Economists have several theories, and I have a hunch that we’re going through something we’ve been through before.
North Dakota and Minnesota must act wisely to avoid the “resource curse.”
We’re not hearing much about the role the Fed should play in regulating and monitoring our financial system.
Our economy benefits when people can choose household arrangements that suit them and pool their incomes and spending decisions.
This case carries an important lesson about the relationship among policies, politicians and academics.
The move would produce stronger medical-education programs and promote better health care.
We have committed to spend more in the future than we have promised to tax ourselves.
We could have regular analyses of where Minnesota’s economy has been and where it is going, all in one handy package.
The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis is no longer an inflation hawk, and he’s helped convince his colleagues to change as well.
In a perfect world, there is definitely a superior policy: a guaranteed basic income or negative income tax.
Sorry, Gov. Walker. Minnesota has lower unemployment, stronger job growth and higher household income.
The governor’s budget makes several reasonable economic assumptions, but here’s one that raises a red flag among economists.
We can use the tax system to reduce demand and offset some of the negative costs. And we can decide which products are too “noxious” to allow.
Households, as a group, don’t make their purchasing decisions on a whim, driven by the temporary sales of Black Friday or the strictures of Buy Nothing Day.
Now Gov. Mark Dayton and the new Legislature must confront a projected $1.1 billion shortfall in the 2013-2014 budget.
At a recent talk in Minnesota, William G. Gale of the Brookings Institution makes the case to deal with three deficits.
Welch provided no evidence and smeared professional economists for no reason.
When people ask that question they are totally ignoring counterfactuals.