1. Candy as a countercyclical asset.
2. Martin Feldstein:don’t tax charities.
3. Short film about James Buchanan.
4. Man survives two atomic bombs.
5. New paper on credit default swaps.
Our Books
Modern Principles of Economics
Launching The Innovation Renaissance
The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and Will(Eventually) Feel Better
Create Your Own Economy: The Path to Prosperity in a Disordered World
Discover Your Inner Economist
Good and Plenty: The Creative Successes of American Arts Funding
Judge and Jury: American Tort Law on Trial
Markets and Cultural Voices: Liberty vs. Power in the Lives of Mexican Amate Painters (Economics, Cognition, and Society)
The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society (Economics, Cognition, and Society)
Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures
Changing the Guard: Private Prisons and the Control of Crime
What Price Fame?
In Praise of Commercial Culture
Entrepreneurial Economics: Bright Ideas from the Dismal Science
Contact Us
Did you see that Ann Althouse recently became engaged to one of her long time commenters? Surely a first in the annals of blogging.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/03/love-in-time-of-commenters.html
Your link on #1 is broken
was there anyone who was killed in both atomic bombs?
The ‘candy’ link has a space in front of the URL so you can’t click through (with at least some browsers). The correct link is http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/nyregion/24candy.html
“How many of these charities are really just party-generators for rich people anyways?”
Parties are productive, government spending isn’t, so…seems sort of moot.
“Parties are productive, government spending isn’t”
What about a party to celebrate Ayn Rand’s rotting corpse?
As a member of the board of AIG Financial Products, Feldstein was one of those who had oversight of the division of the international insurer that contributed to the company’s crisis
Leaving income effects aside, making 28% the top tax bracket would have the same effect on charitable giving as Obama’s plan. Since that wouldn’t make me oppose making 28% the top bracket, maybe it shouldn’t make me oppose Obama’s plan. (Or is the income effect bigger than I think?)
Well, if giving a rich guy only 28% for his $100 charitable gift to NPR, what of the retiree who gives $100 and gets to deduct only 10%?
A [refundable] tax credit of 40% for chariable gifts would promote giving equall among the rich and poor.
Perhaps a decrease in charitable giving is not a bug but a feature. In some ways government services compete with charity. So assuming less donations means less charitable services, less charitable donations means more people will demand services from the government. And the government gets more taxes. Score two for the big G. I thought I read something to this effect on this blog, but I cannot find the post.
Comments on this entry are closed.