Rising death rates among non-Hispanic whites ages 45 54 were reported in early November in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, the prestigious journal usually known in the scientific community as PNAS.
What economists call “macroeconomic variables” are numbers such as the gross domestic product, interest rates, tax revenue, government expenditure, exports, imports, consumption, and the like which are used to describe the economy at large.
A reader from Holland has sent us some questions for José Tapia on his article, “Towards a New Global Recession? Perspectives for 2016 and Beyond,” which appeared in the February, 2016, issue of Field Notes.
Though I have a medical degree and practiced general medicine for a brief period in Spain, I left clinical practice many years ago and have been involved in research and teaching in institutions of higher education in the United States for fifteen years.
On November 5, just three days before the presidential election, Hillary Clinton was quoted on the first page of The New York Times saying she believed “our economy is posed to really take off and thrive.
In the first part of this essay (Field Notes, November 2017), I argued that in the United States changes in greenhouse emissions, particularly of CO2, have been strongly linked to changes in the economy.
Advertising, cars, airplanes, air-conditioning systems, meat, and disposables are typical elements of present-day capitalism with large carbon footprints; that is, they imply major CO2 emissions.
As Guy Routh explained forty years ago in his magisterial book, The Origin of Economic Ideas, economics has preposterous origins. Since the time of Adam Smith, the new academic discipline was linked through the emerging class of merchants and manufacturers to the rich and powerful in general, and fulfilled the ideological role of presenting the emerging capitalist system as the best of all possible worlds.
On January 17, 2019, the Wall Street Journal published a statement signed by 3508 American economists, including four former chairs of the Federal Reserve, 27 Nobel laureates in economics, 15 former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers, two former secretaries of the US Department of Treasury, and several economists who were my professors twenty years ago. The statement is so short that it is worth it to reproduce it in full.
The world is now again facing a global economic crisis. This one is, of course, a very specific one.
The proper unit of analysis when discussing economic issues is not obvious... The tradition dating back to the 1930s and the economist Simon Kuznets is to focus macroeconomic discussions specifically on national economies, because the nation-state is the political unit for which attempts to deal with economic turbulence are assumed to be possible. However, it is obvious that in recent decades the process of globalization has intensified quickly, so that referring to recessions in national economies is increasingly irrelevant.
Given that the Great Recession of 2008, despite its official termination in 2009, is clearly continuing on its gloomy way around the globe, it can only be cheering to learn that economic downturns are good for public health.
Let me start with a blunt statement: It seems to me quite likely that weather calamities will get worse in coming decades and major climate catastrophes implying many fatalities, perhaps many hundred million deaths, will occur before the end of the century.
Since the imposition of austerity policies on Portuguese society, I face a worse social situation in this small country, probably the poorest in Europe, every time I go back there. While the social consequences of austerity and the destruction of public services are probably less dramatic there than in Greece, they are nonetheless terrible. This is to introduce the few comments that follow on the recent interview of José Tapia (JT), Health and Economic Crises published in the Brooklyn Rail in October, 2014.