McCombs School of Business Dean Tom Gilligan hosted a panel of distinguished professors from across The University of Texas at Austin April 28 to discuss the policy decisions President Barack Obama has made to help ease the current recession. Taking part in the discussion were Bernard S. Black from the School of Law and the McCombs School of Business, James K. Galbraith from the LBJ School of Public Affairs, Daniel Hamermesh from the College of Liberal Arts, and Sheridan Titman from the McCombs School of Business.
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
4 responses so far
We want to hear from you! To keep discussions on-topic and constructive, comments are moderated for relevance and for abusive or profane language. Please note that it may take some time for your comment to appear.
1 DRJ // May 1, 2009 at 8:53 pm
This was an interesting discussion and I appreciate Dean Gilligan’s efforts to make this forum available. It’s too bad you couldn’t find some professor who believe in capitalism. Maybe next time.
I appreciate Prof. Black’s initial concerns about what worries everyday Americans, and I agree with Prof. Hamermesh’s statement that bankruptcy is an appropriate solution because it is designed to help people deal with financial problems. Not only does bankruptcy let people discharge their debts as the law allows but it also avoids the highly politicized and arbitrary process that is unfolding in Washington DC.
However, I’m perplexed by Prof. Hamermesh’s desire for income equality. If people like you UT profs make the effort to get higher education, it’s not surprising that you might earn more than high school graduates. Ditto for corporate CEOS who put in the time and energy to get where they are. But if income equality is what we need, please start with Hollywood’s celebrities. So what if they are more talented than the average guy? After all, talent is irrelevant when the only thing that matters is income equality. And apply it in your classes, too. Why shouldn’t those A and B students share with students who earned a D or F, so everyone gets a C?
Finally, Profs., good luck with those gas taxes. Clearly you’re the kind of business professors who don’t believe in free markets or capitalism when it comes to America’s energy needs.
2 TF // May 6, 2009 at 5:04 pm
In response to DRJ:
I think it goes without saying that all business professors, at least in a reputable school like McCombs, believe in free markets. You have failed to consider the fact that free markets are blind to externalities. Free markets are designed to create (and indeed maximize) wealth via the elimination of inefficiencies. The markets do this without regard to external considerations; in this case the environment. If allowed to run its course, the market will eventually solve America’s energy needs. The problem, however, is that without government intervention via subsidies for investments in renewable energy, taxes on fossil fuels, cap-and-trade, etc., this will not occur until the supply of oil begins to dry up. In the meantime, the “invisible hand” will continue to burn dirty fuels, contributing to what could be devastating and irreversible global climate change in the process. An example of this already occurred last summer when gas prices approached $4 a gallon. Along with these high prices came real changes in consumer behavior that reduced energy usage/waste. What the distinguished professors in the forum are advocating is the creation of a price point, via taxes, that will create incentives for consumers to drive more efficient cars, utilize public transportation, carpool, etc in order to reduce their carbon footprint, as well as our dependence on foreign oil that threatens our national security. This would be an extension of the many tax policies designed to influence consumer behavior: lower tax rates for capital gains that encourage investing, tax-free IRA contributions to encourage saving, so called “sin” taxes on tobacco, liquor and the like…the list goes on and on.
I won’t even address your comments on Professor Hamermesh’s remarks but will say that you should make a better effort to fully understand someone’s comments before you criticize them, and think twice before you make such derisive and elementary comments about someone with the breadth of expertise that Hamermesh possesses. This is the McCombs School of Business, not a Fox News discussion board.
3 brianna // May 11, 2009 at 9:37 am
well you may not care about what a little seventh grader like me has to say but i think it’s completely and utterly rude to criticize some one on their opinion. this issue makes a great debate though and i’m up for a challenge. that’s why i would love to join this campus and get involved with more debates and prove my point…
sincerily,
a little seventh grader
4 corporateLook! // Aug 20, 2009 at 3:43 am
In Response to DRJ:
You were actually on to something, until you argued with the Hollywood celebreties. This really isn’t news that people demand from politicians, celebreties, sportsguys etc. to cut theyre income/fees. But you are missing the point - celebreties for example aren’t paid millions of $ for a movie just because they aare talented - they are getting paid this - well let’s be honest - insane amount of money, because the studios expect them to generate even more money by participaiting in a movie.
It’s like this - Movies starring George Clooney, Al Pacion, Brad Pitt, Julia Robert and so on - are more likely to be a hit (in sense of revenue) than movies with no celebreties in it. Tht’s beacause the majority of people aren’t going to the movies to see “some” new movie - the are going to see the new “Brad Pitt-movie” or the new “Tarrantino-movie”.
So if a new movie generates - let’s say 70mio.$ mainly because some celebretie is starring in it - I think it is only fair to pay this celebretie like 10mio.$ because the revenue was mainly achieved because of him/her.
Just my 2 cents…
Leave a Comment