tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7539577136486286096.post7822431723862102312..comments2024-03-28T02:46:41.090-05:00Comments on Supply and Demand (in that order): Research-free Policy AnalysisCasey B. Mulliganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03317454408275318282noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7539577136486286096.post-4744704302192898692013-01-30T17:43:47.171-06:002013-01-30T17:43:47.171-06:00I agree, those three points bring up a large amoun...I agree, those three points bring up a large amount of the discussion, unfortunately.<br /><br />However, what do you think of the arguments for compounding those goals? Say, increasing infrastructure expenditures that are largely built by a low-income labor force?<br /><br />Also, to your last and most relevant point, even IF it was shown that it unambiguously increases GDP that does not necessarily mean that it improves welfare. GDP, although useful, is still a very flawed measure in multiple respects, so making it the goal of all policy prescriptions would be very misleading. I feel like this isn't stressed enough in the discussion.InjuredEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00685282771952562871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7539577136486286096.post-64668016346195135472013-01-25T14:41:58.119-06:002013-01-25T14:41:58.119-06:00Daniel Kuehn attended your presentation at GMU and...Daniel Kuehn attended your presentation at GMU and has some responses up at his blog. He <a href="http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2013/01/casey-mulligan-seminar-at-gmu.html?showComment=1359130705017#c6264311899880035086" rel="nofollow">noted</a> that non-labor inputs may have little to no marginal cost (they are paid for up front), in contrast to labor, so it's not surprising they remained high while labor declined in the face of an aggregate demand shock. Is he characterizing your analysis of non-labor inputs correctly?TGGPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11017651009634767649noreply@blogger.com