This is an interesting essay by Bloomberg columnist Josh Barro on how GOP indifference to income inequality, among other things, contributed to the re-election of President Obama. Quoting from the article,
“But the key problem in this debate isn’t that liberals’ ideas are bad, though many of them (especially on trade) are. It’s that conservatives have no serious proposals of their own on rising inequality.”
H/T to my Baylor colleague, economist Steve Green, for pointing this article out to me.
This is an interesting essay by Bloomberg columnist Josh Barro on how GOP indifference to income inequality, among other things, contributed to the re-election of President Obama. Quoting from the article,
“But the key problem in this debate isn’t that liberals’ ideas are bad, though many of them (especially on trade) are. It’s that conservatives have no serious proposals of their own on rising inequality.”
H/T to my Baylor colleague, economist Steve Green, for pointing this article out to me.
The conclusions in this WSJ article drawn corroborate what Cornell economist Robert Frank has been saying for years – that big-time college sports is a winner-takes-all game, and that it is a losing proposition for the vast majority (apparently > 80%) of colleges and universities that participate in this competition.
I thought Stanford economist Roger Noll’s comment was interesting – that “It’s obvious that intercollegiate sports are less popular in the rest of the country than they are in the Midwest and in the South.” Having taught for five years at Penn State, Noll’s point was not at all obvious to me – I guess it all depends upon how you define “Midwest”.
I also found the following statement interesting: “The success of this marriage between broadcasters and college football will depend on a set of assumptions—one of them being that the current structure of the cable television business won’t change.” The article goes on to point out an important demographic trend which suggests otherwise – people (especially younger people) are cutting the cord in droves. No wonder this is happening, considering how expensive cable is (the article lists an average price of $135 per month).
So in a nutshell, it seems like the business model that “Big Football” is based upon is pretty much doomed; that is, unless Big Football figures out a way to monetize itself in a cord-cutting world…
College Football’s Big-Money, Big-Risk Business Model – WSJ.com.
The conclusions in this WSJ article drawn corroborate what Cornell economist Robert Frank has been saying for years – that big-time college sports is a winner-takes-all game, and that it is a losing proposition for the vast majority (apparently > 80%) of colleges and universities that participate in this competition.
I thought Stanford economist Roger Noll’s comment was interesting – that “It’s obvious that intercollegiate sports are less popular in the rest of the country than they are in the Midwest and in the South.” Having taught for five years at Penn State, Noll’s point was not at all obvious to me – I guess it all depends upon how you define “Midwest”.
I also found the following statement interesting: “The success of this marriage between broadcasters and college football will depend on a set of assumptions—one of them being that the current structure of the cable television business won’t change.” The article goes on to point out an important demographic trend which suggests otherwise – people (especially younger people) are cutting the cord in droves. No wonder this is happening, considering how expensive cable is (the article lists an average price of $135 per month).
So in a nutshell, it seems like the business model that “Big Football” is based upon is pretty much doomed; that is, unless Big Football figures out a way to monetize itself in a cord-cutting world…
by Sumit Agarwal, Efraim Benmelech, Nittai Bergman, Amit Seru – #18609 (AP CF)
Abstract:
Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks’ incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming.
Very exciting story concerning how the web is changing industrial organization in the US and world economy. It looks it’s time to put in my order for a 3D printer so that I can prototype my own new product ideas! 🙂
The Redistribution Recession; specifically, Professor Mulligan’s finding that increases in the benefits available to unemployed workers help to explain the depth of the Great Recession which began in 2007 and the slowness of the recovery (particularly in the labor market) since then.]]>
This article provides an interesting case study of some of the important problems which have been plaguing the labor market ever since the onset of the Great Recession in 2007. It also corroborates some of the recently published findings in Casey Mulligan’s book entitled The Redistribution Recession; specifically, Professor Mulligan’s finding that increases in the benefits available to unemployed workers help to explain the depth of the Great Recession which began in 2007 and the slowness of the recovery (particularly in the labor market) since then.
Obama’s Famous Tax ‘Victory’ – WSJ.com
WSJ columnist Kim Strassel writes, “Top marginal income tax rates may go up. But the president’s second-term spending wish list will be history.”]]>