by Why So Few American Economists Are Studying Inequality—Alana Semuels at the Atlantic provides a nice summary of the problems in the profession, and cites the work by a few economists like Jamie Galbraith and the two cited below (Milanovic and DeLong)Chinese income distribution in 2002-3 and 2013—Branko Milanovic on how Chinese inequality, did not increase much in that period, even though it is high, and how it converged to the US levelsGlobalization: What Did Paul Krugman Miss?—Brad DeLong more on globalization really, but there again, globalization has been at the core of the debates on inequality (how much it hurt the Rust Belt here, or how it raised incomes in the South, China and India mostly)
Topics:
Matias Vernengo considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Robert Vienneau writes Austrian Capital Theory And Triple-Switching In The Corn-Tractor Model
Mike Norman writes The Accursed Tariffs — NeilW
Mike Norman writes IRS has agreed to share migrants’ tax information with ICE
Mike Norman writes Trump’s “Liberation Day”: Another PR Gag, or Global Reorientation Turning Point? — Simplicius
Why So Few American Economists Are Studying Inequality—Alana Semuels at the Atlantic provides a nice summary of the problems in the profession, and cites the work by a few economists like Jamie Galbraith and the two cited below (Milanovic and DeLong)
Chinese income distribution in 2002-3 and 2013—Branko Milanovic on how Chinese inequality, did not increase much in that period, even though it is high, and how it converged to the US levels
Globalization: What Did Paul Krugman Miss?—Brad DeLong more on globalization really, but there again, globalization has been at the core of the debates on inequality (how much it hurt the Rust Belt here, or how it raised incomes in the South, China and India mostly)