Archive
-
News
William Janeway reviews INET’s book, “Macroeconomic Inequality from Reagan to Trump” in Project Syndicate
Dec 7, 2020
“Now, in a powerful work of synthesis, economist Lance Taylor, assisted by Özlem Ömer of Nevsehir Haci Bektas Veli University in Turkey, has brought a new perspective to the discussion. Taylor is a rare figure among economists nowadays. Previously a professor at two of the established citadels of mainstream economics, Harvard University and MIT, he has spent the past generation at the New School for Social Research in New York City, and is deeply engaged with the Institute for New Economic Thinking. … The overriding message from Taylor’s work is the exact opposite of “trickle-down economics.” Reducing inequality will increase economic growth and productivity. But, at the end of the day, there is no magic bullet to reverse the impact of the structural transformation of the past 50 years. That, too, was driven by policy initiatives, the full implications of which many policymakers are only just now beginning to comprehend.” — William Janeway
-
News
INET study is cited in the Socialist Worker
Dec 7, 2020
“Rich economies have more resources to spare to prioritise saving lives. And Wolf reproduces the Institute for New Economic Thinking’s now famous chart that refutes the idea there is a “trade-off” between saving the economy and saving lives. On the whole, those states that prioritised saving lives also lost less economic output. China is the standout case. But it isn’t just about how rich an economy is. The same chart shows that the states that suffered the biggest losses of lives and output include Italy, Britain, Spain, and France. The US and Belgium aren’t far behind.” —Alex Callinicos
-
News
INET article cited in NTV on how to handle the pandemic this winter
Dec 7, 2020
“A look around the world shows that so far no country has managed to effectively protect its risk groups when the number of infections is high - Sweden at the beginning of the pandemic or Switzerland in the second wave also had to pay for their special routes with many deaths. And if such a strategy fails, you have wasted valuable time and may find yourself confronted with an infection that is completely out of control. This would mean a collapse of the health system with all the ensuing consequences. This also includes immense damage to the economy. This is also confirmed by a study by the Institute for New Economic Thinking. Those who reacted belatedly or wavered between strategies not only had very high casualties, but were also the most damaging to their economies, it said. The authors cite Great Britain as a negative example.” — Klaus Wedekind
-
News
INET study featured in Queensland
Dec 7, 2020
“The “go-hard/go-early and no regrets” approach of the Australian states has been vindicated by the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), a nonpartisan, nonprofit organisation established in the wake of the 2009 global financial crash.” …. “We must be ready to accept renewed restrictions, targeted shutdowns and border closures. As the INET report clearly demonstrates, the failure to act is much more costly than any temporary measures, such as those used in South Australia last month.” — Dennis Atkins
-
YSI Event
Bonds or Bust!
George Soros: Proposal for Perpetual Bonds — A Discussion on the Future of European Fiscal Capacity
YSI
DiscussionDec 4, 2020
George Soros’ latest op-ed in the Project Syndicate reasserts his view how perpetual bonds could help the European Union overcome its deadlock on fiscal spending.
-
Article
Young Scholars Want More Voices Heard in Economics
Dec 3, 2020
No one person or perspective holds the key to solving economic problems, says Jay Pocklington of the Institute for New Economic Thinking
-
Webinars and Events
The Future of Work | Meaningful Integration or Jobless Future?
Webinarwith Daron Acemoglu and William Janeway
Dec 2, 2020
The central challenge confronting us in the future of work is this: can we create a future where work exists for all who need one with fair rewards, or will we end up on the path of increasing displacement, leaving workers vulnerable, dispensable, and miserable?
-
Article
An Effective Response to Europe’s Fiscal Paralysis
Nov 30, 2020
Individual EU member states ought to issue perpetual bonds
-
Article
The Gospel of Capitalism is the Biggest Turkey of All
Nov 25, 2020
The perverted dreams of western modernity and capitalism may be exhausting themselves, says author Eugene McCarraher. And that’s something to be thankful for.
-
News
The FT cites INET article on what can be learned from the pandemic
Nov 25, 2020
“Actual experience, as opposed to cost-benefit analyses of theoretical alternatives, further strengthens the case for suppressing the disease fully, where feasible. A recent paper from the Institute for New Economic Thinking, To Save the Economy, Save the People First, suggests why. A chart (reproduced here) shows that countries have followed two strategies: suppression, or trading off deaths against the economy. By and large, the former group has done better in both respects. Meanwhile, countries that have sacrificed lives have tended to end up with high mortality and economic costs.” — Martin Wolf, The Financial Times
-
News
El Economista cites INET research on the cost of the pandemic
Nov 25, 2020
“To save the economy, you have to save people first, is the title of a paper by Alvelda, Ferguson and Mallery of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. This work groups countries into three categories, according to the response to the covid: those that gave priority to maintaining economic life; those who focused on taking care of health first and those who wanted to be placed in the middle, but did not do either one well. The best economic results correspond to those who prioritized health. They are countries that are in Asia and Oceania, mainly. The worst are in the other two groups. Those who did not define one or the other, got the worst of both worlds: many deaths and great economic damage. What can be done? Alvelda, Ferguson, and Mallery recommend targeted subsidies by regions and sectors hardest hit; guarantee income for workers in non-essential activities and subsidize health safety measures for all those who cannot stop. This means, among other things, public money to make public transport and some massive workplaces more sanitary. Subsidize supervision / surveillance measures in spaces where many people go: shopping centers and places of religious worship, for example.” — Luis Miguel Gonzalez, El Economista (translated from Spanish)
-
Article
The Promise and Limits of Carbon Pricing
Nov 24, 2020
Carbon pricing still has the potential to be a powerful tool contributing to emissions reductions, but it is clearly no panacea.
-
News
Economics & Beyond’s episode cited in the Financial Post
Nov 24, 2020
“Structural analysis to uncover global trends is what Goodhart and Pradhan’s book does. I’m not sure I completely recommend it, as it gets a little technical in spots, but I certainly recommend learning more about their analysis. (You can hear them interviewed in the podcast, “Economics & Beyond with Rob Johnson.”)” — William Watson
-
Working Paper
Working Paper SeriesCarbon Pricing and the Elasticity of CO2 Emissions
Nov 2020
Carbon pricing still has the potential to be a powerful tool contributing to emissions reductions, but it is clearly no panacea.
-
News
The FT cites INET working paper showing elites are thwarting democracy
Nov 23, 2020
“Anyone with a pulse knows that in the US today the system is rigged in favour of the wealthy and powerful. One particularly illuminating paper published this month by the Institute for New Economic Thinking quantifies the problem. Building on a persuasive 2014 data set, it shows that when opinion shifts among the wealthiest top 10 per cent of the US population, changes in policy become far more likely. Using AI and machine learning, INET academics Shawn McGuire and Charles Delahunt delved deep into the data. They found that considering the opinions of anyone outside that top 10 per cent was a far less accurate predictor of what happened to government policy. The numbers showed that: “not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all”.” — Rana Foroohar, The Financial Times