Ec 10 is still the largest course at Harvard.

Yes, says CBO:

Differences in total compensation—the sum of wages and benefits—between federal and private-sector employees varied according to workers' education level.

• Federal civilian employees with no more than a high school education averaged 36 percent higher total compensation than similar private-sector employees.
• Federal workers whose education culminated in a bachelor's degree averaged 15 percent higher total compensation than their private-sector counterparts.
• Federal employees with a professional degree or doctorate received 18 percent lower total compensation than their private-sector counterparts, on average.

Overall, the federal government paid 16 percent more in total compensation than it would have if average compensation had been comparable with that in the private sector, after accounting for certain observable characteristics of workers.

I don't know who this blogger is, but his or her first post is called "Mankiw is right. Buffett is wrong."  And he or she puts the argument well (although I may not be objective here).

The Harvard Pre-Collegiate Economics Challenge is a competition for high school students studying AP economics.   It is run by Harvard undergraduates and features one of my favorite economists as a guest speaker.  This year it will be held on Saturday, March 31, 2012 from 9 am to 5 pm.

If you are interested in more information about this event, click here.

1. Last night President Obama continued his misleading claims about Warren Buffett's tax rates.  David Leonhardt recalls that I rebutted those claims several years ago. 

David usefully asks for a response to my rebuttal from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning research group in Washington. Chuck Marr, the center’s director of federal tax policy, emailed David back.  Click through the link above, and read carefully what Mr Marr has to say.  Does it respond to my arguments?  No, not at all.  Mr Marr just changes the subject.  He follows the age-old advice for politicians: Don't answer the question they asked, answer the question you wish they had asked.  This might work for some voters, but I am sure it won't for the careful analysts who read this blog.  One might reasonably take Mr Marr's non-response as an admission that President Obama's claims about the taxes of Mr Buffett and his secretary don't hold up under closer examination.

2. I was disappointed, and even a bit surprised, that the President adopted the xenophobic approach to outsourcing and international trade.  Usually, on issues of international trade, the President plays the role of grown-up and leaves it up to Congress to gin up populist ire.  That is true of both parties.  Recall that President Clinton pushed NAFTA through.

When President Obama bragged that his administration had substantially increased trade cases against China compared with his predecessor, it made me proud to be one of President Bush's advisers.  (Not that the Bush administration was perfect on trade issues.  It is just good to know we were better.)  These trade cases include such things as anti-dumping claims, which in many cases are just the modern face of protectionism.  Phill Swagel and I wrote about anti-dumping laws here.

Here is the memo that Larry Summers sent to President Obama when the 2009 stimulus package was being debated. It was originally confidential, but somehow it has recently been made public and is now going viral.

I make a brief cameo appearance on page 11: "Greg Mankiw is the only economist we have consulted with who refused to name a number and was generally skeptical about stimulus." I explained my skepticism here. Of course, the fact that I was "the only economist" expressing skepticism reflects the range of economists that Team Obama chose to consult.

Click here to read my column in Sunday's NY Times.

I need some help from the growth empiricists out there.  If you aren't one of them, stop reading.  Continuing will be a waste of your time.

For researchers studying economic growth, one of the standard resources for cross-country data has been the Penn World Table.  My 1992 paper with David Romer and David Weil (my most cited paper by a large margin) used this resource, as have numerous other papers in this literature.  In my intermediate macro book, I present a couple of figures presenting some of these data.

Here's the problem: It seems that the data have changed substantially in the most recent revision, and I cannot figure out why.

My intermediate macro text shows a scatterplot of per capita income and the investment share of GDP.  These two variables are strongly positively correlated.  When revising this figure with the newest data, I found that the correlation declines substantially (though is still positive).  When I looked into the source of the change, I found that the historical estimates of the investment share of GDP have changed, in some some cases by a lot.

Let me give you an example.  Take the investment share for Ghana in the year 2000.  According to version 6.2 of the data, the investment share was about 5 percent.  In version 7.0, it was about 21 percent.  This is one of the larger change I have found, but it is not the only country for which there are sizable changes in the reported investment share of GDP.

I understand that the changes may be related to new information about the relative price of investment goods.  But the changes seem too large to be explained so easily, although perhaps I am wrong about this.  If anyone can shed light on the matter, I would be greatly appreciative.  Send me an email if you can help.