Economists are supposed to be more nuanced than politicians. Casey Mulligan, new hero to the anti-Obamacare right, hasn't been.
Jonathan Chait has responded to my post about our lack of knowledge about the practical effects of stimulus spending. He seems to be taking on opinions that aren’t mine. Chait begins his reply by claiming that I “oppose any stimulus at all.” This is a position which I did not present in the post, and which I do not hold. In fact, I have consistently advocated stimulus in the face of the current crisis, and generally in venues that are not as hospitable to this idea as The New Republic.
Economist Casey Mulligan says that one reason for the discrepancy between male and female wages is that men are more willing to work the night shift: The vast majority of workers perceive work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. to be more desirable than work during the off-hours, and many of the off-hours workers are compensated with higher pay for the less desirable schedule.
U of Chicago's Casey Mulligan, pointing to an audit issued this week by the TARP inspector general, says no: Economic theory casts significant doubt on the claim that public purchases of bank equity would cause banks to lend more. Now the government’s own watchdog confirms the theory. Unforunately, the inspector general stays mum on how it arrived at its conclusion: Federal Reserve Board officials provided institution-specific data and an analysis of the state of the U.S. economy that was deemed sensitive, confidential, and, restricted.