Grasping Reality by Brad DeLong

Time 2020-11-03 06:03:54

Web Name: Grasping Reality by Brad DeLong

WebSite: http://www.bradford-delong.com

ID:103214

Keywords:

Reality,Grasping,by,economics,economichistory,reality-based,economicgrowth,polit

Description:

.#economicgrowth #economichistory #highlighted #slouchingtowardsutopia #socialdemocracy #thirtygloriousyears #2020-11-03Introductory Video for Fall 2020 Instantiation of Econ 115 Module 9: Post-WWII Glorious Years of Equitable Growth Inclusion in the Global Northecon-115-9.2.0-module-intro-video-11.00-2020-10-28https://share.mmhmm.app/ed6bb654a1bb406394e149ce53ecbbd4As of 1945, there was not that many grounds for optimism, as far as the world economy and the world political economy were concerned. The greater totalitarianism had been squashed. The lesser was flourishing. It used the blood of the Russian people spilled fighting Nazism over 1941 to 1945 as a powerful source of legitimating energy—never mind the active and eager collaboration of Stalin and his acolytes with Hitler whenever it had seemed to be to their even momentary advantage. Market economies continued to fail to deliver Polanyian rights. Their ability to even deliver economic growth at all had been cast in the grave doubt by the Great Depression. As for democratic parliamentary politics—it could still be easily dismissed as a swamp that needed to be drained.Yet 1940-1980 saw the victory and secure establishment of the market-heavy mixed economy as an engine for delivering unprecedented economic growth in the global north. It also saw the overwhelming victory of parliamentary democracy as a system that could generate good economic management and also increasing human freedom. And it saw the world system deliver independence and somewhat increasing prosperity, if neither democracy nor economic convergence, to the global south.In the G7 nations, 1870 to 1913 had delivered average measured real-income growth of 1.4% per year, albeit unequally distributed. That fell over 1913 to 1938 to 0.7% per year. But then 1938 to 1973 saw growth at 3.0% per year, catching up to and leaping ahead of what a continuation of pre-1913 trends would have forecast.Why did things go so right? And why, given that things went so right up through the 1970s, was that system of mixed-economy social democracy rejected for one of neoliberalism after 1980?Some of it was that Keynes was at least half right, and his technical and technocratic adjustments to economic management did a great deal of good. Some of it was that the disasters of 1913 to 1938 and the disaster on the other side of the iron curtain that was really-existing socialism that might move west—and east—concentrated everybody’s mind on making an imperfect system work. Some of it was that the backlog of potential innovations undeployed over 1913 to 1938 made growth easyMuch of it was that with strong and equitable growth the market economies’ failure to vindicate Polanyian rights no longer seemed so salientSome of it was that social insurance systems did, to some extent, manage to vindicate Polanyian rightsAnd much of it was that the plutocrats and the rightists had lost their nerve, after the disasters that their attempts to suppress labor organizations and political majorities had generatedIn addition to strong economic growth that was equitable, in the sense of being divided across economic classes rather than hogged by one, there was the increase in human freedom. The equitable growth of 1938 to 1980 stopped afterwards in the age of neoliberalism. But the forward march of inclusion has continued.Inclusion of people as first-class citizens. Who are the first-class citizens of the civilization that we define as the one in which the Anglo-Saxon language is the lingua franca—the tongue spoken by free people? At the start, in the days of Leader Elf-Wisdom of the west branch of the knife-guys—King Alfred of Wessex—it was his own landholding trained-warrior male-Saxon thains. But even in Alfred’s day, he was reaching to include others, and not just other branches of the Saxon tribe. Alfred called his expanded kingdom “England”, after the name of the neighboring tribe of the Angles that he wanted to include as well. And as history passes it becomes the English, and then the British—but, remember, the WOGS—the worthy oriental gentlemen—begin as soon as you cross the English Channel and set foot on the European continent at the port of Calais.There are still those who hold to that. England, if not Great Britain, is still in its majority in support of its ruler Boris Johnson. Boris at least claims to believe that the most important thing is to keep England pure from European pollution. (You are not supposed to remember his full name: Alexander Boris de Pfefle Johnson. Alexander is Greek. Boris is Russian. The de is French. The Pfeffel is German. The Johnson is Welsh, half Keltic, not fully Saxon. If you trace his male line of descent, it goes back not to the Saxons or the Vikings but rather a Turkish nomads who came boiling out of Kazakhstan in days gone bye.)But I digress. From male, British, and upper-class, the set of “gentlemen” expands. It expands to include the middle-class males who have good manners. And then Anglo-Saxon is expanded to include by courtesy others of Northern European stock who walk the walk. By the time of Teddy Roosevelt it is anyone white, or mostly white, who is willing to behave like a male Anglo-Saxon Puritan—children of the Mayflower by adoption as well as by birth. And Teddy Roosevelt still believed in the Republican parties historical obligation for the freedom and uplift of African-Americans. He was swimming against the tide of the American power structure of his day. But he was swimming.And working class people are people.And women became people too. Next: America is a Protestant nation. With the coming of World War II and the strong need to rally everyone against Nazism, and then with the coming of the age of social democracy, the progress of full inclusion speeds up.Then: America is a Christian nation. Then: America is a Judeo-Christian nation. Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower says: “It is very important that an American have a strong faith and I don’t care what”.Jimmy Carter as president in the 1960s talks about the “Abrahamic” faiths, bringing Muslims into the religious circle of inclusion. But that does not seem to stick. Women become full people. Freedom is redefined so that your freedom does not include the right to discriminate against African-Americans in public accommodations. Who people love or choose to be in their private lives becomes “not your business” as well. But Senator Rand Paul still believes in his heart of hearts that it does. Only the fact that it is not electorally wise to say that out loud, even in Kentucky, keeps him quiet now. And every year Fox News and company try to remove the Judeo- from “Judeo-Christian nation” and roll back inclusion by demanding an end to the “war on Christmas”.We know where we are supposed to be now: equal opportunity as a goal, rather than a joke; tolerance and celebration of our diversity because trapping yourself in one point of view is going to makes you stupid and narrow.We are not there yet. The cultural DNA of the global north today is still roughly 50% from the North-Atlantic Anglo-Saxons of the Victorian era. But this is a civilization in which people are less limited by what their parents happenned to look like and be than any previous one.A story to inspire. But not a story to make us comfortable about where we are right now.1268 words 11.00 minutes Martin Wolf: The Threat of Long Economic Covid Looms https://www.ft.com/content/f9a0c784-712e-4bf9-b994-55f8d63316d9: ‘Covid-19 has left many patients with debilitating symptoms after the initial infection has cleared. This is “long Covid”. What is true of health is likely to be true of the economy, too…. To meet the threat of a “long economic Covid”, policymakers must avoid repeating the mistake of withdrawing support too soon, as they did after the 2008 financial crisis. This danger is real, even if there remains much uncertainty about how the crisis will unfold…. We know that many businesses have been hurt, as demand for their output collapsed or they were locked down. The second waves of the disease now crashing on to many economies will make this worse.... But we also know that things could have been far worse. The world economy has benefited from extraordinary support from central banks and governments.... We know, nevertheless, that what has already happened is going to leave deep scars. The longer the pandemic continues, the bigger those scars will be.... Fiscal policy has to play a central role, as it alone can provide the necessary targeted support... Governments have to spend. But, over time, they must shift their focus from rescue to sustainable growth. If, ultimately, taxes have to rise, they must fall on the winners. This is a political necessity. It is also right….#noted #2020-10-30 https://www.bradford-delong.com/2020/10/wolf-long-economic-covidnoted.html Donald Trump: 'In California https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1321548174427852801, you have a special mask. You cannot under any circumstances take it off. You have to eat through the mask. Right, right, Charlie? It's a very complex mechanism. And they don't realize those germs, they go through it like nothing…I will start with the large gap between economic performance under Democratic and under Republican presidents, and with Alan Blinder’s and Mark Watson’s puzzlement as to where it comes fromI will then run through the history of what went wrong with Republican economic policyI will then point out the technocratic idiocies of economic policy under the Trump administrationAnd I will then set forth my theory of where the performance gap—that American incomes grow 1.8%-points per year faster when Democrats are president than when Republicans are—comes from. Democratic politicians and legislators are willing, at least sometimes, to listen to their economists. Republican politicians and legislators will not even let their economists into the room where it happens until they have agreed that the politicians and legislators are already pursuing great policies..#forecasting #economicgrowth #highlighted #politicaleconomy #politics #2020-10-30I will start with the large gap between economic performance under Democratic and under Republican presidents, and with Alan Blinder’s and Mark Watson’s puzzlement as to where it comes fromI will then run through the history of what went wrong with Republican economic policyI will then point out the technocratic idiocies of economic policy under the Trump administrationAnd I will then set forth my theory of where the performance gap—that American incomes grow 1.8%-points per year faster when Democrats are president than when Republicans are—comes from. Democratic politicians and legislators are willing, at least sometimes, to listen to their economists. Republican politicians and legislators will not even let their economists into the room where it happens until they have agreed that the politicians and legislators are already pursuing great policies..#forecasting #economicgrowth #highlighted #politicaleconomy #politics #2020-10-30I will start with the large gap between economic performance under Democratic and under Republican presidents, and with Alan Blinder’s and Mark Watson’s puzzlement as to where it comes fromI will then run through the history of what went wrong with Republican economic policyI will then point out the technocratic idiocies of economic policy under the Trump administrationAnd I will then set forth my theory of where the performance gap—that American incomes grow 1.8%-points per year faster when Democrats are president than when Republicans are—comes from. Democratic politicians and legislators are willing, at least sometimes, to listen to their economists. Republican politicians and legislators will not even let their economists into the room where it happens until they have agreed that the politicians and legislators are already pursuing great policies..#forecasting #economicgrowth #highlighted #politicaleconomy #politics #2020-10-30I will start with the large gap between economic performance under Democratic and under Republican presidents, and with Alan Blinder’s and Mark Watson’s puzzlement as to where it comes fromI will then run through the history of what went wrong with Republican economic policyI will then point out the technocratic idiocies of economic policy under the Trump administrationAnd I will then set forth my theory of where the performance gap—that American incomes grow 1.8%-points per year faster when Democrats are president than when Republicans are—comes from. Democratic politicians and legislators are willing, at least sometimes, to listen to their economists. Republican politicians and legislators will not even let their economists into the room where it happens until they have agreed that the politicians and legislators are already pursuing great policies..#forecasting #economicgrowth #highlighted #politicaleconomy #politics #2020-10-30I will start with the large gap between economic performance under Democratic and under Republican presidents, and with Alan Blinder’s and Mark Watson’s puzzlement as to where it comes fromI will then run through the history of what went wrong with Republican economic policyI will then point out the technocratic idiocies of economic policy under the Trump administrationAnd I will then set forth my theory of where the performance gap—that American incomes grow 1.8%-points per year faster when Democrats are president than when Republicans are—comes from. Democratic politicians and legislators are willing, at least sometimes, to listen to their economists. Republican politicians and legislators will not even let their economists into the room where it happens until they have agreed that the politicians and legislators are already pursuing great policies..#forecasting #economicgrowth #highlighted #politicaleconomy #politics #2020-10-30I will start with the large gap between economic performance under Democratic and under Republican presidents, and with Alan Blinder’s and Mark Watson’s puzzlement as to where it comes fromI will then run through the history of what went wrong with Republican economic policyI will then point out the technocratic idiocies of economic policy under the Trump administrationAnd I will then set forth my theory of where the performance gap—that American incomes grow 1.8%-points per year faster when Democrats are president than when Republicans are—comes from. Democratic politicians and legislators are willing, at least sometimes, to listen to their economists. Republican politicians and legislators will not even let their economists into the room where it happens until they have agreed that the politicians and legislators are already pursuing great policies..#forecasting #economicgrowth #highlighted #politicaleconomy #politics #2020-10-30I will start with the large gap between economic performance under Democratic and under Republican presidents, and with Alan Blinder’s and Mark Watson’s puzzlement as to where it comes fromI will then run through the history of what went wrong with Republican economic policyI will then point out the technocratic idiocies of economic policy under the Trump administrationAnd I will then set forth my theory of where the performance gap—that American incomes grow 1.8%-points per year faster when Democrats are president than when Republicans are—comes from. Democratic politicians and legislators are willing, at least sometimes, to listen to their economists. Republican politicians and legislators will not even let their economists into the room where it happens until they have agreed that the politicians and legislators are already pursuing great policies..#forecasting #economicgrowth #highlighted #politicaleconomy #politics #2020-10-30I will start with the large gap between economic performance under Democratic and under Republican presidents, and with Alan Blinder’s and Mark Watson’s puzzlement as to where it comes fromI will then run through the history of what went wrong with Republican economic policyI will then point out the technocratic idiocies of economic policy under the Trump administrationAnd I will then set forth my theory of where the performance gap—that American incomes grow 1.8%-points per year faster when Democrats are president than when Republicans are—comes from. Democratic politicians and legislators are willing, at least sometimes, to listen to their economists. Republican politicians and legislators will not even let their economists into the room where it happens until they have agreed that the politicians and legislators are already pursuing great policies..#forecasting #economicgrowth #highlighted #politicaleconomy #politics #2020-10-30 J. Bradford DeLong: The Economic Incompetence of Republican Presidents https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/democratic-administrations-historically-outperform-on-economy-by-j-bradford-delong-2020-10: In a United States rife with disinformation, one of the most persistent myths is that Republicans are better than Democrats for business and economic growth. In fact, Republicans have consistently under-performed on the economy for almost a century. One hears many strange things nowadays, not least because “they” (a complicated term) are flooding the zone with misinformation. Without a shared set of facts upon which to base ethical and policy debates, democracy inevitably breaks down. The system’s virtue lies in its unique ability to elevate and consider a broad range of ideas emanating from society. Ideally, through a good-faith exchange of arguments and a weighing of the alternatives, a majority of voters converges on the best course of action...We hear many strange things today. They—and it is a complicated “they”—are flooding the zone with misinformation. Why? For lots of reasons. But democracy breaks down under a flood of misinformation. Democracies’ excellences spring from its ability to consider ideas from different places in society, and converge on the good ones. But that requires that the flow of information into the public-sphere be reality-based—or at least that there be confrontations in which the people can watch Lincoln debate Douglas and decide who is trustworthy and correct and who is not. And we have lost that.But we keep on trying. Here Sisyphus. Here rock. Here hill. And, as Camus wrote now long ago, we must imagine Sisyphus happy, with what he meant depending on which of the many possible ways we choose to read the word “must”.One piece of misinformation I see more and more these days is that on election day America faces a tradeoff. On the one hand, electing a Democrat means that America will no longer have a government that permanently kidnaps children just because it can. On the other hand, electing a Democrat “who will be radical and hurt the economy…”, as the Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy “No Republicans Should Ever Stab Trump in the Back” Noonan puts it, before writing that “[Biden] should not be going out for ice cream in a mask like John Dillinger on the lam…” and that “[Kamala Harris] is embarrassing. Apparently you’re not allowed to say these things because she’s a woman…. I will not sweat it, I will be myself…. If you can’t imitate gravity, could you at least try for seriousness?…”So let me give the microphone to economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson, who write that: “The superiority of economic performance under Democrats rather than Republicans is nearly ubiquitous: it holds almost regardless of how you define success…. The performance gap… strains credulity…. 1.8 percentage points [per year]… from Truman through Obama…” And note that if they went back two more presidents—to Hoover-Roosevelt—the gap would be even bigger: about 3%/year.Note that in this context Trump was an unusually good president as far as economic performance in his first three years was concerned. In teh first three years of his presidency the economy matched the 2.4%/year growth it achieved in Obama’s second term. Even matching the previous Democrat is something that Trump’s and only Trump’s, of all post-WWII Republican presidencies, has seen.Blinder and Watson are flummoxed on where this performance gap comes from: greater fixed investment, more consumer optimism and thus spending on durables, fewer unfavorable oil shocks, and perhaps stronger growth abroad. But these can explain less than half of the gap. It is not that Democrats pursue overinflationary policies that borrow growth from the future and move it into the present.When I first read Blinder and Watson, the oil factor jumped out at me. Both President George Bushes—and also Nixon and Ford’s Secretary of State Henry Kissinger—were deeply confused about whether the U.S. wanted a high or a low price of oil as far as boosting real income growth was concerned. Other presidents grabbed for chances to make or keep oil prices lower.When we look back at history, it seems that Republican presidents and their administrations have little sense of what economic policies are likely to work. It simply never entered George W. Bush’s mind, or the mind of anyone in his administration, that a financial crisis could be produced by underregulation and would be a bad thing. It simply never entered Ronald Reagan’s mind, or the mind of anyone in his administration, that the big budget deficits they created gave America a choice between seeing investment collapse—slowing growth—or borrowing from abroad and in the process importing lots more manufactures—thus turning the Midwest into a rust belt. And Nixon’s belief that low interest rates plus wage-and-price controls could keep both inflation and unemployment low was hard to fathom either at the time.Here we can say of Trump that he has played true to type. NAFTA: worst trade deal in American history. TPP: second worst. Add some TPP provisions to NAFTA and call it USMCA, and all of a sudden it makes America great again. A trade war with China: “good, and easy to win”. But the result has been no change in manufacturing employment, a widened manufacturing trade deficit, U.S. consumers suffering reduced real incomes because they, not China, have paid the tariffs. Why? Because Robert Lighthizer and company had no clue how to plan or fight a trade war.Republican presidents with their repeated failures to understand how the economy works have been hurting it since at least 1928. There is no tradeoff here.829 words.#economicgrowth #highlighted #macro #politicaleconomy #projectsyndicate #2020-10-30 !--more-- We hear many strange things today. They—and it is a complicated “they”—are flooding the zone with misinformation. Why? For lots of reasons. But democracy breaks down under a flood of misinformation. Democracies’ excellences spring from its ability to consider ideas from different places in society, and converge on the good ones. But that requires that the flow of information into the public-sphere be reality-based—or at least that there be confrontations in which the people can watch Lincoln debate Douglas and decide who is trustworthy and correct and who is not. And we have lost that.But we keep on trying. Here Sisyphus. Here rock. Here hill. And, as Camus wrote now long ago, we must imagine Sisyphus happy, with what he meant depending on which of the many possible ways we choose to read the word “must”.One piece of misinformation I see more and more these days is that on election day America faces a tradeoff. On the one hand, electing a Democrat means that America will no longer have a government that permanently kidnaps children just because it can. On the other hand, electing a Democrat “who will be radical and hurt the economy…”, as the Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy “No Republicans Should Ever Stab Trump in the Back” Noonan puts it, before writing that “[Biden] should not be going out for ice cream in a mask like John Dillinger on the lam…” and that “[Kamala Harris] is embarrassing. Apparently you’re not allowed to say these things because she’s a woman…. I will not sweat it, I will be myself…. If you can’t imitate gravity, could you at least try for seriousness?…”So let me give the microphone to economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson, who write that: “The superiority of economic performance under Democrats rather than Republicans is nearly ubiquitous: it holds almost regardless of how you define success…. The performance gap… strains credulity…. 1.8 percentage points [per year]… from Truman through Obama…” And note that if they went back two more presidents—to Hoover-Roosevelt—the gap would be even bigger: about 3%/year.Note that in this context Trump was an unusually good president as far as economic performance in his first three years was concerned. In teh first three years of his presidency the economy matched the 2.4%/year growth it achieved in Obama’s second term. Even matching the previous Democrat is something that Trump’s and only Trump’s, of all post-WWII Republican presidencies, has seen.Blinder and Watson are flummoxed on where this performance gap comes from: greater fixed investment, more consumer optimism and thus spending on durables, fewer unfavorable oil shocks, and perhaps stronger growth abroad. But these can explain less than half of the gap. It is not that Democrats pursue overinflationary policies that borrow growth from the future and move it into the present.When I first read Blinder and Watson, the oil factor jumped out at me. Both President George Bushes—and also Nixon and Ford’s Secretary of State Henry Kissinger—were deeply confused about whether the U.S. wanted a high or a low price of oil as far as boosting real income growth was concerned. Other presidents grabbed for chances to make or keep oil prices lower.When we look back at history, it seems that Republican presidents and their administrations have little sense of what economic policies are likely to work. It simply never entered George W. Bush’s mind, or the mind of anyone in his administration, that a financial crisis could be produced by underregulation and would be a bad thing. It simply never entered Ronald Reagan’s mind, or the mind of anyone in his administration, that the big budget deficits they created gave America a choice between seeing investment collapse—slowing growth—or borrowing from abroad and in the process importing lots more manufactures—thus turning the Midwest into a rust belt. And Nixon’s belief that low interest rates plus wage-and-price controls could keep both inflation and unemployment low was hard to fathom either at the time.Here we can say of Trump that he has played true to type. NAFTA: worst trade deal in American history. TPP: second worst. Add some TPP provisions to NAFTA and call it USMCA, and all of a sudden it makes America great again. A trade war with China: “good, and easy to win”. But the result has been no change in manufacturing employment, a widened manufacturing trade deficit, U.S. consumers suffering reduced real incomes because they, not China, have paid the tariffs. Why? Because Robert Lighthizer and company had no clue how to plan or fight a trade war.Republican presidents with their repeated failures to understand how the economy works have been hurting it since at least 1928. There is no tradeoff here.829 words.#economicgrowth #highlighted #macro #politicaleconomy #projectsyndicate #2020-10-30 DeLong: COVID Dashboard https://research.stlouisfed.org/dashboard/56322…Ulrike Malmendier, Stefan Nagel, Zhen Yan: The Making of Hawks Doves: Inflation Experiences on the FOMC https://www.nber.org/papers/w23228.pdf...Dan Froomkin: New York Times Nailed for Publishing Republican Propaganda—Yet Again https://www.salon.com/2020/10/23/new-york-times-nailed-for-publishing-republican-propaganda--yet-again/: ‘Two supposedly "average" voters in a Times story turn out to be hardcore Republicans. And it's happened before... It raises serious questions about whether Times editors and reporters, rather than actually trying to determine how voters feel, are setting out to find people to mouth the words they need for predetermined story lines that, not coincidentally, echo the Trump campaign's propaganda…Fox and Briar: Mediterranean Lamb Bowls https://www.foxandbriar.com/mediterranean-lamb-bowls/…Marc Flandreau: How Vulture Investors Draft Constitutions: North Weingast 30 Years Later https://us02web.zoom.us/w/86160838299?tk=duPA9Ka5nc9J1jZ0ZeuMESHoiEx_l54-alP8YvwejVE.DQIAAAAUD5YOmxZkLVd6UEtOZFFOU2pXZEJZblV5bHpnAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGeorge Dangerfield: The Strange Death of Liberal England, 1910-1914 https://github.com/braddelong/public-files/blob/master/readings/book-dangerfield-strange-death.pdfGaius Julius Caesar: The Civil War https://github.com/braddelong/public-files/blob/master/readings/book-caesar-civil.pdfGaius Julius Caesar: The Gallic War https://github.com/braddelong/public-files/blob/master/readings/book-caesar-gallic-war.pdfMarcus Tullius Cicero: Letters to Atticus https://github.com/braddelong/public-files/blob/master/readings/letters-cicero-atticus-i.pdf https://github.com/braddelong/public-files/blob/master/readings/letters-cicero-atticus-ii.pdf https://github.com/braddelong/public-files/blob/master/readings/letters-cicero-atticus-iii.pdfMarcus Aurelius Antoninus: Meditations https://github.com/braddelong/public-files/blob/master/readings/book-marcus-aurelius-meditations.pdfSonam Sheth Eliza Relman: Former Republican Presidential Candidate Herman Cain Has Died After Being Hospitalized for Coronavirus https://www.businessinsider.com/herman-cain-dies-after-being-hospitalized-for-covid-19-2020-7...George Borjas (2016): EJMR https://web.archive.org/web/20160701000601/https://gborjas.org/2016/06/30/a-rant-on-peer-review/: ‘Janet Currie… takes an even easier approach to dismiss EJMR: sexism. I personally find the forum refreshing. There’s still hope for mankind when many of the posts written by a bunch of over-educated young social scientists illustrate a throwing off of the shackles of political correctness and reflect mundane concerns that more normal human beings share: prestige, sex, money, landing a job, sex, professional misconduct, gossip, sex, and putting down “reg monkeys”… https://twitter.com/delong/status/750084264335544320Women’s Untold Stories https://www.myscience.org/news/wire/berkeley_s_campus_community_explores_women_s_untold_stories-2020-berkeley: ‘In the 1970s, Berkeley economics professor Laura D’Andrea Tyson would endure derogatory treatment for being a woman... was told not to wear "tight jeans" while teaching, because it would make the "boys crazy." "There was a way in which my failure to recognize that economics was a male-dominated discipline for a long time really helped me," Tyson said in an interview with Berkeley’s economics department. "... But when I realized that there were likely to be very few women in my program, and that there were very few well-known women in economics, I started to have my doubts”… Search Submit >About Brad DeLong Brad DeLong's Short Biography

TAGS:Reality Grasping by economics economichistory reality-based economicgrowth polit

<<< Thank you for your visit >>>

Economics, economic history, politics and finance from U.C. Berkeley economist Brad DeLong

Hot Websites