Assorted on India
14 years ago
Economics, global development,current affairs, globalization, culture and more rants on the dismal science, and the society. "As usual, it's like being a kid in a candy store. I'm awed by the volume of high-quality daily links in general. Thanks!" - Chris Blattman
The former president has earned $51,855,599 from speeches since leaving the White House. In 2007 alone, former President Clinton earned more than $10 million in speaking fees. The income from his two books, “My Life” and “Giving,” totals $29.6 million. Senator Clinton earned $10.5 million in book income over the period from her book “Living History.”
The Clintons paid $33,783,507 in federal taxes during this period and made $10,256,741 in charitable contributions, according to a summary of the seven years provided by the campaign.
Everybody likes being number one, .. is almost an obsession…in the way our culture is… When we were trying to hire Robert Barro from Harvard to Columbia...We happen to have the largest apartment on campus, we actually gave 4 rooms away when our daughter went to Yale, because we don’t derive our utility from how large over apartment is, or how big our office,…may be we’re just crazy people, I guess
We were told, even with seven rooms left over in our apartment...,not to invite Robert Barro to our apartment, because he would want one more room than we had.
The University of California at Berkeley announced last week that it has raised a $1.1 billion fund to fight raids on its faculty by wealthier private universities, such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford. The money will endow chairs for 100 professors and facilitate raises for Berkeley professors who now often earn as much as 30 percent less than their counterparts at private universities.
Chancellor Robert Birgeneau said Berkeley would revamp the management of its $2.9 billion endowment, too, in hopes of matching the 25+ percent returns achieved in recent years by the most successfully-managed private university portfolios.
It is a hopeful sign for the nation’s highest-ranked public university. Perhaps it will be enough to counter over the next few years the threat reported here last week to one of the nation’s most creative economics departments.
The question of "free" versus "fair" trade, has three baskets: an environmental regulation basket, a labor-standards and freedom basket, and a "wages basket."...
There is a good chance that China is now on the same path to world preeminence that America walked 130 years ago. Come 2047 and again in 2071 and in the years after 2075, America is going to need China. There is nothing more dangerous for America's future national security, nothing more destructive to America's future prosperity, than for Chinese schoolchildren to be taught in 2047 and 2071 and in the years after 2075 that America tried to keep the Chinese as poor as possible for as long as possible.
Around 38 minutes, they ask about skill levels and different "tournaments" for prostitutes. My sense from observing and fighting prostitution while working in the hotel industry is that they are in different tournaments. The high end prostitutes are professional. Lots of low end prostitutes are there because they lack even the most basic level of human capital. They don't even have the work ethic, reliability, personal skills, etc. to really have a professional job. (I've seen prostitutes resumes). This bears on the feasibility of legalization of prostitution, because I seriously doubt that some of these women for whom black market prostitution is the best option would be able to participate well in white market prostitution.
Please follow the Justice Dept. narrative to the bitter end. It is implausible that such relatively minor transactions would trigger an investigation of this magnitude. I have trouble buying the "we got very lucky" cover story from the Bush Justice Dept.
The IRS apparently receives millions of "suspicious transaction" reports from banks and investigates only a very small fraction of such reports. This is especially true in the post-Patriot Act era when banks are under pressure to err on the side of excessive reporting.
Is this selective and political prosecution? Let's find out. That's more important than psychoanalyzing Spitzer.
Similarly, leaking to the press the details of an investigation has also become commonplace in prosecutions in recent years. An article in this newspaper on Wednesday included information from federal officials who insisted on anonymity because “it can be a crime to disclose the contents of a suspicious activity report.” That federal officials would reveal such information is simply inexcusable. Unfortunately, the Justice Department has been loath to investigate such leaks, and Mr. Spitzer’s supporters are right to criticize them.
Less persuasive, however, is the conspiracy theory that the Justice Department went after Mr. Spitzer to get rid of a high-profile Democrat. It is entirely plausible that, as reported, Mr. Spitzer’s banks reported some suspicious transactions in his accounts to the Treasury Department’s financial crimes network. That is a bank’s obligation under federal law. And the Treasury Department, F.B.I., Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department all seem to have followed proper procedure. Any conspiracy theory seems far-fetched at best.
As enticing as an attack strategy will seem to Mr. Spitzer and his supporters, and however unfair the disclosures to the press have been, no offensive strategy will work in these circumstances. The governor’s alleged conduct was too brazen. In paying to have sex, and to transport a prostitute to Washington to engage in sex, and in moving money to facilitate this illegal conduct in amounts that seemed structured to avoid reporting requirements, Mr. Spitzer apparently engaged in conduct that could support several lines of prosecution.
One involves the Mann Act of 1910, which prohibits transporting people across state lines to engage in prostitution, although I agree with those who feel that Mann-related charges would be inappropriate, as such cases are typically brought against brothel owners, not customers.
But other approaches — illegal structuring of financial transactions, and basic laws against engaging in sex for money — are legitimate prosecutorial avenues. Seen in this light, any complaints about unfairness in the process ring hollow.
A second, more viable, approach for Mr. Spitzer is to play defense and negotiate with federal law enforcement. Speculation is widespread that his resignation might have been in exchange for the government giving up prosecution or for a guilty plea to a minor charge. I have little doubt that such discussions have occurred, but I believe the United States attorney’s statement that no agreement has been reached.
Mr. Obama opened his campaign for next week’s Wisconsin primary inside a General Motors plant in Janesville, one day after General Motors Corp. posted a $38 billion loss, the largest ever for a U.S. auto company. He criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was signed during the Clinton administration, and offered a series of plans to inject more jobs into the economy.
“You know, in the years after her husband signed N.A.F.T.A, Senator Clinton would go around talking about how great it was and how many benefits it would bring,” Mr. Obama said. “Now that she’s running for president, she says we need a time-out on trade. No one knows when this time-out will end. Maybe after the election.”
In an hourlong interview outlining his economic views, Mr. Obama praised the Clinton administration for reducing the deficit and setting the stage for the ’90s boom. But he said Mr. Clinton had failed to halt a long-term increase in income inequality that had left the middle class feeling squeezed.
If elected, Mr. Obama said he would to try to forge a popular mandate for policy changes that could reverse a generation of slow wage growth and outlast any one administration. At the top of his list would be shifting the tax burden more toward the wealthy and making investments — in health care, alternative-energy research and education — that would cost a significant amount of money but could ultimately lift economic growth.
“The project of the next president is figuring out how do you create bottom-up economic growth, as opposed to the trickle-down economic growth that George Bush has been so enamored with,” Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, said.
Based on recent updated statistical data that has become available since the PRC implemented its first national economic census in 2004, this paper studies the trend of regional disparity both among and within the provinces of the PRC from 1978 to 2005. The authors find that compared with the 1990s, the expansive trend of inter-provincial disparities has slowed down and started to decrease somewhat since 2000. Disparities within many provinces have even exceeded inter-provincial disparities.
The authors find that changes in regional disparities in recent years can be attributed to many factors, including policies and regional specific factors as well as some cyclical factors. They conclude that it is not yet possible to say that the PRC's regional disparities have started a decline that will continue.

A rock star, a software tycoon and a computer hardware impresario walk into a Swiss village...
The work of the new supply-siders shies away from the old claims that low taxes will generate an explosion of entrepreneurship or extra hours on the job. Instead, it just looks at the data. When top marginal rates fell, as they did under President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and 1986 or under President Bush in 2001 and 2003, taxpayers whose rates declined the most reported the biggest increases in income in the following years. The supply-side advocates attribute those gains to tax cuts and argue that the Laffer curve — which suggests that some tax cuts can pay for themselves — may live yet.
Some of the most important research was done by Lawrence B. Lindsey, former head of the National Economic Council under President Bush and now the senior economic adviser to the Republican presidential contender Fred D. Thompson. But the origins of the current debate, and the seriousness with which it is taken in academic circles, largely center on the work of the Harvard economist Martin Feldstein.
Professor Feldstein, head of the National Bureau of Economic Research, is perhaps the godfather of modern public-sector economics and is often cited as a potential Nobel laureate. The former chairman of President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers, he has always been known for his conservative views. He has brought more comprehensive data to bear and has made the most influential case; if you accept the evidence he offers, progressivity in the tax code appears very damaging. Raising taxes on high-income people seems to make the economy much less efficient and raises little revenue.
As he put it in a 2006 interview published in a magazine of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, when you raise top marginal rates, “it shows up as lower taxable income.” He added: “A reduction in taxable income, whether it occurs because I work less or because I take my compensation in this other form, creates the same kind of inefficiency.”
But for all the renewed interest in supply-side ideas, the politicians espousing these views have missed three important points that have come out of the continuing academic debate...
Second, other research has shown that the new supply-side movement missed a fundamental shift over the last 30 years — the dramatic, disproportionate rise in the compensation of high-income people. The new supply-siders have confused this shift with the impact of tax cuts.
An example illustrates the point: Emmanuel Saez, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, has compiled data on the incomes of the very rich from 1913 to 2006. Using his data, my calculations show that in the four years after top marginal rates were cut in 1981 and 1986, and in the three years after the rate cut of 2003, average real salaries (subtracting inflation) for the top 1 percent of earners grew 18.8 percent, 22.5 percent and 17.4 percent. But for the bottom 90 percent of earners over those periods, the average salary changes were 2.6 percent, minus 0.3 percent and minus 0.1 percent. A supply-sider might see this as evidence of the growth power of cutting top rates.
But the data also show that incomes at the top have been growing rapidly regardless of what happened to tax rates. In the four years after the increase in top marginal rates in 1993, average salaries grew 18.7 percent among the top 1 percent of earners and less than 0.1 percent for the bottom 90 percent.
Seeing the same pattern when taxes rose as when they fell indicates that tax cuts weren’t responsible. It suggests that cuts for high-income taxpayers likely gave windfalls to those whose incomes were already rising sharply because of broader market forces.