US Economic Experts Panel

 

 

This US survey examines (a) The combination of scientific progress, technological innovation, and openness to new ideas underpinned the emergence of sustained economic growth in the Industrial Revolution; (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 

This US survey examines (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; (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 

This US survey examines (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; (b) US export controls on advanced semiconductor technology and equipment will substantially raise China's presence in the industry over the next ten years; (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 

This US survey examines (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; (b) If Federal Reserve Governor Cook is forced to leave her position, the inflation risk premia on US government debt will rise substantially 

This US survey examines 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): (a) The domestic net benefits of emissions reductions vary substantially across countries because of differences in income levels and exposure to climate risk; (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; (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)

  

This US survey examines: 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 

This US survey examines: 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; (a) Seizing frozen Russian state assets and using them to support Ukraine’s defense, economy and reconstruction would substantially accelerate the ending of the war, (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; (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 

This US survey examines (a) If the Fed changed its inflation target from 2% to 3%, the long-run costs of inflation for households would be essentially unchanged; (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