Christie Romer to CEA?

Jake Tapper:

Political Punch: ABC News has learned that President-elect Obama had tapped University of California -Berkeley economics professor Christina Romer to be the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, an office within the Executive Office of the President.

Romer, a widely respected economist with an expertise on the U.S. economy, will be one of the key economic advisers whom Mr. Obama will introduce to the nation this morning, along with New York Federal Reserve president Timothy Geithner, tapped to be Obama's nominee for Secretary of the Treasury, and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who will serve as the director of the National Economic Council.

Romer and her husband David, also an economist at Berkeley, are members of the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research, which decides when a recession has officially started or ended...

Excellent choice! (Of course, Austan Goolsbee would be another excellent choice. Ceci Rouse would be another excellent choice. Et cetera.) Throws our spring teaching schedule into a complete mess, however.

Comments

[Sock Puppet of the Great Satan]

"Throws our spring teaching schedule into a complete mess, however."

Hey, the drain on Berkeley Economics and Haas has even *begun* yet. We don't know where Tyson has landed yet, and she'll take several people with her.

[Ken Houghton]

Not necessarily excluding the proprietor of this blog.

Does this mean the chances of people from Harvard's department moving to DC just declined even further?

[theraven]

Unbelievable that College professors are being chosen to run the US. And BERKLEY of all collegs the most radical of all. If these selections destroy Berkley as said so be it and good riddance to the radical professors.

[Joseph Hare]

'The 15% Solution"

One possible approach to dealing with the auto crisis -- The federal government would give any one who buys a fuel efficient car from the Big 3 US automakers a 15% instant rebate back on the selling price. This program could have an 18 month time limit. The total of the rebate dollars might then constitute a loan the auto makers would have to pay back.

If effective, this solution would immediately jump start US auto makers by giving them a huge advantage over the competition while they work on the remaining legacy issues. Auto makers would stay employed and no money would go directly to the car makers. I realize there may be issues in that the auto maker don't get a big infusion instantlt
and that they may not be able to produce enough fuel efficient car because of the need to retool (and because of poor planning)

The feds might also think about underwriting an extended car warranty program for this period. Again, the total dollars to do so, could constitute a loan to the auto makers.

If the dollars don't proof out or if this approach does not infuse enough cash into the US automarers quickly enough because the pacing of sales and/or retooling not yet in place some concept is we worth exploring.

Joe Hare
Hingham, MA. 617 755 0898

More.....
A quick direct "15%" instant government rebate (say averaging around $3,000) from the Dept of Treasury paid to consumer with purchase of a US auto maker lower mileage car might make these cars especially attractive.

The problem with the fed using IRS tax return deductions is you only get indirect value (a lower tax payment) and but once a year (April 15)....and higher wage earners get more real dollar benefit.

If you could buy a Camry priced today at $20,000 for $20,000 versus a Malibu priced today for $20,000 for $17,000 (plus get a100K mileage warranty), which would you buy?

Giving a bailout just keeps them from going bankrupt while they try to get a higher % of americans to buy their cars. They have not suceeded in doing that over the last 20 years. Assuming Americans were motivated to buy fuel efficient Gm-Ford-Chrysler cars, the biggest stumbling blocks might be that the auto makers could not retool fast enough to produce enough low mpg cars to get profitable, that they could not get rid of their gas guzzlers, and that they can not work out union entitlements.