I’m working on a macro economics discussion question and need support to help me study.
Our Week 2 discussion focused on the ins and out of macroeconomic identities, the definition of GDP, and related measurement issues. These are mere building blocks you need to begin to think critically about the macro issues of the day. So instead of our DB looking backward to Week 2, we’ll use it to look forward to Week 3, where we review the macroeconomics of labor markets.
As some of you already know, from time to time I find it useful to ask you to consider new arguments being made, whether they be in recently published studies, books, or what have you, to give you a sense of how you can do this for the rest of your lives long after this course ends. After all, in my view, that’s what matters most.
So this week, take a look at a short, readable Planet Money (National Public Radio – NPR) review of a new book to be published next month titled, “The Profit Paradox: How Thriving Firms Threaten the Future of Work,” written by a well-known European economist Jan Eeckhout. By the way, a good deal of this work was published last year in the Harvard-based Quarterly Journal of Economics, one of the world’s top five economic journals. So rest assured that this book is not by any means an off-the-wall entry into the current debate.
You’ll find that the review contains a summary of the core conclusions derived from the economics of monopolies, which some of you who’ve taken microeconomics will most surely recognize. What’s most provocative here, perhaps, is what this implies about the overall (aggregate) labor market, our Week 3 topic.
Your task? Summarize in the first paragraph of your primary post Professor Eeckhout’s thesis, as reviewed in the Planet Money piece. In your next paragraph, make a case against the author’s core argument. Be specific. So where do you stand on this issue? Also, assuming economic advisors in the current Administration are familiar with Professor Eeckhout’s analysis, which no doubt they are, discuss the pros and cons of creating a “Federal Competition Agency,” as reviewed in the Planet Money piece. Should the Biden team make such a proposal? Why or why not? Finally, a minimum of two additional commentary post
Best wishes for an enlightening discussion about a topic that will certainly be with us for some time. The upshot, though, perhaps, is that it’s not obvious anymore which political party might benefit most from exploiting it. TO INCLUDE 2 PEER RESPONSE.