It is who you know and...where you go.

Caroline Hoxby is one of the most careful researchers in all of economics. Yes, pedigree does matter, especially if you get busy when you graduate.



http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/11/25/top-universities-get-more-selective-but-offer-better-return-on-investment/?mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB

Pearl Harbor...68 years ago.

The process of destroying Imperial Japan began on this day 68 years ago. Both Roosevelt and Truman were intent on destroying Imperial Japan so it could never again threaten the world. It was the same with Nazi Germany. That was the right prescription. How often today do you hear the same tone about Al Qaeda or the Taliban? It is not even called the "war on terror" any more. That was a "bumper sticker" as Randy Parker Schmuck Hall of Shame member John Edwards called it. You call it want you want. Let them chop your head off. Not me baby. It is the war on terror and they need to be destroyed because that is what they want to do to you, unwashed infidel that you are.

P.S. Truman was CORRECT in dropping the bomb on Japan. Here at the University there are any number of conferences and seminars on how the U.S. was wrong to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Psshaw! is what I say to that. Army planners were looking at over 1 million + casualties to invade Japan. If you were a G.I. back then you were being shipped from Europe to Asia knowing your odds of seeing 1946 were slim, never mind 1947 and beyond. When Truman dropped the bomb many G.I.s wept...because they knew they were going to live. Look one of them in the eyes and tell him Truman was wrong. I bet you get a spirited answer.

Real Cool!

This is a GIANT Tanker fly by!

Read Jim Hamilton and you know what to think...

From the November 25 entry of www.econbrowser.com:


One of the ways I have suggested for personalizing this issue stems from the observation that $1 trillion is approximately the total personal income tax receipts collected by the U. S. federal government in 2006. So, to calculate what another trillion in deficits means for me personally, I take the amount I paid in federal income taxes that year and double it; $10 trillion in new debt will require 10 years at that higher rate to pay off. It's going to be a real problem for any politician who tries to service the growing debt burden by raising taxes. That's why I see troubles ahead for managing the federal cash flow.

But Paul feels I'm using an inappropriate metric:

Krugman says: "Jim gets scary numbers about the debt burden by assuming that we'll have to pay off the debt in 10 years. But why would we have to do that? Again, the lesson of the 1950s-- or, if you like, the lesson of Belgium and Italy, which brought their debt-GDP ratios down from early 90s levels-- is that you need to stabilize debt, not pay it off; economic growth will do the rest."

Normally, you'd think that putting off repaying a debt does not make it any smaller. The federal government can (with my wallet) pay the trillion today, or it can wait 10 years to pay one trillion plus 10 years' interest, or wait 20 years to pay one trillion plus 20 years' interest. The present value of the service cost on one trillion dollars in debt is exactly one trillion dollars today, no matter how long you put off paying (emphasis added). My comments on how much a trillion really is are perfectly appropriate for discussion of any repayment timetable.

Is it possible that some time within the next five years, the U.S. Treasury will run an auction in which there are not enough bids to roll over the debt? My answer is yes.

Is inflation coming? Three short pieces from Allan Meltzer you should read.

From our good friends at the American Enterprise Institute....If you look at the political history of the Fed and the political pressure they will face to not tighten when the economy begins to recover, it does not look good for the future price level and its rate of change. Let's hope the Fed officials who claim they will increase the fed funds rate with the same "alacrity" they reduced it are as tough as they talk when the time comes.



http://blog.american.com/?author=20

These are two things that really have me thinking....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/opinion/01brooks.html?_r=1

This is our President and it makes me angry to see him dissed like this. I have an answer too.

How do you say what Dick Cheney said to Pat Leahy in Russian?

Real neat interactive map on unemployment. Watch Vegas, Arizona and the whole west coast fade to black.

http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html

One look says a lot.

From Nick Schulz at The American Enterprise Institute Blog by way of W. Douglas McMillin....




Here is the listing of cabinet members by administration with previous private sector experience. It includes secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development, and excludes Postmaster General, Navy, War, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security—432 cabinet members in all.