|Daron Acemoglu||MIT||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Joseph Altonji||Yale||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
Nevertheless, I'd rather go over the 'fiscal cliff' than renew our irresponsible and unsustainable spend-don't-tax policies.
|Katherine Baicker||Chicago||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Raj Chetty||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
This is the debate. On net, I am still on the Keynesian side.
|Janet Currie||Princeton||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|David Cutler||Harvard||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Angus Deaton||Princeton||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
These measures could lower growth in 2013; the alternative has projected deficits of 5.3% (vs 1.4%) for many years; that's not good either!
|Aaron Edlin||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Barry Eichengreen||Berkeley||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Ray Fair||Yale||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
Lower spending and higher taxes imply slower growth. But alternative scenario would lead to higher deficit.
|Claudia Goldin||Harvard||Disagree||2||Bio/Vote History|
|Austan Goolsbee||Chicago||Strongly Agree||10||
you've got to be kidding me. of course it would be lower.
|Michael Greenstone||Chicago||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Robert Hall||Stanford||Strongly Agree||8||
All macro models agree that lower product demand and higher taxes reduce current output and employment.
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
Some of the policies listed are anti-growth, some pro-growth, so it's hard to evaluate them succinctly as a package.
|Kenneth Judd||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Anil Kashyap||Chicago||Strongly Agree||10||
Short run contraction for sure. But long run costs of NOT acting are growing; entitlement reform and some revenue increases are needed.
Presuming it does not have a big effect on either (1) expected fiscal policy in future years, or (2) unconventional monetary policy.
-see background information here
Most of the action is on the tax side as CBO documents. See my WSJ op-ed on May 18, 2012 about this.
-see background information here
|Jonathan Levin||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|William Nordhaus||Yale||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Maurice Obstfeld||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|José Scheinkman||Princeton||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Schmalensee||MIT||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Hyun Song Shin||Princeton||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|James Stock||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
If all these changes do kick in at the end of 2012, it is hard to imagine they would be left in place for all of 2013. So then what?
|Richard Thaler||Chicago||Strongly Agree||8||
|Christopher Udry||Yale||Agree||2||Bio/Vote History|
The worst aspect is the perduring uncertainty on what will happen
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.