Janet Yellen, vice chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and a professor emerita at UC Berkeley, is one of two individuals currently being considered by President Barack Obama to replace Ben Bernanke as chair of the Federal Reserve.

Yellen is a professor emerita of economics at Haas School of Business, and if appointed, she would be both the first female and first UC Berkeley professor to serve as chair of the Fed.

Larry Summers, who was previously U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, director of the National Economic Council and president of Harvard University, is also being considered. Obama is expected to select either Yellen or Summers for the position at the end of August.

Yellen received her doctorate in economics from Yale University in 1971 and began her career at UC Berkeley in 1980 as a macroeconomics professor at the Haas school. In 1985 and 1988, Yellen received the school’s Earl F. Cheit Award for Excellence in Teaching.

“Janet was always a phenomenal teacher — partly because she worked very, very hard at it,” said David Levine, an economics professor at the business school, whom Yellen mentored. “She thought about literally every word she would say. As she has moved up in government, this level of thoughtfulness and reflection has always been increasingly important — and as a high official of the Federal Reserve system, where literally, the placement of a comma can move the markets.”

Yellen’s experience working at the Fed includes serving as a member of its board of governors and as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. She was also chair of Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers.

While Yellen and Summers rival each other in academic and government experience, their economic values are on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum.

Yellen advocates economic regulation, supports the usage of stimulus plans to boost the economy and is expected to continue Bernanke’s policies if appointed. Summers supports policies of economic deregulation, but following the economic crisis of 2008, he has openly stated that he wants more regulation of Wall Street transactions.

Although Henry Brady, dean of the Goldman School of Public Policy, acknowledges that Yellen and Summers have “tremendous ideological differences,” he said they would both know how to handle the responsibilities of the Fed, like knowing when to ease up on monetary expansion.

Campus economics professor Brad DeLong, who worked with Summers as deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury when Summers was treasury secretary, enthusiastically supported Yellen’s appointment but has been vocal about his preference for Summers for the position.

“Larry Summers has an edge as the most creative thinker likely to successfully think outside the box should outside-the-box thinking be called for, and least likely to bind himself to an institutional consensus past its sell-by date,” DeLong wrote in a New York Times article.

Andrew Rose, an economics professor at the Haas school, has known Yellen for 28 years and says that Yellen is very persuasive, easily forms a consensus and is very calm and collected.

“One of the gripes about her is that it isn’t clear how well she will respond to a crisis, but we went through the Loma Prieta earthquake together in Barrows Hall,” Rose said.  “We really both thought that the building was going to collapse, but she stayed quite calm during the earthquake, which is a pretty impressive thing.”

Brady also believes that if Yellen is appointed to the chair position, her well-developed inner circle will allow her to transition smoothly into the position.

Contact Sophie Mattson at smattson@dailycal.org.

The post Janet Yellen, UC Berkeley professor emerita, considered for Federal Reserve chair appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Beginning fall 2014, students declaring the political economy major will need to have a 2.7 or higher cumulative GPA at UC Berkeley. The major has seen an 84 percent increase in enrollment since 2005, when a previous enrollment cap on the major was lifted, and a 131 percent increase since 1995.

According to Director of International Area Studies Maximilian Auffhammer, political economy is already the largest major in the International and Area Studies Academic Program. It is also one of the fastest-growing majors in IAS.

UC Berkeley economics professor Brad DeLong, chair of the political economy major, said that the department is capping the major after being advised to do so by a visiting committee. DeLong said the committee did not think IAS had sufficient faculty and staff to have such a large political economy program.

“This cap will ensure that political economy has the same resources for students as other majors do,” Auffhammer said.

Until 2005, the political economy major had similar eligibility requirements.

“We took the cap off with assurances from Dean Robert Holub and others that if the major grew, it would get more resources — and we did get two professors, Chang-Tai Hsieh and Max Auffhammer,” DeLong said. “But that was all.”

Along with the GPA requirement, students applying to the major beginning fall 2014 will also need to get a minimum of a B- in the major prerequisite class IAS 45 and will not be allowed to retake the class for a better grade. Students who apply before fall 2014 are still allowed to retake IAS 45 once and must earn a C or better, according to current prerequisites.

“We just want people to pass with a B- to signal that they are ready to engage in this material,” Auffhammer said.

Daniel Dang, a UC Berkeley sophomore and intended political economy major, has already taken IAS 45. He said that he is worried the cap will make it difficult for students to enjoy the course material because of the added stress of needing to achieve a B-.

“I worked pretty hard in IAS, so I feel like if you work hard and you put time into it, a B- is pretty reasonable,” Dang said.

Contact Elise Aliotti at ealiotti@dailycal.org.

The post Political economy major to have new GPA requirement appeared first on The Daily Californian.

News broke last week that in response to the United States’ ban on 18 Russian officials from entering the country, the Russian government announced a ban on 18 Americans from entering Russia.

The grounds?

The Russian government reportedly stated that these Americans were responsible for the “legalization of torture” during the Bush years, and chief among the bureaucratic offenders is Berkeley law professor John Yoo.

Independent of the tit-for-tat quality of the Russians’ announcement, there is good reason to express concern over Professor Yoo’s role in expanding the role of torture after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And from the perspective of Berkeley students, it is tough to consider he is allowed to draw salary from the University of California given his integral role in shaping American policy around indefinite detention and “enhanced interrogation” (read: torture), and the circumstances under which he adopted such views.

While I firmly believe John Yoo has the right to speak his mind and advance the ideas in which he believes (as he is wont to do under our campus’ firm principles protecting academic freedom), he should not dishonestly vacillate between positions as we elect different presidents into office.

And funnily enough, it’s a Berkeley professor who makes this case best.

In February 2009, campus economics professor Brad DeLong called for John Yoo to be fired. In a blog update illustratively titled “I Never Thought I Would … Be The Kind of Crank Who Wrote Letters to the Chancellor Trying to Get My Colleagues Fired,’ Delong posts a copy of a letter he wrote to UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau demanding the dismissal of Professor Yoo.

In the letter, he paraphrases rather accurately how Professor Yoo advocated in a 2003 document referred to as the “Torture Memo” that “President Bush’s commander-in-chief power is without limit save for impeachment itself” and that it “is unlawful for any member of the United States armed forces to disobey a presidential order to torture prisoners.”

However, it was only three years earlier in essay entitled “The Imperial Presidency Abroad” that Professor Yoo asserted “President Clinton’s commander-in-chief power is crabbed and restricted.” And that Clinton was “accelerat[ing] disturbing trends in foreign policy that undermine democratic accountability and respect for the rule of law.”

If Professor Yoo believed that “democratic accountability” was necessary in 2000, what made him completely flip to arguing that the commander-in-chief’s power was “without limit?” Having never substantively addressed this reversal, one must conclude (as Professor DeLong did) that if Professor Yoo “could write ‘The Imperial President Abroad’ in 2000 and the “Torture Memo” in 2003 … he does not believe what he writes–at least not for any meaning of believe’ that any of us would recognize.”

And it is this damning cynicism pervading Professor Yoo’s time both working in government and at Berkeley that eats away at the integrity of whatever academic endeavor he pursues.

In journalism, The Washington Post’s conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin is guilty of the same sin. Writing shortly before Election Day extremely bullish articles on Mitt Romney’s chances of winning the presidency, she lamented after his loss that “the [Romney] communications team was the worst of any presidential campaign I have ever seen … It was hostile, indifferent and unhelpful to media.”

It should be noted that Ben Smith observed in October of 2011 that she scored “a rare interview with the candidate [Romney] after a recent foreign affairs speech,” whose staff she described as “‘the most professional of the presidential campaign staffs, because they are the most experienced.’” One could reasonably suggest that she changed her mind over the course of the next year, but I invite the reader to read any number of salivatory posts discussing the Romney campaign that she wrote up until she trashed him after Election Day.

Rubin’s rank dishonesty is right up there with Professor Yoo–the professions of journalism and academia respectively entail a certain of amount of respect and protection. But both that honor and shielding end up severely tested should the occupants of these jobs fail the obligations of sincere thought demanded.

Russia was politically posturing when it banned Professor Yoo from crossing its borders. And as inscrutable as Professor Yoo’s motives were in changing his opinion, the fact he does not provide sufficient justification for neither his amended thoughts or the political influence they earned him is reason alone to release him from Berkeley’s employ.

The university is a special place; in this space we are able to bring new ideas to the table and debate them fairly. But part of the contract upon entering here is that one argues her ideas with some measure of conviction. Professor Yoo, in his shameful and calculated “transformation,” has violated that contract.

Make no mistake I – unlike Professor DeLong – am not questioning Professor Yoo’s right to teach here. Nonetheless, it seems clear that censuring him and setting a precedent of serious consequences for this sort of un-academic behavior is called for.

At the very least, it would be the first step in fully grasping his deeply problematic actions and starting a campus conversation about responsible academic and intellectual behavior in a democratic society.

Image source: Miller_Center via Creative Commons.

Contact Noah Kulwin at nkulwin@dailycal.org or follow him on Twitter: @noahkulwin.

The post The hypocrisy of Berkeley professor John Yoo appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Tuesday, UC Berkeley academia also entered the discussion with the publication of the “Occupy Handbook,” a compilation of more than 50 articles about the movement by some of the most renowned economists in the United States, including UC Berkeley economics professors Brad DeLong and Emmanuel Saez and public policy professor Robert Reich.

The book traces the historical and economic events that led to the 2007 recession and birth of the Occupy movement, highlighting the financial deregulation of the 1970s, special interests in politics and lowered tax rates for the wealthiest Americans.

In an essay published in the book titled “Occupy Democracy,” Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration, argues that income inequality has created a situation in which moneyed interests control politics. The concentration of wealth threatens the First Amendment and democracy in the United States, which is evident by the crackdown on the free speech and assembly of Occupy protesters across the country, he says.

“Now more than ever, the first amendment needs to be put right side up,” Reich writes. “Nothing less than the future of our democracy is at stake.”

Reich became publicly associated with the Occupy movement after he gave a speech on Sproul Plaza at UC Berkeley Nov. 15 that drew a crowd of thousands. His speech echoed some of the concerns in his article, such as rising inequality and the loss of political power for the majority of Americans.

Saez and Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond co-authored an article published in the book that argues for a steeper progressive tax. They recommend that tax rates for high earners are raised to between 48 and 76 percent, that the earnings of low-income families are temporarily subsidized, and that higher taxes are issued on capital gains.

“It’s nice to see economists engage with the popular movement of the time,” said Emiliano Huet-Vaughn, a UC Berkeley graduate student of economics, in an email. “I have great respect for the work (of DeLong, Saez and Reich).”

Along with the Berkeley professors, Princeton University professor of Economics and International Affairs Paul Krugman, a recipient of the Nobel Prize and a columnist for The New York Times, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker, former Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer and “Moneyball” author Michael Lewis contributed.

Saez, DeLong and Reich could not be reached for comment.

The post New book contributed to by UC Berkeley Professors discusses the Occupy Movement appeared first on The Daily Californian.

“Many Americans would be shocked to hear about an invisible tax burden put on them this year by some of the largest, most profitable corporations that use offshore tax havens to avoid paying their full tax bill,” said Kate Uyeda, CalPIRG intern and campaign coordinator.

The 20-page report published Thursday states that tax haven abuse costs the United States around $100 billion in tax revenues annually, of which multinational corporations account for $60 billion.

“Assuming that the added $100 billion tax burden was distributed evenly among all American tax filers, in 2011 each tax filer would have to pay an average of $426 to compensate for the revenue lost to tax havens,” the report states.

Although college students are affected by the increased tax burden, the press conference extended its focus to the greater community impact — the tax burden, because of the loopholes, totals about $11.8 billion in California, the highest in the country.

“Responsible small businesses are put at a competitive disadvantage since they can’t hire armies of well-paid lawyers and accountants to use offshore tax loopholes,” Uyeda said. “The rest of us pick up this tab in the form of higher taxes, cuts to public programs or a larger federal debt.”

Several guest speakers also addressed the issue of corporate tax loopholes.

Berkeley City Councilmember Kriss Worthington formulated his take on the issue in the form of a poem, part of which read: “The power of corporate PACS / Exploit tax power to their max.”

UC Berkeley economics professor Brad DeLong also voiced his concern, saying the country is “on the wrong track.”

According to the report, if the tax burden were distributed evenly, California small businesses would pay more than $7 billion in additional 2011 taxes — about $2,010 per business.

Mel Vapour, owner of East Bay Media Center in Berkeley, spoke at the press conference and stressed the need to amend the tax code.

“We’ve seen our corporate property taxes double in the last 10 years,” Vapour said.

Uyeda said she is confident that holding tax evaders accountable would alleviate the national deficit, but according to UC Berkeley history professor and economics researcher Jan de Vries, enforcing tax laws is easier said than done.

While tax haven countries such as Switzerland and the Cayman Islands do benefit from American money, de Vries said that the countries’ laws and tax policies also pose a significant barrier.

“In order to get (corporations) to comply with American laws you have to confront sovereign governments and their laws,” de Vries said. “They’re not very sympathetic with our attempts.”

A photo petition created by the chapter displayed students posing with various signs with messages like, “I pay taxes, why doesn’t Exxon?” The petition will eventually be mailed to Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, said Uyeda.

CalPIRG is hoping for the passage of the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, a bill that has been introduced in the U.S. Congress and is co-sponsored by Lee. A similar bill called the CUT Loopholes Act has also been introduced, but both have yet to be voted on.

The post Loopholes shift burden onto taxpayers, CalPIRG report finds appeared first on The Daily Californian.