Slides for Econ 1: September 1 Lecture: Depression Economics (Fall 2010)
Problem Set 1: Due at Start of Lecture on Wednesday September 15: Econ 1: Fall 2010: U.C. Berkeley

Could I Please Get a Ryan Avent/Greg Ip Only Feed to the Economist's Free Exchange?

Right-wing drivel is fine: if it did not contain right-wing drivel, it would not be the Economist:

Labour markets: How to fix unemployment | The Economist

But quality right-wing drivel, please! Free Exchange is, right now, a very good brand: don't ruin it!

Seriously: these may be the two most pig-ignorant paragaphs ever published by the Economist:

[S]tart-ups keep the economy dynamic, competitive, and innovative. But they are also a primary engine of job creation, and not just in Silicon Valley. This suggests there is scope for policy to support these ventures. Start-ups may lead to lots of job creation, but also to job destruction because they often go bust. Some start-ups need to fail, but many others do not expand due to their limited access to capital. Poor information on small, new firms means that credit is more expensive and less available compared to larger, older firms.

Or, if the government really wanted to spur small firm hiring it could tackle health care costs. Providing benefits to employees is getting increasingly expensive—especially for small firms who face relatively large administrative costs and a smaller pool of workers (driving up premiums). This may depress the ability of a small, new businesses to hire new people (or at least hire full time staff instead of contractors). Perhaps the new health care legislation will ease the burden small firms bear providing benefits, but I doubt it. It’s too soon to tell, but I suspect the law may have made the problem worse...

They give me the sinking feeling that the author has no clue about what U.S. policy is--neither policy toward start-ups, nor policy toward health care.