Robert Barro talked about his views of the effect of the 2017 “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act”. He argued that the lower corporate tax rates will lower the cost of capital, and raise the long-run GDP by around 8%. He also argued that the individual tax cuts will raise the incentive for individuals to work and could raise long-run GDP by another 1-2%.

 

Robert J. Barro is Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics at Harvard University. His research includes empirical determinants of economic growth, the economic effects of public debt and budget deficits, and the formation of monetary policy. Recent books include Macroeconomics: A Modern Approach, Economic Growth, Nothing Is Sacred: Economic Ideas for the New Millennium, Determinants of Economic Growth, and Getting It Right: Markets and Choices in a Free Society. He was a viewpoint columnist for Business Week from 1998 to 2006 and a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal from 1991 to 1998. He has written extensively on macroeconomics and economic growth.

You can watch this talk on YouTube

Research done by Katherine Meckel about how hydraulic fracking decreases infant health was featured in the Washington Post.  Katherine Meckel’s research findings were also reported in other major news outlets, including CNN, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, The Los Angeles Times, and many other news outlets.  The Washington Post article, titled “Fracking Sites May Raise the Risk of Underweight Babies, New Study Finds” is posted here in its entirety:

‘Living within half a mile of a hydraulic fracturing site carries a serious risk for pregnant women, a new study has found. The drilling technique, also known as fracking, injects high-pressure water laced with chemicals into underground rock to release natural gas.

Women who lived within that distance to fracking operations in Pennsylvania were 25 percent more likely to give birth to low-weight infants than were mothers who lived more than two miles beyond the sites.

The five-year study of more than 1.1 million births in the state between 2004 and 2013, published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances, also found lower birth weights, although not as low, in infants whose mothers lived between half a mile and two miles from a fracking site. Beyond two miles, there was no indication of any health effect to newborns, a significant drop-off, the study said.

“I think I was surprised by the magnitude of the impact within the half-mile radius,” said Michael Greenstone, a professor and director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, and one of three authors of the study. There are about 4 million births per year in the United States. According to the study’s research, about 30,000 births are within half a mile of a fracking site and 100,000 are within two miles. “I don’t think that’s an insubstantial number,” Greenstone said.

Greenstone said it’s important not to read too much into the study’s conclusion. “I like to joke that there’s a little bit for everyone to hate in this paper,” he said. “There’s a big effect within one kilometer of sites, which the oil and gas industry dislikes, but the impact on the population beyond that may not be massive, which opponents of fracking won’t like.”

Reid Porter, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, an advocacy group for the oil and gas industry, condemned the study, saying that while it addresses a legitimate health issue in the United States, it “fails to consider important factors like family history, parental health, lifestyle habits” and other factors that lead to low birth weight.

In his emailed statement, Porter did not address why those factors might have led to underweight babies near the sites but not farther from them.

Food and Water Watch, a nonprofit environmental group, referred to the study in calling on Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D), who wants to expand hydraulic fracturing in the state, to reverse course.

“This study adds to existing scientific literature that tells us the serious health consequences linked to fracking,” the group’s executive director, Wenonah Hauter, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, Gov. Wolf [is] encouraging news drilling and expanding fossil fuel operations. We call on him to heed the science.”

When Greenstone and his co-authors — Janet Currie, a Princeton University economics professor, and Katherine Meckel, an assistant professor of economics at the University of California at Los Angeles — embarked on the research, he said, the aim wasn’t to condemn fracking, which is a relatively new method of drilling vertically underground, then switching to a horizontal direction to reach gas trapped in shale rock formations.

The practice has come under scrutiny because of the potentially toxic chemicals used to crack the shale and the amount of water used to force out natural gas. State health officials and residents near fracking operations have complained that wastewater from fracking taints local drinking water. Companies in some cases have been forced to provide bottled drinking water for residents who relied on underground wells. A number of states, such as Maryland and New Jersey, have banned fracking.

A U.S. Geological Survey study in 2014 said pumping wastewater into deeply buried storage wells was probably why Oklahoma was experiencing more small earthquakes than California. The sites are also known to leak methane, a gas that’s up to 100 times more harmful than carbon dioxide in causing global warming in the atmosphere.

But those drawbacks are offset by the benefits of natural gas, Greenstone said. Hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas “has led to a sharp increase in U.S. energy production and generated enormous benefits, including abruptly lower energy prices, stronger energy security and even lower air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions by displacing coal in electricity generation.”

The authors hope that policymakers will use the study’s finding as a talking point in a robust debate over fracking. They chose to study Pennsylvania because they got access to birth record data that identified “the exact locations of the mothers and the wells,” Greenstone said. “This was like a great success of big data.”

Most drilling operations sit in remote areas where they have little chance of harming pregnant women.

But some sites in Pennsylvania are near Pittsburgh, and others in Texas are inside heavily populated Fort Worth.

“Different communities are going to feel differently about this,” Greenstone said. “If you’re in Fort Worth, where fracturing is occurring in a dense area, you’re probably going to feel differently about it than if you’re in rural North Dakota.”’

Lee Ohanian and Edward Prescott recently published an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “What in the Sam Hill are Cows Doing on the Sand Hill Road?”  Here is the text of the article in its entirety:

 

“If you stroll down Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, Calif., you will find yourself among America’s leading venture capitalists. The companies on this street helped bring the world Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Tesla, Lyft and other transformative businesses that have created millions of jobs.

Sand Hill Road also offers some of the most expensive commercial property in the U.S., rivaling even Midtown Manhattan. But despite the enormous cost of real estate, you won’t find any high-rise buildings. What passes for a Sand Hill skyscraper tops out at two stories. Even stranger, near the end of Sand Hill Road you can find cows grazing happily on the most expensive grass in the country.

Why do parts of this area look more like a gentleman’s farm than a leading financial center? Land regulations. In a free market, there would be enormous economic pressure to develop the property, to move its cute cows to far less valuable pastures and to construct much taller buildings. But this kind of development is largely prohibited.

Land regulations have run amok, and not only in Menlo Park. In addition to governing how private property can be used, these rules implicitly dictate which special-interest groups have a say in commercial and residential development. Building proposals bring dozens of vested interests out of the woodwork, ranging from environmentalists, to “not in my backyard” homeowners, to affordable-housing lobbyists.

The question is what this costs the larger economy. Many theories have been raised to explain why the U.S. has been plagued by weak growth, which began even before the 2008 financial crisis. But as much as 40% of the slowdown may be due to increasingly severe land regulations, according to our research, conducted with economist Kyle Herkenhoff at the University of Minnesota.

Land regulations add friction to the economy in that they impede the flow of workers and capital from regions with poor job opportunities to places with good ones. Interstate migration rates used to be high. Between 1950 and 1980, California’s population increased from a little over 10 million to nearly 24 million, and its share of the national population rose from about 7% to 10%. This growth reflected a bounty of new economic opportunities that created millions of high-wage jobs in industries ranging from technology and aerospace to high-skilled manufacturing and financial services.

California’s boom was facilitated by exceptionally good state and local economic policies, which in turn reflected a bipartisan understanding that the public’s interest was served by government that helped, not hindered, development. In the 1950s and 1960s, capital spending accounted for as much as 20% of the state budget. California built schools, roads and water systems to support its population growth. These public-private synergies made California into the most populous state in the country, and the second most productive, behind only New York.

Despite rapid growth, housing remained relatively affordable. In 1970 California’s home prices were about 36% higher than the national average. But that changed as tightening land regulations began to constrain development. By 1990 California housing was 147% more expensive than the nation overall.

These regulations have damaged California and the national economy. Stratospheric home prices have redirected millions of workers away from the Golden State’s highly productive industries to states with more permissive land regulations and lower housing costs, but also with fewer high-paying jobs.

Relaxing land regulations could substantially improve America’s economic performance by making housing and commercial development more affordable. If California rolled back its land rules to where they stood in 1980, our research estimates that the state’s population could ultimately grow to 18% of the country. U.S. gross domestic product could permanently increase by about 2%, or $375 billion. If every state rolled back land regulations to 1980 levels, GDP could rise by as much as $1.8 trillion.

Sadly, California’s land regulations seem unlikely to improve. The state’s leaders recognize the problem of high housing prices but don’t seem to accept its cause. Recent legislation, including a $3 billion bond proposal, has focused on giving developers an incentive to build more low-income housing.

Meanwhile, the burst of public investment that supported California’s growth in the 1960s has slowed to a trickle. The state’s capital budget isn’t enough to maintain its existing infrastructure, much less build anything new. More than half the state’s schools do not meet standards for basic maintenance, according to a 2015 study from the University of California, Berkeley. Los Angeles’s leaky water system–many of the pipes date back at least 75 years–loses an estimated eight billion gallons of water a year, enough for 50,000 households. On a 2012 report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers, California’s levees get a grade of “D.” That group also identifies more than 650 of the state’s dams as “high hazard,” meaning failure would cause loss of life.

Overhauling land regulation, in conjunction with higher capital spending, would significantly improve America’s economic performance. Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park should be for tech investors, not livestock. Here’s to hoping that California–and other states–realize as much and can overcome the well-organized political interests to see reform through.”

Lee Ohanian recently co-published an article with Ted Temzelides in the Wall Street Journal titled “My Kingdom for a Renewable Energy Source.”  Here is the text of the article in its entirety:

 

‘In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under 9 feet of manure.” With this 1894 prediction, the London Times warned that the era’s primary source of transportation energy — the horse — would soon create an environmental crisis.

In New York City, about 100,000 working horses produced roughly 2.5 million pounds of manure a day. Residents were exposed not only to the stench but to biohazards like anthrax. One commentator estimated in 1908 that roughly 20,000 New Yorkers died each year from diseases related to horse waste.

But the deluge of dung predicted by the Times never arrived. Instead the free market solved the problem in roughly 25 years, while creating new goods and industries that transformed society.

The enormous demand for a cleaner and more efficient source of energy led to remarkable innovations in the internal combustion engine. By 1920 horses in cities had been almost entirely replaced by affordable autos and trucks.

The revolution was not driven by government. In fact, the transition away from horses would have taken longer if states had followed today’s policy of subsidizing specific energy sources.

Since the 1970s, politicians have artificially pushed resources into renewable energy. Today the solar industry employs nearly 400,000 workers. That sounds impressive, but it accounts for only 1% of America’s electricity production.

Suppose governments in the 1890s, desperate to replace the horse, had jumped on the first available alternative, the steam engine. Heavy subsidies would have produced more steam engines and more research on steam technology. This would only have waylaid the development of the far superior internal combustion engine.

The lesson is that governments are in no position to predict technological breakthroughs, and their attempts to do so can delay innovations by entrenching inferior technologies.

Diesel cars are another example. European states have been subsidizing them for decades, but diesel engines create considerably more noxious gases and particulates. Now Britain and Germany are reversing their policies and trying to phase out diesel.

Or take the attempts to push renewable energy into poor countries. About 1.3 billion people, many in sub-Saharan Africa, lack electricity, making it incredibly difficult to purify water or preserve food and medications. World-wide subsidies for renewables total more than $100 billion a year, according to the International Energy Agency. But scientists still haven’t solved their core problem: Peak electricity demand comes early in the morning and at night, when the sun isn’t shining and the wind may not be blowing.

Nearly a half-century of subsidies has not delivered the next energy revolution. The great manure crisis of 1894 suggests a far better way to advance clean, affordable and safe energy: open competition on a level playing field.