EconSpark - Recent questions, answers and comments

Economics Internships/Research for a incoming High School Senior

Sun, 01 Mar 2026 05:36:53 +0000

Hi everyone! I’m an incoming high school senior with a strong interest in economics, finance, and research, and I’m currently looking for internships, research opportunities, or mentorship programs for this upcoming year/summer. I have written a research paper under the guidance of Dr. Andrew Foley of NYU Stern in Narrative Economics, but I am looking to deepen my involvement.

Call for Papers: Special Issue of Macroeconomic Dynamics in Honor of Frank Ramsey

Sat, 31 Jan 2026 18:42:48 +0000

I am co-editing a special issue of Macroeconomic Dynamics (with Peter Galbacs) and we are currently soliciting papers for the issue. All papers will be refereed as if they were standard submissions to MD. The target publication date for the issue is mid-2028, the 1000th anniversary of Frank Ramsey's seminal publication of "A mathematical theory of saving". Interested authors can access the full Call for Papers at https://econ.tepper.cmu.edu/Ramsey/Call_for_papers.pdf.

Commented: Webcast Availability for ASSA 2026 Sessions

Sun, 18 Jan 2026 04:29:12 +0000

Commented: 2Q data is wrong (again)

Thu, 08 Jan 2026 19:17:29 +0000

In a volatile global economy, should policy success be measured by short-term stability or institutional readiness?

Mon, 29 Dec 2025 22:34:21 +0000

This question aims to encourage discussion on how economic policy success should be evaluated in environments characterized by recurring volatility, with particular attention to institutional capacity and policy implementation under pressure.

Answered: Should central banks change their inflation targets?

Mon, 22 Dec 2025 21:24:49 +0000

Answered: How can the Federal Reserve stop inflation without causing a recession?

Mon, 22 Dec 2025 21:18:30 +0000

What professional economists have served as national leaders, cabinet secretaries, or members of the legislature?

Mon, 27 Oct 2025 15:21:20 +0000

I have compiled a list, but I fear that I have missed a number of examples. https://brucebartlett.substack.com/p/professional-economists-who-were

Adam Smith and the colonial origins of institutions

Mon, 20 Oct 2025 19:25:13 +0000

While reading Adam Smith's, Wealth of nations (Wordsworth editions, Ware, Hertfordshire, UK, 2012), I was amazed by the fact that he can be regarded as a distant predecessor of the theory of colonial origins of institutions and cross-country differences in economic growth. Specifically, I found these passages in which Smith argues that thinly inhabited European colonies had set better political institutions and, consequently, witnessed more rapid growth.

The colony of a civilized nation which takes possession either of a waste country, or of one so thinly inhabited that the natives easily give place to the new settlers, advances more rapidly to wealth and greatness than any other human society. (Book 4. Of systems of political economy, Chapter 7. Of colonies, p. 560)

Plenty of good land, and liberty to manage their own affairs their own way, seem to be the two great causes of the prosperity of all new colonies. In the plenty of good land, the English colonies of North America, though no doubt very abundantly provided, are, however, inferior to those of the Spaniards and Portuguese, and not superior to some of those possessed by the French before the late war. But the political institutions of the English colonies have been more favourable to the improvement and cultivation of this land, than those of the other three nations. (Book 4. Of systems of political economy, Chapter 7. Of colonies, p. 567)

Any paper constructs trimmed+stacked data to do Staggered DID?

Tue, 07 Oct 2025 14:07:30 +0000

Hi, I am looking for papers on international trade that use a trimmed and staggered dataset for staggered DID estimation. Most of the papers I have read use a full panel, for example, monthly trade flow data for all countries from 1994 to 1999. However, my research is RTA-related. There are several RTAs worldwide, and I am considering trimming the trade flow data using the date of each RTA's establishment as the event window 0 point. For example, there are two RTAs: one between Korea and Brazil in January 2001 and another between the US and Canada in January 2006. I would trim the global trade data from January 2000 to January 2002 and from January 2005 to January 2007, then combine them to create my research dataset. Unfortunately, I cannot find any papers that use the same method for data compilation. Could anyone please let me know if they are aware of any papers that research international economics and compile the "staggered" data I am thinking of? Papers from other fields would also be fine, as long as they use this type of data compilation! Thank you.

Answered: What resources do you use to teach international trade?

Tue, 30 Sep 2025 19:30:35 +0000

Identify movers in SIPP

Sat, 16 Aug 2025 02:10:29 +0000

Hi everyone, I’m working with SIPP to look at people who move during the year. According to the Census definitions, if TMOVER is between 2 and 7 the person is a mover, and the month they start their new residence is given by ERH_BMONTH.

Using these variables, I get a sensible hump-shaped seasonal pattern in most years. Fewer moves in winter, more in summer. It looks good for 2018 through 2024.

But when I use the same approach on the 2014 SIPP, Waves 2–4, the distribution looks strange: huge spikes in January (~20%), really heavy numbers in March/April, and very low values in autumn. It makes no sense.

Since TMOVER and ERH_BMONTH have the same definitions in those waves, it’s not a coding or variable issue. Could this be a sample design problem with those panels? Has anyone else seen this before or figured out what’s going on? Maybe I am missing something straightforward.

Why are ICAO statistics the only paid statistics in the United Nations system? Is there an alternative?

Wed, 13 Aug 2025 17:15:40 +0000

I'm conducting economic research on the civil aviation industry in Latin America, but I'm surprised to find significant restrictions on data access, particularly from the United Nations. I'm looking for open-access data sources on this industry. I appreciate your collaboration.

How do rule changes impact market equilibrium?

Tue, 12 Aug 2025 23:52:37 +0000

I am eager to explore this question and welcome thoughtful discussion. My current understanding is as follows: When institutions change—throughnew rules, regulations, or policies—skills that were valuable under previous institutional frameworks can become obsolete, as they were specifically tailored to those earlier conditions. Consequently, demand for different skills is reconfigured. Because institutional change often occurs faster than the workforce can adjust its skills, this creates a mismatch between labor supply and demand, resulting in market disequilibrium. This disequilibrium persists as the adjustment of skills lags behind the pace of institutional change. The reconfiguration of demand and the ensuing disequilibrium lead to a reordering of marginal returns to skills and a redistribution of welfare. Some groups bear the costs associated with skill devaluation, while others benefit from the new rules.

I have developed these ideas further in a working paper posted on SSRN:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5335021

Answered: Teaching in Corona times: useful examples for an undergrad micro-economics course?

Fri, 11 Jul 2025 13:12:06 +0000

Answered: What are issues that arise in advising grad students and young colleagues, or about which you have sought advice?

Sat, 05 Jul 2025 21:44:58 +0000

Karfali-VAR 9-Year Cycle: Historical Patterns Forewarning Current Headwinds?

Sat, 05 Apr 2025 15:21:07 +0000

Following up on my previous posts about the Karfali-VAR model and its economic cycle analysis, with its hybrid methodology (30% cycle / 70% VAR), I want to emphasize that the model's discovery of a robust 9-year economic cycle, and its prediction of a potential slowdown or contraction phase around 2025, was established based on historical data analysis (since 1954) using strong statistical tools (like spectral analysis, Augmented Dickey-Fuller test with P=0.01, Granger causality test with P=0.03, plus out-of-sample testing) before the specific global economic frictions and events we see today escalated.

This prediction was not merely an abstract statistical result but was based on recurring patterns observed directly in the historical economic data. This data showed a repeated tendency towards slowing economic growth, manufacturing sector weakness (with the ISM index often nearing or falling below 50), and the appearance of other characteristic pressures of the late stages of the cycle.

Based only on recognizing these recurring historical rhythms, the methodology indicated that the 2024-2025 period represents a late and sensitive phase of the current cycle. Today, we observe that recent developments:

Heightened global discussions on trade policies and tariffs.

Notable volatility in commodity prices (like oil recently).

The ISM manufacturing index falling below 50, signaling contraction.

...strikingly align with the economic environment the model anticipated in advance, making the model serve as an analytical "warning" based on recurring patterns in the data.
ORCID :https://orcid.org/0009-0002-9626-7289
(Statistical details, data, and charts are available via the application: https://preview--cycle-insight-analyzer.lovable.app/ )

This alignment raises a question for discussion: Since the systematic analysis of these historical patterns enabled the model to signal potential economic weakness for the current period before the latest global events fully manifested, does this highlight the foresight value that can be gained by integrating statistically validated, medium-term cycle analysis into our economic monitoring and forecasting tools? Can these approaches offer critical foresight that complements short-term analyses? We invite your opinions on the value of integrating these cyclical approaches into economic monitoring and forecasting.

Solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States through equal protection of laws?

Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:20:49 +0000

Why not solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States through the equity and equality of equal protection of the laws?

Anyone not officially living in poverty should be able to pay taxes, afford insurance, and avoid homelessness—this is the goal of addressing official poverty.

The current welfare system is inefficient, expensive, and prone to abuse, fraud, and waste because it tackles complex forms of poverty rather than focusing on simple poverty.

Why not solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment states, leveraging the equal protection clause to ensure fairer employment practices? The necessary legal and physical infrastructure already exists and only requires modernization to meet contemporary economic needs. Unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States that solves for official poverty could be the new 'minimum wage' instead of the current minimum wage that employers are subject to. In my opinion, that should mean that wages would be more responsive to inflationary pressures since anyone who feels they are not making enough, could simply quit on an at-will basis and collect unemployment compensation that solves for official poverty. We should also have no homelessness due to unequal protection of the laws.

Under capitalism, circulating capital is essential. Increased circulation benefits the economy, as seen with the full employment of capital resources. What could be more Efficient than that?

The karfali-var model identified the nine-year cycle using spectral analysis, ADF test, and Granger causality

Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:09:19 +0000

The Carvali-Farr model developed a robust methodology to identify recurring patterns in economic data over a nine-year period, supporting the hypothesis of a nine-year economic cycle. By applying a range of advanced analyses, such as spectral analysis, the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test, and Granger causality testing, we were able to demonstrate that this cycle is not random but follows statistical patterns with clear significance in the historical data.

Spectral analysis showed a peak at the nine-year cycle, supporting the hypothesis that the economic cycle follows a fixed, periodic pattern rather than a random one. The Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test confirmed that the data contains non-random patterns, with a p-value of 0.01, reinforcing the hypothesis that there is a predictable economic cycle. The Granger causality test revealed a causal effect between the nine-year economic cycle and economic variables such as economic growth and employment, with a p-value of 0.03, indicating that the cycle has a significant impact on economic outcomes.

Out-of-sample tests were crucial in validating the model, where it was trained on data from 1954 to 1998 and successfully predicted the major recession of 2007. The model also forecasted another recessionary cycle in 2025, reflecting the accuracy of its future predictions.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth: There is strong growth in the early years of the cycle (1-3), followed by a slowdown in the middle of the cycle (4-6), with a significant weakening in the later years (7-9), where a recession is expected.
https://preview--cycle-insight-analyzer.lovable.app/pattern-detection
Unemployment rate: It begins to decline in the early years (1-3) with economic recovery, reaches its lowest levels in the middle of the cycle (5-6), but starts to rise as the cycle nears its end (7-9).

However, it should be noted that the model does not handle external economic shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, perfectly, which may lead to short-term forecasting errors. But in the long term, the model remains strong in predicting economic patterns.We look forward to discovering the model from your side

https://orcid.org/0009-0002-9626-7289

Dude, Where's My Nobel Prize?

Sat, 15 Mar 2025 18:59:33 +0000

See title and read https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ieKMaZnt_kFk66_vnpnIPvrdAy7g5Oh4/view

The oliGARCHy

Tue, 11 Mar 2025 16:32:26 +0000

This is not really a question, but rather an invitation to a new type of economics and a new way of economic thinking. Read the papers ( https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZFYY9VhSF1IVdPsYtqtRcK6lIyNEZW1C/view ), the code ( https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IasW7WyXM8BWOoVq7zeYuWTLsR3uNuvY/view ), the AI analysis I ( https://chat.jaay.fun/obfo29 ) and the AI analysis II ( https://chat.jaay.fun/kgjmfe ) using password 'TheGr8oliGARCH'. I hope this thread turns into a well-rounded discussion of the oliGARCHy.

Commented: Could Numerically-Based Economic Cycles Be the Key to Predicting Future Financial Crises?

Fri, 28 Feb 2025 22:00:40 +0000

Business Cicles and Trade cycles

Fri, 28 Feb 2025 02:36:30 +0000

Hello I'm Ryan Mcconnell. After the papers we published and the settle of full employment in the US and the EU, and solving the OLS problem with the MDMR, I want to contact someone* to write an essay about trade cycles, comercial crisis and of course business cycles. I want to make a review of all the phenomena and all possible solutions. I would like to emphasize about the "Great Moderation" period, but even knowing the system used I can't make a full dissertation. More knowledge is needed.

How do economic cycles contribute to explaining financial crises and predicting future global economic trends?

Wed, 05 Feb 2025 23:17:27 +0000

Understanding the Role of Time Cycles in Shaping the Global Economy is a crucial step toward improving future financial and economic policies. Through this research, I aim to enhance and develop this science for the greater good, encouraging researchers and relevant institutions to collaborate in exploring and analyzing the deeper impact of these cycles. Your valuable contributions could help provide practical solutions to global economic challenges."

"Economic Time Cycles" rely on analyzing the numbers associated with years to determine the beginning and end of each cycle. For example, if we look at the year 1927, we sum its digits (1 + 9 + 2 + 7 = 19) and then reduce the result to a single digit (1 + 9 = 10, and 1 + 0 = 1). Thus, we identify the start of a new cycle with the number "1".

On the other hand, if we take the year 1935 as an example, summing the digits (1 + 9 + 3 + 5 = 18) and reducing it (1 + 8 = 9) indicates the end of the cycle that began in 1927. This process reveals that each economic cycle repeats periodically, and major economic crises tend to follow similar patterns based on these numerical cycles.

"Analyzing Global Economic Patterns" shows how these time cycles repeatedly affect the global economy, where major financial crises occur cyclically based on these patterns. History demonstrates that major financial crises often occur at similar intervals, following mathematical patterns linked to years.

"Future Predictions" indicate that the upcoming cycle in 2026 may mirror the patterns of previous economic transformations, including significant shifts towards sustainable economies, the influence of technology, digital currencies, and changes in financial policies.

"Economic Policies" highlight how these cycles impact economic decisions, including government and financial institutions’ responses during periods of recession and recovery. The study also shows that global financial institutions play a vital role in adapting to these cycles and developing new solutions to economic crises.

"The Role of Technology": The research emphasizes the growing role of technology in shaping financial markets. Innovations such as artificial intelligence and digital currencies could reshape traditional financial systems, changing how transactions are processed and financial data is analyzed.

"Call for Collaboration": This research is a call for active participation in analyzing and improving this science for the public good, so that we can develop economic and financial strategies that contribute to the stability of the global economic system and solve future challenges more effectively.

"For more details on the research, please refer to the full study via the following link:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14805665
By understanding these economic time cycles and their patterns, we can pave the way for more effective financial policies and crisis management. If you have any further thoughts or need additional modifications, feel free to ask!

The Broken Demand/Supply Model of US Healthcare - How to Fix?

Tue, 31 Dec 2024 23:14:44 +0000

America’s Healthcare Dilemma: The Economics of Unconstrained Demand - by Lance Amundsen LCA13@yahoo.com

America spends more on healthcare than any other industrialized nation—roughly 20% of GDP—yet the outcomes fail to justify the expense. The reason lies in a structural flaw: healthcare operates on an unconstrained demand model fueled by third-party payment systems. Without significant reforms, this model will not only continue to spiral costs but also pose an economic security risk to the nation.

The Problem: A Market Without Constraints

In a typical market, consumers make purchasing decisions with their own money, balancing cost and value. In U.S. healthcare, however, consumers primarily spend “other people’s money”—namely, that of insurance companies, employers, or the government. This disconnect from direct financial responsibility removes the incentive to seek value, driving demand higher and pushing prices upward.

A Starbucks Analogy

Imagine you could buy as much coffee as you wanted with only a 15-cent copay. Would you consider the cost of a $6 latte? Probably not. Soon, demand for premium coffee would skyrocket, and Starbucks might even charge $10 or $100 to meet growing expectations. This is precisely how U.S. healthcare operates: with unconstrained demand driving both excessive supply and inflated prices.

Insurance Companies: The Only Governor

In this dysfunctional market, insurance companies emerge as the sole entity attempting to constrain demand. They do so by denying claims, limiting coverage, or raising copays. While unpopular, these actions are the only mechanisms keeping demand—and costs—from becoming even more untenable.

Why Costs Keep Rising

Despite insurance companies’ interventions, healthcare costs in the U.S. remain disproportionately high compared to other nations. Administrative inefficiencies, high drug prices, and unregulated service pricing amplify the problem. A report from the Commonwealth Fund found that the U.S. spends nearly twice as much per capita on healthcare as other developed nations like Germany or Canada, without better outcomes.

Lessons from Single-Payer Systems

Countries with single-payer systems manage costs through mechanisms like budget caps, negotiated prices, and rationing care. These approaches create constraints on both supply and demand, leading to more sustainable healthcare spending. For example, the UK’s National Health Service operates with a fixed budget, forcing prioritization of essential services over elective ones.

The Unchecked Role of Suppliers

In the U.S., suppliers (hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and device manufacturers) operate without significant price constraints. They capitalize on the lack of demand limitations, charging higher prices simply because they can. A RAND Corporation study found that U.S. hospitals charge private insurers 247% more than what Medicare pays for the same services.

The Economic Consequences

Healthcare costs aren’t just a personal burden—they’re a national one. With healthcare encompassing one-fifth of the economy, any disruption to the system, whether through cyberattacks or economic crises, could have catastrophic consequences. The American Enterprise Institute has warned of the systemic risks posed by an over-reliant healthcare sector.

A Call for Systemic Reform

Fixing this issue requires addressing the root causes. Encouraging price transparency, limiting third-party payment systems, and introducing value-based care models are potential solutions. Policymakers should also explore adopting supply-side constraints or hybrid models that incorporate elements of single-payer systems while preserving market competition.

Citing Thought Leaders

This analysis aligns with perspectives shared by prominent economists and healthcare experts:
• Milton Friedman, in his critique of third-party payment systems, emphasized how they distort the healthcare market.
• Dr. Atul Gawande, in his essay The Cost Conundrum, highlighted how regional spending disparities arise from unchecked supplier incentives.
• Elizabeth Rosenthal, author of An American Sickness, detailed how profit motives inflate costs across the system.

Consumer Behavior Must Change

Ultimately, consumers must have “skin in the game” to curb excessive demand. High-deductible health plans and health savings accounts (HSAs) are steps in the right direction, as they make individuals more aware of the true cost of care. However, these measures must be paired with broader systemic changes to be effective.

Insurance Companies: Villains or Unsung Heroes?

While insurance companies often bear public ire for denying coverage, their role as demand governors is essential under the current model. Without them, costs would rise even faster, and healthcare spending would further crowd out other vital sectors like education and infrastructure.

The Global Comparison

Countries like Switzerland and Singapore offer alternative models worth studying. Both balance public and private contributions while enforcing cost control mechanisms that prevent runaway expenses. Singapore’s use of mandatory medical savings accounts combined with catastrophic coverage is particularly notable.

The Cost of Inaction

Failing to reform the system will have dire consequences. As healthcare spending continues to outpace GDP growth, it will exert greater pressure on government budgets, private employers, and individual households. The Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2030, federal healthcare spending alone will consume 30% of GDP.

A Security Risk We Can’t Ignore

The economic risks posed by the healthcare sector are not merely financial but also strategic. As cyber threats grow, targeting an industry that constitutes a fifth of the economy could destabilize the entire country. The U.S. cannot afford to ignore this vulnerability.

What Needs to Change

Reforms must focus on aligning incentives across all stakeholders—patients, providers, and insurers. Transparency in pricing, caps on excessive profits, and a shift to value-based care can help create a more balanced system. Policymakers must prioritize these changes to safeguard the nation’s economic and physical health.

Conclusion: A Broken System Requires Bold Action

America’s healthcare system is as broken as it can be. But the solutions are within reach if we are willing to learn from other nations and rethink entrenched practices. The stakes are too high—economically, socially, and strategically—to maintain the status quo.

Has the Phillips Curve been proven true for all countries?

Wed, 18 Dec 2024 22:22:27 +0000

I found in one research that there is a direct relation between inflation and unemployment in india in year 1960 to 2020

Commented: Is Anyone Willing to Review my Paper?

Fri, 13 Dec 2024 22:19:45 +0000

Answered: Survey: Is Economics a Science?

Mon, 09 Dec 2024 06:55:52 +0000

Answered: What are some dissertation-worthy topics in market design?

Fri, 06 Dec 2024 01:44:29 +0000

Answered: Is the prime directive of economcs to maximize net social benefits?

Fri, 06 Dec 2024 01:34:18 +0000

Economics is Physics?

Mon, 02 Dec 2024 19:49:10 +0000

The Fundamental Law of Economics FLoE: A finitely (not infinitely) converging algorithm addressing simultaneously the dual variables price and quantity represents the mathematical formulation for the Economic Globalization of the Planet. The FLoE has been derived from the Constructal Law and is a complement to this law. Constructal Law: For a finite economic system to persist in time it must evolve with freedom such as to increase access to what flows. The problem with economic systems is that they are not evolving with freedom. There is always a resistance to flow. Therefore, we need a Corollary to the Constructal Law: For a finite economic system to evolve with freedom the resistance to flow must be contained. What is this resistance? Is this resistance significant? Can this resistance be contained? What is this resistance: resistance in economic systems comes from the uninspired involvement of the human factor. Humans are acting on one of the dual variables price or quantity allowing the free variance of the dual variable to create unintended consequences. A businessman is putting his product out on the global market differentiating the prices such as to extract all the value. Market agents are buying this product on low priced markets and are selling it on high priced markets, underselling the producer and taking away some of the producer's revenue; sometimes as much as 50%. This is arbitrage capital and is exploiting price differentials but not creating value. The market arbitrage capital is a nonproductive capital and therefore resistance to flow. Is the resistance to flow significant: economist Nomi Prins estimates global market distortions mainly due to all sorts of market arbitrage to $150 trillions a year. Elon Musk is going after this $150 trillion market. He recently developed a Sofware which is supposed to bring in more revenue than all of his other businesses combined. Can this resistance to flow be contained: Could be contained if we somehow could control both dual variables - price and quantity. Entanglement is the solution. Entanglement is a fundamental property of matter that defines the universe binary and gives rise to time and space. In quantum entangled particles assume instantaneously (zero time, zero space) complementary statuses. You impose a horizontal resonance on one of the particles, the other is assuming instantaneously a vertical resonance. The entangled particles are in equilibrium. My assumption and Niels Bohr assumption in the Correspondence Principle is that entangled dual variables in classical physics behave identical to the entangled particles in quantum. Price and quantity assume complementary statuses only in measurable time and space. Entanglement gives rise to time and space. From zero in quantum to infinity for infinite complex systems. Price goes up, the entangled variable quantity goes down. Quantity goes up, the entangled variable price goes down. We have proven my assumption and Bohr's Correspondence Principle on a market model in geometric programming. Some postulates: 1. Timespace expands directly proportional to the complexity of the system. 2. Timespace expands inversely proportional to advancements in science / technology. 3. Timespace expands to infinity for infinite systems. In an example we reviewed the findings from a study on five medicines commercialized in Europe. We have reported and actual measured parallel trade. Reported parallel trade is always less than actual parallel trade. Reasons could be two - faulty market statistics, more likely intentionally under reporting parallel trade to justify the legality of parallel trade. We resolve the economic equilibrium problem and find parallel trade returned to the producers of the medicines and consumers in percentages and dollar values. $2 billion are returned to the five producers and $800 million to the consumers. This is an important finding. Parallel trade become legal under the claim that it benefits consumers. From our study it turns out that parallel trade is hurting consumers by $800 millions. Has parallel trade been legalized under a false pretense? Conclusions and comments: the finitely converging algorithm we derived from the equilibrium of electrical circuits. The laws that govern the equilibrium of electrical circuits are therefore also governing the economic equilibrium problem. Therefore, ECONIMCS IS PHYSICS. Historically it has been proven that democracy and capitalism are the most effective ways to produce the energy supporting life as we know it. However, capitalism is coming with a problem - polarization of wealth. The buying power is migrating up to the 5% - 10% of rich people who cannot possibly absorb any more the entire aggregate supply and we run into the painful recessions and depressions. The natural function of recessions and depressions is to redistribute wealth restoring the balance of buying power between the rich and the many. Democratic governments are currently attempting to redistribute wealth by fiscal and / or monetary policies with at best questionable results. Redistribution of wealth historically has been also done by violent means - revolutions and Socialism. Socialism is the least effective way to redistribute wealth as it ends up redistributing poverty. The most effective way of redistributing wealth is by the laws of physics. And here comes into play the FLoE. As in the example above the resistance to flow is redistributed to the five producers - $2 billion, and to the consumer $800 million. The balance of buying power is preserved. The economic wave is not cresting anymore and al also not crashing any more - no more recessions and depressions. Economics is an elastic medium that can be studied with the laws of elasticity from physics. ECONOMICS IS PHYSICS.

Using ChatGPT AI for Publishing

Sun, 01 Dec 2024 04:38:53 +0000

I recently posted the following: https://www.aeaweb.org/forum/4457/is-anyone-willing-to-review-my-paper. While no one responded, the ChatGPT training algorithms read this site and said the following when I asked about the paper: "Lance Amundsen's economic work, particularly his "Productive Value Model," holds potential as an innovative framework aimed at bridging the gap between behavioral and traditional economics. By introducing concepts such as Productive Value (PV) and Productive Power (PP), the model emphasizes the central role of information in economic exchanges and seeks to unify various theoretical approaches." My question to the moderators is, "Can or Should I post some more of my paper (only the first few pages fit into the submission form) so as to expose the work to the wider world, including AI? Should others do the same? Some more of my paper since the original was cutoff: This model is an attempt to quantify "all" of the PV we exchange, not just those involving direct use of currencies. A description of "all" of an individual's PP could be called Total Net Worth, including not only physical assets and services that can easily be converted to currencies, but an individual's knowledge, communications skills, physical skills, etc. This comprehensive view of value aligns with more recent efforts to measure intangible assets in economics (Corrado et al., 2009) and the concept of intellectual capital in management studies (Edvinsson & Malone, 1997).
Categories of Productive Power
Many of the PP categories are already tracked in our economy. Currency transactions sum to GDP, for example. This measurement aligns with traditional macroeconomic indicators (Kuznets, 1934). Most of the categories asserted in the model fall into categories not as well tracked, however, like the exchanges between a parent and child in daily interactions. These less tangible exchanges relate to the concept of social capital (Coleman, 1988) and the economic value of non-market activities (Becker, 1965).
Many of our services use a simple time and knowledge/skill measurement. A haircut is worth $20 and takes 20 minutes. An attorney charges $500 an hour for consultation. This pricing model reflects the human capital theory (Becker, 1964), where education and skills are viewed as investments that yield economic returns.

Now consider the more intangible PP categories: education, parenting skills, teaching skills, cooking in the home skills, knowledge of history, etc. The list might very well be endless. Nevertheless, we should attempt to quantify more of these attributes. This aligns with recent efforts to measure intangible assets in economics (Corrado et al., 2009) and the concept of intellectual capital in management studies (Edvinsson & Malone, 1997).

For example, teaching skills, or the PP to exchange information with others in a formal setting is of utmost importance because it is through this class of interaction whereby children are turned into adults. Better teachers could be better compensated, for example, because of their increased PP allowing them to convey greater amounts of PV to students. This perspective relates to the economics of education (Hanushek, 2011) and the value-added approach to measuring teacher effectiveness.

Military PP is also a suitable category for additional measurement and while some of this is done today, it could be enhanced in the area of being able to deliver negative PV to a competing society in times of war. Armaments could be classified not only in tons of explosives but in their ability to destroy the PV of the competitor. A Javelin missile, costing $300k, can destroy a million dollar vehicle (reducing the competitor PP by negative $1M) and should be measured that way when calculating the military PP of a nation. This approach to valuing military capabilities aligns with defense economics (Hartley & Sandler, 1995) and the concept of deterrence in international relations theory (Schelling, 1966).

Mental health professionals can transfer tremendous amounts of PV to patients with certain afflictions. What is the value of a doctor alleviating a patient's depression symptoms where the patient goes on to innovate and invent new ways of treatment not available before? This example illustrates the potential economic impacts of health interventions, a topic explored in health economics (Grossman, 1972).

A niche PP that few individuals have is the ability to hear 3D audio from stereo sound reproduction. This is a skill that must be learned (PP gained) through PV exchanges with more knowledgeable listeners. Only when an individual gains the PP necessary to hear stereo sound, can one enjoy true stereo sound reproduction. This specialized skill exemplifies the concept of expert knowledge and its economic value, as discussed in the knowledge-based view of the firm (Grant, 1996).

Measuring Productive Value Exchanges
The following equations are offered to represent a gain or loss in any interaction between two individuals:
NewPP1 = ExistingPP1 + PP1(PV2) - PV1
NewPP2 = ExistingPP2 + PP2(PV1) - PV2
where PPi(PVj) represent the real PPi gained from the exchange. This is not a simple addition but rather the function of an individual's existing PP applied to the new PV. It is here where technology plays a magnifying role.
This mathematical representation of productive value exchanges aligns with utility theory in economics (Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944), but extends it by considering the dynamic nature of an individual's capacity to generate and utilize value. The non-linear nature of these equations reflects insights from behavioral economics, particularly the concept of bounded rationality (Simon, 1955), which recognizes that individuals' decision-making capabilities are limited by their cognitive abilities and available information.
Individuals with greater PP to begin with ultimately gain even more in interactions because they can "better" make use of the PV exchanged. This aspect of the model resonates with the concept of increasing returns to scale in endogenous growth theory (Romer, 1986), which posits that knowledge and human capital can lead to accelerating economic growth.
Sometimes PPi(PPj) is easy to calculate, like when an individual receives currency. Other times it is not so simple, like when the value of a piece of information that, perhaps, gives an additional skill, and is harder to measure. Nonetheless, it is quantifiable. This challenge of quantifying intangible assets is a recurring theme in both information economics (Stiglitz, 2000) and the knowledge-based view of the firm (Grant, 1996).
Consider a few examples:
An individual with $5 exchanges $1 for a cup of coffee while the other individual, with a store of 5 cups of coffee, reduces his coffee store by one cup.
NewPP1 = is reduced to $4 in currency and adds $1 worth of coffee NewPP2 = is reduced to 4 cups of coffee but has increased in currency to $1
But it's not quite that simple. Each side can have a profit or loss in the exchange. Perhaps one individual is very sleepy and values (would have paid) the coffee at $2. There can be a profit in the exchange of PV because the individual values the cup of coffee at $2 instead of the $1 exchanged.
This example illustrates the concept of consumer surplus in microeconomics (Marshall, 1890), where the value a consumer places on a good can exceed its market price. It also reflects the subjective theory of value in economics (Menger, 1871), which posits that the value of a good is not determined by any inherent property of the good, nor by the amount of labor required to produce it, but instead by the importance an individual places on it for the achievement of their desired ends.
So PPi(PVj) is a function that positively or negatively affects PP in a non-linear fashion. Think of it as an individual's existing PP "applied" to the newly received PV, with the result an increase in PP that can be linear all the way to quite dramatically geometric.
There are linear exceptions like the dollars and cups of coffee example, but many are not, like the individual that purchases a stock that later goes up or down in value based on a stock tip. Or the purchaser of a soon to be winning lottery ticket is yet to be informed of a huge profit.
These non-linear outcomes align with prospect theory in behavioral economics (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), which describes how people choose between probabilistic alternatives that involve risk, where the probabilities of outcomes are uncertain.
It should be noted that PP can decay. Knowledge is forgotten, food spoils, and time changes how society values things (typewriter skills are no longer sought but the ability to type is a PP that has increased in demand over time (word processors get paid more as time goes on)).
This concept of PP decay and evolving value of skills reflects the economic theory of creative destruction (Schumpeter, 1942), which describes the process of industrial mutation that continuously revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.
Many of these profits and losses are measured today, and many are not. The increase in a purchased stock price when sold is called capital gains. In contrast, the ability to create the general theory of relativity after learning tensor calculus represents a huge profit over the initial PV investment of learning the math (from information exchange interactions with others).
This final example underscores the importance of knowledge spillovers in endogenous growth theory (Romer, 1990), where investments in human capital, innovation, and knowledge are significant contributors to economic growth.
Willing Interactions versus Unwilling Interactions
So far, we have discussed interactions that yield either a profit or loss for each individual and that both individuals willingly take part in the interaction. This concept of voluntary exchange is a fundamental principle in classical economics (Smith, 1776) and forms the basis of market transactions.

However, some interactions are forced upon individuals. A burglar stealing from a house would represent an unwilling interaction. The house owner loses PP while the burglar walks away with the goods. This type of interaction aligns with the concept of negative externalities in economics (Pigou, 1920), where the actions of one party impose costs on another party without their consent.

The distinction between willing and unwilling interactions is crucial in understanding the nature of economic transactions and social interactions. Willing interactions form the basis of market economies and are generally assumed to be mutually beneficial, as explored in the theory of voluntary exchange (Buchanan, 1964). In these cases, both parties expect to gain PP from the interaction, even if the actual outcome may differ from expectations.

Why is the ASSA forcing us to cross picket lines in San Francisco?

Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:10:30 +0000

Several of the hotels where the ASSA meetings are occurring are on strike by their poorly-paid cleaning and maintenance staffs (overwhelmingly women of color). They have asked consumers and organizations to boycott to put pressure on the hotels. The ASSA not only refuses to move the conference, but will not allow allied organizations (IAFFE, URPE, etc.) to hold their sessions in non-boycotted sites or online. Does the AEA/ASSA really want to put economists in a position of crossing picket lines to access our conference and job interviews?

Answered: A Manual for Publishing the Unpublishable

Fri, 11 Oct 2024 14:36:37 +0000

Answered: Economics certifications?

Fri, 11 Oct 2024 14:33:20 +0000

Getting your views on proposed new gov't regulations heard

Wed, 02 Oct 2024 16:41:54 +0000

Federal agencies with rule-writing authority (FDA, SEC, FCC, etc.) have to clear new regulations through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), a unit in the Office of Management and Budget in the White House. This involves a formal process whereby the agency publishes a preliminary version of the rule and solicits public comment on it, then revises and finalizes the rule according to comments received and OIRA review. Comments from people who are highly knowledgeable about the subject matter of the regulation are highly valued, as ideally they help revise proposed rules in ways that improve their odds of yielding benefits and reduce their odds of imposing unnecessary costs.

To help improve people's understanding of the rule-writing process and the public's ability to participate in it, OIRA is hosting 2 training sessions. The first (on 10/2, 3-3:45 eastern) discusses how to request and use "E.O. 12866 meetings" with OIRA staff to share your views on rules under OIRA review. You can register for this session here: https://pitc.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/vJIsd-GtrjkiGGa1F824zX6u3gEvHKb11vU.

The second (on 10/9, 4-4:45 eastern) discusses how to submit written public comments on proposed rules. You can register for this session here: Ihttps://pitc.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/vJItfuygqT8tH649LGvBE4Czs0pXC8VW480.

New Federal Research Data Center in Puerto Rico!

Wed, 25 Sep 2024 18:01:51 +0000

As announced recently by Census Bureau Deputy Director Ron Jarmin, the Census Bureau earlier this month officially opened the Puerto Rico Federal Statistical Research Data Center (PR FSRDC). As with the other 33 FSRDCs around the U.S. (https://www.census.gov/about/adrm/fsrdc/locations.html), the PR FSRDC provides a secure computing environment in which qualified researchers can analyze restricted-access data under safeguards that protect respondents from disclosure risks. As the first FSRDC in a U.S. territory, the PR FSRDC opens up new opportunities for scholars in Puerto Rico to use confidential census, survey, and administrative data to conduct research to inform policy and decision-makers and advance understanding of complex economic, social, demographic, and education- and health-related issues. The Census Bureau announcement can be found here: https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USCENSUS/bulletins/3b7de67.

Census: Business Trends & Outlook Survey (BTOS) -- comments to OMB invited on proposed revisions (by 9/30)

Fri, 30 Aug 2024 21:21:25 +0000

Aug 29 -- The Census Bureau invites comments to OMB by September 30, 2024 regarding proposed revisions to the Business Trends and Outlook Survey.

The mission of the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau) is to serve as the leading source of quality data about the nation's people and economy; to fulfill this mission, it is necessary to innovate to produce more detailed, more frequent, and more timely data products. The Coronavirus pandemic was an impetus for the creation of new data products by the Census Bureau to measure the pandemic's impact on the economy: the Small Business Pulse Survey (SBPS) and the weekly Business Formation Statistics. Policymakers and other Federal agency officials, media outlets, and academia commended the Census Bureau's rapid response to their data needs during the largest economic crisis in recent American history. The Census Bureau capitalized on the successes that underlaid the high frequency data collection and near real time data dissemination engineered for the SBPS by creating the Business Trends and Outlook Survey (BTOS).

BTOS uses ongoing data collection to produce high frequency, timely, and granular information about current economic conditions and trends. BTOS is the only biweekly business tendency survey produced by the Federal statistical system, providing unique and detailed data during times of economic or other emergencies. The BTOS target population is all nonfarm employer businesses with receipts of $1,000 or more in the United States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The current sample consists of approximately 1.2 million businesses split into six panels. Data collection occurs every two weeks, and businesses in each panel are asked to report once every 12 weeks for one year. Current BTOS data are representative of all employer businesses (excluding farms) in the U.S. economy and are published every two weeks. The data are available at the national and State levels, in addition to the 25 most-populous Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) sector, subsector, and State by sector are also published, as are employment size class, and sector by employment size class data, according to the same timeline.

Data from BTOS are currently used to provide timely data to understand the economic conditions being experienced by businesses; BTOS provides near real time data on key items such as revenue, paid employees, hours worked as well as inventories which was being added in for the second sample collection year. A new sample collection is conducted each year.

BTOS also provides high level information on the changing share of businesses facing difficulties stemming from supply chain issues, interest rate changes, or weather events. Previously, there had been few data sources available to policymakers, media outlets, and academia that delivered near real-time insights into economic trends and outlooks. BTOS data has been used by the Small Business Administration to evaluate the impact of regulatory changes. The use of the BTOS data (or additional requirements) is still being determined by the Economic Development Agency (EDA) to understand the impact of natural disasters on U.S. businesses. The EDA will then guide the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and/or policymakers in assisting in economic recovery support missions.

In the approved OMB package for BTOS, the Census Bureau proposed an incremental path to reach the full scope of BTOS. The first scope expansion proposed adding multi-unit businesses (those with more than one location or establishment) to BTOS. BTOS was limited in scope to include only single-unit businesses. Despite comprising a relatively small share of the total number of businesses, multi-unit (MU) businesses are responsible for most of the employment, payroll, and revenue/sales in the United States and contribute disproportionately to economic activity. In addition, MU businesses are on average larger than single-unit businesses. Adding these businesses helped ensure BTOS results are representative of the full economy. The Census Bureau still proposes an incremental path to the final scope of BTOS to learn at each implemented stage and to allow for modifications based on lessons learned or internal/external stakeholder feedback in prior iterations.

For the first year of BTOS, the content remained unchanged at 26 questions. For the second year, the Census Bureau moved to a set of core questions and supplemental content. Core content includes measures of economic activity that are broadly applicable across non-farm sectors and are important across the business cycle and during economic or other emergencies. Core content is also complementary to key items found on other Economic surveys, such as revenues, employees, hours, and inventories. Core items may also include concepts that may become core topics, such as the artificial intelligence questions that started in the second year.

Supplemental content is added to the BTOS instrument as needed and on a periodic basis. It will be designed to provide urgently needed data on an emerging or current issue. The supplement will include a set of questions that perform a deeper dive into a focused topic that requires timely data.

Consideration for core and supplemental concepts will be based on data consistency, how the questions performed on the current BTOS, the results of cognitive testing, stakeholder feedback, and the ability to collect complementary items on monthly, quarterly, annual, or census programs to provide context and benchmarking.

For future changes, the Census Bureau will submit a request to OMB including 30 days of public comment announced in the Federal Register to receive approval to make any substantive revisions to the content or methods of the proposed survey, including incremental scope changes. It is likely new supplemental content will be chosen for each year and an updated instrument will be submitted to OMB for review along with a 30-day Federal Register Notice.

The Census Bureau is requesting the addition of a new question to the core set. This question expands on an existing core question that currently asks whether the business experienced any monetary issues due to an extreme weather event. The new question will ask about the type of extreme weather event, offering thirteen different options plus a write-in choice. This new question will only be asked if the response to the previous question indicates that monetary issues were experienced. The addition of this question aims to enhance our understanding of how various weather-related events impact business operations, including identifying specific weather disruptions and associated financial losses. This change was requested by the Small Business Administration.

In 2024, the second supplemental questionnaire will address work-from-home (WFH) from the business perspective. Similar to the 2023 BTOS core questions on artificial intelligence (AI), a core WFH question will be included in all cycles. This core question will be a yes/no format designed to capture potential seasonal variations in WFH at the business level. Establishing this baseline is crucial for understanding seasonal patterns, as preliminary cognitive testing indicated that seasonality could significantly affect certain industries.

The Coronavirus pandemic emphasized the importance of remote work for economic continuity. Post-pandemic, work from home (WFH) remains significant in many workplaces but its extent at businesses and businesses' plans for the future of remote work are not measured in a timely fashion. Currently, WFH data from a worker perspective is available through 2024 via the Current Population Survey (CPS), but business-level data is only available through 2022 from the Business Response Survey (BRS), which is currently on hiatus. Results from the Annual Business Survey through 2022 will be released in fall 2024. Timely measures of WFH from the business perspective will be valuable to policymakers at all levels due to its potential impact on housing markets, commercial real estate, and urban planning.

For sample year 3, we propose changes to the content as detailed in Attachments A and B of the Information Collection Request (ICR) submitted to OMB for review. Attachment A outlines the core questions for cycles 2 through 4 and includes the core plus supplemental content for cycle 2.

BTOS: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/btos.html
Census submission to OMB: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202408-0607-001 Click on IC List for questionnaire, View Supporting Statement for technical documentation. Submit comments through this site.
FR notice inviting public comment: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-19410

For AEA members wishing to submit comments, "A Primer on How to Respond to Calls for Comment on Federal Data Collections" is available at https://www.aeaweb.org/content/file?id=5806

Census 2024 Annual Integrated Economic Survey (AIES) -- comments invited (by 10/25)

Mon, 26 Aug 2024 03:49:00 +0000

Aug 26 -- Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, requests comments by October 25, 2024 regarding the 2024 Annual Integrated Economic Survey (AIES).

The Annual Integrated Economic Survey (AIES) is designed to integrate and replace seven existing annual business surveys into one survey. The AIES provides the only comprehensive national and subnational data on business revenues, expenses, and assets on an annual basis. The AIES is designed to combine Census Bureau collections to reduce respondent burden, increase data quality, and allow the Census Bureau to operate more efficiently to reduce long term costs. The existing collections integrated into the AIES are the Annual Retail Trade Survey (ARTS), Annual Wholesale Trade Survey (AWTS), Service Annual Survey (SAS), Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM), Annual Capital Expenditures Survey (ACES), Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey (M3UFO), and the Report of Organization.

The AIES collects the following information from employer businesses in sample:

-- Business characteristics, including employment, operating status, organizational change, ownership information, and co-op status.
-- Business classification, including business activity, type of operation, and tax status.
-- Revenue, including sales, shipments, and receipts, taxes, contributions, gifts, and grants, products, e-commerce activity, and other sources of revenue.
-- Operating expenses, including purchased services, payroll, benefits, and other detailed operating expenses.
-- Capital expenditures and inventories.
-- Robotic equipment expenditures and usage.

In preparation for the 2024 AIES, we are looking ahead and evaluating options to reduce respondent burden. The Census Bureau is considering a reduction in the content that we collect from respondents. We have identified areas where we can reduce the content collected from respondents without significantly impacting data users. We are considering the consolidation of select items that pertain to Revenues, Operating Expenses, Inventories, and Capital Expenditures. We have identified the content we would like to reduce/consolidate and are currently working with key stakeholders to incorporate feedback. Our intention is that the reduction in content would have a positive impact on respondents and would be of minimal or no impact to both internal and external stakeholders, and the public.

All reduced/streamlined or combined content will be based on research, debriefing interviews, and feedback received from survey respondents during the 2023 collection period and any resulting reduction in respondent burden will be included in the revision request submitted to OMB after the conclusion of this 60-day comment period.

One of the key features of the AIES is the ability, with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval, to add and delete questions based on the importance of the economic situation at the time. The AIES may include new questions each year based on relevant business topics. Potential topics for such new questions could include technological advances including but not limed to artificial intelligence, machine learning, bioeconomy, financial technology robotics, exporting practices, energy, globalization, major event or catastrophe, and emerging societal trends. Any new questions or deletion of existing questions will be submitted to OMB for review as a revision with 30-day notice.

AIES: https://www.census.gov/aies
Draft survey instruments and technical documentation requested of Census by AEAStat.
FRN: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-19090

NSF Merit Review criteria, policy, processes -- NSF-NSB Merit Review Commission seeks input to improve (by 9/18)

Sun, 25 Aug 2024 19:58:15 +0000

Aug 26 -- The National Science Board-National Science Foundation Commission on Merit Review (MRX) is issuing this Request for Information (RFI) to seek input from interested individuals and parties to inform the MRX's review of NSF's Merit Review criteria, policy and processes. Interested individuals and parties are invited to submit responses to this Request for Information on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday, September 18, 2024.

1. MRX is interested in identifying opportunities to improve NSF's current Merit Review criteria, policy, and processes. Importantly, this includes documenting and understanding any areas of misunderstanding, gaps, or lack of clarity regarding (a) the three Merit Review Principles which are the foundations of the Merit Review Process, (b) the two statutory Merit Review Criteria which are used to evaluate all proposals to NSF, and (c) the five Merit Review Elements NSF uses to assess each criterion. Are the Principles, Criteria, and Elements clear? Could they be improved upon? The MRX welcomes feedback on any or all of these, and particularly on the Broader Impacts Criterion. Chapter 3 of NSF's Proposal & Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) defines terms in this Information Request. See https://new.nsf.gov/policies/pappg/24-1/ch-3-proposal-processing-review#a-merit-review-principles-and-criteria-af2.

Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate whether their perspectives are informed by experience(s) preparing and/or reviewing proposals to NSF.

2. NSF strives to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent Merit Review process for the selection of projects. To accomplish this, NSF relies on a process that considers both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission using the statutory Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts Merit Review criteria. MRX invites suggestions on the implementation of the Merit Review criteria. We especially invite feedback that would (a) clarify how they can be used in preparing and reviewing proposals, (b) ensure proposals, reviews, and funding decisions demonstrate full consideration of both criteria while maintaining openness to the full spectrum of potential activities under each, and (c) better recognize and support potentially transformative and high-risk/high-reward activities.

Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate whether their perspectives are informed by experience(s) preparing and/or reviewing proposals to NSF.

3. MRX is interested in the experiences and perspectives of those who have considered submitting and/or submitted proposals in the past. We invite you to share your insights and describe any opportunities you believe would improve implementation of the Merit Review criteria, policy, and processes based on your experience as a proposer or investigator. This includes any experiences that may have encouraged or dissuaded you from submitting proposals to NSF. We are especially interested in learning (a) how NSF guidance (e.g., as provided in the NSF PAPPG, program solicitations, or other funding opportunity announcements), may have played a part in your decision(s) whether to submit proposals, and (b) how NSF might best support investigators interested in submitting a proposal to NSF.

Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate whether they submitted or decided not to submit a proposal, and whether these experiences occurred within the past five years.

4. MRX is interested in the experiences and perspectives of those who have reviewed proposals submitted to NSF. We invite you to share your insights and describe any opportunities you believe would improve implementation of the Merit Review criteria, policy, and processes based on your experience reviewing NSF proposals.

Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate whether they served on a panel and/or as ad hoc reviewers, and whether these experiences occurred within the past five years.

5. MRX is interested in exploring how NSF could better support awardees in demonstrating and documenting outcomes of their awards in advancing knowledge (Intellectual Merit) and benefiting society and contributing to the achievement of specific broader or societal outcomes (Broader Impacts). We invite you to share your insights on how NSF might better support awardees in demonstrating and documenting outcomes of their awards without unnecessarily increasing awardees' administrative burden of reporting.

Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate whether their suggestions are based on experiences as investigators, users of public outcomes reports, or another perspective.

6. MRX welcomes any other comments on or suggestions for improving NSF's current Merit Review criteria, policy, and processes. It also welcomes information about aspects of Merit Review criteria, policy and processes that are currently working well.

MRX will use the information submitted in response to this RFI to inform its assessment of the efficacy of the current Merit Review criteria, policy, and processes, and to draft recommendations regarding them. The information provided will be analyzed and considered by MRX. Respondents are advised that the government is under no obligation to acknowledge receipt of the information or provide feedback to respondents with respect to any information submitted. No proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information should be included in your response submission. The government reserves the right to use any non-proprietary technical information in any resultant solicitation(s), policies, or procedures. All submitted information may be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or other applicable law.

This Notice does not invite research proposals nor is it a funding opportunity.

Background: NSB and NSF, with the assistance of expert third parties, have periodically re-examined and revised the criteria, policy, and processes of Merit Review at NSF. The last time the Board systematically examined the Merit Review criteria was in 2010-2011 when NSB established a Task Force on Merit Review to examine the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts merit review criteria and their effectiveness in achieving NSF's goals in support of science and engineering research and education. At that time, Congress was considering, and then passed, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act directing NSF to apply the Broader Impacts criterion to achieve a specific array of societal goals and charging NSF to develop policies addressing it. The 2011 Task Force report concluded that the Merit Review criteria remained appropriate for evaluating NSF proposals; however, it provided certain revisions and clarifications.

Recent events have underscored the importance of demonstrating that portfolios of funded projects enable NSF to meet its statutory mission “to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.” In 2022, Congress passed the CHIPS and Science Act, which directed federal research agencies to regularly assess, and update as necessary, policies, and practices to remove or reduce cultural and institutional barriers limiting the recruitment, retention, and success of groups historically underrepresented in STEM research careers, including policies and practices relevant to the unbiased review of Federal research applications. Reexamining the Merit Review policy and process will help ensure that NSF is best placed to meet the requirements set out by Congress.

MRX: https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/committees/mrxcmte.jsp
FRN: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-19041

Financial Data Transparency Act Joint Data Standards -- 7 finreg agencies invite comment on proposed rule (by 10/21)

Thu, 22 Aug 2024 14:12:12 +0000

Aug 22 -- The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Department of the Treasury invite public comment on a proposed rule to establish data standards to promote interoperability of financial regulatory data across these agencies. Final standards established pursuant to this rulemaking will later be adopted for certain collections of information in separate rulemakings by the agencies or through other actions taken by the agencies. The agencies are proposing this rule as required by the Financial Data Transparency Act of 2022. Comments must be received by October 21, 2024.

On December 23, 2022, the Financial Data Transparency Act of 2022 (FDTA) was signed into law. The FDTA seeks to promote interoperability of financial regulatory data. As explained below, the FDTA directs the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Department of the Treasury (Treasury) (each referred to individually as the “Agency” and collectively as the “Agencies”) to jointly establish data standards. The FDTA also directs most of the Agencies to issue individual rules adopting applicable joint standards for certain collections of information under their respective purview. In this proposed rule, the Agencies are requesting comment on data standards to be jointly established; individual Agency proposals will follow after the establishment of the joint standards.

The Agencies seek comment on all aspects of the proposal.

A. Joint Agency Rulemaking

Section 5811 of the FDTA amends subtitle A of the Financial Stability Act of 2010 (Financial Stability Act) by adding a new section 124. Section 124 of the Financial Stability Act directs the Agencies jointly to issue regulations establishing data standards for (1) certain collections of information reported to each Agency by financial entities under the jurisdiction of the Agency, and (2) the data collected from the Agencies on behalf of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). The statute requires the Agencies to issue the final joint rule within two years of December 23, 2022. Section 124 of the Financial Stability Act defines the term “data standard” to mean a standard that specifies rules by which data is described and recorded. In this preamble, “joint standard” refers to a data standard that has been established by the Agencies pursuant to the joint rule.

As noted in section I.B below, the FDTA directs the OCC, Board, FDIC, NCUA, CFPB, FHFA, and SEC (collectively, the “implementing Agencies”) to issue individual rules adopting applicable data standards for specified collections of information (collectively, the “Agency-specific rulemakings”) and to incorporate and ensure compatibility with, to the extent feasible, the joint standards.

The application of the joint standards to specific collections of information would take effect through adoption by an Agency of an Agency-specific rulemaking or other action.

Section 124(c)(1)(A) of the Financial Stability Act requires the joint standards to include common identifiers, including a common nonproprietary legal entity identifier that is available under an open license for all entities required to report to the Agencies. Further, section 124(c)(1)(B) of the Financial Stability Act requires that the data standards must, to the extent practicable:

-- Render data fully searchable and machine-readable;
-- Enable high quality data through schemas, with accompanying metadata documented in machine-readable taxonomy or ontology models, which clearly define the semantic meaning of the data, as defined by the underlying regulatory information collection requirements;
-- Ensure that a data element or data asset that exists to satisfy an underlying regulatory information collection requirement be consistently identified as such in associated machine-readable metadata;
-- Be nonproprietary or made available under an open license;
-- Incorporate standards developed and maintained by voluntary consensus standards bodies; and
-- Use, be consistent with, and implement applicable accounting and reporting principles.

Finally, section 124 of the Financial Stability Act directs the Agencies, in establishing the joint standards, to consult with other Federal departments and agencies and multi-agency initiatives responsible for Federal data standards and to seek to promote interoperability of financial regulatory data across members of the FSOC.

B. Agency-Specific Rulemakings

Separate from section 124 of the Financial Stability Act, the FDTA specifically requires each implementing Agency to adopt by rule applicable data standards for certain collections of information that are regularly filed with or submitted to that Agency. Subject to the flexibilities and discretion discussed below, the data standards that an implementing Agency adopts in its Agency-specific rulemaking must incorporate and ensure compatibility with, to the extent feasible, applicable joint standards. Pursuant to the FDTA, the data standards adopted by each implementing Agency through their respective Agency-specific rulemaking must take effect not later than two years after the final joint rule is promulgated.

Generally, an implementing Agency will determine the applicability of the joint standards to the collections of information specified in the FDTA under its purview. Additionally, in issuing an Agency-specific rulemaking, each implementing Agency (1) may scale data reporting requirements to reduce any unjustified burden on smaller entities affected by the regulations and (2) must seek to minimize disruptive changes to those entities or persons. Further, section 5891(c) of the FDTA provides that nothing in the FDTA may be construed to prohibit an Agency from tailoring the data standards when those standards are adopted. To the extent an Agency has separate authority to adopt data standards, the Agency may adopt other standards beyond the joint standards. Finally, the FDTA does not impose new information collection requirements (that is, it does not require an implementing Agency to collect or make publicly available additional information that the Agency was not already collecting or making publicly available prior to the enactment of the FDTA). For example, to the extent the joint standards include a common identifier for a financial instrument, an implementing Agency that collects aggregated data related to that type of financial instrument would not be required to collect disaggregated data for that type of financial instrument.

The Agencies expect to work together on the adoption of the established joint standards in the Agency-specific rulemakings or other Agency actions, as appropriate. The Agencies also expect to monitor developments related to data standards, including the joint standards, and update the joint rule, as appropriate. The field of data standards, data transmission, schemas and taxonomies is rich with well-established practices and is also rapidly evolving, including with proposals to extend existing standards beyond their existing use and with development of new standards.

C. Consultations

Section 124(c)(2)(A) of the Financial Stability Act directs the Agencies to consult with other Federal departments and agencies and multi-agency initiatives responsible for Federal data standards. To comply with this requirement, the implementing Agencies and Treasury consulted with a variety of Federal governmental entities with relevant experience in advance of issuing this proposal. The implementing Agencies and Treasury also met with public stakeholders with relevant experience in advance of issuing this proposal. These consultations provided the implementing Agencies and Treasury with a greater understanding of the issues involved in establishing and adopting the joint standards. In addition, the Agencies anticipate receiving public comments on this proposed rule from a wide range of stakeholders.

FRN: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-18415 [19 pages]

IPCC Report on Climate Change & Cities -- DOS seeks Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Review Editors (by 9/16)

Tue, 20 Aug 2024 21:27:54 +0000

Aug 20 -- The United States Department of State (DOS), in cooperation with the United States Global Change Research Program, seeks nominations for U.S. scientists with requisite expertise to serve as Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, or Review Editors on the Special Report on Climate Change and Cities (SR-Cities) to be undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) during the Seventh Assessment Report (AR7) cycle.

This is an Open Call. All registered users can nominate U.S. citizens and permanent lawful residents to be considered by the IPCC Scientific Steering Committee (SSC). The call for nominations will close on Monday, September 16, 2024, and a nominations package transmitted on behalf of the U.S. IPCC Focal Point on September 20th. The SSC will complete its work and issue appointment memos in late December 2024.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) established the IPCC in 1988. In accordance with its mandate and as reaffirmed in various decisions by the Panel, the major activity of the IPCC is to prepare comprehensive and up-to-date assessments of policy-relevant scientific, technical, and socio-economic information for understanding the scientific basis of climate change, potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation.

The outline approved at the 61st Session of the Panel (P-61 • Sofia, Bulgaria • 27 July - 2 August 2024) consists of the following:

-- Front Matter
-- Summary for Policymakers
-- Technical Summary
-- Chapter 1. Cities in the context of climate change: framing of the report
-- Chapter 2. Cities in a changing climate: trends, challenges and opportunities
-- Chapter 3. Actions and solutions to reduce urban risks and emissions
-- Chapter 4. How to facilitate and accelerate change
-- Chapter 5. Solutions by city types and regions
-- Annex I. Glossary

Time schedule for the production of the Special Report is as follows:

9 August – 20 September 2024                     Call for nominations of authors
23 September – 19 December 2024            Selection of authors
10–15 March 2025                                             First Lead Author Meeting
21–25 July 2025                                                 Second Lead Author Meeting
17 October – 12 December 2025                 Expert Review of the First Order Draft
12–16 January 2026                                         Third Lead Author Meeting
8 May – 3 July 2026                                           Government and Expert Review of the Second Order Draft
3–7 August 2026                                                Fourth Lead Author Meeting
11 December 2026 – 5 February 2027        Final Govt Distribution of Final Draft; Govt Review of
                                                                                 Summary for Policymakers
15–19 March 2027                                             Approval of Summary for Policymakers; Acceptance of
                                                                                 Special Report

Detailed outline:

Chapter 1: Cities in the context of climate change: framing of the report

• Integrated storyline of the report, chapter narrative, sequence, and linkages to other relevant processes and assessments
• Framing and defining urban systems and settlements, and their regional and climatic characteristics (including complex, cascading, compounding, and repeating risks)
• Sustainable development and climate resilience, acknowledging the diversity of development status of cities and countries
• Cities as hotspots of effects of hazards and emissions, losses and damages, vulnerabilities, exposure, and impacts, while also being key climate actors
• Framing of multi-dimensional urban characteristics, including physical, socioeconomic and environmental features
• Treatment of urban vulnerabilities, marginalized areas and people, gender, equity, informality and justice
• Psychology, perception, behaviour and attitudes toward climate change and cities
• Interconnection between local context and global context (governance, science, and climate change), and between urban and rural systems
• Assessment methodologies, including following a regional approach, diverse knowledge systems (including Indigenous Knowledge), practitioner expertise, city networks, and considered time frames and spatial scales

Chapter 2: Cities in a changing climate: trends, challenges and opportunities

• Understanding and learning from the past (global climate, hazards, crises, socioeconomic developments); past, current and future global and city-specific climate (trends, means, extremes)
• Urbanization, urban service, common and different urban development trends (population, demographics, informality and inequity, development stage, land use, geography, minorities and intersectionality, urban extent, form, path dependencies, lock-in, retreat, reconstruction, growth and decline, resource and carbon footprint, health and wellbeing, waste management, ecosystems, economy, finance and insurance, work, artificial intelligence and digitalization)
• Urban emissions trends including consumption-based emissions; the role of cities in emissions and mitigation; future global and city-level scenarios, considering local options, equity, sustainable development, infrastructure, and informal settlements
• City-specific risks and their global and regional climatic impact-drivers (extremes and their attribution, slow-onset events, e.g., sea level rise); compounding and cascading risks; scenarios with and without risk reduction, adaptation, resilience building, changes in vulnerability and exposure across systems and sectors, including eco-systems and biodiversity, food, health and housing, innovative technologies/methods (measurements and models)
• Current mitigation and adaptation, planned and unplanned relocation, losses and damages experienced, and the socio-economic trends that shape them, including policy, governance, colonization
• Understanding the two-way interaction/feedback between cities, regions and countries, science behind the interactions (understanding the biophysical mechanisms); social interactions; climate and air quality, and other environmental changes, multi-hazard components (compounding and cascading hazards)
• Data, information, tools accessibility/availability/usability/transparency
• Uncertainties, implementation gaps, unprecedented situations
• Complexity and the need to contextualized climate change within broader societal trends (geopolitical, polarizing societal trends) and goals (Sustainable Development Goals), justice, cascading effects on critical infrastructure

Chapter 3: Actions and solutions to reduce urban risks and emissions

• Common and context specific urban mitigation options for spatial planning, energy (heating, cooling, electricity), existing and new buildings and infrastructure, mobility and transport, water, land, food, demand-side measures and behavioral change and cross-sectoral, integrated approaches in urban systems such as circularity
• Common and context specific urban adaptation and disaster risk reduction options for managing risks in natural, ecological and human systems (including but not limited to physical infrastructure, urban nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based adaptation, and planning and social policies such as relocation, health systems, early warning systems)
• Evaluation of city actions across mitigation and adaptation, and responding to losses and damages such as reconstruction and rehabilitation, including lessons-learned, effectiveness and feasibility, mitigation measures with baseline emissions inventories and targets adopted by cities
• Urban observation and modelling tools for monitoring and evaluation for sectors and unaccounted sources
• Local risk assessments using scientific information, Indigenous Knowledge, and local knowledge of impacts, types and scales of adaptation responses (including positive experiences and outcomes, and aspects of maladaptive practices) and adaptation cycles in various regions and contexts
• Integrating mitigation and adaptation into sustainable development and just transitions, planning approaches under and for uncertainty, synergies and trade-offs, nexus approaches, social innovation, climate resilient development, adaptation targets and the role of cities in net-zero targets
• Metrics for assessing mitigation and adaptation options in the context of sustainable development and the characteristics of and within cities, including service provisioning that delivers health and well-being for all
• Case studies/best practices/stories related to climate resilient development, adaptation, decarbonization and low-carbon development in a diverse range of cities

Chapter 4: How to facilitate and accelerate change

• New ways of planning under and for uncertainty; the likelihood of tipping points
• Providing climate and information services to enable action, including evaluation of mitigation, adaptation, responses to losses and damages, and the cost and benefits of action and inaction, and sustainable development
• Innovation in governance, urban planning policies, decision-making, technology, urban service provision, energy access and shelter, infrastructure, social systems, and finance, including adoption of innovation, facilitation of societal trends, acknowledging the diverse capacities
• Institutional capacities, competencies, inclusive multi-level governance
• Indigenous Knowledge, local knowledge, diverse knowledge systems and values
• Policies for behavioural and lifestyle changes including demand-side mitigation measures, education for empowerment, community engagement, social movements and communications
• Finance, financial instruments, legal frameworks, economic and policy instruments
• Holistic planning and systems thinking approach towards decarbonized and climate resilient cities
• Structural inequity, gender, colonialism, and justice
• Enabling conditions for poverty eradication, equity in just transitions
• Political will and leadership
• Conflicting goals and trade-offs

Chapter 5: Solutions by city types and regions

This chapter contains a synthesis of solution-relevant information and a collection of case studies by city types in the context of urban sustainable development, distinguished by multi-dimensional characteristics such as:

• Geographical location (regions)
• Development stage
• Informality
• City climate and projections
• Climatic impact-drivers
• Adaptation and mitigation options
• Sectoral contributions to the economy
• Migration, urbanization and demographic trends
• Fragility and conflict situations
• Losses and damages, vulnerability, impacts and risks
• Early warning systems
• Capacities
• Inclusiveness, equity and justice
• Governance
• Climate finance

FRN: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-18520

Commented: SAMHSA 2025 National Household Survey on Behavioral Health (NHSBH) -- comments invited to OMB (by 9/16)

Mon, 19 Aug 2024 17:28:03 +0000

HHS National Survey of Health Information Exchange Organizations (HIO) -- comments invited to OMB (9/16)

Fri, 16 Aug 2024 12:36:09 +0000

Aug 13 -- The Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), invites public comments to OMB by September 16, 2024 regarding the proposed new National Survey of Health Information Exchange Organizations (HIO). [Comments due 30 days after submission to OMB on August 15.]

The Department of Health and Human Services, The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy and Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Electronic health information exchange (HIE) was one of three goals specified by Congress in the 2009 Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act to ensure that the $30 billion federal investment in certified electronic health records (EHRs) resulted in higher-quality, lower-cost care. Subsequent legislation and regulations have continued to prioritize the sharing of data electronically across EHRs and other health information systems. Health information exchange organizations (HIOs) play a pivotal role facilitating health information exchange across disparate providers, labs, pharmacies, public health departments, and others. This information collection request will gather data from HIOs across the nation through the administration of a survey of HIOs to generate the most current national statistics and associated actionable insights to inform policy efforts. The timely collection of national data from our survey will assess current capabilities of HIOs to support effective electronic information sharing within the U.S. health care system.

Since prior to HITECH there has been ongoing assessment of trends in the capabilities of HIOs to support clinical exchange through nationwide surveys of HIOs. These prior surveys and studies have collected data on organizational structure, financial viability, geographic coverage, scope of services, scope of participants, perceptions of information blocking, support for public health exchange, and participation in national networks and the Technical Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (TEFCA). Continuing the ongoing data collection will be useful to construct a current and comprehensive picture of HIOs' role in facilitating exchange and ensuring rapid access to important health care data and information when it matters most, including vital data to address public health emergencies.

The survey will collect data on HIO capabilities to support electronic health information exchange, their maturity, and challenges they face. There are five key areas that require assessment: (1) adoption of technical standards; (2) perceptions related to information blocking; (3) HIE coordination at the federal level; (4) public health data exchange; and (5) organizational demographics, including technical capabilities offered by HIOs and the challenges they face in supporting electronic health information exchange.

HIE Basics https://www.healthit.gov/topic/health-it-and-health-information-exchange-basics/health-information-exchange
HHS submission to OMB: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202408-0955-001 Click on IC List for questionnaire, View Supporting Statement for technical documentation. Submit comments through this site.
FR notice inviting public comment: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-18023

For AEA members wishing to submit comments, "A Primer on How to Respond to Calls for Comment on Federal Data Collections" is available at https://www.aeaweb.org/content/file?id=5806

NIST Carbon Dioxide Removal Consortium -- academics invited to participate

Sun, 11 Aug 2024 18:02:54 +0000

Aug 12 -- The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, in support of efforts to develop standards for carbon dioxide removal, is establishing the Carbon Dioxide Removal Consortium (“Consortium”). The Consortium will bring together stakeholders to identify and address measurement and standards needs related to carbon dioxide removal used to reduce the overall atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The Consortium efforts are intended to develop measurement solutions and support the development of widely accepted standards to improve measurement confidence, measurement traceability and comparability of carbon dioxide removal through nature-based, enhanced nature-based, and engineered pathways, with an initial focus on forests and direct air capture. Participants will be required to sign a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA). The Consortium's activities will commence on Sept 1, 2024 (“Commencement Date”). NIST will accept letters of interest to participate in this Consortium on an ongoing basis.

There is a significant effort underway to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions. In addition to transitioning to clean energy sources, increasing energy efficiencies, and deploying carbon capture, use, and storage, atmospheric carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is being developed and deployed to compensate for remaining hard-to-abate emissions and work towards drawing down the current atmospheric CO2 concentration level. Industry is developing a variety of CDR techniques including multiple different nature-based, enhanced nature-based, and engineered solutions. Given the number and diversity of carbon removal pathways, a variety of measurements, models, and data are needed to quantify carbon dioxide removed. Ultimately, quality-assured measurements and associated measurement uncertainties are required to quantify carbon removals and/or validate models that estimate the amount of carbon removed.

The quantification of carbon removal in closed engineered systems, such as direct air capture, is reasonably straightforward. In contrast, quantifying carbon removal in dispersed natural and hybrid systems is extremely challenging. The scientific understanding, measurements, and models of these complex systems are still evolving; enhanced measurements and data are needed to improve and validate the models. Furthermore, advanced technologies that enhance applicability and accuracy are needed to expand current measurement capabilities. This will enable the acquisition of high-quality data, at appropriate spatial and temporal resolutions, over sufficient time to quantify the carbon uptake and verify that the carbon remains sequestered over the period claimed. Moreover, to be economically viable, the measurement and monitoring capabilities must be available at reasonable costs to deploy, scale, and maintain. Ultimately, measurement science along with SI traceability are critical tools to increase data veracity, quality, and objectivity and thus build quality and confidence in the carbon removal quantification.

The initial focus of this consortium is to evaluate, develop, and standardize methods to characterize and quantify the carbon removal by (1) forests and (2) direct air capture. Test methods to specifically measure carbon in these systems will be explored. A later focus of the consortium will be to evaluate the suitability of current measurement standards for carbon removal in additional pathways prioritized by through stakeholder input and, where appropriate, develop new test methods needed to help build quality and confidence in the carbon removal marketplace. NIST and consortia partners will perform research together with the following four goals:

-- Evaluate the suitability of current measurement approaches to quantify aspects of carbon dioxide removal.
-- Validate the repeatability and comparability of the current measurement methods.
-- Identify areas where measurements, models, and data should be expanded and enhanced to provide fit-for-purpose capabilities.
-- Use these measurements as a foundation for test method(s) that can be standardized through a consensus-based standards development organization.

No proprietary information will be shared as part of the Consortium. Participants are expected to provide subject matter expertise and to actively participate in the consortium with the goal of developing measurement solutions to support the development of industry standards.

Eligibility to participate in the Consortium will be determined by NIST based on the information provided by prospective participants in response to this notice. NIST will evaluate the submitted responses from prospective participants to determine eligibility to participate in this Consortium. Consortium members are expected to contribute expertise related to carbon dioxide removal such as knowledge as a researcher, project developer, evaluator, purchaser, related experience, etc. that addresses the measurement, verification, and reporting of carbon dioxide removal. Prospective participants should provide a letter of interest with the following information to NIST's Consortium Manager:

(1) A description of their specific experience in or knowledge of carbon dioxide removal.
(2) List of interested party's anticipated project team and a contracts or legal contact for the CRADA.

NIST Carbon Removal, Capture, Use, and Sequestration: https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/carbon-removal-capture-use-and-sequestration
FRN: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-17849

DOL Research Support Services for Employment of Young Adults on Autism Spectrum -- comments invited (by 10/11)

Sun, 11 Aug 2024 16:33:17 +0000

Aug 12 -- The Department of Labor (DOL) Office of Disability Employment Policy (OEDP) is soliciting comments regarding this information collection for the Research Support Services for Employment of Young Adults on the Autism Spectrum [REYAAS] Project. Comments pertaining to this information collection are due on or before October 11, 2024.

Recent estimates suggest that there are more than one million young adults (ages 16 through 28) on the autism spectrum in the U.S. who offer myriad strengths to potential employers yet face unique challenges in attaining and maintaining employment. The mix of challenges facing young adults on the autism spectrum during the transition to adulthood and employment vary. About 1 in 3 also have an intellectual disability (Maenner et al. 2020; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) 2017), and prevalence estimates of minimally and nonverbal status across studies converge at around 30 percent (Tager-Flusberg and Kasari 2013). People on the spectrum also have high rates of co-occurring medical and mental health conditions, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, and depression (Kerns et al. 2020). An additional challenge for young adults on the spectrum is that many will need various kinds of support from multiple providers and across different systems of care, and they can face increasing difficulty meeting their complex service needs as they transition to adult service systems (Foster and Gifford 2005; Shattuck et al. 2011). These factors can combine to make it challenging for youth on the autism spectrum to attain and maintain employment.

Public policy increasingly acknowledges the importance of addressing the employment-related challenges facing young adults on the autism spectrum. The most recent federal Autism Collaboration, Accountability, Research, Education and Support (CARES) Act of 2019 emphasized that funding should increase for research on factors associated with better young adult outcomes. In 2021, Congress requested that research be conducted on improving employment outcomes for this population.

To better understand the employment experiences and outcomes of young adults on the autism spectrum, this study will conduct two data collection activities. First, the study team will conduct a large-scale survey of autistic young adults ages 16 to 28, which will be one of the first large-scale data collections of employment outcomes for this population (Musse et al., 2022). Second, the study team will conduct follow-up qualitative telephone or web interviews with a subset of survey respondents. This study will provide insightful data on the employment experiences of young adults on the autism spectrum, which policymakers and the autism community can use to inform program and policy changes that support the well-being of autistic people.

Mathematic REYAAS Project: https://www.mathematica.org/projects/research-support-services-for-employment-of-young-adults-on-the-autism-spectrum
FRN: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-17852

FNS Assessing Equity in Work Requirements + SNAP Employment & Training--comments invited to OMB (by 9/9)

Sun, 11 Aug 2024 16:15:53 +0000

Aug 8 -- The Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, invites the general public and other public agencies to comment to OMB on this proposed information collection for the Assessing Equity in Work Requirements and SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] Employment & Training study. This is a new information collection request. This study informs the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) about feasible options for assessing and monitoring equity in the administration of SNAP work requirements and SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) services. Written comments must be received on or before September 9, 2024.

Section 17 [7 U.S.C. 2026] (a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended, provides general legislative authority for the planned data collection. It authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into contracts with private institutions to undertake research that will help improve the administration and effectiveness of SNAP. FNS is conducting this study to identify data available from SNAP State agencies, their E&T provider partners, and other sources that can be used to develop measures to assess equity in the administration of SNAP work requirements and E&T services. The developed measures can be used to determine how and whether States are providing equitable access to SNAP through the administration of work requirements, achieving equitable participation in education and training opportunities through the SNAP E&T program, and adopting program option and discretionary policies and procedures that influence disparities.

This is a new Information Collection Request. The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended in 2014, provides the legislative authority for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to administer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Section 17 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 provides FNS with the authority to conduct research to help improve the administration and effectiveness of SNAP.

Congress has amended Federal law to add provisions for SNAP participants focused on employment and work. SNAP participants aged 16–59 must meet certain general work requirements unless they are exempt or show good cause for being unable to work. Noncompliance with general work requirements may result in disqualification for any person from SNAP. SNAP participants aged 18–49 who do not have disabilities and live in households without dependents—referred to as able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs)—are subject to a time limit on receipt of SNAP benefits. ABAWDs must be employed or participate in SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) activities for 80 hours a month or participate in workfare to maintain SNAP benefits for more than 3 months in a 36-month period. ABAWDs and other SNAP participants who are not exempt from work requirements can meet their work requirements by participating in a SNAP E&T program.

SNAP State agencies must operate a SNAP E&T program to help SNAP participants gain skills, training, or work experience. The SNAP E&T program is meant to increase participants’ ability to obtain regular employment and achieve economic self-sufficiency. While SNAP State agencies must offer a SNAP E&T program, they have flexibility in deciding whether some or all participants subject to general work requirements are required to participate or whether to exempt them from this requirement and offer a voluntary SNAP E&T program.

SNAP participants subject to SNAP work requirements and those who volunteer to participate in SNAP E&T represent a population often facing systemic barriers to employment opportunities, such as low educational attainment, less recent attachment to the labor force, and lack of transportation. The Federal Government made a commitment to ensure programs such as SNAP advance equity for all, including individuals who have been historically marginalized or underserved. President Biden’s January 20, 2021, Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government explains the need to address any barriers to equal opportunity caused by policies and programs to advance equity.

In alignment with the Executive Order, USDA FNS has contracted with Westat Insight to conduct a study identifying the data available from SNAP State agencies, their SNAP E&T provider partners, and other sources that can be used to develop measures to assess and monitor equity in the administration of SNAP work requirements and SNAP E&T services. The study includes a survey of all 53 SNAP State agencies, document review, and key informant interviews with individuals from 6 States. This Information Collection Request includes five data collection instruments: (1) Survey Instrument (attachment C); (2) SNAP State Agency Interview Protocol (attachment D); (3) SNAP Local Agency Interview Protocol (attachment E); (4) SNAP E&T Provider Interview Protocol (attachment F); and (5) Interested Parties Interview Protocol (attachment G).

The findings from this study will provide FNS with recommendations on how to assess and monitor equity in the administration of work requirements in SNAP and SNAP E&T programs. The information collected will be evaluated to identify the data available to assess equity in the application of policy or other instances where equity issues may arise, such as equitable access to SNAP through the administration of work requirements, equitable participation in education and training programs through SNAP E&T programs, or the influence of optional and discretionary policies and procedures on participant outcomes.

FNS has identified four objectives for this study:

1. Identify areas in the administration of work requirements in SNAP and in SNAP E&T program administration and access where equity issues could occur.
2. Identify and describe the data that could be used to assess access and outcomes in the areas identified in Objective 1.
3. Describe how State agencies address equity in administering work requirements in their SNAP and SNAP E&T programs.
4. Develop recommendations on how FNS should assess and measure equity in the administration of work requirements in SNAP and in SNAP E&T program administration and access.

FNS will use this information in considering plans to examine how and whether States are providing equitable access to SNAP through the administration of work requirements, achieving equitable participation in education and training opportunities through the SNAP E&T program, and adopting program option and discretionary policies and procedures that influence disparities. The study findings will be summarized in a report. FNS will post the final report with detailed findings in aggregate form on the FNS website. FNS may share public-use data files, which will not include any information that would compromise participant privacy, with other entities as requested. The research objectives of this study as defined by FNS and a description of the data collection are provided in attachment B, Research Objectives and Approach to Data Collection.

SNAP Work Requirements: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/work-requirements
SNAP Employment and Training: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap-et
FNS submission to OMB: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202406-0584-003 Click on IC List for questionnaire, View Supporting Statement for technical documentation. Submit comments through this site.
FR notice inviting public comment: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-17584

For AEA members wishing to submit comments, "A Primer on How to Respond to Calls for Comment on Federal Data Collections" is available at https://www.aeaweb.org/content/file?id=5806

Census Emergency Economic Information Collection -- comments invited to OMB (by 9/5)

Fri, 09 Aug 2024 14:22:15 +0000

Aug 6 -- The Census Bureau invites comments to OMB by September 5, 2024 regarding Generic Clearance for Emergency Economic Information Collections.

The U.S. Census Bureau requests a 3-year extension of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the Generic Clearance for Emergency Economic Information Collections (EEIC). The EEIC provides the quick turn-around necessary for conducting emergency economic information collections in response to unanticipated international, national, or regional declared emergencies or events of national interest arising as a direct result of declared emergencies having a significant economic impact on U.S. businesses and/or state or local governments. The purpose of the collections is to gauge and monitor the economic impact of such events on U.S. businesses or organizations and state or local governments.

Emergencies, once declared by the authorized state or federal official or entity, that could trigger the need for an EEIC may have global, national, or regional impact on U.S. businesses and governments, and include the following examples:

—Pandemic or other health emergency
—Natural or manmade disaster
—Acts of war or terrorism
—Civil unrest or insurrection

Other events of national interest arising as a direct result of declared emergencies may also have a significant impact on U.S. businesses or governments. General categories of national interest events arising as a direct result of declared emergencies which could trigger the need for an EEIC are:

—Economic crises
—Financial crises
—International geo-political instabilities
—Resource shortages
—Cyberterrorism
—New legislation passed as a direct result of a declared emergency

EEIC questions may be included as supplemental questions on existing Census Bureau surveys or conducted as new special-purpose surveys. The data will be collected by paper or electronic instruments, depending on the survey or program.

EEIC questions will be chosen from a pretested Question Bank. For some subjects, the Question Bank includes specific questionnaire content. In other cases, the Question Bank includes topics which will then be addressed with questions designed to meet data needs that arise during a future unknown event. Some questions have been cognitively tested and should be considered final; some may require testing for final wording. Questions that may require testing and refinement are annotated in the Question Bank. As the Question Bank matures with new or revised content, the Census Bureau will resubmit the bank for review.

Prior to adding EEIC questions to any survey, the Census Bureau will consult with OMB and submit a request for approval, allowing between 3 and 10 business days for OMB action. Over the existing period of clearance, the EEIC Generic Clearance was used to clear supplemental questions which were added to existing surveys, responsive to both recession conditions resulting from the COVID 19 Pandemic and various severe weather events which occurred in 2022.

As data collections will be tailored to the emergency, users of the data may vary, but may include: federal, state, or local officials charged with decision- making during the emergency; business leaders and policymakers wishing to develop plans to ameliorate the effects of the emergency; academics and members of the press wishing to study and disseminate information about the emergency; and the public. The data collected will help us understand how and why data we collect in our ongoing surveys may be affected by the emergency, as well as allow us to disseminate data as part of existing releases, new releases, or experimental releases.

Census submission to OMB: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202407-0607-004 Click on View Supporting Statement for technical documentation. Submit comments through this site.
FR notice inviting public comment: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-17290

For AEA members wishing to submit comments, "A Primer on How to Respond to Calls for Comment on Federal Data Collections" is available at https://www.aeaweb.org/content/file?id=5806

FDIC seeks info on deposit data (by 10/7)

Fri, 09 Aug 2024 11:56:04 +0000

Aug 6 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is soliciting comments from interested parties on deposit data that is not currently reported in the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's (FFIEC) Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) or other regulatory reports, including for uninsured deposits. The FDIC seeks information on the characteristics that affect the stability and franchise value of different types of deposits and whether more detailed or more frequent reporting on these characteristics or types of deposits could enhance offsite risk and liquidity monitoring, inform analysis of the benefits and costs associated with additional deposit insurance coverage for certain types of deposits, improve risk sensitivity in deposit insurance pricing, and provide analysts and the general public with accurate and transparent data. Comments must be received on or before October 7, 2024.

The bank failures that occurred in March 2023 and subsequent events renewed focus by financial regulatory agencies, banks, investors, and the public on deposit insurance coverage, bank funding concentrations, and certain banks' reliance on uninsured deposits. While banks are required to provide certain data on deposit liabilities on the Call Report, they do not report comprehensive data on the composition of insured and uninsured deposits. Through this request for information, the FDIC is seeking to further evaluate whether and to what extent certain types of deposits may behave differently from each other, particularly during periods of economic or financial stress.

Specifically, the FDIC is soliciting comments on deposit data that is not currently reported in the Call Report or other regulatory reports, including for uninsured deposits, to gather information on the characteristics that affect the stability and franchise value of different types of deposits and whether more detailed or more frequent reporting on these characteristics or types of deposits could enhance offsite risk and liquidity monitoring; inform analysis of the benefits and costs associated with additional deposit insurance coverage for certain types of deposits; improve risk sensitivity in deposit insurance pricing; and provide analysts and the general public with accurate and transparent data. . . .

-- Questions on Banks' Internal Deposit Information

Question 1: How do banks measure or evaluate the stability of different types of uninsured deposits? For example, do banks measure or track characteristics such as length or type of depositor relationship, duration, depositor proximity, or rates paid by account type?

a. What are the different types of collateralized or secured deposits and what are the reasons for collateralization? Do banks monitor the uninsured portion of collateralized or secured deposits separately from the insured portion?

b. How do banks monitor intercompany deposits such as deposits with affiliates, subsidiaries, sweep deposits, or any bank-owned deposit account?

c. How do banks measure or evaluate the stability of operational deposits and non-operational deposits?

d. To what extent, if any, do banks rely on deposit categories as defined for regulatory reporting to determine stability?

e. Is there additional data on uninsured deposit components that banks collect and maintain internally?

f. What additional information would be helpful to the FDIC, the banking industry, and the public in demonstrating the stability of uninsured deposits?

Question 2: What are the challenges in calculating and reporting uninsured deposits on the Call Report?

a. How do banks estimate uninsured deposits for omnibus and other accounts that contain deposits owned by various parties where the underlying customer data is not maintained by the bank?

Question 3: As discussed in the appendix, 12 CFR part 370 (part 370) generally requires covered institutions to maintain complete and accurate records regarding the ownership and insurability of deposits (except as otherwise provided) and to have an information technology system that can be used to calculate deposit insurance coverage in the event of failure. These capabilities would facilitate the FDIC's prompt payment of deposit insurance and enhance the FDIC's ability to implement the least costly resolution of these covered institutions. However, the FDIC understands that some institutions that are subject to the requirements of part 370 do not necessarily use information from their part 370 recordkeeping and insurance calculation capabilities for purposes of reporting uninsured deposits on the Call Report. For some part 370 covered institutions, what is the reasoning for not using the same methodology from their part 370 recordkeeping and insurance calculation capabilities to report uninsured deposits on the Call Report?

a. For part 370 covered institutions, how long would it take to effectively use part 370 calculation-generated insured and uninsured information to report data on Call Report Schedule RC-O,—Other Data for Deposit Insurance Assessments, instead of other estimated measures?

b. Where other estimated measures are used, has analysis been performed to evaluate the margin of difference between those estimates and the calculation produced using part 370 capabilities? If so, what are those margin differences?

c. Do institutions collect additional deposit information from customers that is not reported in part 370 output files (e.g. customer classifications, account categorizations, etc.)

Question 4: For what other types of deposits, which are not already reported on the Call Report or other data collections, do banks collect and maintain data internally and at what frequency?

a. How are these types of deposits defined?

b. How does data on these types of deposits help inform analysis of bank liability structure, risk, and funding stability?

c. Of the data collected and maintained internally, what information could be provided at little or no burden? What challenges may occur in reporting this information?

d. Of the information collected and maintained internally, what information could be provided pertaining to foreign deposits and how the deposits are payable (dually or not dually payable)?

-- Questions on Potential Additional Data Items

Question 5: What, if any, additional data, including more granular or more frequently reported data, should the FDIC, in conjunction with other members of the FFIEC, consider collecting on the Call Report or another data collection to better inform the public and agencies' understanding of different types of depositor behavior? What specific additional data, such as length or type of depositor relationship, duration, depositor proximity, or rates paid by account type, would be the most helpful to collect, if any?

a. Should data collections include particular types of deposits or uninsured deposits? If so, which types and at what frequency? What are the benefits or challenges of maintaining and reporting average values of such data for a given frequency?

b. Should data collections include different measures of concentrations of deposits, such as by deposit account size, depositor type, or industry? If so, which thresholds, types, and industries are appropriate and why?

c. Should collection of additional data be limited to certain reporting thresholds, based on, for example, consolidated asset size, amount of the item to be reported, or some other activity-based threshold? Why or why not? What type of burdens would collection of additional data place on institutions?

d. Should collection of any additional, more granular, data on deposits be afforded confidential treatment? If so, please explain why.

e. To what extent should data collections require consistency across different definitions and information reported on deposits, including deposit liabilities, operational deposits, and other types of deposits, between the Call Report and other data collections?

f. How helpful would standardized reporting definitions, including for operational and non-operational deposits, be to the FDIC, the banking industry, and the public?

g. If the agencies were to consider collecting additional information, is there any information that the agencies currently collect that commenters believe is less useful, overly burdensome, and should no longer be collected?

-- Questions on Deposit Data To Inform Conversations on Deposit Insurance Coverage

As mentioned in section II.B. of this document, the May 2023 report, “Options for Deposit Insurance Reform,” notes that Targeted Coverage would provide substantial additional coverage to meet ongoing payment and operational needs of businesses, which is expected to yield large financial stability benefits relative to its costs. However, Targeted Coverage is one of three options examined in the report, and each option has strengths and weaknesses. The proposed options require an act of Congress.

Question 6: If Congress were to consider deposit insurance reform, what are the pros and cons of the options described in the FDIC's May 2023 report? Do commenters have additional data that could help inform the discussion?

Question 7: If Congress were to pursue increased coverage for particular types of deposit accounts, but not all deposits, what type of deposits should be included?

Question 8: If Congress were to pursue increased coverage for “business payment accounts,” as described in the May 2023 report, what are the specific definitions commenters would recommend and why?

a. What features of an account would indicate that it is a “business payment account,” and are these features quantifiable and readily available?

b. Should such a definition be limited to coverage of accounts linked to payroll at businesses, include accounts linked to operations such as payroll, or otherwise be defined? Should such a definition consider the existing definition for “operational deposits,” as defined in 12 CFR 329.3?

Question 9: What burden or challenges would be associated with providing new deposit data items, such as “business payment accounts” or similar accounts linked to payroll, vendors, or operations?

-- Other Comments

Question 10: Please provide any other comment or information that would be useful for the FDIC to consider.

FRN: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-17298

What would it take for this forum to be better utilized?

Mon, 05 Aug 2024 16:19:43 +0000

Forgive the title for what could be interpreted as passive aggressive or critical--that isn't the point. Most posts on here get about 20 views and no responses. Broadly, I'm curious as to what this forum would need to be for people to use it more. What would make you check this forum more often? What would make you post more often? What would you want to see this forum used for? I'll say, for myself: I got off most social media because those sites are bad for my brain. Still, I would like a chance to see some of the things people would post on, say, econ twitter (conference announcements, calls for papers). I can see a number of reasons why this site can't be econ twitter, without a doubt. Still, this forum could be a great resource, if the conditions were right. Thoughts?