23 Nobel Prize-winning economists call Harris’ economic plan ‘vastly superior’ to Trump’s

 23 Nobel Prize-winning economists call Harris’ economic plan ‘vastly superior’ to Trump’s
By Phil Mattingly, CNN

"More than half of the living US recipients of the Nobel Prize for economics signed a letter that called Vice President Kamala Harris’ economic agenda “vastly superior” to the plans laid out by former President Donald Trump.

"Twenty-three Nobel Prize-winning economists signed onto the letter, including two of the three most recent recipients.

“While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we believe that, overall, Harris’ economic agenda will improve our nation’s health, investment, sustainability, resilience, employment opportunities, and fairness and be vastly superior to the counterproductive economic agenda of Donald Trump,” the economists write in the letter obtained by CNN.

 #########

Here's the letter, and the signatories:

"We, the undersigned, believe that Kamala Harris would be a far better steward of our economy than Donald Trump and we support her candidacy.
The details of the presidential candidates’ economic programs are not fully laid out yet, but what they’ve said, combined with what they’ve done in the past, gives us a clear picture of alternative economic visions, policies, and practices.
While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we believe that, overall, Harris’s economic agenda will improve our nation’s health, investment, sustainability, resilience, employment opportunities, and fairness and be vastly superior to the
counterproductive economic agenda of Donald Trump.
His policies, including high tariffs even on goods from our friends and allies and regressive tax cuts for corporations and individuals, will lead to higher prices, larger deficits, and greater inequality. Among the most important determinants of economic success are the rule of law and economic and political certainty, and Trump threatens all of these.
By contrast, Harris has emphasized policies that strengthen the middle class, enhance competition, and promote entrepreneurship. On issue after issue, Harris’s economic agenda will do far more than Donald Trump’s to increase the economic strength and well-being of our  nation and its people.
Simply put, Harris’s policies will result in a stronger economic performance, with economic growth that is more robust, more sustainable, and more equitable."

Signed,
Daron Acemoglu (2024)
George A. Akerlof (2001)
Abhijit Banerjee (2019)
Sir Angus Deaton (2015)
Peter A. Diamond (2010)
Douglas Diamond (2022)
Esther Duflo (2019)
Robert F. Engle III (2003)
Claudia Goldin (2023)
Sir Oliver Hart (2016)
Guido W. Imbens (2021)
Simon Johnson (2024)
Eric S. Maskin (2007)
Daniel L. McFadden (2000)
Robert C. Merton (1997)
Roger B. Myerson (2007)
William D. Nordhaus (2018)
Edmund S. Phelps (2006)
Paul M. Romer (2018)
Alvin E. Roth (2012)
Robert J. Shiller (2013)
Joseph E. Stiglitz (2001)
Richard H. Thaler (2017) 

#########

Earlier:

Wednesday, June 26, 2024 Feedback (from Trump campaign) on open letter by economists

Feedback (from Trump campaign) on open letter by economists

 I get asked to sign many letters, and  while I'm generally reluctant to venture beyond my own specific areas of expertise into areas in which others are more expert, I recently signed one circulated by Joe Stiglitz, aimed to respond to some egregious campaign disinformation. 

Sixteen Nobel Prize-winning economists warn a second Trump term would ‘reignite' inflation By Rebecca Picciotto,CNBC   https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/business/money-report/sixteen-nobel-prize-winning-economists-warn-a-second-trump-term-would-reignite-inflation/5538998/

The letter got this reaction from the campaign in question:

"The American people don't need worthless out of touch Nobel peace prize winners to tell them which president put more money in their pockets," Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to CNBC." (emphasis added)

I'll listen for that line in tomorrow night's debate.

Update: here's a link that contains the whole letter   https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-economy-nobel-prize-winners-letter-inflation-warning/ 

It begins this way:

"We the undersigned are deeply concerned about the risks of a second Trump administration for the U.S. economy. 

"Among the most important determinants of economic success are the rule of law and economic and political certainty. For a country like the U.S., which is embedded in deep relationships with other countries, conforming to international norms and having normal and stable relationships with other countries is also an imperative. Donald Trump and the vagaries of his actions and policies threaten this stability and the U.S.'s standing in the world. "

Deceased organ donation in the Economist (article and letter to the editor)

 Here's a recent article on deceased organ donation, in The Economist, followed by a letter to the editor from Alex Chan and me.

In America, lots of usable organs go unrecovered or get binned. That is a missed opportunity to save thousands of lives

"More than four-fifths of all donated organs and two-thirds of kidneys come from dead people (who must die in hospital); living donors can give only a kidney or parts of a lung or liver. Whereas some countries, such as England, France and Spain, have an opt-out model, in America donors must register or their families must agree. Persuading them will always be hard: Dr Karp’s hospital gets consent from about half of potential donors.

...

"Responsibility lies partly with some of the 56 nonprofit Organ Procurement Organisations (opos), like LiveOnNY, that do the legwork. Brianna Doby, a researcher and consultant, advised Arkansas’s opo in 2021 and was astounded to learn that most calls about potential donors went unanswered outside the nine-to-five workday and at weekends. Other opos, by contrast, sent staff to hospitals within an hour of an alert about a prospective donor.

...

"Yet unrecovered organs are not the only reason America could do more transplants. A surprising number of organs from deceased donors end up in the rubbish: more than a quarter of kidneys and a tenth of livers last year.

...

"Hospitals are often risk-averse, too. Discard rates are higher for organs of lower quality.

...

"For elderly recipients, getting older or otherwise risky kidneys generally means better odds of survival than staying on dialysis. But hospitals dislike using them for two reasons. First, they can lead to more complications and thus require more resources, eating into margins. Second, if the recipient dies soon after the transplant, hospitals suffer—a key measure used to evaluate them is the survival rate of recipients a year after transplant. According to Robert Cannon, a liver-transplant surgeon at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, hospitals succeed by being excessively cautious and keeping patients with worse prospects off waiting lists."

#########

And here's our followup letter to the editor, published November 2:

Organ-donation economics

"More than 110,000 Americans are waiting for an organ transplant and over 5,000 died waiting for an organ in 2019. Close to 6,000 recovered organs were discarded. “Wasted organs” (September 23rd) correctly pointed out that the responsibility lies in part with non-profit Organ Procurement Organisations and in part with the excessive caution exercised by transplant centres when deciding who to conduct transplants for and which kidneys to use.

"Numerous initiatives in Congress, and more proposed by various non-governmental agencies, such as the Federation of American Scientists and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, among others, have been focused on tweaking how the performance of organ procurers and transplant centres should be measured while keeping in place the system that put us in today’s quagmire. As we indicate in our recent paper (conditionally accepted at the Journal of Political Economy), such approaches that keep regulations fragmented are bound to be inefficient, given that the incentives and opportunities facing organ procurers and transplant centres are intertwined.

"We show that “holistic regulation”, which aligns the interests of organ procurers and transplant centres by rewarding them based on the health outcomes of the entire patient pool, can get at the root of the problem. This approach also leads to more organ recoveries while increasing the use of organs for sicker patients who otherwise would be left without a transplant.

"In the end increasing access to kidney transplantation will require the improvement of the entire supply chain of organs. This means boosting donor registrations and donor recoveries from the deceased. It also means increasing living donations, and co-ordinating donations through mechanisms like paired kidney donations and deceased-donor-initiated kidney- exchange chains.

Alex Chan, Assistant professor of business administration, Harvard University

Alvin E. Roth, Professor of economics, Stanford University

####

And here's the paper referred to in our letter, on Alex's website:

Regulation of Organ Transplantation and Procurement: A Market Design Lab Experiment, by Alex Chan and Alvin E. Roth

Abstract: "We conduct a lab experiment that shows current rules regulating transplant centers (TCs) and organ procurement organizations (OPOs) create perverse incentives that inefficiently reduce both organ recovery and beneficial transplantations. We model the decision environment with a 2-player multi-round game between an OPO and a TC. In the condition that simulates current rules, OPOs recover only highest-quality kidneys and forgo valuable recovery opportunities, and TCs decline some beneficial transplants and perform some unnecessary transplants. Alternative regulations that reward TCs and OPOs together for health outcomes in their entire patient pool lead to behaviors that increase organ recovery and appropriate transplants."

Protest against political persecution of Prof Muhammad Yunus, and more general threats to democracy in Bangladesh

 The Bangladesh Daily Star publishes an open letter, and the NY Times provides some general background.

Here's the  open letter to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina:

‘Judicial harassment of Yunus’: 104 Nobel laureates, 79 global figures voice concern

"A total of 104 Nobel Laureates and 79 other global figures in an open letter to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina yesterday expressed concern about the safety and freedom of Nobel Laureate Prof Muhammad Yunus.

...

"As you know, Prof Yunus' work, which has been inspirational to all of us, focuses on how social business can be a force for international progress resulting in zero poverty, zero unemployment, and zero net carbon emissions. He is a leading example of how Bangladesh and Bangladeshis have contributed to global progress in recent decades. We sincerely wish that he be able to continue his path-breaking work free of persecution or harassment.

...

"According to the case documents, officials of the Inspection for Factories and Establishments Department on August 16, 2021, inspected the office of Grameen Telecom in the capital's Mirpur and found several violations of labour laws.

"On June 6 this year, the court framed charges against the accused -- including Prof Yunus -- in the case. The trial began on August 22.

...

"In its review, the law firm said, "Professor Yunus is facing six months in prison for a crime that he not only did not commit, but that legally does not exist….Events are moving quickly in Bangladesh driven by a forthcoming election and a presumed desire to imprison Prof Yunus prior to that election….Not only are the allegations entirely without merit, but the legal process is wrong in law….A miscarriage of justice is happening in Bangladesh and the state must not be allowed to carry it to its conclusion."

"Following are the Nobel Laureates who are the signatories of the letter:

PEACE: Barack H. Obama, 2009; José Ramos-Horta, 1996; Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, 1976; Shirin Ebadi, 2003; Leymah Roberta Gbowee, 2011; Albert Arnold Gore Jr., 2007; Tawakkol Karman, 2011; Denis Mukwege, 2018; Nadia Murad, 2018; Maria Ressa, 2021; Oscar Arias Sanchez, 1987; Juan Manuel Santos, 2016; Rigoberta Menchu Tum, 1992; and Jody Williams, 1997.

CHEMISTRY: Peter Agre, 2003; Thomas R. Cech, 1989; Martin Chalfie, 2008; Emmanuelle Charpentier, 2020; Aaron Ciechanover, 2004; Johann Deisenhofer, 1988; Jacques Dubochet, 2017; Joachim Frank, 2017; Walter Gilbert, 1980; Alan Heeger, 2000; Richard Henderson, 2017; Dudley R. Herschbach, 1986; Avram Hershko, 2004; Roald Hoffmann, 1981; Robert Huber, 1988; Martin Karplus, 2013; Brian K. Kobilka, 2012; Yuan T. Lee, 1986; Robert J. Lefkowitz, 2012; Jean-Marie Lehn, 1987; Michael Levitt, 2013; Tomas Lindahl, 2015; Paul L. Modrich, 2015; John C. Polanyi, 1986; Jean-Pierre Sauvage, 2016; Sir John E. Walker, 1997; Arieh Warshel, 2013; and Sir Gregory P. Winter, 2018.

ECONOMICS: Oliver Hart, 2016; Finn E. Kydland, 2004; Paul R. Milgrom, 2020; Edmund Phelps, 2006; Alvin E. Roth, 2012; Vernon L. Smith, 2002; and Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2001.

LITERATURE: J. M. Coetzee, 2003; Herta Muller, 2009; Orhan Pamuk, 2006; and Wole Soyinka, 1986.

MEDICINE: Harvey J. Alter, 2020; David Baltimore, 1975; Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, 2008; J. Michael Bishop, 1989; Elizabeth H. Blackburn, 2009; William C. Campbell, 2015; Peter C. Doherty, 1996; Jeffrey Connor Hall, 2017; Leland H. Hartwell, 2001; Jules A. Hoffmann, 2011; Tasuku Honjo, 2018; H. Robert Horvitz, 2002; Sir Michael Houghton, 2020; Craig C. Mello, 2006; Edvard Moser, 2014; May-Britt Moser, 2014; Sir Paul M. Nurse, 2001; Ardem Patapoutian, 2021; Sir Peter J. Ratcliffe, 2019; Charles M. Rice, 2020; Sir Richard J. Roberts, 1993; Michael Rosbash, 2017; Gregg L. Semenza, 2019; Hamilton O. Smith, 1978; Jack W. Szostak, 2009; Harold E. Varmus, 1989; Eric F. Wieschaus, 1995; Torsten N. Wiesel, 1981; and Michael W. Young, 2017.

PHYSICS: Barry Clark Barish, 2017; Steven Chu, 1997; Andre Geim, 2010; Sheldon Glashow, 1979; David J. Gross, 2004; John L. Hall, 2005; Takaaki Kajita, 2015; Anthony J. Leggett, 2003; John C. Mather, 2006; Michel Mayor, 2019; Arthur B. McDonald, 2015; Konstantin Novoselov, 2010; Giorgio Parisi, 2021; James Peebles, 2019; Roger Penrose, 2020; William D. Phillips, 1997; H. David Politzer, 2004; Brian P. Schmidt, 2011; Horst L. Stormer, 1998; Daniel C. Tsui, 1998; Carl E. Wieman, 2001; and David J. Wineland, 2012."

********

The letter also appeared as an ad in the International edition of the New York Times:

*************

And here's the NY Times story: 

Quietly Crushing a Democracy: Millions on Trial in Bangladesh

The most active rivals to the country’s ruling party face dozens, even hundreds, of court cases each, paralyzing the opposition as a crucial election approaches. By Mujib Mashal 

"Bangladesh’s multiparty democracy is being methodically strangled in crowded courtrooms across this country of 170 million people.

"Nearly every day, thousands of leaders, members and supporters of opposition parties stand before a judge. Charges are usually vague, and evidence is shoddy, at best. But just months before a pivotal election pitting them against the ruling Awami League, the immobilizing effect is clear.

"About half of the five million members of the main opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, are embroiled in politically motivated court cases, the group estimates. The most active leaders and organizers face dozens, even hundreds, of cases."

Over 100 Nobel Laureates join PEN International in support of Nobel Peace Prize winner Ales Bialiatski

“PEN International, the literary and free expression organisation, has released a letter signed by 103 Nobel Laureates, expressing solidarity with writer, human rights defender, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and PEN member Ales Bialiatski, and condemning the Belarusian authorities’ brutal, relentless, and systematic crackdown on independent voices. Today marks the International Day of Solidarity with Prisoners of Conscience in Belarus. The solidarity action was featured in the Guardian.”

Support for an independent judiciary in Israel

 Democratic institution are under threat in many parts of the world, involving elections, insurrections, and the courts.  Israel is no exception these days.  Yesterday's Jerusalem Post featured several stories about expressions of concern from friends of Israel, including an open letter from economists:

Biden calls for Israeli judicial reform consensus in first comment. US Secretary of State Blinken made a similar comment during his visit to Israel a few weeks ago. By TOVAH LAZAROFF,  FEBRUARY 12, 2023 

Seven Israeli Nobel laureates warn against judicial overhaul. In their letter, the Nobel Prize winners said that scientific excellence can only thrive in democratic nations with full freedom. By TOVAH LAZAROFF Published: FEBRUARY 12, 2023 

56 US economists sign letter opposing Israeli judicial reform By JERUSALEM POST STAFF FEBRUARY 12, 2023

Here's the open letter in full, organized by Professor Lucian Bebchuk at Harvard:

Statement By Leading U.S. Economists Regarding Proposed Israeli Reforms

February 8, 2023​ 

"The governing coalition in Israel is considering an array of legislative acts that would weaken the independence of the judiciary and its power to constrain governmental actions. Numerous Israeli economists, in an open letter that some of us joined, expressed concerns that such a reform would adversely affect the Israeli economy by weakening the rule of law and thereby moving Israel in the direction of Hungary and Poland. Although we significantly vary in our views on public policy and on the challenges facing Israeli society, we all share these concerns. A strong and independent judiciary is a critical part of a system of checks and balances. Undermining it would be detrimental not only to democracy but also to economic prosperity and growth.

"The 56 signatories to this statement are all economists who are current or former professors at leading U.S. universities and who also are:

(A) Recipients of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (11);

(B) Winners of the John Bates Clark, Fischer Black, and/or BBVA Foundation prizes (10); 

(C) Current or former Presidents of the American Economic Association, American Finance Association, and/or the American Law and Economics Association (16);

(D) Individuals who formerly served as U.S. Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, the World Bank Chief Economist, or the International Monetary Fund Chief Economist (5); and/or 

(E) Elected members of the National Academy of Sciences and/or the American Academy of  Arts and Sciences (50).

Signatories

Each signatory joined solely in their individual capacity, and the universities/organizations with which they are associated are noted for identification purposes. The superscripts next to each individual’s name indicate as stated below the list.

Daron Acemoglu (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) B, E

Alan Auerbach (University of California, Berkeley) E

David Autor (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) E

Lucian Bebchuk (Harvard University) C, E

Marianne Bertrand (University of Chicago) E

Jagdish Bhagwati (Columbia University) E

Nicholas Bloom (Stanford University) E

Samuel Bowles (Santa Fe Institute) E

Timothy Bresnahan (Stanford University) B, E

Jeremy Bulow (Stanford University) E

John Campbell (Harvard University) C, E

Janet Currie (Princeton University) C, E 

David Cutler (Harvard University) E

Stefano DellaVigna (University of California, Berkeley) E

Peter Diamond (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) A, C, E

Barry Eichengreen (University of California, Berkeley) E

Drew Fudenberg (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) E

Mark Gertler (New York University) B, E

Claudia Goldin (Harvard University) B, C, E

Roger Gordon (University of California, San Diego) E

Gene Grossman (Princeton University) E

Oliver Hart (Harvard University) A, C, E

R. Glenn Hubbard (Columbia University) D

Matthew Jackson (Stanford University) B, E

Paul Joskow (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) E

Kenneth Judd (Stanford University) E

Daniel Kahneman (Princeton University) A, E

Lewis Kornhauser (New York University) C

Laurence Kotlikoff (Boston University) E

Anne Krueger (Johns Hopkins University) C, D, E

David Laibson (Harvard University) E

W. Bentley MacLeod (Columbia University) C

Ulrike Malmendier (University of California, Berkeley) B, C, E

Charles Manski (Northwestern University) E

Eric Maskin (Harvard University) A, E

Marc Melitz (Harvard University) E

Paul Milgrom (Stanford University) A, B, E

Joel Mokyr (Northwestern University) E

Maurice Obstfeld (University of California, Berkeley) D, E

Edmund Phelps (Columbia University) A, C, E

Andrew Postlewaite (University of Pennsylvania) E

Matthew Rabin (Harvard University) B, E

Kenneth Rogoff (Harvard University) D, E

Paul Romer (New York University) A, D, E

Alvin Roth (Stanford University) A, C, E

Daniel Rubinfeld (University of California, Berkeley) C, E

José Scheinkman (Columbia University) E

Ilya Segal (Stanford University) E

Robert Solow (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) A, B, E

A. Michael Spence (Stanford University) A, B, E

Richard Thaler (University of Chicago) A, C, E

Michael Whinston (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) E

Michelle White (University of California, San Diego) C

Michael Woodford (Columbia University) E

Richard Zeckhauser (Harvard University) E

Luigi Zingales (University of Chicago) C

 "Any inquiries or communications may be sent to the Statement’s coordinator Professor Lucian Bebchuk at info@Statement-By-Leading-US-Economists.net."

Attack on Sharif University in Iran: an open letter

 I'm among the signers of yet another open letter protesting events in Iran, this one against violent attacks on peaceful protesters in Iranian universities, related in turn to official violence against women. (click to see all the signers...):

Statement in Condemnation of the Attacks on University Students in Iran

"The recent events surrounding the death of Mahsa Amini in police custody on September 16, 2022, have pained and astounded many Iranians within Iran and abroad, including many students and academics [1]. Mahsa’s death engendered a visceral reaction across Iran. Iranians have raised their voices in protest to demand justice, freedom, and equality for women and beyond [2,3].

"On the evening of October 2, 2022, in brutal response to a protest staged by students at the Sharif University of Technology, one of Iran’s leading universities, various anti-riot forces violently stormed the university campus and surrounding areas. They laid siege to the university’s campus, brutally attacking and arresting students and faculty en masse [4,5]. This attack is followed by attacks on other universities that are continuing as we write this letter, including an attack on Tabriz University.   

"This unspeakable violence against students is an assault on the sanctity of education, academe, and fundamental human rights. We, the undersigned members of the global community of academics, condemn this attack and severe acts of aggression against universities and students in Iran and demand the immediate release of all arrested students and faculty and their protection against further attacks and arrests. "

"To sign this petition, please fill out this google form:

https://forms.gle/8i2bQrTrTKU45jZD9 

For information, please reach out to: academics-supporting-iranian-students@googlegroups.com 

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/01/women-life-liberty-iranian-civil-rights-protests-spread-worldwide

[2]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/30/iranian-protesters-are-part-of-a-worldwide-fight-for-womens-rights

[3]https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-lawmakers-chant-thank-you-police-amid-growing-public-fury-over-womans-death-2022-10-02/ 

[4]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-63111767

[5] https://www.bbc.com/persian/world-63113519

************

Here's a story about the attack on Sharif University, in the NY Times

‘Geniuses’ Versus the Guns: A Campus Crackdown Shocks Iran. Universities across Iran have erupted in protests after more than decade of being politically dormant, with students joining the unrest that has convulsed the country for the past three weeks.  By Farnaz Fassihi

"The scenes that unfolded at Sharif University on Sunday afternoon were some of the most shocking in the three weeks of protests led by women calling for an end to the Islamic Republic’s rule that have convulsed Iran since a 22-year-old woman, Mahsa Amini, died in the custody of the morality police. Security forces have cracked down violently on the protests but they continue."

Open letters--democracy and academic freedom, in Iran and Turkey

 Around this time of year I think of the various open letters I sign, from among many that I'm invited to sign.  (I try to avoid signing letters in which it might appear that I'm offering expertise where in fact I don't have any--e.g. letters that make macroeconomic predictions or prescriptions.)  But some of the letters I end up signing protest injustices of various sorts, and seem to require only the kind of expertise that comes with being a citizen in a democracy or a professor at a university.

Here are two that I've recently signed.

The first concerns widely reported events in Iran.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PEOPLE OF IRAN. Over 120 Nobel Laureates from around the world stand in solidarity with the calls for justice and freedom in the wake of the death of 22 year-old Mahsa Amini.

Here's the beginning:

"Nobel Laureates from around the world stand in solidarity with the courageous actions of the people of Iran and join them in their calls for justice and freedom, and for the protection of human rights for all citizens of the country.

"Nobel laureates condemn the Iranian authorities’ violence against women and protestors.

“We condemn these barbaric actions toward women and protesters in Iran,” said laureate Dr. Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2003. “Women should be free and there must be removal of all legal discriminations against women.”

***********

The second concerns a colleague at a Turkish university:

Prof. Dr. Ünal Zenginobuz’un ve Boğaziçi Üniversitesi’nin yanındayız.  We stand by Prof. Ünal Zenginobuz and Boğaziçi University.

The International Academics’ Statement:

"We are outraged by the suspension of Prof. Ünal Zenginobuz from teaching at Boğaziçi University for a period of three months, thereby preventing his academic and educational activities, on grounds of an investigation into actions conducted while he held the position of Department Head.

...

"Cutting Prof. Zenginobuz off from the academic world will harm his students, his university, his country, and the international academic community. This is simply unacceptable. What makes this unjust decision even more grave is that this is a continuation of developments at Boğaziçi University since January 2021 that have been in violation of academic autonomy and merit. Boğaziçi University enjoys success and worldwide renown thanks to values including academic merit, democratic governance, and dedication to public service, which Prof. Zenginobuz represents at its best.

"We stand by Prof. Zenginobuz and Boğaziçi University."

Open letter of support for Ukraine from 163 Nobel Laureates

 Nobel Laureate Support for Ukraine

Nobel Letter    English  |  Ukrainian  |  Russian

Nobel signatories

Personal statement from the Dalai Lama
  

Personal statement from President Jimmy Carter

Personal statement from President Barack Obama

************

Nobel prizewinners are asked to sign many letters. This one was pretty easy, and garnered lots of support.  

Why I have signed election day letters

 I am a reluctant letter signer, but this election season I have signed two open letters.  My reluctance stems in part from the fact that, when I am one among many who sign a letter, I'm often prominently mentioned in the resulting news stories, even though my expertise on the subject of the letter is no more than the other signers.

But, we are entering on an important election, and I'm a concerned citizen.  So, I let myself be counted (even if over-counted), and when asked to explain, I sometimes feel moved to respond.

Here's the latest, from Business Insider:

More than 1,000 economists have now signed letter urging voters to reject 'reckless and selfish' Trump on Election Day. Alvin Roth, a Nobel winner, tells us why he's among them.

by Kate Duffy.

"As of Friday, 1,027 prominent economists from major institutions across America, including numerous Nobel winners, had signed the open letter, which is being updated until Election Day.

"The number of signatures has increased by more than 300 since last Friday, when it was first created.

"Alvin Roth, who shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2012, told Business Insider he signed the letter because he was "concerned that some voters might believe President Trump's essentially false claims that his careless stewardship has been good for the US economy."

"Roth said: "That certainly isn't the view of those who study these things. Letters like this may also help many people know that they are not the only ones to notice that the current president is trying to keep us divided and misinformed." He added that "democracy depends on reliable information, and the letter was meant to provide some of that."

...

"Roth, an economics professor at Stanford University, believes the re-election of Trump could severely damage the US economy. ...economic progress in the US is made through working with trading partners, he said.  

"But "President Trump prefers trade wars, with government subsidies to help staunch the bleeding in those parts of the economy that are harmed," such as the damage to American overseas agricultural markets, Roth added.

"Roth said that if Biden were elected as president, he would most likely appoint advisors who have knowledge in their areas of responsibility, and could therefore "restore America's relations with our allies and trading partners."

"Biden's tax and economic policies will not aim to benefit only the wealthiest Americans and political supporters, according to Roth, who emphasized how divided the country he believes the country is."

*******************

Related posts:

Monday, October 26, 2020

Vote! Here's another open letter, this one from business school professors

 Open letters are in season, and I've signed another one.  You can too, at the link.

It’s Time for America’s Business Leaders to Speak Out Against the Threat Trump Poses to Our Republic

Thursday, October 22, 2020

Open letter by economists opposing re-election of current U.S. president

 Open Letter: 690 Economists Oppose Trump's Re-Election

Don't forget to vote.

Vote! Here's another open letter, this one from business school professors

 Open letters are in season, and I've signed another one.  You can too, at the link.

It’s Time for America’s Business Leaders to Speak Out Against the Threat Trump Poses to Our Republic

An Open Letter & Call for Action - Signed by Business School Professors from Across America
Click here to add your name.

*************

Related recent post

Thursday, October 22, 2020

Open letter by economists opposing re-election of current U.S. president

 Open Letter: 690 Economists Oppose Trump's Re-Election (850 last time I checked)

Open letter by economists opposing re-election of current U.S. president

 Open Letter: 690 Economists Oppose Trump's Re-Election

Don't forget to vote.

********

update: 932 economists the last time I checked.

An open letter to Canadian health authorities on laws against compensating Canadian plasma donors

 The letter is available on a website called Donation Ethics: Ethicists and Economists for Ethical Donation-Compensation Practices  organized by Peter M. Jaworski and  David Faraci. (I am among the signers.)

"Ethicists and Economists express concerns about banning compensation for plasma donors with regards to ensuring the security of a safe Immune Globulin Product Supply.

"Submission to the Expert Panel on Immune Globulin Product Supply and Related Impacts in Canada

"INTRODUCTION

We are professional ethicists in the fields of medical ethics, business ethics, and/or normative ethics, and academic economists who study how incentives and other mechanisms affect individual behaviour. We all share the goal of improving social welfare.

"The Provinces of Québec (1994),1 Ontario (2014),2 and Alberta (2017)3 have passed Voluntary Blood Donation Acts or their equivalents that prohibit, amongst other things, compensation for plasma donations for purposes of further processing into plasma-derived medicinal products (hereafter: “PDMPs”), like Immune Globulin (hereafter: “Ig”). Currently, the Nova Scotia legislature is debating a Voluntary Blood Donations Act,4 and the British Columbia government has suggested that it is interested in pursuing similar legislation.5

...

"CONCLUSION

"In our view, none of the moral objections to the compensatory model are persuasive. Furthermore, there is a strong moral presumption against standing in the way of a model that is the most likely to promote security not only of Canada’s supply of PDMPs, including Ig, but also of the global supply. We urge Québec, Ontario, and Alberta to reconsider the Acts currently prohibiting compensation in their provinces.

"Finally, we note that well-informed opponents of the compensatory model should not suggest that PDMPs, including Ig, made with compensated donors are riskier or less safe than PDMPs, including Ig, made with uncompensated donors. This presumption may be harmful to patients."

SCIENTISTS FOR SCIENCE-BASED Policy (even more, and again)--open letter

Here's a self explanatory email:

Dear NAS Colleagues,

We are deeply appreciative of your decision in spring 2018 to sign the Statement to Restore Science-Based Policy in Government. website https://scientistsforsciencebasedpolicy.org/ 

We are writing now to update you.  This past month we contacted members newly elected in 2019 and 2020, asking if they would like to add their names to the Statement. Although much has happened in the past two years, we decided to keep the text of the Statement  unchanged.  Its wording remains as relevant today as earlier, perhaps even more so.

We are pleased to report that about 62 percent of the new members have signed, raising the total number to over 1220.  We are now distributing the explanatory statement below to selected journalists. This statement is also available at

https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~cfm754/nas_open_letter_history.pdf

We would be happy if you would disseminate this information as you think appropriate.  Moreover, should you be in touch with members who have not yet signed the Statement and wish to do so, please have them email us and we will add their names.

Regards,

Charles Manski, Ben Santer, and Ray Weymann,  NAS members

********

Here's the closing paragraph of the original (and reissued) letter:

"Scientific evidence and research should be an important component of policymaking. We therefore call on the Federal Government to maintain scientific content on publicly accessible websites, to appoint qualified personnel to positions requiring scientific expertise, to cease censorship and intimidation of Government scientists, and to reverse the decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement."

******

And here are the opening paragraphs of the historical context document:

"Pandemic Exposes Fatal Consequences of Dismissing Scientific Expertise
1,220 members of the National Academy of Sciences call for science-based policy
July 16, 2020

“Ignorance and wishful thinking are not effective response strategies in the face of a global pandemic or global climate change,” said Dr. Ben Santer, one of three co-organizers of this open letter. “We need to restore science-based policy in government – but we also need to ensure that science is valued in public discourse and in all levels of our educational system.”

"This call for restoring science to policymaking has a several-year history. In the summer of 2016, while campaigning for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Presidency, Donald J. Trump publicly announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accord. This announcement – and Mr. Trump’s public dismissal of climate science as “a hoax” – prompted four members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to write an open letter (http://responsiblescientists.org). The letter’s purpose was to affirm the reality and seriousness of human-caused climate change. It pointed out the severe and long-lasting consequences of an eventual U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord. At the time of its publication in September 2016, the open letter had 378 NAS signatories."

Open letter supporting human challenge trials for COVID-19 vaccines

Here's the website of the advocacy organization 1 Day Sooner (where you can read about human challenge trials, and volunteer for one). It was founded by Josh Morrison (who also founded the kidney transplant donor advocacy organization Waitlist Zero) and Sophie Rose.

Here's the open letter they recently sent to Dr. Francis Collins, at the National Institutes of Health
 Challenge Trials for COVID-19

Here's the press release:
1Day Sooner Open Letter Press Release
"15 NOBEL LAUREATES, OVER 100 PROMINENT FIGURES, AND OVER 2,000 1DAY SOONER VOLUNTEERS SIGN OPEN LETTER TO DR. FRANCIS COLLINS IN SUPPORT OF COVID-19 HUMAN CHALLENGE TRIALS

"Adrian Hill, Director of the Jenner Institute at the University of Oxford, writes that “Oxford’s Jenner Institute and 1Day Sooner are collaborating on work towards the production of a COVID-19 human challenge virus,” and “collaborative human challenge studies should be feasible and informative in the coming months.”

I'm one of the signers of the open letter, and the quote that goes along with my picture in the press release is
“A safe and effective vaccine will be incredibly valuable, and the sooner the better.  Challenge trials make sense. We should prepare carefully, and proceed bravely and gratefully.”
************

Earlier posts:

Friday, May 29, 2020

Human Challenge Trials for COVID-19 vaccines

Friday, May 8, 2020

Human Challenge Trials (aka Controlled Human Infection studies) for corona virus vaccines

Carbon tax with revenue returned through equal lump-sum rebates: open letter

An open letter from many economists, published today as an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, proposes a carbon tax with the revenue to be returned to taxpayers, as a way to put incentives in place to deal with climate change.
 Here it is in the WSJ: 
Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends--Bipartisan agreement on how to combat climate change.

And you can click through to the oped (ungated) and related articles at https://www.clcouncil.org/?mod=article_inline

ECONOMISTS’ STATEMENT ON CARBON DIVIDENDS

27 Nobel laureates, all 4 former Fed Chairs, and 15 former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers unite behind carbon dividends as the bipartisan climate solution.

• Wall Street Journal op-ed
• Washington Post
• Axios
• Wall Street Journal article

Tariffs and trade wars still seem like a bad idea: open letter to the President

The National Taxpayers Union has organized the following letter, signed by more than 1100 economists, of whom I am one. It is mainly a copy of a 1930 letter, signed by1,028 economists, urging Congress to reject the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.

Here's the beginning:

"May 3, 2018

Open letter to President Trump and Congress: 

"In 1930, 1,028 economists urged Congress to reject the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Today, Americans face a host of new protectionist activity, including threats to withdraw from trade agreements, misguided calls for new tariffs in response to trade imbalances, and the imposition of tariffs on washing machines, solar components, and even steel and aluminum used by U.S. manufacturers. Congress did not take economists’ advice in 1930, and Americans across the country paid the price. The undersigned economists and teachers of economics strongly urge you not to repeat that mistake. Much has changed since 1930 -- for example, trade is now significantly more important to our economy -- but the fundamental economic principles as explained at the time have not: [note -- the following text is taken from the 1930 letter]"

*******
Here's a link to the pdf file of the letter.

The Central European University is worth defending from government pressure

The Central European University in Budapest is in danger of being forced to shut down.

World’s leading economists ask Hungary to withdraw anti-CEU legislation

"More than 150 prominent European and American economists, including Presidents of European Economic Associations and more than a dozen Nobel Prize Laureates, have signed an open letter asking Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government to withdraw legislation that would force Central European University to shut down in Budapest. "
***********
And here's a Statement of solidarity with Central European University, from their colleagues at the Center for Economic and Regional Studies at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (CERS HAS).

Economists' declaration on universal health coverage

Larry Summers has organized a widely signed open letter supporting universal health coverage as a sensible global development goal. Here's the press release:

267 ECONOMISTS WORLDWIDE AGREE: UNIVERSAL HEALTH COVERAGE MAKES ECONOMIC SENSE
18 SEPTEMBER 2015 – A global coalition of 267 economists representing 44 countries is calling on policymakers to prioritize universal health coverage as an essential pillar of economic development. The Economists’ Declaration on Universal Health Coverage, published today in The Lancet medical journal, was convened by The Rockefeller Foundation and led by Lawrence H. Summers, Charles W. Eliot University Professor and President Emeritus at Harvard University.

Signatories include Nobel Laureates Joseph Stiglitz, Kenneth Arrow, Alvin Roth, Vernon Smith and Christopher Pissarides; the current and former chief economists of the World Bank, Kaushik Basu and Justin Yifu Lin; noted health economists Anne Mills and Victor Fuchs; and renowned economic thinkers Thomas Piketty, Linah Mohohlo, Bjørn Lomborg, Tony Atkinson, John Irons and Paul Collier. Economists on every continent are supporting the Declaration.

Launched as global leaders prepare to enact the Sustainable Development Goals – an ambitious agenda for the next 15 years that includes universal health coverage among its targets – the Economists’ Declaration proclaims that ensuring everyone can obtain high quality essential health services without suffering financial hardship is right, smart and affordable.

“Universal health coverage isn’t only the right thing to do – it’s also the economically smart thing to do,” said Lawrence H. Summers. “The data clearly show that health is essential to eradicating extreme poverty and promoting economic growth. I launched this Declaration to urge world leaders to act on that evidence.”

The Economic Case for Universal Health Coverage

The Declaration cites the considerable evidence supporting the signatories’ assertion that all countries have the opportunity to achieve universal health coverage and should prioritize reforms and investments toward it.

• Historic Opportunity: With the right investments to increase availability of today’s health tools and discover, develop and deliver new interventions, the world has an unprecedented opportunity to dramatically reduce preventable maternal, child and infectious disease deaths and achieve a “grand convergence” in health across the world’s population by 2035.
• Cost of Health: 150 million people fall into poverty every year paying for health. The 100+ countries already taking steps toward universal health coverage are demonstrating that it protects families from this risk, fostering more cohesive societies and more productive economies.
• Driving Economic Growth: In the past decade, health improvements were responsible for nearly a quarter of full income growth in low- and middle-income countries. It is estimated that the economic benefits of investing in basic health care will be 10 times greater than the costs.
• Building Resilience: Universal health coverage lessens the impact of shocks on communities. The debilitating effects of Ebola could have been mitigated by building up public health systems in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone at one third the cost of the Ebola response so far.

“With nearly half the world’s population now living in a country advancing toward universal health coverage, the case for universal coverage is strong and growing stronger. There is still work to be done to ensure more equitable access to life-saving services for the poorest and most vulnerable people,” said Judith Rodin, President of The Rockefeller Foundation. “The Rockefeller Foundation convened this Declaration by the world’s leading economists to demonstrate the financial benefits and feasibility of universal health coverage. With their resounding support, it is time to invest the resources to make health for all a reality.”

“We are at a juncture of history where the world can afford basic health coverage for all,” saidKaushik Basu, Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank. “Given economic growth, donor country commitments and new mechanisms to raise local funds, countries, no matter at what stage of development, can provide universal health coverage.”

Health Is an Investment, Not a Cost

More than 100 countries across the development spectrum have begun working toward universal health coverage, increasingly demonstrating its feasibility. The Economists’ Declaration calls for increased domestic funding, donor country commitments and political leadership to advance pro-poor reforms toward universal health coverage.

“Healthy people are the engine of a country’s economic growth. Universal health coverage ensures that engine is constantly fueled,” said Linah Mohohlo, the Governor of the Bank of Botswana. “Our ability to build the planet we deserve depends on governments and global leaders stepping up to deliver on the promise of health for all people.”

“As the gap between rich and poor keeps growing, we must prioritize policies that work to counter inequality,” said Joseph Stiglitz, University Professor at Columbia University. “Universal health coverage does just that, ensuring everyone has access to health care, without which they cannot succeed, and strengthening economies as a result.”
*************
Here's the full text of the letter.