DOCSLIB.ORG

The Benefits of Deregulation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Benefits of Deregulation View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University in St. Louis Washington University Open Scholarship Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Murray Weidenbaum Publications Government, and Public Policy Contemporary Issues Series 25 12-1-1987 The Benefits of Deregulation Murray L. Weidenbaum Washington University in St Louis Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/mlw_papers Part of the Economics Commons, and the Public Policy Commons Recommended Citation Weidenbaum, Murray L., "The Benefits of Deregulation", Contemporary Issues Series 25, 1987, doi:10.7936/K7TM789W. Murray Weidenbaum Publications, https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/mlw_papers/14. Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy — Washington University in St. Louis Campus Box 1027, St. Louis, MO 63130. Other titles available in this series: 4. Regulation and the Public Interest, Murray L. Weidenbaum 5. An Economist in Government: The Benefits Views of a Presidential Adviser, Murray L. Weidenbaum of Deregulation 1 1. Serving as an Outside Director, Murray L. Weidenbaum by Murray Weidenbaum 13. Revamping the Federal Trade Commission, James C. Miller III 14. The United States in the World Economy: Problem or Solutio11? Murray L. Weidenbaum 15. A Program for Reducing the Federal Budget, Murray L. Weidenbaum 17. What Should Be Done for Displaced Workers? Richard B. McKenzie Contemporary Issues Series 25 18. Free to Lose: The Bright Side of Economic Failure, Richard B. McKenzie 20. Do Tax Ince11tives for Investment Work? Murray L. Weidenbaum 21. Responding to Corporate Takeovers: Raiders, Management, and Boards of Directors, Murray L. Weidenbaum 22. The Rhetoric of Antitrust, Thomas J. DiLorenzo 23. Today's Challenges to Economic Freedom, Murray L. Weidenbaum 24. Crowding Out Small Business: The U11fair Competition of Nonprofits, Thomas J. DiLorenzo Additional copies are available from: Center for the Study of American Business CS18 Washington University Campus Box 1208 Center for the St. Louis, Missouri 63130 Study of Phone: (314) 889-5630 American Business Washington University • St. louis December 1987 The Benefits of Deregulation by Murray Weidenbaum The deregulation of American transporta­ tion, telecommunications, energy, and finan­ cial markets over the past 10 years has been a triumph of ideas over entrenched political interests. For 90 years-from the establish­ ment of the Interstate Commerce Commis­ sion in 1886 to the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act in 1976-government regulation of American economic activity continuously expanded, and created in its wake powerful constituencies who benefited from the regulation. Yet this trend in government rule-making has changed dramatically and perhaps irrevo­ cably during the past decade, resulting in remarkable benefits for the American econ­ omy. Deregulation has lowered the cost of pro­ ducing goods and services. It has offered a wider array of choices to the American con­ sumer. And it has substantially bolstered the international competitiveness of our economy. What caused the shift toward deregulation was not a realignment of political forces. The most significant developments were sup­ ported by a bipartisan coalition in both the legislative and executive branches of the fed­ eral government. Consumer activists such as Ralph Nader offered support at vital points, as did leaders of both political parties, including Presidents Ford and Carter and Senator Edward Kennedy. But the most important role was played by a very unusual Murray Weidenbaum is Mallinckrodt Distinguished Uni­ versity Professor and director of the Center for the Study of American Business at Washington University in St. Louis. This article is reprinted from the Summer 1987 edition of Policy Review, the quarterly magazine of the Heritage Foundation. set of actors in the public policy arena: econ­ field also had concluded during the 1970s omists, political scientists, legal scholars, that Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and similar purveyors of ideas. regulation was protecting the carriers (rail­ roads, truckers, and their unions) while increasing costs to shippers by billions of Intellectual Support dollars a year. Comparable studies were made of other regulated industries, such as Three streams of economic research and radio, television, and utilities. policy analysis dealing with different aspects A consensus gradually emerged. Transpor­ of regulation reached a confluence in the tation regulation in the United States did not early 1970s. The first, and most substantial, protect its purported beneficiaries, con­ focused on the heavy and widely distributed sumers, but instead was designed to benefit burdens that economic regulation imposed the employees, executives, and shareholders on the economy, especially in the field of of the companies being regulated. Govern­ transportation, and the smaller and far more ment rule-making shielded entrenched firms concentrated distribution of any resulting from potential new competitors and kept a benefits. The second research effort dealt high price umbrella over the regulated indus­ with the fundamental nature of the r~gula­ try. tory process, especially the relationships between regulators and those regulated. The third area of research focused on the general costs of regulation, especially to the con­ Transportation regulation did not protect sumer. consumers, but instead benefited the It is difficult to pinpoint the exact start of employees, executives, and shareholders the influential research that led to transpor­ of the companies being regulated. tation deregulation, but The Economics of Competition in the Transportation Industries, written by John R. Meyer, et al. in 1959, was The second, and related, stream of a landmark study. Important work followed research focused on the political efforts of on each of the major modes of transporta­ interest groups that benefited from regula­ tion, notably George W. Douglas and James tion. Political scientist Marver Bernstein pre­ C. Miller, III on airlines, and Thomas Gale sented in 1955 a basic "capture" theory of Moore on trucking. regulation. As the only political force in the The airline industry provided the clearest regulatory agency's environment with any examples of the heavy cost of regulation, par­ stability, the industry eventually forced the ticularly the price differences for trips on agency to accommodate its needs. George regulated and non-regulated airlines. Inter­ Stigler and Sam Peltzman generalized this state travel was under the jurisdiction of the theory, contending that regulatory policy Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB); intrastate tra­ reflects the interests and the power of the vel was beyond the CAB's purview. Research concerned groups, not necessarily the con­ found that a traveler could fly 500 miles sumer's. In 1982, Stigler was awarded the from San Diego to San Francisco in the Nobel Prize in Economics for his seminal unregulated California market and pay less articles on the theory of regulation and his than someone flying 300 miles from Port­ empirical studies of the effect of regulation land, Oregon to Seattle, Washington under on specific industries. the CAB's control. The third line of research-focusing on Most American economists writing in this costs to consumers-saw the topic move 2 3 from the business pages and academic jour­ public's attention. Perhaps the first was the nals to the front pages and the nightly news. dead haul-the numerous requirements that The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led resulted in trucks returning empty from the way in the mid-1970s with several widely delivery even though there was ample oppor­ cited reports on the high cost of regulation, tunity to fill them wi~h cargo. The public among them my own Government-Mandated needed no great expertise in industrial orga­ Price Increases, Sam Peltzman's Regulation nization to resent the waste that resulted. of Pharmaceutical Innovation, John P. This unusual form of applied research con­ Gould's Davis Bacon Act, and Rita Ricardo­ centrated increasingly on the Occupational Campbell's Food Safety and Regulation. In Safety and Health Administration. OSHA 1977, AEI began publishing a bimonthly jour­ jokes (based on that research) became a sta­ nal, Regulation, that is devoted entirely to ple of business conversation. Is it true that government rule-making. The issue hit a OSHA made one company build separate responsive chord with the media, influential "his" and "her" toilets even though the only policy groups, and finally the Congress. two employees of the firm were married to each other? Did OSHA really issue a bulletin to farmers telling them to be careul around Deregulation gave policy-makers an cows and not to step into manure pits? Both opportunity to curb escalating inflation of those questions could, quite accurately, be without trading off jobs. answered in the affirmative. By the late 1970s, support for regulatory reform had become widespread. It included A few simple concepts made the issue business executives who found themselves attractive. Deregulation presented policy­ inundated with a flood of rules to follow and makers with an opportunity to curb escalat­ reports to file, lawyers and political scientists ing inflation in a way that did not involve a who thought that the regulatory agencies tradeoff with jobs. Indeed, reduced regula­ often were captured by the regulated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Employment Act of 1946: a Half Century of Experience
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University in St. Louis Washington University Open Scholarship Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Murray Weidenbaum Publications Government, and Public Policy Policy Brief 169 4-1-1996 The Employment Act of 1946: A Half Century of Experience Murray L. Weidenbaum Washington University in St Louis Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/mlw_papers Part of the Economics Commons, and the Public Policy Commons Recommended Citation Weidenbaum, Murray L., "The Employment Act of 1946: A Half Century of Experience", Policy Brief 169, 1996, doi:10.7936/K7571960. Murray Weidenbaum Publications, https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/mlw_papers/143. Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy — Washington University in St. Louis Campus Box 1027, St. Louis, MO 63130. NOT FOR RELEASE BEFORE 2:00 E.S.T. APRIL 26, 1996 Center for the Study of The Employment Act of 1946: American A Half Century of Experience Business Murray_Weidenbaum C918 Policy Brief 169 April 1996 Contact: Robert Batterson Communications Director (314) 935-5676 Washington University Campus Box 120B One Brookings Drive St. Louis. Missouri 63130-4899 The Employment Act of 1946: A Half Century of Experience by Murray Weidenbaum The first half century of experience under the Employment Act of 1946 (originally the Full Employment Bill of 1945) likely has disappointed both the proponents and the opponents of that innovative law. The impact on national economic policy is neither as bad as the opposition feared nor as substantial as the sponsors had hoped.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Report of the President.” ______
    REFERENCES Chapter 1 American Civil Liberties Union. 2013. “The War on Marijuana in Black and White.” Accessed January 31, 2016. Aizer, Anna, Shari Eli, Joseph P. Ferrie, and Adriana Lleras-Muney. 2014. “The Long Term Impact of Cash Transfers to Poor Families.” NBER Working Paper 20103. Autor, David. 2010. “The Polarization of Job Opportunities in the U.S. Labor Market.” Center for American Progress, the Hamilton Project. Bakija, Jon, Adam Cole and Bradley T. Heim. 2010. “Jobs and Income Growth of Top Earners and the Causes of Changing Income Inequality: Evidence from U.S. Tax Return Data.” Department of Economics Working Paper 2010–24. Williams College. Boskin, Michael J. 1972. “Unions and Relative Real Wages.” The American Economic Review 62(3): 466-472. Bricker, Jesse, Lisa J. Dettling, Alice Henriques, Joanne W. Hsu, Kevin B. Moore, John Sabelhaus, Jeffrey Thompson, and Richard A. Windle. 2014. “Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2010 to 2013: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances.” Federal Reserve Bulletin, Vol. 100, No. 4. Brown, David W., Amanda E. Kowalski, and Ithai Z. Lurie. 2015. “Medicaid as an Investment in Children: What is the Long-term Impact on Tax Receipts?” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 20835. Card, David, Thomas Lemieux, and W. Craig Riddell. 2004. “Unions and Wage Inequality.” Journal of Labor Research, 25(4): 519-559. 331 Carson, Ann. 2015. “Prisoners in 2014.” Bureau of Justice Statistics, Depart- ment of Justice. Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, Emmanuel Saez, and Nich- olas Turner. 2014. “Is the United States Still a Land of Opportunity? Recent Trends in Intergenerational Mobility.” NBER Working Paper 19844.
    [Show full text]
  • "What Can an Economic Adviser Do When the President Adopts Bad Economic Policies?"
    "What Can An Economic Adviser Do When the President Adopts Bad Economic Policies?" Jeffrey Frankel, Harpel Professor, KSG, Harvard University The Pierson Lecture, Swarthmore, April 21, 2005 Summary: What would you do if you were appointed Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under a president who was committed to one or more specific policies that you considered to be inconsistent with good economics? A look at the experiences of your predecessors over the last 40 years might help illustrate your alternative options. The lecture will review the history. It will then go on to suggest that such conflicts should be particularly acute in the current Administration. The reason is that Republican presidents have increasingly adopted policies-- with regard particularly to budget deficits, trade, the size of government, and inflation -- that deviate from the principles of good economics, and that used to be considered the weaknesses of Democratic presidents. It is a great honor to be giving the Pierson lecture.1 I must confess that I never had Frank Pierson for a course. But he was the senior eminence of the Economics Department when I attended Swarthmore in the early 1970s, having already been associated with the department more than 40 years. In that time, Frank Pierson was known as one of the last professors who still regularly held his honors seminars at his house, with an impressive series of desserts, including make-your-own sundaes, and Irish coffee. The early 1970s were a volatile time of course, with the War in Viet Nam still on.2 In 1972 the big split on campus was between those of us working for McGovern on the left, and the 1 The author wishes to acknowledge help from Peter Jaquette, Arnold Kling, Jeff Miron, Stephen O’Connell, Francis Bator, Michael Boskin, David Cutler, Jason Furman, Gilbert Heebner, William Gale, Jeff Liebman, Peter Orszag, Roger Porter, Charles Schultze, Phillip Swagel, Laura Tyson, Murray Weidenbaum, Marina Whitman, and Janet Yellen.
    [Show full text]
  • Information to Users
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, som e thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 ____ ® UMI BEFORE THE GREAT SOCIETY: LIBERALISM, DEINDUSTRIALIZATION AND AREA REDEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 1933 - 1965 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Gregory S. Wilson, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2001 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor William R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Economic Growth in Postwar America 1
    More The Politics of Economic Growth in Postwar America ROBERT M. COLLINS 1 2000 3 Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogotá Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Paris São Paulo Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Copyright © 2000 Published by Oxford All rights reserved. No by Robert M. University Press, Inc. part of this publication Collins 198 Madison Avenue, may be reproduced, New York, New York stored in a retrieval 10016. system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, Oxford is a registered mechanical, trademark of Oxford photocopying, recording, University Press. or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging–in–Publication Data Collins, Robert M. More : the politics of economic growth in postwar America / Robert M. Collins. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0–19–504646–3 1. Wealth—United States—History—20th century. 2. United States—Economic policy. 3. United States—Economic conditions—1945–. 4. Liberalism—United States— History—20th Century. 5. National characteristics, American. I. Title. HC110.W4C65 2000 338.973—dc21 99–022524 Design by Adam B. Bohannon 987654321 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper For My Parents Contents Preface ix Acknowledgments xiii Prologue: The Ambiguity of New Deal Economics 1 1 > The Emergence of Economic Growthmanship 17 2 > The Ascendancy of Growth Liberalism 40 3 > Growth Liberalism Comes a Cropper, 1968 68 4 > Richard Nixon’s Whig Growthmanship 98 5 > The Retreat from Growth in the 1970s 132 6 > The Reagan Revolution and Antistatist Growthmanship 166 7 > Slow Drilling in Hard Boards 214 Conclusion 233 Notes 241 Index 285 Preface bit of personal serendipity nearly three decades ago inspired this A book.
    [Show full text]
  • Unemployment Crisis
    UNEMPLOYMENT CRISIS HEARING BEFORE THE JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE CONGRESS 01 THE UNITED STATES NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION DECEMBER 9, 1982 Printed for the use of the Joint Economic Committee U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 18-593 O WASHINGTON : 1983 Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE (Created pursuant to sec. 5(a) of Public Law 304, 79th Cong.) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SENATE HENRY S. REUSS, Wisconsin, Chairman ROGER W. JEPSEN, Iowa, Vice Chairman RICHARD BOLLING, Missouri WILLIAM V. ROTH, J r ., Delaware LEE H. HAMILTON, Indiana JAMES ABDNOR, South Dakota GILLIS W. LONG, Louisiana STEVEN D. SYMMS, Idaho PARREN J. MITCHELL, Maryland PAULA HAWKINS, Florida AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California MACK MATTINGLY, Georgia CLARENCE J. BROWN, Ohio LLOYD BENTSEN, Texas MARGARET M. HECKLER, Massachusetts WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Wisconsin JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts CHALMERS P.WYLIE, Ohio PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland J a m e s K. Galbraith, Executive Director Bruch II. B artlett, Deputy Director (II) Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis CONTENTS WITNESS AND STATEMENTS T h u r s d a y , D e c e m b e r 9, 1982 Jepsen, Hon. Roger W., vice chairman of the Joint Economic Committee: Page Opening statement- _____ ________________ _____ _______ ___ 1 Reuss, Hon. Henry S., chairman of the Joint Economic Committee: Open­ ing statement------------------------- _ ----------------- ------------- ----- <MC0 Feldstein, Hon. Martin S.. Chairman, Councl of Economic Advisers— SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD T h u r s d a y , D e c e m b e r 9, 1982 Brown, Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pros and Cons of Globalization
    Washington University in St. Louis Washington University Open Scholarship Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Murray Weidenbaum Publications Government, and Public Policy Special 7 1-1-2001 The Pros and Cons of Globalization Murray L. Weidenbaum Washington University in St Louis Robert Batterson Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/mlw_papers Part of the Economics Commons, and the Public Policy Commons Recommended Citation Weidenbaum, Murray L. and Batterson, Robert, "The Pros and Cons of Globalization", Special 7, 2001, doi:10.7936/K71C1V2Z. Murray Weidenbaum Publications, https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/mlw_papers/175. Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy — Washington University in St. Louis Campus Box 1027, St. Louis, MO 63130. II II II IJ. II II II THE PROS AND CONS OF GLOBALIZATION by Robert Batterson and Murray Weidenbaum January 2001 Center for the Study of American Business CS18 Washington University in St. Louis ( .. About the Authors '·Robert Batterson Robert Batterson is the communications director at the Center for the Study ofAmerican Business at Washington University. He has been with the Center since 1992 and serves as the primary public affairs officer to the national media, government, business, academia, and the public at large. He has also served as managing editor and director ofCSAB publications. He is coeditor and coauthor (with Kenneth Chilton and Murray Weidenbaum) of The Dynamic American Firm (Boston: K.luwer Publishers, 1996). His research interests include international trade, global competition, and international affairs. He has written numerous articles on international trade issues that have been published in newspapers including the Journal ofCommerce, Investors Business Dail~ Miami Herald, Houston Chronicle, San Diego Union-Tribune, St.
    [Show full text]
  • American Economic Policy in the 1980S: a Personal View
    This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: American Economic Policy in the 1980s Volume Author/Editor: Martin Feldstein, ed. Volume Publisher: University of Chicago Press Volume ISBN: 0-226-24093-2 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/feld94-1 Conference Date: October 17-20, 1990 Publication Date: January 1994 Chapter Title: American Economic Policy in the 1980s: A Personal View Chapter Author: Martin S. Feldstein Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c7752 Chapter pages in book: (p. 1 - 80) American Economic 1 Policy in the 1980s: A Personal View Martin Feldstein The decade of the 1980s was a time of fundamental changes in American eco- nomic policy. These changes were influenced by the economic conditions that prevailed as the decade began, by the style and political philosophy of F’resi- dent Ronald Reagan, and by the new intellectual climate among economists and policy officials. The unusually high rate of inflation in the late 1970s and the rapid increase of personal taxes and government spending in the 1960s and 1970s had caused widespread public discontent. Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 reflected this political mood and provided a president who was commit- ted to achieving low inflation, to lowering tax rates, and to shrinking the role of government in the economy. In our democracy, major changes in government policy generally do not occur without corresponding changes in the thinking of politicians, journalists, other opinion leaders, and the public at large. In the field of economic policy, those changes in thinking often reflect prior intellectual developments within the economics profession itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Grading Our Policymakers
    A SYMPOSIUM OF VIEWS THE MAGAZINE OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 740 Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: 202-861-0791 • Fax: 202-861-0790 www.international-economy.com How effectively have they dealt Grading with the root causes of the Our Great Financial Crisis? Policymakers lame for the Great Financial Crisis assets on their balance sheets even as they can be laid on many causes. Some increased their use of financial leverage to Bargue that the crisis stemmed from dangerous levels. Then there was the severe global savings imbalances that led alleged politicizing in the United States of to the under-pricing of financial risk. The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. United States consumed too much and Some attribute the crisis to an overly saved too little, while large parts of the accommodative monetary policy. The world became dangerously export- breakdown of Glass-Steagall and the dependent. growth of “too big to fail” institutions, Others attribute the crisis to a lack of which were able to engage in reckless transparency in the asset-backed securities financial risk-taking using taxpayers as markets. Observers have cited the bank their safety net, is also faulted. regulators and credit rating agencies for To what extent have our policy leaders being asleep at the switch, along with the addressed these and other causes to pre- banks’ inability to value the sophisticated vent future crises? Two dozen experts offer their views. 20 THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY SPRING 2010 An Incomplete. sparked the flames: the Fed’s exceptionally low interest rates in 2003–04 and the capital inflows into the United States associated with reserve accumulation abroad then poured additional fuel on the fire.
    [Show full text]
  • Monetary Economic Research at the St. Louis Fed During Ted Balbachs
    Monetary Economic Research at the St. Louis Fed During Ted Balbach’s Tenure as Research Director Michael D. Bordo and Anna J. Schwartz Ted Balbach served as research director at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis from 1975 to 1992. This paper lauds his contributions during that time, including the expanded influence of the Review, enhanced databases and data publications, and a visiting scholar program that attracted leading economists from around the world. Balbach is remembered fondly as a visionary leader and gracious mentor. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, September/October 2008, 90(5), pp. 499-504. BACKGROUND the University of Chicago and also some who worked on the money and business cycle project he monetarist movement took shape in at the New York headquarters of the National the 1960s. The name gained usage and became trite. Basically, its adherents Bureau of Economic Research. T The two branches shared a common interest believed in the quantity theory of money, but in 1968 Karl Brunner named them monetarists. In in two organizations that bridged their separate today’s terminology, the movement would be memberships. One was the Shadow Open Market viewed as a network of young economists who Committee (SOMC), formed in 1973 under the shared the belief that the quantity of money was aegis of Brunner and Allan Meltzer to advocate an important variable with explanatory power improved monetary policy, particularly urging for the price level and cyclical fluctuations in the Fed to act decisively to reduce inflation, which economic activity.1 had been accelerating since 1965 absent persistent Graduate students in economics became action to tighten.
    [Show full text]
  • Tape Subject Log (Rev
    1 NIXON PRESIDENTIAL MATERIALS STAFF Tape Subject Log (rev. 10/08) Conversation No. 63-1 Date: Unknown between June 17 and June 28, 1971 Time: Unknown between 5:12 pm, June 17 and 10:05 am, June 28, 1971 Location: Cabinet Room Unknown people met [Unintelligible] The unknown people left at an unknown time before 10:05 am, June 28, 1971 Conversation No. 63-2 Date: June 28, 1971 Time: Unknown between 9:12 am and 10:54 am Location: Cabinet Room Paul W. McCracken met with Hendrik S. Houthakker, Herbert Stein, James D. Hodgson, John B. Connally, John D. Ehrlichman, Peter M. Flanigan, Peter G. Peterson, George P. Shultz, Ronald L. Ziegler, and H. R. (“Bob”) Haldeman [General conversation/Unintelligible] The President entered at 10:05 am Cabinet meeting, June 29, 1971 San Clemente Administration economic policy -Future -Press Foreign policy -Henry A. Kissinger 2 NIXON PRESIDENTIAL MATERIALS STAFF Tape Subject Log (rev. 10/08) ****************************************************************************** Vietnam [To listen to the segment (1m44s) declassified on 02/28/2002, please refer to RC# E-534.] ****************************************************************************** Possible memoranda to the President -Economic policy -Possible leaks -The President’s reading -Hodgson, George W. Romney -Importance -Memorandum from Federal Reserve Board -The President’s memoranda of conversations -Possible leaks -New York Times, Washington Post, Columbia Broadcasting System [CBS], National Broadcasting Company [NBC], Time, Newsweek -Effects -Economic
    [Show full text]
  • American Institutions
    CAS SS 350 AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS The Making of Public Policy Spring 2013 Kent Hughes Course Objective: The course on American institutions will examine how key national institutions help shape the making of public policy. The emphasis is on policy making in Washington, though similar institutions and forces are often at work in state and local government. During your semester in Washington, you will be involved in making Washington policy, immersed in discussions about policy, and reading about policies and policy making on-line and in the daily papers. In the Spring of 2013 there will be an additional focus on the global challenges facing the United States and how those challenges affect the course of the making of public policy. The course is designed to deepen your understanding of policy making while you are in Washington and to give you a framework for future study (and perhaps the making) of public policy. Course Requirements: The course will meet on Tuesday evenings from 7-9:30 p.m. Please note that there may be one or two classes that will meet on a Thursday evening to accommodate guest speakers. Each session will explore a specific institution through assigned readings supplemented by guest experts in the institution being studied. Each session will open with a 90 minute presentation that will include time for questions, followed by a short break, and then an open forum that will integrate the formal presentation with earlier work, discuss the reading and formal presentation, and explore how the presentation illuminates one or more public policy issues of the day.
    [Show full text]