About
- Robert M. Solow Professor of Economics
- Research Fellow at National Bureau of Economic Research
- Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2015)
Voting History
Question A: The 60-day waiver of the Jones Act (which requires that cargo moved between domestic ports is carried on US vessels) will deliver substantially lower average US gas prices at the pump than otherwise over the next two months.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: IT should help but a temporary lifting may have small effects. Short run supply for shipping may be inelastic (logistical shipping factors)
|
|||
Question B: Permanent repeal of the Jones Act would have a measurably bigger impact in lowering average US gas prices at the pump than a temporary suspension.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Permanent repeal helps equalize prices across areas, but may not have a very large effect on national levels in normal times (plus shipping costs are small fraction of price). However, it could have bigger effects during peaks and crises, lowering volatility.
|
|||
Question C: Any national security benefits from the Jones Act are more than offset by its negative economic effects.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: It is ironic to supposedly have this Act in place for national security reasons, but suspend it during a war. Free markets and free trade in shipping is best.
|
|||
Question A: The release of strategic oil reserves announced by the International Energy Agency will deliver substantially lower US gasoline prices at the pump over the next six months than would otherwise have been the case.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: 172m barrels over 4m~=7% of US consumption, not trivial can lower price vs counterfactual, even if small relative to rise. But if global oil shock is persistent, prices are forward looking so effect may be small (plus planned replenishing of reserves)
—> not clearly substantial.
|
|||
Question B: Assuming that world oil prices over the next six months continue to be elevated and volatile, temporarily suspending the federal gasoline tax would deliver substantially lower gas prices at the pump than otherwise over that period.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Federal tax ~18c per gallon. For given local oil prices It lowers the costs of supplying gasoline and tends to reduce prices for consumers. In very short effects may be somewhat smaller, but passthrough has been shown to be high.
Note: Subjective if 18c is significant.
-see background information here |
|||
Question C: A temporary cap on US gasoline prices would substantially lower prices at the pump over the next six months without creating scarcity.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: On its own surely not, as theory and history show, in the US in the past and more recently in other countries. Combined with pressure or incentives on suppliers, possibly, but unlikely.
|
|||
Question A: US regulation of greenhouse gases – including carbon dioxide from motor vehicles and power plants, and methane from oil and gas wells – rests on the Clean Air Act. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced its rescission of the greenhouse gas endangerment finding and motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-rescission-greenhouse-gas-endangerment. The President of the National Academy of Sciences subsequently wrote to the organization's members, noting that 'the EPA justified its decision on legal, economic, and regulatory opinions, and not on the science’.
The weight of economic analysis and evidence supports the conclusion that some form of regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is warranted.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Scientific consensus is clear. The Economics is as well: externalities should be taxed or regulated to achieve efficiency. (The global world nature of the issue is a difficult challenge.)
|
|||
Question B: For US consumers and firms, the health and environmental benefits of greenhouse gas emission standards outweigh the costs, making the EPA rescission substantially net negative for American society.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Uncertain only insofar as the question suggests an uncoordinated unilateral selfish perspective to evaluate US policy in isolation.
At the world level or taking US policy as coordinating or shaping world policy, I believe the net effects are negative.
|
|||
Question C: Since the environmental costs of greenhouse gas emissions are globally distributed, some form of collective international regulation is warranted.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Yes, the externality is global (albeit unequally distributed), so a solution requires coordinating actions to internalize the effects of carbon emissions worldwide. Otherwise, countries have an individual incentive to free ride and shirk on cutting emissions.
|
|||
Question A: Restrictions on large institutional investors buying single-family homes would measurably improve the affordability of home ownership.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question B: Having the government-sponsored housing agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities would measurably improve the affordability of home ownership.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question A: Without extension of the expanded public subsidies for Affordable Care Act healthcare plans, there would be a substantial rise in the number of Americans without health insurance.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question B: Losses in the health and well-being of Americans who could no longer afford health insurance in the absence of the subsidies would exceed the savings from the expiration.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question C: The possible need for subsidies substantially in excess of those initially provided by the ACA indicates that other changes in the healthcare system are needed to enable broad-based access.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question A: The US intervention in Venezuela will have no measurable impact on the world oil price over the next 12 months.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: The current share of world oil production is low and increasing it significantly is uncertain and takes time, mitigating the price impact. (Sudden changes in short run have greater price effects.)
|
|||
Question B: The US intervention will lead to a substantial increase in the profitability of US energy companies over the next five years.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Question C: The US intervention will lead to a substantial increase in economic growth in Venezuela over the next five years.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Quite uncertain but there is definite huge upside potential for Venezuela and growth without Maduro iff there is regime change or large shift its economic policies. even if this happens, interim transition could be messy and benefits delayed.
|
|||
Question A: There are reports that the US strategy in negotiations to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict is prioritizing economic interdependence: https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/russia-u-s-peace-business-ties-4db9b290
Creating expanded mutual business opportunities for American, Russian, and Ukrainian firms would lead to a substantially more stable peace agreement.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question B: Pursuing economic interdependence without complementary diplomacy (including credible guarantees of Ukraine’s future security) is unlikely to end the conflict and subsequently preserve peace.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Adoption of artificial intelligence will lead to a substantial increase in the growth rates of real per capita income in the US and Western Europe over the next ten years.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: The aggregate effects of AI will be positive but whether or not they will be substantial remains highly uncertain and debatable.
|
|||
Question A: Freezing the rents paid by tenants of all rent-stabilized apartments in New York for four years would substantially improve the availability of affordable housing for low- and middle-income households.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Freezing rents would be a windfall benefit for current tenants the lucky new tenants (which will be fewer). It will be harder for prospective tenants to get apartments with the existing stock.
|
|||
Question B: Freezing the rents paid by tenants of all rent-stabilized apartments in New York for four years would be a substantial deterrent to private housing investment in the city.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Yes, incentives and supply of rent stabilized units fall. Existing units convert to condos etc. New construction with rent stabilized falls---unless tax incentives are increased. Market rent units may rise as developers shift there. Overall construction likely falls.
|
|||
Question C: Loosening land-use regulations and other regulation-related constraints on construction in New York (with no rent freeze) would be a substantial boost to private housing investment in the city over the next ten years.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Question A: The combination of scientific progress, technological innovation, and openness to new ideas underpinned the emergence of sustained economic growth in the Industrial Revolution.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Question B: The process of creative destruction – in which innovation continually leads to the disruptive displacement of existing jobs, products, firms, and industries – has been a substantial contributor to sustained economic growth.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Question A: For reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, subsidies for R&D on low-carbon technologies are justified in addition to carbon pricing mechanisms like carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Strong economic targetting principles imply ONLY carbon "Pigouvian" taxes or quotas are best, but this requires assumptions that are not good approximations today: it requires a fully cooperative world carbon tax and no externalities from innovations (a "neoclassical" setting).
|
|||
Question B: Higher subsidies for R&D on low-carbon energy sources are justified by the fact that their successful deployment would not only reduce emissions but also induce developing countries to substitute away from fossil fuels.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Yes. Following up on my previous response: when lacking full cooperation on carbon taxes, a subsidy on green energy use or its innovation may be desirable for everyone. If we cannot tax the "bad" subsidize the "good".
|
|||
Question A: US export controls on advanced semiconductor technology and equipment will contribute substantially to maintaining US technological dominance in the industry over the next ten years.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: In the short term, probably yes. Over 10 years having substantial impact is much less certain, especially due to the response and investment by China.
|
|||
Question B: US export controls on advanced semiconductor technology and equipment will substantially raise China's presence in the industry over the next ten years.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: The incentives are now there and the response by China has been in that direction. So this seems to me quite likely.
|
|||
Question C: In ten years, historians will judge that the US’s current use of sanctions, export restrictions and tariffs in critical sectors substantially improved the median American citizen’s welfare.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Putting aside the mistaken broader protectionist trade policy, one can make a geopolitical case for some narrow trade and industrial policies in critical sectors. Those decisions are inherently uncertain and difficult to judge at this point.
|
|||
Question A: The Federal Reserve should be setting interest rates with the assumption that there will be no measurable effects of US tariffs on inflation by the summer of 2026.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Should make no such assumption, should prepare and think through responses to different possible scenarios and be data driven. Tariffs likely to have a temporary effect on inflation. Due to tradeoffs, optimal policy allowing higher inflation temporarily.
-see background information here -see background information here -see background information here |
|||
Question B: If Federal Reserve Governor Cook is forced to leave her position, the inflation risk premia on US government debt will rise substantially.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Forcing an exit of a Fed official for political reasons negatively affects a huge asset: Monetary Policy Independence. Terrible signal. Less clear if it must be reflected in inflation premia (required for UNCERTAINTY)or simply in the average expected inflation rate in rates.
|
|||
Question A: The OECD’s projected cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases from today until the year 2100 is 616.2 billion metric tons of CO2e, compared to 2,734 billion metric tons for the rest of the world - 82% of the total. (Larsen et al, Rhodium Group, 2024: https://climateoutlook.rhg.com/reports/rhodium-climate-outlook-2024-probabilistic-global-emissions-and-energy-projections)
The domestic net benefits of emissions reductions vary substantially across countries because of differences in income levels and exposure to climate risk.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: It is reasonable for the benefits to rise with income. Income differences are huge. Geographic exposure to climate change are also large and only add to this.
|
|||
Question B: In the absence of incentives from developed countries, developing countries will not reduce their emissions substantially in places where the private costs of fossil fuels remain meaningfully lower than those of zero-carbon fuels.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Agree HOWEVER: in principle, the free rider problem is broader, not directly affected by income (unlike country size)AS LONG as actors selfishly optimize. But everyone is not 100% selfish, many place direct value on "being green". If this value rises with income then:FULLY AGREE.
|
|||
Question C: Providing incentives for developing countries to reduce their emissions through penalties (such as a carbon border adjustment mechanism or carbon club) is substantially less effective than providing equivalent incentives through subsidies (such as payments for climate damages in exchange for emissions reductions).
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Uncertain on pure static incentives: no clear asymmetry of carrot(1) vs stick(2). Income effects AT THE MARGIN (1 vs 2) are minor. Yet we may prefer 1 for other reasons: fairness considerations, enforcement issues, or even efficiency if they spur green innovation with spillovers.
|
|||
There is no evidence to suggest that the employment estimates produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are biased so as to favor any particular political party.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: I know of no credible evidence documenting such bias. There are numerous technical and bureaucratic safeguards. Past allegations have been investigated and lacked support. The incentives to find and document such a bias, if it existed, are high within the economics profession.
|
|||
Question A: Western countries have used interest earned on frozen Russian state assets to finance around $50 billion in loans to the government of Ukraine. There have also been calls to seize the assets in full, currently estimated at around $300 billion.
Seizing frozen Russian state assets and using them to support Ukraine’s defense, economy and reconstruction would substantially accelerate the ending of the war.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Question B: Seizing frozen Russian state assets and using them to support Ukraine’s defense, economy and reconstruction would, by reducing the burden on Western taxpayers, substantially increase Western voters’ political approval for supporting Ukraine.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Question C: Seizing frozen Russian state assets and using them to support Ukraine’s defense, economy and reconstruction would substantially reduce investment in assets denominated in Western currencies and/or increase the likelihood of another country seizing Western sovereign assets in a future conflict.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: I think it may have an effect, but I'm not sure it would be substantial, given the small ex ante likelihood and the alternative investment opportunities.
|
|||
Question A: If the Fed changed its inflation target from 2% to 3%, the long-run costs of inflation for households would be essentially unchanged.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: The standard welfare effects may be small, given that the change is small, but not unchanged. In addition, research points to people disliking inflation more than rational welfare consequences can usually explain.
|
|||
Question B: The Fed’s revised strategy announced in 2020 - focusing on employment shortfalls and with a more flexible interpretation of the inflation target - has made little practical difference to monetary policy outcomes in the past five years.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Too early to tell. It hasn't been a long time and the post-covid inflation surge (worldwide) is too noisy data point to judge US framework. In addition, the "framework" is ambiguous/not specific enough and US policy is, thus, quite discretionary. Thus, it may not matter.
|
|||
Question A: The experience of the past 10 years suggests that Western-led economic sanctions do not substantially deter the target countries from their course of action.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Question B: Had the G7 instituted a complete energy embargo in 2022, Russia's current military and economic position would be substantially worse.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Question C: Had the G7 instituted a complete energy embargo in 2022, the world economy would have faced substantially higher oil prices.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Question A: The potential for consumers to be harmed by digital platforms’ use of their personal data is sufficient that they would benefit from laws assigning them some kind of default control rights over their data.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Privacy its breaches are an important issue (and do involve some externalities, e.g. if I provide my friends on a social network) and competitive issues (price discrimination). Less obvious though what the right solution is that does not introduce too much friction in the market.
-see background information here |
|||
Question B: The risks of harm from use of social media services - such as harm to mental health, exploitation of children, and more - are now high enough that society would benefit from federal regulations setting safety standards and creating a process of compensation for harm by digital platforms.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: A market full of externalities via social interactions and evidence of negative effects justifies some thoughtful regulation, especially for non adults to help parents.
-see background information here |
|||
Question A: Long-run US fiscal sustainability will require some combination of slowing the growth of spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits and/or tax increases, including higher taxes on households with incomes below $400,000.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Question B: Issuing an additional $2.3 trillion of debt over the next 10 years, as is projected by the Congressional Budget Office if the House Reconciliation Bill is enacted, will substantially raise interest rates on government debt over that period.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Nominal rates are under the Fed's control but rates could rise to control inflation risks, and these risks can be increased by a larger fiscal deficit. Bond rates could also rise if there is enough repayment, but this channel is likely minor for now.
|
|||
Question A: A sustained decline in the dollar's market share in the global economy will mean that US consumers are substantially worse off than they otherwise would be.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: By "A sustained decline in the dollar's market share" I interpret decline in demand for US dollar assets by investors. This is not good for the US as a whole as it is borrowing and will have to pay higher rates.
|
|||
Question B: A permanently weaker dollar would substantially raise the US government's cost of financing its deficits.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: It depends what makes the dollar weaker. The answer is yes if this reflects, again, less demand for US assets, since this drives US interest rates (in foreign currency) up. But the dollar could be weaker for other reasons, e.g. if foreign countries do not want US made goods.
|
|||
Question A: The current antitrust laws and regulations in the United States are inadequate for preventing digital platform firms from engaging in acquisitions and exclusionary conduct that harm competition.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: The laws may not be as explicit but still leave room for the right implementation and enforcement.
|
|||
Question B: Background on the Digital Markets Act: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/index_en
Digital markets would work better if, in a manner broadly similar to the European Union’s Digital Markets Act, criteria were established to designate some large firms as 'gatekeepers' and a regulatory body was established to govern the business practices of those gatekeepers.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Pervasive aspects of tech markets such as network externalities, the need for interoperability, etc, create a case for market rules that help solve these particular issues. Challenging but needed. (Whether European DMA in particular accomplishes this efficiently is debatable.)
|
|||
Question A: The cancellation of the majority of programs run by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) will have no measurable effects on GDP growth in the recipient countries over the next five years.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question B: The cancellation of the majority of USAID programs will have substantially negative effects on the most vulnerable people in the recipient countries over the next five years.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question C: Development assistance motivated by the potential benefits for the donors in terms of prosperity and security is measurably more effective in promoting GDP growth in recipient countries than aid based on humanitarian or other moral principles.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question A: The termination of the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Council and shrinking staff at the core US statistical agencies will lead to a substantial reduction in the reliability of government economic data.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Question B: The quality of economic policy-making will be substantially impaired by reduced funding for the core US statistical agencies.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Question C: The ability of businesses to forecast and plan will be substantially impaired by lower quality economic data.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Question A: Matching US import tariffs to the tariffs, value-added taxes and non-tariff barriers imposed on US goods by other countries would substantially reduce the US trade deficit.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Economic theory explains trade deficits mainly from savings decisions not directly affected by permanent tariffs (temporary tariffs that are expected to revert could lower deficits temporarily). Basic empirical evidence is supportive of these conclusions.
-see background information here |
|||
Question B: The threat of retaliation against the imposition of higher tariffs on a country’s exports substantially lowers the probability of a trade war.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: In standard trade theory, tariffs are unilaterally optimal for large countries to manipulate world prices in their favor. Retaliation changes this calculus, lowering the incentive to raise tariffs. But policy makers may have additional motives or think tariffs work differently,
|
|||
Question C: In the event that the threat of retaliation does not deter the imposition of tariffs, the economies of countries subject to higher tariffs on their exports would be measurably better off by responding with targeted tariffs on imports from the first mover.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Absent deterrence (+ further retaliation from 1st mover), countries can choose optimal tariffs unilaterally optimally. By standard arguments, as long as they are not price takers, a positive tariff is optimal. For many countries this tariff and benefit is likely small, however.
|
|||
Question A: The president has signed an executive order that pauses enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Permanently ending US enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act will substantially increase global levels of bribery and corruption.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Question B: Permanently ending US enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act will substantially improve US businesses' long-term profits and long-term competitiveness.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Question A: The new administration has issued three executive orders related to energy and climate:
Declaring a National Energy Emergency: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/declaring-a-national-energy-emergency/
'The United States’ insufficient energy production, transportation, refining, and generation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to our Nation’s economy, national security, and foreign policy. In light of these findings, I hereby declare a national emergency.'
Insufficient energy production, transportation, refining, and generation constitute a substantial threat to the US economy.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question B: Unleashing American Energy: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-american-energy/
'The calculation of the “social cost of carbon” is marked by logical deficiencies, a poor basis in empirical science, politicization, and the absence of a foundation in legislation… rendering the United States economy internationally uncompetitive… the Administrator of the EPA shall issue guidance to address these harmful and detrimental inadequacies, including consideration of eliminating the “social cost of carbon” calculation from any Federal permitting or regulatory decision.'
Eliminating the ‘social cost of carbon’ calculation from any Federal permitting or regulatory decision would substantially improve the international competitiveness of the US economy.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question C: Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/putting-america-first-in-international-environmental-agreements/
'In recent years, the United States has purported to join international agreements and initiatives that do not reflect our country’s values or our contributions to the pursuit of economic and environmental objectives… The United States Ambassador to the United Nations shall immediately submit formal written notification of the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.'
Withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement will deliver a measurable boost to US economic growth over the next four years.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question A: The lower willingness of private firms to go public, combined with the increased number of publicly traded firms being taken private over the last 25 years, is measurably net negative for economic growth.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question B: All else equal, reducing regulatory barriers (including reporting requirements such as Sarbanes Oxley 404) to public listing would substantially increase the share of publicly traded firms in the economy.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question C: The lack of transparency about unlisted private firms' financial performance substantially hinders the efficiency of the allocation of capital.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question A: Antitrust investigations of the dominant firms in artificial intelligence are likely to lead to substantially lower prices of AI products and services for businesses and consumers.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question B: Antitrust investigations of the dominant firms in artificial intelligence are likely to promote greater competition and innovation in AI.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question C: Potential harms from artificial intelligence are better assessed by market deployment rather than seeking to slow the pace of AI research and implementation.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question A: The proposed US tariffs on Chinese EVs would lead to measurably higher employment in the US automotive industry over the next five years.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question B: The proposed US tariffs on Chinese EVs would lead to measurably higher prices of EVs in the US.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Question C: The proposed US tariffs on Chinese EVs would measurably slow the adoption of green technology by consumers.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Not Answer | |||
|
|
|||
Reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule III drug would lead to measurably higher social welfare.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Marginal move to catch up with reality, voters and state laws. Symbolically: bigger inflection point on War on Drugs. But whatever one thinks of that "war", having heroin and marijuana in same class is no longer justifiable. Uruguay and Canada doing fine with legal marijuana.
|
|||
Question A: Tripling existing import taxes on Chinese steel and aluminum products would lead to measurably higher employment in the US steel industry over the next five years.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Imports of Chinese steel would fall. Imports from other countries may mitigate the rise in production in US and effects on employment may be modest. There could also be a negative effect on downstream production and employment, as with Bush steel tariffs.
-see background information here -see background information here |
|||
Question B: Tripling the tariffs would lead to measurably higher steel and aluminum prices for American producers and measurably higher finished-good prices for American consumers.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Based on past experience, the tariffs will likely raise the after tariff price to the US one for one and passed on to downstream input users and consumers, as happened with the Bush steel tariffs and more recently with Trump's tariffs on China.
-see background information here -see background information here |
|||
Question C: The gains for the American economy from tripling the tariffs would measurably outweigh the losses.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Protectionism via tariffs creates well-understood aggregate losses in efficiency. This is so even if China "unfairly" subsidizes its steel.
Political motivations aside, actual distributional impacts are modest, ill targeted, and better handled with other more direct tax tools.
-see background information here -see background information here |
|||
Universities that abandon temporary pandemic test-optional policies and return to requiring standardized test scores for admissions will create measurably enhanced opportunities for potentially high-achieving students from low-income backgrounds.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Standardized tests aren't perfect but still provide valuable information for finding students with high potential from less favorable socio-economic background.
-see background information here |
|||
Question A: The FTC is opposed to Kroger’s proposed acquisition of Albertsons. Critics argue that with sufficient divestitures, the deal would be consistent with past FTC policies.
Kroger’s proposed acquisition of Albertsons would lead to substantially higher grocery prices and/or lower product quality/services for customers of the two companies in locations where both are present.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Question B: Kroger’s proposed acquisition of Albertsons would have a substantially negative effect on workers at the two companies in locations where both are present.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Question A: Allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies will lead to a substantial reduction in the costs of prescription drugs for US retirees.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Question B: Allowing imports of medicines from Canada will lead to a substantial reduction in the costs of prescription drugs for US consumers without compromising safety.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Question A: A tolling program for New York City is out for public consultation with proposed charges on vehicles entering the central business district of Manhattan summarized here: https://new.mta.info/document/129191
The proposed tolls on vehicles entering the central business district of Manhattan are likely to lead to a substantial reduction in traffic congestion in the targeted area.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Tolls reduce traffic. Caveats: big effects need high enough price (may have to raised) + design features might mitigate reduction a bit (some drivers may pay to enter then stay/drive longer to avoid repaying).
Overall expect reduction by "Law of Demand": D(p) curve slopes down.
|
|||
Question B: The proposed tolls on vehicles entering Manhattan are likely to lead to a substantial increase in traffic congestion just outside the central business district, above 60th Street, in the outer boroughs and New Jersey.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: A real possibility but we do not know. Theoretically, a toll on driving below 60th(A) may raise or lower driving above 60th(B). In Econ speak: depends on whether A and B goods are complements or substitutes, an empirical issue.
Stigler famously made a related point about crime.
-see background information here |
|||
Question A: The economic and financial sanctions against Russia are substantially limiting its ability to wage war on Ukraine.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Comment: Sanctions have a direct effect on Russian economy and a more indirect effect on military capacity. Over time, resilient domestic political power and help from China and others have lessened the impact on military capacity. Yet sanctions likely still have a non zero effect.
|
|||
Question B: In the absence of continuing flows of Western economic aid, Ukraine's wartime economy will be substantially compromised.
| Vote | Confidence | Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
