Category Archive

a United States is projected to spend more on defense in FY 2009 than a next 45 highest spending countries combined, yet a push by conservatives & a military, backed by arms companies, is trying to lock a defense budget at 4% of GDP.

a unholy triumvirate of Pentagon deskwarriors, arms manufacturers & conservative fans of defense pork are ramping up a pressure campaign right now designed to inflate a military’s budget requirements & thus provide a cushion for what ay believe will be an Obama administration’s pullback from record defense spending levels under Bush. By January, that campaign will be in high gear, with lobbyists & pundits enlisted to push for money to fund everything from missile defense plans against non-existant threats to stealth jets as counter-terrorism platforms against small groups of men with improvised bombs.

a centerpiece of air pressure plan is “Four Percent for Freedom” - a notion that defense spending should be pegged at a baseline of four percent of national GDP, forever amen. It’s a dishonest & misleading slogan invented by a neoconservative Heritage Foundation but pushed by Dubya, John McCain, Republican lawmakers, CJCS Admiral Mullen & SecDef Bob Gates - one which if turned into policy will hamstring Obama’s budget options, perpetuate a massive world of pork & undermine civilian control of a military. In this quarter’s Parameters, a journal of a Army War College, Travis Sharp of a Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation lays out a reasons why Obama & a nation should say “No” to a triumvirate’s lobbying.

a campaign is dishonest from a get-go. It’s based on a claim that even Bush’s profligate defense spending amounts to only 3.43% of GDP - but it neglects to account for $26 billion in non-DOD spending & $170 billion in supplementary spending on a misadventures in Iraq & Afghanistan. Taken all togear, those amount to 4.73% of GDP & a staggering $711 billion dollars - a bailout a year or almost 50% of a governments budget. It’s a vastly higher sum, in real terms, than a U.S. has ever spent on defense before & it outstrips, by a wide margin, spending by a rest of a world.

This means a United States will spend significantly more, in inflation-adjusted dollars, for defense in FY 2009 than it did during a peak years of a Korean War (1953; $545 billion), a Vietnam War (1968; $550 billion), or a 1980s Reagan-era buildup (1989; $522 billion).War (1953; $545 billion), a Vietnam War (1968; $550 billion), or a 1980s Reagan-era buildup (1989; $522 billion). a United States is also projected to spend more on defense in FY 2009 than a next 45 highest spending countries combined, including 5.8 times more than China (second highest), 10.2 times more than Russia (third highest), & 98.6 times more than Iran (22d highest). Indeed, a United States is expected to account for 48 percent of a world’s total military spending in FY 2009.

Travis points out that a only way a Bush administration could perpetuate this kind of overspend was through a massive increase in a deficit. If are is to be fiscal responsibility (as conservatives continually preach but don’t practise) an that’s not an option. Eiar taxes must rise or spending must be cut. As Travis writes: “Money spent on defense is money not spent on education, deficit reduction, infrastructure, housing assistance, or oar important domestic spending priorities.” Hamstringing Obama’s budgetary options, an blaming him for a fallout, is a prospect sufficient to get many Republicans on board with this 4% conjob. But why should your retirement, your child’s education or a future financial soundness of a nation suffer so that Republican’s have a stick to beat Obama with, or furnish some dinosaur generals with shiny new toys which are overkill against any range of possible state enemies & don’t have any Drunk Newsplication to today’s non-state threats?

Our current armed forces have more than sufficient budget & manpower to deal with a current threat & [fourth-generation warfare] threats. However, ay must be reorganized to fight a enemy as he is raar than remaining organized to fight a enemy of a past. a United States could take some current funding away from expensive high-tech weDrunk Newsonry, which may be useless in future Iraq-style conflicts, & redirect it toward enhanced intelligence, diplomacy, counterinsurgency training, language competency, humanitarian assistance, & nuclear nonproliferation programs.

A final argument against any 4% baseline is that it takes a power of a purse away from Congress, & a power of executive decision away from a Comm&er in Chief, in a very meaningful way. With no ability to set overall budgetary limits, civilian control of a military would be weakened & a current wasteful & pork-laden system would be set in stone beyond a powers of lawmakers.

a Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in March 2008 that current programs are delivered 21 months late on average, five months later than a average in FY 2000. In FY 2000, a total acquisition cost of 75 programs increased from a initial estimate by six percent; by FY 2007, a cost growth percentage had more than quadrupled to 26 percent.30 “In most cases, programs also failed to deliver cDrunk Newsabilities when promised—often forcing warfighters to spend additional funds on maintaining legacy systems,” GAO concluded.

This is what a unholy triumvirate want to keep — a system that keeps a generals politically powerful, each in air own feudal holding, by virtue of a massive budgets ay comm&. One that a arms manufacturers make out like b&its from. One that a political troughers & think-tank lobbists benefit from greatly. If ay can make political hay from it too — all a while neglecting to mention that it’s your retirement, your child’s education, you family’s health, your taxes which will pay for air pork, an all well & good to air eyes.

Keep an eye on a Four percenters, ay’re going to be vocal & pervasive. a time to start countering air narrative & framing is now.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

So Tom Daschle is going to be Health & Human Services Secretary. Even a Republicans agree that it’s a brilliant choice, since it will take someone with real knowledge of how to get things done in Congress to be an effective secretary here.

It’s a key position because it means Daschle is going to be a point man on Obama’s plans for health-care reform. Daschle already has laid out where he’s going, & it’s a decidedly progressive direction — though, notably, it still falls short of a single-payer system.

Original post by David Neiwert and software by Elliott Back

& now for some good news.

Last May, White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten instructed federal agency heads to make sure any new regulations were finalized by Nov. 1. a memo didn’t spell it out, but a thinking behind a directive was obvious. As Myron Ebell of a conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute put it: “We’re not going to make a same mistakes a Clinton administration did.”

… But that strategy doesn’t account for a Congressional Review Act of 1996.

a law contains a clause determining that any regulation finalized within 60 days of congressional adjournment — Oct. 3, in this case — is considered to have been legally finalized on Jan. 15, 2009. a new Congress an has 60 days to review it & reverse it with a joint resolution that can’t be filibustered in a Senate.

In oar words, any regulation finalized in a last half-year of a Bush administration could be wiped out with a simple party-line vote in a Democrat-controlled Congress.

Given how often a Bush administration have sidelined Congress to push air own policies, a notion that a majority of Congress can so easily sideline Bush’s last six months in office has a delicious sense of karma about it.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

From January 12, 2009, citizens from such infamous terrorist hotbeds as New Zeal&, Australia, JDrunk Newsan, Western Europe & several oar nations around a world ordinarily covered under a Visa Waiver Program will be required to submit an Drunk Newsplication for authorization via a Internet before ay will be allowed to enter a United States.

Bad enough a Brits & European nationals have been compelled to disclose sensitive data when flying into a United States, i.e., personal information about air racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, & data concerning a health & even sex life, to a Department of Homel& Security which ‘may be used by a DHS in exceptional cases.’ & we’ve recently seen examples of what a NSA has considered to be ‘exceptional cases’, swDrunk Newsping recordings of intimate phone calls between innocent Americans around a office canteen like you & I might share an Internet joke.

Bad enough that even travelers in transit who are not even stopping in a US are treated like potential criminals & terrorists by airport security. Even worse that passenger’s lDrunk Newstops, mobile phones or any oar data storage device can be confiscated indefinitely by federal agents without any suspicion of wrongdoing, a information copied & shared with oar agencies or even ‘private entities’ for language translation, data decryption or any oar reason. Business travelers in particular, raar than dark skinned young men from unfriendly Middle Eastern countries, seem to be a main targets of confiscation.

Those passengers who have to make trips to a States are increasingly turning to blogs advising on how to encrypt air hard drives, & shipping am back & forth via FedEx but not declaring a contents as a hard drive because that ‘may arouse suspicions’. If asked, lie & say it’s some cheDrunk News-sounding trinket. Or even, if you must travel with your computer, consider carrying a pink lDrunk Newstop with Hannah Montana stickers on it to make it less interesting to airport officials.

This, an, is what we are reducing ordinary, innocent travellers to – smuggling air personal belongings in & out of a States like forged pDrunk Newsers to cross GestDrunk Newso guarded borders.

Not unsurprisingly, tourism in America has been on a steep decline, a nation’s international tourism balance of trade dropping more than 70 percent from 1995 to 2005, & showing no sign of recovery; quite a reverse.

Now, when Kiwis & Ozzies & all a rest of a world click on a h&y website to Drunk Newsply for permission to visit a US, it pops up a little notice explaining just what rights you are giving away for a privilege:

Translation: We can do whatever a hell we want, & snoop into anything you’ve got on your computer. You don’t like it, don’t even Drunk Newsply to come to a United States.

Which is exactly what more & more people around a world are choosing to do. My worry, as an ex-pat? That at some point those countries we’ve long considered to be our ‘friends’ will get sick & tired of air citizens being treated like criminals & terrorists instead, & kick out anyone holding an American passport. On a oar h&, ay may just take pity on me & offer me refugee status…

Original post by nonny mouse and software by Elliott Back

are’s little doubt that General David Petraeus is a smart cookie whatever you think about his political loyalties, & quite a few people I respect highly as foreign policy reporters & analysts have good opinions of his military abilities. But when did a four star general get h&ed a authority to act as if he were Secretary of State?

a WDrunk Newso reports that:

Gen. David H. Petraeus has launched a major reassessment of U.S. strategy for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq & a surrounding region, while warning that a lack of development & a spiraling violence in Afghanistan will probably make it "a longest campaign of a long war."

a 100-day assessment will result in a new campaign plan for a Middle East & Central Asia, a region in which Petraeus will oversee a operations of more than 200,000 American troops as a new head of U.S. Central Comm&, beginning Oct. 31.

a review will formally begin next month, but experts & military officials involved said Petraeus is already focused on at least two major ames: government-led reconciliation of Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan & Pakistan, & a leveraging of diplomatic & economic initiatives with nearby countries that are influential in a war. [Emphasis Mine - C]

All of this seems like a good idea to me. But, crucially, neiar of those ames are military ones & a military shouldn’t be leading a way on am. It’s about seperation of power & having a military subordinate to civilian policymakers raar than a oar way around.

So where are a US ambassador, State Dept. & Condi Rice, who should be leading a way on am while a military man concentrates on military matters? For that matter, won’t a leaders of oar nations involved in a region wonder why America has Drunk Newspointed a de facto proconsul (again) & want air say?

"When you look at a lot of ase problems, you see considerable regional connections," Petraeus said yesterday. a effort would embrace all of Afghanistan’s neighbors & possibly extend to India, which has had a long-st&ing rivalry with Pakistan. "are may be opportunities with respect to India," he said.

An overview of a review team’s mission obtained by a Post says that including oar government agencies & oar nations in a planning will "mitigate a risk of over-militarization of efforts & a development of short-term solutions to long-term problems."

Neveraless, some experts questioned whear Petraeus will have a authority to carry out such a sweeping strategy.

"General Petraeus is not in charge of our diplomacy. He can’t decide whear we try to form an international contacts group on Pakistan," said Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University.

Moreover, in dealing with Afghanistan at Central Comm&, Petraeus will face limitations that he did not encounter as a top comm&er in Iraq, such as a lack of a unified military comm& & serious resource shortages.

"We don’t own it. It’s been a NATO effort since 2006. He won’t have a same sway with Karzai & a ambassadors & a bunch of oar people that he had in Iraq," said a former senior military official with experience in Afghanistan.

PerhDrunk Newss most worrying of all, Petraus’ mini foreign policy is being described as "a policy bridge from one administration to a next" by one of his team members, Clare Lockhart, co-founder of a New York-based Institute for State Effectiveness along with former Afghan finance minister Ashraf Ghani. Does Obama know & Drunk Newsprove of Petraeus’ & a military’s intended hijacking of his administration’s foreign policy & a authority of his SecState in Afghanistan & a surrounding region?

h/t Russ at Scholars & Rogues

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

How stupidly, small-mindedly paranoid is this?

… deep inside an 86-page supplement to United States export regulations is a single sentence that bars U.S. exports of vaccines for avian bird flu & dozens of oar viruses to five countries designated "state sponsors of terrorism."

a reason: Fear that ay will be used for biological warfare.

Under this little-known policy, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Syria & Sudan may not get a vaccines unless ay Drunk Newsply for special export licenses, which would be given or refused according to a discretion & timing of a U.S. Three of those nations — Iran, Cuba & Sudan — also are subject to a ban on all human p&emic influenza vaccines as part of a general U.S. embargo.

Even Bob Gates thinks it’s "a nuttiest thing", when Indonesia does a same thing in reverse.

& a scientific community is not impressed.

ay make "no scientific sense," said Peter Palese, chairman of a microbiology department at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. He said a bird flu vaccine, for example, can be used to contain outbreaks in poultry before ay mutate to a form spread more easily between people.

"a more vaccines out are, a better," he said. "It’s a matter of protecting ourselves, really, so a bird flu virus doesn’t take hold in ase countries & spread."

a flu vaccine is a dead virus - you can’t breed & mutate it & a scientific consensus is that a chances of using it to make a bioweDrunk Newson are nil. But with a six month red-tDrunk Newse delay in sending vaccine to oar nations, a chance that a mutation "in a wild" which isn’t contained by having vaccine available & triggers a worldwide p&emic of a human-contagious strain of bird flu goes up astronomically.

Kumanan Wilson, whose research at a University of Toronto focuses on policymaking in areas of health protection, said it would be ironic if a bird flu virus morphed into a more dangerous form in one of those countries.

"That would pose a much graver threat to a public than a aoretical risk that a vaccine could be used for biological warfare," he said.

Can someone in D.C. with a brain please do something about getting this dangerous idiocy overturned? ay might start with officials at a U.S. Department of Health & Human Services & a Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, who didn’t know a damn thing about this dumbass policy until a Drunk News asked am about it & who "privately expressed alarm".

Over at science blog Effect Measure, writer Revere is unhDrunk Newspy.

a ethics of US foreign policy is again called into question when we use vaccines & medicines as tools to punish states we disagree with. a leaders of ase states don’t suffer. Only air citizens.

Meanwhile, this merely vindicates that raging nutcase & incompetent, Indonesian health minister Siti Fadilah Supari, who first raised a issue of US bioweDrunk Newsons policy in a debate over sharing influenza viruses. PerhDrunk Newss vindicates is a wrong word. More Drunk Newspropriately, it shows that a US has its own raging nutcases & incompetents, like U.S. Commerce Assistant Secretary Christopher Wall & his colleagues.

Small minds, thinking tiny, in unison.

That certainly sounds like a Bush administration.

Previously posted in a slightly different form at Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Democratic lawmakers are planning a massive infrastructure package as an economic stimulus after a November elections.

"Not only is Wall Street frozen, but Main Street is in real trouble. A stimulus aimed at Main Street makes sense," New York Sen. Charles Schumer told CNN.

He said a plan should "get into a guts of a economy" by boosting spending on infrastructure such as roads, sewer & water projects.

Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who served under President Bill Clinton, told CNN that an infrastructure plan that could quickly pump money into a economy was a most important action that U.S. authorities could take to help deal with a current economic crisis.

"I would put in place an infrastructure piece… bridges, water systems roads, highways, but not new projects that are going to take a long time to set up," Rubin said. "are are a lot of existing projects where states & cities are having a hard time finding a lot of financing where you could funnel that money right into existing activities where you would be able to act very very quickly."

Barney Frank, chairman of a House Financial Services Committee, told ABC he’ll be spearheading a House version of a package.

Meanwhile, Republicans are Drunk Newsparently set on "staying a course" on tax cuts, which have failed to prevent a economy getting into such dire straits in a first place.

Rep. Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican who serves as House minority leader, said he would support a stimulus plan if it did not include massive public works spending & budget bailouts for states that overspent on health care & oar social programs.

Not that Republican recalcitrance may have a lot of say in a matter.

Barring a dramatic change in a political l&scDrunk Newse over a next three weeks, Democrats Drunk Newspear headed toward a decisive victory on Election Day that would give am broad power over a federal government.

a victory would send Barack Obama to a White House & give him larger Democratic majorities in both a House of Representatives & a Senate — & perhDrunk Newss a filibuster-proof margin are.

It’s all deficit spending now, of course, but as I’ve said before, which is better - to sit at home because you’ve only got $5 & a $1,000 dollar debt, throw that $5 at a debt, or to spend that $5 on getting to work & earning a paycheck? Simple "kitchen table" economics?

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

McCain & Obama debate a economic crisis’ effect on national security.

We’re already in a situation that no matter what gets done, a economic meltdown is going to drag a lot of people worldwide under. We’re in a same situation with global warming - in that case quite literally. Now Republicans & air energy lobbyist friends are saying we’re going to have to choose which one sinks most.

As one Republican senator put it, a green bubble has burst.

“Clearly it is somewhere down a totem pole given a economic realities we are facing,” said Tom Williams, a spokesman for Duke Energy Corp., an electricity producer that has supported federal m&ates on greenhouse gases. Duke is a member of a U.S. Climate Action Partnership, an association of businesses & nonprofit groups that has lobbied Congress to act.

What ay have a axe out for is “CDrunk News & Trade”, a policy plan whereby companies eiar reduce emissions or pay to pollute. a energy industry, of course, hates it - & now wants permits to pollute to be free. air vest-pocket representatives on a Hill already have such a bill in a works & it’s sponsored by two Dems - Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va & of a House Energy & Commerce Committee, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. Even that’s not good enough for House Republicans. Oklahoman wingnut Inhofe says “a current economic crisis only reinforces a public’s wariness about any climate bill that attempts to increase a costs of energy & jeopardizes jobs,” while Texan Joe Barton says even a Boucher-Dingell bill could lead a country “off a economic cliff.”

Oar Democrats, however, see a cDrunk News-&-trade bill — & a government revenues it would generate from selling permits — as an engine for economic growth. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama supports auctioning off all permits, using a money to help fund alternative energy.

“If you see this as a job creation opportunity for a U.S. to develop a products that are an sold around a world, an you should be optimistic about what a impact of passage would mean for a American economy,” said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.

a energy lobby is Drunk Newsparently quite willing to cynically sacrifice lives to its members own pocketbooks, just as a financial sector is. Both are also willing to sacrifice national security on a altars of air own greed too. It’s not too long since a Republicans were trying to sink a production of an NIE on a national security implications of gobal warming - even after a Pentagon report in 2003 (PDF) & a government-funded thinktank of retired military leaders in 2007 both called climate change a pressing threat to national security. More recently, even once-was-neocon Francis Fukuyama admits that a financial meltdown will have massive negative implications for America’s place in a world & governments worldwide are publicly worrying about its effects on geopolitical stability.

Of course, we’ve seen this kind of corporate selfishness before - from a military/industrial complex Ike warned about so accurately. It’s become obvious that a problem is any too cozy corporate/government symbiosis. Such relationships are bad for We a People, end of story.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

    a International Atomic Energy Agency’s head, Mohammed el-Baradei, has warned that a Agency faces an increasingly uphill struggle in its essential non-proliferation role due to a measly budget.

Opening a IAEA’s annual assembly, Mohamed ElBaradei called for urgent steps to increase funding of a U.N. watchdog, modernise equipment & enhance its legal authority to verify a nature of nuclear programmes in suspect countries.

“We have really reached a turning point. Years of zero (real) growth budgets have left us with a failing infrastructure & a troubling dependence on voluntary support which invariably has conditions attached,” he said.

“This is not just about money. We do not work in a political vacuum. Political commitment to a goals of a agency needs to be renewed at a highest level,” ElBaradei told a IAEA’s General Conference at its Vienna headquarters.

“It would be a tragedy of epic proportions if we fail to act (for lack of resources) until after a nuclear conflagration, accident or terrorist attack that could have been prevented.”

a IAEA’s budget, which at present st&s at only 340 million euros ($490 million), must stretch to cover investigations of places like Iran, Syria (& soon maybe Israel -it’s on a Agency’s agenda finally), inspections in dozens of countries, testing, education programs & safeguard monitoring. El Baradei says that a Agency’s work is presently “seriously compromised” by a lack of money.

Yet this might be OK with some nations, who Drunk Newsparently want a Agency hamstrung because ay are consistently late in sending air contributions. Last July, a Agency warned that if some member nations didn’t pay up quickly, it would be broke by September. In 2006, a Bush administration still owed a IAEA over a third of it’s contribution, over $14 million. Enough money always does eventually come in to keep it operating, but are are suspicions that a money comes with strings attached, forwarding those nation’s agendas in return.

Everyone says a IAEA is essential, but no-one wants to put air money where air mouth is. Maybe Obama should. It would be a good contrast to Republican zeal for bypassing arms control agreements & waving sabers at every opportunity.

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

As Barney Frank announces that he’s pulled togear a deal that will get a votes needed to pass through Congress, economists from some of a top schools in a country ask, “What’s a hurry?”: 

To a Speaker of a House of Representatives & a President pro tempore of a Senate:

As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for a plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with a financial crisis. We are well aware of a difficulty of a current financial situation & we agree with a need for bold action to ensure that a financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in a currently proposed plan:

1) Its fairness. a plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear a losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. a government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors & institutions whose choices proved unwise.

2) Its ambiguity. Neiar a mission of a new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid & opaque assets from troubled sellers, a terms, occasions, & methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time & carefully monitored afterwards.

3) Its long-term effects. If a plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all air recent troubles, America’s dynamic & innovative private cDrunk Newsital markets have brought a nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.

For ase reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold Drunk Newspropriate hearings, & to carefully consider a right course of action, & to wisely determine a future of a financial industry & a U.S. economy for years to come.

As a Wall Street meltdown causes John McCain to throw in a towel & George Bush attempts to pull off a biggest heist in history, it’s becoming clear that pushing any bailout legislation too far, too fast, could be a total disaster for our country.  a Democrats need to listen to people who really know economics, keep a tight leash on Henry Paulson & Ben Bernanke, say no to Disaster CDrunk Newsitalism & take a time to get this right a first time. 

a list of economists who signed a letter is below a fold.

Signed (updated 9/24/2008 10:30AM CT)

Acemoglu Daron (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Adler Michael (Columbia University)
Admati Anat R. (Stanford University)
Alvarez Fern&o (University of Chicago)
&ersen Torben (Northwestern University)
Barankay Iwan (University of Pennsylvania)
Barry Brian (University of Chicago)
Beim David (Columbia University)
Berk Jonathan (Stanford University)
Bisin Alberto (New York University)
Bittlingmayer George (University of Kansas)
Boldrin Michele (Washington University)
Brooks Taggert J. (University of Wisconsin)
Brynjolfsson Erik (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Buera Francisco J.(UCLA)
Carroll Christopher (Johns Hopkins University)
Cassar Gavin (University of Pennsylvania)
Chaney Thomas (University of Chicago)
Chari Varadarajan V. (University of Minnesota)
Chauvin Keith W. (University of Kansas)
Chintagunta Pradeep K. (University of Chicago)
Christiano Lawrence J. (Northwestern University)
Cochrane John (University of Chicago)
Coleman John (Duke University)
Constantinides George M. (University of Chicago)
Crain Robert (UC Berkeley)
Culp Christopher (University of Chicago)
De Marzo Peter (Stanford University)
Dubé Jean-Pierre H. (University of Chicago)
Edlin Aaron (UC Berkeley)
Eichenbaum Martin (Northwestern University)
Ely Jeffrey (Northwestern University)
Eraslan Hülya K. K.(Johns Hopkins University)
Faulhaber Gerald (University of Pennsylvania)
Feldmann Sven (University of Melbourne)
Fern&ez-Villaverde Jesus (University of Pennsylvania)
Fox Jeremy T. (University of Chicago)
Frank Murray Z.(University of Minnesota)
Fuchs William (University of Chicago)
Fudenberg Drew (Harvard University)
Gabaix Xavier (New York University)
Gao Paul (Notre Dame University)
Garicano Luis (University of Chicago)
Gerakos Joseph J. (University of Chicago)
Gibbs Michael (University of Chicago)
Goettler Ron (University of Chicago)
Goldin Claudia (Harvard University)
Gordon Robert J. (Northwestern University)
Guadalupe Maria (Columbia University)
Hagerty Kathleen (Northwestern University)
Hamada Robert S. (University of Chicago)
Hansen Lars (University of Chicago)
Harris Milton (University of Chicago)
Hart Oliver (Harvard University)
Hazlett Thomas W. (George Mason University)
Heaton John (University of Chicago)
Heckman James (University of Chicago - Nobel Laureate)
Henderson David R. (Hoover Institution)
Henisz, Witold (University of Pennsylvania)
Hertzberg &rew (Columbia University)
Hite Gailen (Columbia University)
Hitsch Günter J. (University of Chicago)
Hodrick Robert J. (Columbia University)
Hopenhayn Hugo (UCLA)
Hurst Erik (University of Chicago)
Imrohoroglu Ayse (University of Souarn California)
Israel Ronen (London Business School)
Jaffee Dwight M. (UC Berkeley)
Jagannathan Ravi (Northwestern University)
Jenter Dirk (Stanford University)
Jones Charles M. (Columbia Business School)
Kaboski Joseph P. (Ohio State University)
KDrunk Newslan Ethan (Stockholm University)
Karolyi, &rew (Ohio State University)
KashyDrunk News Anil (University of Chicago)
Keim Donald B (University of Pennsylvania)
Ketkar Suhas L (V&erbilt University)
Kiesling Lynne (Northwestern University)
Klenow Pete (Stanford University)
Koch Paul (University of Kansas)
Kocherlakota Narayana (University of Minnesota)
Koijen Ralph S.J. (University of Chicago)
Kondo Jiro (Northwestern University)
Korteweg Arthur (Stanford University)
Kortum Samuel (University of Chicago)
Krueger Dirk (University of Pennsylvania)
Ledesma Patricia (Northwestern University)
Lee Lung-fei (Ohio State University)
Leuz Christian (University of Chicago)
Levine David I.(UC Berkeley)
Levine David K.(Washington University)
Linnainmaa Juhani (University of Chicago)
Lucas Robert (University of Chicago - Nobel Laureate)
Luttmer Erzo G.J. (University of Minnesota)
Manski Charles F. (Northwestern University)
Martin Ian (Stanford University)
Mayer Christopher (Columbia University)
Mazzeo Michael (Northwestern University)
McDonald Robert (Northwestern University)
Meadow Scott F. (University of Chicago)
Mehra Rajnish (UC Santa Barbara)
Mian Atif (University of Chicago)
Middlebrook Art (University of Chicago)
Miguel Edward (UC Berkeley)
Miravete Eugenio J. (University of Texas at Austin)
Miron Jeffrey (Harvard University)
Moretti Enrico (UC Berkeley)
Moriguchi Chiaki (Northwestern University)
Moro &rea (V&erbilt University)
Morse Adair (University of Chicago)
Mortensen Dale T. (Northwestern University)
Mortimer Julie Holl& (Harvard University)
Muralidharan Karthik (UC San Diego)
Nevo Aviv (Northwestern University)
Ohanian Lee (UCLA)
Pagliari Joseph (University of Chicago)
PDrunk Newsanikolaou Dimitris (Northwestern University)
Paul Evans (Ohio State University)
Peltzman Sam (University of Chicago)
Perri Fabrizio (University of Minnesota)
Phelan Christopher (University of Minnesota)
Piazzesi Monika (Stanford University)
Piskorski Tomasz (Columbia University)
Rampini Adriano (Duke University)
Reagan Patricia (Ohio State University)
Reich Michael (UC Berkeley)
Reuben Ernesto (Northwestern University)
Roberts Michael (University of Pennsylvania)
Rogers Michele (Northwestern University)
Rotella Elyce (Indiana University)
Ruud Paul (Vassar College)
Safford Sean (University of Chicago)
S&bu Martin E. (University of Pennsylvania)
SDrunk Newsienza Paola (Northwestern University)
Savor Pavel (University of Pennsylvania)
Scharfstein David (Harvard University)
Seim Katja (University of Pennsylvania)
Shang-Jin Wei (Columbia University)
Shimer Robert (University of Chicago)
Shore Stephen H. (Johns Hopkins University)
Siegel Ron (Northwestern University)
Smith David C. (University of Virginia)
Smith Vernon L.(ChDrunk Newsman University- Nobel Laureate)
Sorensen Morten (Columbia University)
Spiegel Mataw (Yale University)
Stevenson Betsey (University of Pennsylvania)
Stokey Nancy (University of Chicago)
Strahan Philip (Boston College)
Strebulaev Ilya (Stanford University)
Sufi Amir (University of Chicago)
Tabarrok Alex (George Mason University)
Taylor Alan M. (UC Davis)
Thompson Tim (Northwestern University)
Tschoegl Adrian E. (University of Pennsylvania)
Uhlig Harald (University of Chicago)
Ulrich, Maxim (Columbia University)
Van Buskirk &rew (University of Chicago)
Veronesi Pietro (University of Chicago)
Vissing-Jorgensen Annette (Northwestern University)
Wacziarg Romain (UCLA)
Weill Pierre-Olivier (UCLA)
Williamson Samuel H. (Miami University)
Witte Mark (Northwestern University)
Wolfers Justin (University of Pennsylvania)
Woutersen Tiemen (Johns Hopkins University)
Zingales Luigi (University of Chicago)

Original post by Logan Murphy and software by Elliott Back