Example collocations logo

Economists in sentence

2720 examples of Economists in a sentence

Today there is lively debate on institutions and incentives among economists and politicians, and several reforms, including a new tax system, have been introduced over the past few years.
Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson confirm this Democratic dividend in a recent study.
The precise impact of migration on wages is hotly debated among economists, but no economy can face a sudden surge in labor supply without some adverse consequences for at least some groups of “native” workers.
Indeed, faced with emerging concerns about migration, establishment politicians and academic economists responded either by dismissing the concerns as closet racism, or by denying that adverse consequences even existed; either way, millions of citizens were apparently suffering from false consciousness.
The Debt-Growth ControversySTANFORD – The recent controversy over errors in a 2010 paper by the economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff is a sad commentary on the demands of the 24/7 news cycle and the politically toxic atmosphere surrounding fiscal policy in the United States, Europe, and Japan.
Economists use different methods to analyze fiscal issues: stylized analytical models; macroeconometric models fitted to aggregate data, such as those used by the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, and the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO); empirical estimation of key parameters, such as spending multipliers; vector autoregressions; and historical studies.
Each of these approaches has its strengths and weaknesses, and serious economists and policymakers do not rely on a single study; rather, they base their judgments on complementary bodies of evidence.
In May 1930, some 1,028 of America’s leading academic economists wrote a public letter to US President Herbert Hoover urging him to veto the pending Smoot-Hawley tariff bill.
By contrast, the multilateral approach appeals to most economists, because it stresses the balance-of-payments distortions that arise from mismatches between saving and investment.
This contrast between the simple and the complex is an obvious and important reason why economists often lose public debates.
The counter-argument from multilateral-focused economists like me rings hollow in this climate.
Economists typically describe people’s rational, honest side, but ignore their duplicity.
The Myth of “Superstar Cities”In a much-talked-about recent paper entitled “Superstar Cities,” economists Joseph Gyourko, Christopher Mayer, and Todd Sinai argue that such high-status cities – not only London, Paris, and New York, but also cities like Philadelphia and San Diego – may show an “ever-widening gap in housing values” when compared with other cities.
In 1996, when Japan’s public debt/GDP ratio reached 80%, many Japanese economists and officials worried about a looming crisis.
Even we economists who believe that global financial innovation yields huge net benefits must admit that today’s hedge fund boom is becoming like the tech bubble.
But I came away disturbed by the experience, wondering whether professional economists (particularly in the West) need to reassess the moral and political context in which they conduct their work.
Shouldn’t economists ask themselves whether it is morally justifiable to provide even strictly technical advice to self-dealing, corrupt, or undemocratic governments?
This is precisely the dilemma confronting economists across a range of countries, from China, Russia, and Turkey to Hungary and Poland.
And there is no reason to think that economists in the “democratic heartland” of Western Europe and North America won’t face a similar dilemma in the future.
Over time, economists have offered three different moral or political justifications for their technical work.
In the 1970s, this defense was challenged by economists at the other end of the Western political spectrum, who pointed out that bureaucrats were a supplier lobby like any other.
This assumption led economists to become “intervention skeptics” who preferred market-based solutions for any problem where the need for regulation was not obvious.
Between these two positions, most economists have been content to ply their trade on the assumption that, however self-interested bureaucrats might be, they are subject to oversight from democratic politicians whose own self-interest is to get re-elected by keeping voters satisfied.
In fact, even economists in communist dictatorships could proffer their best technical advice with a comparatively clean conscience, because they were convinced that introducing more market-mediated outcomes would inject efficiency into planned economies and increase the sphere of individual freedom.
But now, for the first time in many decades, economists must consider the moral implications of giving good advice to bad people.
The new moral dilemma facing economists is perhaps most stark within international financial institutions (IFIs) such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization, where economic mandarins with significant influence over public policy earn their living.
But now that democratic backsliding is widespread, economists need to ask if what is good for authoritarian states is also good for humanity.
From this categorization, we can derive guidelines for economists to follow when advising authoritarian regimes.
On the other hand, economists need to take great care when providing advice or conducting research with clear policy implications for authoritarian governments.
Economists should not be in the business of helping authoritarian regimes advance nefarious ends on the back of stronger economic growth or resources saved.
BackNext