|Daron Acemoglu||MIT||Strongly Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Joseph Altonji||Yale||Strongly Agree||9||
Health spending per recipient can rise above current levels. Reform is needed to make health spending increases affordable given GDP growth
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|David Autor||MIT||Strongly Agree||10||
The mixture of rising government spending on healthcare and extremely low U.S. tax-rates is unsustainable.
|Katherine Baicker||Harvard||Strongly Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Raj Chetty||Harvard||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
Social security may be in the menu of and/or solutions as well.
|Janet Currie||Princeton||Strongly Agree||10||
It is not possible to solve U.S. budget problems without addressing the high cost of medical care and increasing taxes.
This seems obvious, but there is so much waste in health care that if we do it right, we'll very significantly reduce the costs of care.
|Angus Deaton||Princeton||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Darrell Duffie||Stanford||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Aaron Edlin||Berkeley||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Barry Eichengreen||Berkeley||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Ray Fair||Yale||Strongly Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Pinelopi Goldberg||Yale||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
As long as taxes on those with incomes > $250K were already increased and revenues collected were insufficient.
|Austan Goolsbee||Chicago||Uncertain||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Michael Greenstone||Chicago||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
Rationalization is a better term than cuts. Equal health outcomes are possible with much less spending.
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Caroline Hoxby||Stanford||Strongly Agree||10||
Fiscal gap studies (e.g. Auerbach, Kotlikoff) show this is true unless, of course, health care costs fall dramatically--but why should they?
|Kenneth Judd||Stanford||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Anil Kashyap||Chicago||Strongly Agree||7||
Can't escape doing something about medical spending and even if we do, we will need more taxes on everyone
-see background information here
|Pete Klenow||Stanford||Strongly Agree||10||
The sooner we face up to this the better.
-see background information here
Cuts or less rapid growth? Keep benefits constant in real terms or relative to wages? If mean real growth, I agree need more tax on all.
|Jonathan Levin||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|William Nordhaus||Yale||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Maurice Obstfeld||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
The key is controlling health care costs growth which does not necessarily imply reneging on Medicaid/Medicare benefits promises
|José Scheinkman||Princeton||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Schmalensee||MIT||Strongly Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Hyun Song Shin||Princeton||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|James Stock||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Nancy Stokey||Chicago||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
Arithmetic. And too unlikely that Congress will find cuts elsewhere such as farm and oil subsidies and DoD.
The main alternative is a substantial reduction in the growth rate of medical care costs.
|Luigi Zingales||Chicago||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
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.