Cookies and ACs definitely not. But there might be a case for tariffs for TEMPORARY tariffs in the face of large shocks such as China.
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Strongly Disagree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Joseph Altonji||Yale||Strongly Disagree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Disagree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|David Autor||MIT||Strongly Disagree||7||
Taxing consumers to subsidize domestic production is bad economics and a violation of the WTO agreement.
|Katherine Baicker||Harvard||Strongly Disagree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Abhijit Banerjee||MIT||Strongly Disagree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Strongly Disagree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Markus Brunnermeier||Princeton||Strongly Disagree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Raj Chetty||Stanford||Disagree||6||Bio/Vote History|
There are a number of issues on the production side and these also have to be balanced off against the consumer side.
-see background information here
|David Cutler||Harvard||Disagree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Angus Deaton||Princeton||Strongly Disagree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Darrell Duffie||Stanford||Strongly Disagree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Aaron Edlin||Berkeley||Disagree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Barry Eichengreen||Berkeley||Strongly Disagree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Liran Einav||Stanford||Disagree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Ray Fair||Yale||Strongly Disagree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Amy Finkelstein||MIT||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Pinelopi Goldberg||Yale||Strongly Disagree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Austan Goolsbee||Chicago||Strongly Disagree||10||
|Michael Greenstone||Chicago||Disagree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Robert Hall||Stanford||Strongly Disagree||8||
Read Adam Smith!
|Oliver Hart||Harvard||Strongly Disagree||10||
Duties lead to dead-weight losses and also retaliation.There can be losers from free trade but there are better ways to compensate them.
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||Disagree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Caroline Hoxby||Stanford||Strongly Disagree||10||
What a "good idea" is I do not know, but such tariffs would make the average American worse off.
|Hilary Hoynes||Berkeley||Disagree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Kenneth Judd||Stanford||Strongly Disagree||8||
Consumers would lose. A few would gain but there are more efficient ways to transfer income to people.
|Steven Kaplan||Chicago||Disagree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Anil Kashyap||Chicago||Strongly Disagree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Pete Klenow||Stanford||Strongly Disagree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Jonathan Levin||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Disagree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|William Nordhaus||Yale||Strongly Disagree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Disagree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Larry Samuelson||Yale||Strongly Disagree||8||
There are more effective policies to achieve the goals, such as increased employment, typically associated with import duties.
|José Scheinkman||Princeton||Strongly Disagree||9||
It is preferable to compensate workers that are threatened by international competition.
|Richard Schmalensee||MIT||Strongly Disagree||8||
A terrible idea, for many reasons.
|Carl Shapiro||Berkeley||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Robert Shimer||Chicago||Strongly Disagree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Thaler||Chicago||Strongly Disagree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Christopher Udry||Yale||Strongly Disagree||10||
No. Just no. The example products were chosen to make this easy. The rare cases in which protectionism might be justified are excluded.
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.