy might mean more safety. People are less likely to commit crimes if they know they can be easily tracked or caught. Then, people worry that more safety means less free, but I don't know why that necessarily follows.

Trains, raising taxes, popping bubbles, and oil

Ed Glaeser doesn't like the high-speed train idea. We should focus on high-density areas, he says. What about focusing on major airline routes? Houston may not be particulary dense (though, we're getting our own rail system, eventually) but having a train option to get to Chicago or Boston relatively quickly would be a boon. Ryan Avent has more criticisms of Glaeser.

David Leonhardt talks about Club Wagner--to recognize that we need to raise taxes in a wealthy society.

Kevin Drum agrees with NY Fed Chairman William Dudley when he says that the Fed should take a more active role in recognizing and popping bubbles.

I always find it interesting when people try to make predictions about the future price of oil. One analysts thinks it'll go down to $55 soon, and hover there as a summertime low.

Batteries, aid, old experiments, macroeconomics, and taxes.

Lithium ion batteries might start getting cheaper, as we may get a mass producer in the United States. Battery news excites me.

Felix Salmon wades into the developmental economics debate of the success and failure of aid, and is plugging a new book on the subject. I wonder what Easterly would say about the book.

Tim Harford talks about old experiments, and some efforts to rethink the studies.

Steve Chapman at reasononline takes on macroeconomists saying, essentially, that the field is very politicized, and this is partially a result of it being a less definite field.

Nancy Folbre thinks about why people who support raising taxes are wealthy. I think it's more about deeply ingrained ideologies. Though, it's strange that people on the lower end of the income spectrum aren't more strongly supporting their own taxes being lowered.

Credit rating, soda tax, education, and political definitions

Free Exchange wonders what we should do about credit rating agencies. Should we have more competition to ensure better, more reliable ratings? Or, will that cause people to just shop around for ratings?

Tim Haab talks about a soda tax, and quizzes us on it. Personally, I wouldn't mind swallowing the three cents per twelve ounces (pardon the pun).

Newmark's Door points to a paper that emphasizes the importance of education in helping low-wage workers. Really, this surprises no one, but it should continue to get airtime as long as there aren't many educational options to low-wage workers.

William Easterly tries to apply more broad definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" to US politics--definitions which hold more internationally. Really, I think this isn't important. In the US, "liberal" and "conservative" are more titles than descriptive adjectives. Though it's good to be aware of what the terms actually mean, it's also good to be aware that the real definitions don't apply.

Tea parties, retail sales, and more on the macro ranting.

Bruce Barlett, a former Regean official, points out some of the problems with the logic behind recent tea parties. I somehow think any such attempt to use logic will fall on deaf ears, but the tea parties seem rather silly to me. (part one)

Economix is still on the case of retail sales. We've seen a bigger decline than in the past. I'm going to predict that the trend line will stay below 100, as people try to save more, rely on credit less, and spend less. Dave Altig at the Atlanta Fed doesn't think there's anything so historically odd, though.

Menzie Chinn provides another excellent post, this time on the role of financial systems in macroeconomic models. Kling isn't convinced that macroeconomists have good models, and he's at least partially right, since all models require some degree of simplification. I think it's a field that will continue to get a lot of attention. In a not-totally-unrelated light, Dani Rodrik provides an interesting comment on the field of economics. Still on forecasting, Simon Johnsons provides his forecast of forecats. Nicholas Bloom at Stanford says that the response to the financial crisis was effective in avoiding a severe recession, and that growth will resume at the end of this year. I wonder how much of an effect the "response to the financial crisis" really had.

Taxes and the recession

Here's an interesting bit on effective tax rates, share of tax liabilities, and after-tax income growth for different income groups. From Catherine Rampell at Economix.

James Hamilton reports on a possible indicator of a recession trough. It seems like there are more and more optimists every week.

Have a good Easter weekend!

Tax on soda, fat, PUMA, broadband, solar power, and recession news.

A study shows that a tax on "sugary soft drinks" will result in health benefits regardless of how the tax revenue is used. $1.2 billion could be raised in tax revenue in New York alone, but I wonder how it'd impact the economy as a whole--I imagine the soft drink industry and the medical care industry would each take a hit.

A reduction of "brown fat" could make you more resistant to gaining weight and developing diabetes. Apparently, brown fat is what works to keep you warm when it's cold out.

The PUMA, a two-seater Segway, makes short commutes to work more feasible. During the modernization of Europe, people lived in smaller-sized communities as technology increased. I wonder if that'll happen again. Towers keep getting bigger and bigger, and land becomes more and more precious. In a similar vein, the FCC's $7.2 billion plan to expand broadband can serve to pick up the speed of commerce, and expand markets.

Here's a solar-powered city planned for Florida.

Jobless claims fell more than expected, and many retailers report disappointing sales numbers. Things aren't looking good yet.

G-20, credit crisis, auto industry, and taxes

Now that the G-20 summit is over, you can imagine that a lot of people are weighing in on what they consider to be the important results. Dani Rodrik says that it was a victory for Europe. Vicky Pryce talks about the focus on trade. Free Exchange seems optimistic about most of the results. Justin Fox talks more about the IMF's cash. ... And that's just a drop in the bucket of all the commentary going around out there.

Calculated Risk provides a bunch of graphs of credit crisis indicators. We're still high on all of them, but things are looking better.

Free Exchange considers how one would separate the auto and oil industries. We don't want rising oil prices to sneak up on us again, which may happen due to rising demand in China, but there are fewer incentives for fuel efficient or electric cars while oil prices are low. Of course, this is nothing new, it's just another thought on that same old topic. The way to do it might be a tax on gas.

Mike Mofatt talks about why value-added sales taxes are more efficient than other taxes.

Minimum wages, corn subsidies, wealth and GDP, health care, and chocolate

Here's a look at the effect of increasing the minimum wage... as many would expect, there's a fair amount of job loss, and mostly among the young.

The Business Pundit says that we should stop bailing out corn. Ah, to dream...

NYT reports that household wealth has fallen by trillions of dollars. To this, I'd like to emphasize two things. First, that household wealth was inflated beforehand, anyways. Secondly, that this has little to no direct effect on GDP, since GDP is "the market value of all final goods and services produced within an economy in a given period of time" (from Mankiw's textbook). That is, the 2009 GDP does not take into account changes of market values of things produced in other periods of time, by definition. The fall in household prices just means that houses were bad investments.

Professor Reinhardt explains the bit of stimulus money that goes to comparative effectiveness analysis in health care. There is no subversive plot.

A tax on chocolate in England? Oh no! Though, I'd imagine that the demand for chocolate is probably highly elastic, meaning the burden of the tax would fall primarily on suppliers. I can't imagine cacao bean farmers are wealthy enough to take such a hit to production, but I guess it depends on the size of the tax.

Posting may be spotty next week.

Houston Rodeo, ESE, marginal taxes, protectionism, and popular kids

The Houston rodeo is feeling the effects of the recession.

There is now an Economics Search Engine. It sounds like a very useful thing, but I haven't tried it out yet. (I'm having trouble with the link provided, so maybe you'll also have better luck with this one)

Jonathan Chait has some fun with people who believe they'll be better off by keeping their incomes under $250k.

A couple of World Bankers worry that trade protectionism is rising. I hope any trend doesn't last. (Edit: another Voxeu.org article on a similar subject, but a bit more broad)

Popular kids make more money, says some research. An extra two percent for every extra friend. I wonder what Bill Gates would say about this.

Some recommended articles, not just about the financial crisis.

I'm not very familiar with Capital Chronicle, but they have an interesting article of some compiled for and against arguments of the original Paulson Plan. Though it failed, I think it's important to know why everyone wasn't gung ho about it.

While it didn't make huge news, the Fed pumped $630 billion dollars into the economy. Let's hope that has a positive effect and that it doesn't end up hurting the Fed.

A physicist makes the case for new models of economics, such as computer modeling as opposed to mathematical modeling.

You think you pay a lot in taxes? In the United States, taxes rates used to get above 90% for a pretty long time. Those weren't necessarily bad times, either.

Political Calculations points out that stocks are still doing okay--there hasn't been a collapse. We're not in panic mode, despite some pretty strong setbacks.

A look at price increases in New York City over the past 40 years. It seems quite interesting, at least. Prices for food went up less than I expected.

Professor Hal Varian makes the case that piracy doesn't kill an economy, it just requires different business models. Rather, he made the case four years ago but more people still need to know.

Dean Baker points out that the stock market is not the economy. A lot of people have been freaking out about stocks lately.

UPDATE: I have a bunch of these things, so there'll probably be more updates to this thread.

Steve Sailer tells why minority lending didn't contribute to this mess (I've heard people say such government regulations and pressure are the original source). He also provides some interesting background information.

And, another compilation of blurbs from pundits.

At Marginal Revolution, they have a lot of interesting commentary. These from Tyler Cowen: Best and Worse Case Scenarios, his summary on the crisis, he points out that the FDIC coming into the picture is a brilliant idea (one that should've been thought of earlier, maybe), and he's my original source of the minority lending issue. Oh, and he also points to a new blog by Chicago economist Casey Mulligan, with some interesting but wordy commentary. He could use some better formatting too.