|Daron Acemoglu||MIT||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Joseph Altonji||Yale||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
Like the mortgage interest deduction, the federal tax subsidy to employer-provided health insurance plans causes excess consumption.
|Katherine Baicker||Harvard||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Abhijit Banerjee||MIT||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Markus Brunnermeier||Princeton||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Raj Chetty||Harvard||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Judith Chevalier||Yale||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|David Cutler||Harvard||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Angus Deaton||Princeton||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Darrell Duffie||Stanford||Uncertain||2||Bio/Vote History|
|Aaron Edlin||Berkeley||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Barry Eichengreen||Berkeley||Uncertain||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Liran Einav||Stanford||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Ray Fair||Yale||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Amy Finkelstein||MIT||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Pinelopi Goldberg||Yale||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Austan Goolsbee||Chicago||Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Michael Greenstone||Chicago||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
Just scratches the surface of the reforms needed in health-care policy
I think so. It would be better to count employer-based health insurance as taxable income, but the Cadillac tax is better than nothing.
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||Uncertain||7||Bio/Vote History|
The Cad tax is meant to counter other distortions so this is a q of whether 4th best fixes 3rd best. An economist who says he knows is wrong
|Hilary Hoynes||Berkeley||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
The rate is too high. Better idea is to make insurance costs equally deductible for all.
|Steven Kaplan||Chicago||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
Depends on what happens to the rest of the Obamcare mandates and side payments that are still be litigated
|Pete Klenow||Stanford||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Jonathan Levin||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|William Nordhaus||Yale||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
Even better would be to divorce the provision of health care from employment entirely, but that is probably not a realistic possibility.
|José Scheinkman||Princeton||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Schmalensee||MIT||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Carl Shapiro||Berkeley||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
It will reduce distortions, but I'm not sure by how much
|Richard Thaler||Chicago||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
The basic reasoning for the tax is sound, but the market is so rife with imperfections that our simple models might be quite misleading.
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.