|Daron Acemoglu||MIT||Uncertain||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Joseph Altonji||Yale||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|David Autor||MIT||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Katherine Baicker||Chicago||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Raj Chetty||Stanford||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Judith Chevalier||Yale||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Janet Currie||Princeton||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|David Cutler||Harvard||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Angus Deaton||Princeton||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Darrell Duffie||Stanford||Strongly Agree||9||
Macro performance depends partly on credit from banks, which would have otherwise been impaired. Europe has a related growth issue now,
|Aaron Edlin||Berkeley||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Barry Eichengreen||Berkeley||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Ray Fair||Yale||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
If the banking system had collapsed, unemployment would certainly have been higher in 2010.
|Claudia Goldin||Harvard||Uncertain||2||Bio/Vote History|
|Austan Goolsbee||Chicago||Strongly Agree||10||
the fact it was necessary doesn't mean we should be happy about it
|Michael Greenstone||Chicago||Strongly Agree||7||
There is some strong evidence that the lending channel is real. See the below link.
-see background information here
There were much better policies, but what was done was better than nothing, give the bad policies that preceded.
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||Strongly Agree||9||
Without Fed intervention the banking system would have collapsed.
|Caroline Hoxby||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Kenneth Judd||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Anil Kashyap||Chicago||Strongly Agree||10||
They could have been tougher on pay and dividends, but just look across the pond to see a much worse alternative way of proceeding.
The Fed would have purchased more private assets without TARP, and who knows what the Fed/Congress would have tried instead.
-see background information here
|Edward Lazear||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Jonathan Levin||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|William Nordhaus||Yale||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
This statement reflects my best judgment, based on a range of macroeconomic literature, but it would be difficult to prove beyond a doubt.
|Cecilia Rouse||Princeton||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|José Scheinkman||Princeton||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Schmalensee||MIT||Strongly Agree||8||
It is hard to imagine the mess we would still be in if most of our large banks had failed.
|Hyun Song Shin||Princeton||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|James Stock||Harvard||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Nancy Stokey||Chicago||Strongly Agree||9||
See Ch 7 of Friedman & Schwartz's Monetary History. It's fortunate we had a Central Banker who'd read it and had the courage to act on it.
Not my area but it seems like it had to have helped.
|Christopher Udry||Yale||Agree||1||Bio/Vote History|
The question presumes Paulson’s forced alternative. If the only choice is between evil and Armageddon, evil might look ok.
This panel explores the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. To assess such beliefs we assembled this panel of expert economists. Statistics teaches that a sample of (say) 40 opinions will be adequate to reflect a broader population if the sample is representative of that population.
To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States. The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession. This selection process has the advantage of not only providing a set of panelists whose names will be familiar to other economists and the media, but also delivers a group with impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters.
Finally, it is important to explain one aspect of our voting process. In some instances a panelist may neither agree nor disagree with a statement, and there can be two very different reasons for this. One case occurs when an economist is an expert on a topic and yet sees the evidence on the exact claim at hand as ambiguous. In such cases our panelists vote "uncertain". A second case relates to statements on topics so far removed from the economist's expertise that he or she feels unqualified to vote. In this case, our panelists vote "no opinion".
The Economic Experts Panel questions are emailed individually to the members of the panel, and each responds electronically at his or her convenience. Panelists may consult whatever resources they like before answering.
Members of the public are free to suggest questions (see link below), and the panelists suggest many themselves. Members of the IGM faculty are responsible for deciding the final version of each week’s question. We usually send a draft of the question to the panel in advance, and invite them to point out problems with the wording if they see any. In response, we typically receive a handful of suggested clarifications from individual experts. This process helps us to spot inconsistencies, and to reduce vagueness or problems of interpretation.
The panel data are copyrighted by the Initiative on Global Markets and are being analyzed for an article to appear in a leading peer-reviewed journal.