David Levenstam wrote:
>Yes, the BLS series uses CPI-u to deflate the nominal wage series.
Since
>CPI-u doesn't account for changes in the quality of goods or the
market basket,
>and overstates inflation more the higher the actual rate of inflation,
for the
>inflationary period from roughly 1968-19
>> This is completely wrong. The CPI-u is, and the CPI-x was, adjusted
for
>> quality changes (see http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm ). The CPI-X
>> doesn't exist anymore.
>
>So what price statistic wasn't adjusted for quality changes?
They all are. No one (who knew what he was talking about) has ev
ty as one of the main problems with the CPI. And I
don't think they just said it was "inadequate."
William Dickens wrote:
>>>This is completely wrong. The CPI-u is, and the CPI-x was, adjusted
>
> for
>
>>>quality changes (see http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ho
aren't going to do well at the box office. - -
Bill
>>> Bryan Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/05/04 01:14AM >>>
But this wouldn't explain the clustering of *plausible prize-winners* (many of which
are not big grossers) around Xmas.
- Original Message -
From:
aren't going to do well at the box office. - -
Bill
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/05/04 01:14AM >>>
But this wouldn't explain the clustering of *plausible prize-winners* (many of which
are not big grossers) around Xmas.
- Original Message -
From: Willia
>Those
guys are Marginal Revolution already got to that Economist article:>http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/05/iq_hoax.html
So your claiming that the data in the article in the economist can't be
found in the Lynn book? I would be very surprised at that. The Economist is
Hi Cyril,
Actually I wrote a review article on this literature over a decade ago.
You can find it in my book with Laura Tyson and John Zysman _The Dynamics of
Trade and Employment_ Ballinger 1988. I'm sure there are better and more recent
reviews, but I haven't kept up with the literature.
> I'm just wondering if it is even
>possible for the supply and demand curves to be shaped shaped in such a
>way that the Laffer curve does not apply to some market.
Since you asked...
Take an income tax and the very standard constant elasticity formulations for
demand and supply (they are calle
>Without understanding the parts I snipped
> I would like to point out that if *my* tax rate was .94, I
>would need no more incentive to derive 100% of my income from the
>underground economy. Or is this just one of those counter-intuitive economic
>conclusions?
>Throw me a bone here. ;-)
Perfect
>> Ls=S [w(1-t)]^b
>
>Doesn't this allow labor supply to be unbounded? And isn't this a
>problem since, for example, you can't supply more than 24 hours of
>labor per day per person?
Only if the wage is unbounded too. You might find ways to increase your work
without bound if your wage was infin
>Does the following have any bearing on the Laffer Curve discussion?
>""Hammermesh estimated that a 10-percentage point reduction in payroll
taxes would lead
>to a short-term 3 percent increase in employment and a long-term 10
percent increase in
>employment United States."
It sure does. A ten per
> >But there is no reasonable argument (at least none that I've seen)
>that >tax increases in any range we've seen in this country don't raise
> >revenue.
>
>Disagree or not, I think my argument about long-term damage to
>entrepreneurship and the work ethic is a reasonable one.
Sorry. Mistyped. Me
12 matches
Mail list logo
