get the magazine
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
I'd say the odds are better than even. Which makes this excellent Catherine Rampell piece about the VAT in today's Times a must-read. Rampell lucidly walks you through the way the tax works and the arguments for and against--including one I'd never thought of before but which makes perfect sense:
Continuing Catherine Rampell's series charting the employment recession, here are some more graphs from a new paper by St. Louis Fed economists Kristie Engemann and Howard J. Wall. What's interesting about Engemann and Wall's approach is that besides just tallying job losses, they also try to take into account foregone jobs, or those job gains that would have occurred if there had been no recession:
Typically, the effects of a recession on employment are seen as simply the difference between the levels of employment at the start and end of a recessionary period...This assumes, though, that there would have been zero employment growth even if there had been no recession. However, the recession not only causes a drop in employment from the pre-recession level, it also prevents employment growth that would have occurred. This “foregone” employment is also an effect of the recession and needs to be accounted for in an analysis of the recession’s total effects on employment.
As it happens, the upshot of this approach is to make some of the themes of the current recession a little less newsworthy. For example, this chart shows that the much-discussed mancession is less extreme than the raw numbers suggest:

Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.