Re: Re: multiplier

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

Peter,
      Something like that, although I've seen 1.8 as well.
The multiplier is very obvious in urban econ because in
the real world much of the first round of a multiplier
expansion from a particular real capital investment or
increase in government spending occurs in the locality
where that investment happens, with the later rounds
spreading out.  Thus, it is no surprise that chambers of
commerce will fight against having a major local employer
shut down, even if such a shutdown might reduce wage
pressure for the businesses in those chambers.  These
are very basic garden variety facts of economic life.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Dorman <dormanp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 5:26 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:996] Re: multiplier


>Last I looked, the estimate for the U.S. multiplier for domestic autonomous
>spending was about 1.6.  Is that right?
>
>Peter
>
>"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
>
>>      I may be more enamored of the
>> multiplier than many because I also teach Urban Economics,
>> where it is a very real  phenomenon.  I hear colleagues who
>> are using Mankiw and don't mind that he has relegated the
>> multiplier to a dinky box in the back because they think that
>> "there is no multiplier" and just shake my head.  Sure as hell
>> is one out there, and I, for one, think students should know it.
>
>