Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
  • “Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
  • “Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

AI Summary. Comparisons of living standards across countries can use "constant price" purchasing power parities, which extrapolate from a base year using national inflation measures, or "current price" parities recalculated annually; the debate over whether Europe has fallen behind the U.S. turns on which method is preferable. The two methods agree when inflation is measured consistently across countries.

Matt Klein The Overshoot
Date Posted:

Addressing whether intra-country growth comparisons should use constant or current price PPPs, Klein notes that for Japan, both give the same conclusion. ICT‑related price and quality‑adjustment asymmetries—while present—have not yielded large PPP drift.

Does the method of comparing prices across countries change living standards conclusions?

Core argument: The dispute over whether Europe's living standards have fallen relative to the U.S. turns on which purchasing power parity method is preferred: constant price PPPs anchored to a base year or current price PPPs recalculated each year.

One obvious approach would be to start from a given base year and then run the data forwards and backwards using national measures of inflation. This generates “constant price purchasing power parities”. In any given year, the relative purchasing power between two societies is sensitive to the starting benchmark, but the direction of travel always looks the same. The other obvious approach would be to recalculate the price parities each year, if possible, and then use those to compare incomes each year. This creates “current price purchasing power parities.” The argument about whether Europe’s living standards have fallen relative to the U.S. is an argument about whether one method is better than the other. In theory these should produce more or less the same answers as long as inflation is measured consistently across countries and as long as the mix of items tracked does not change. Sometimes, that is exactly what happens. Both methods produce essentially the same results when comparing Japanese and U.S. incomes over time, for example.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The dispute over whether Europe's living standards have fallen relative to the U.S. turns on which purchasing power parity method is preferred: constant price PPPs anchored to a base year or current price PPPs recalculated each year.
  2. Constant price purchasing power parities, built by running data forward and backward from a base year using national inflation measures, yield relative purchasing power that is sensitive to the starting benchmark, though the direction of travel looks the same.
  3. In theory the two purchasing power parity methods should produce roughly the same answers as long as inflation is measured consistently across countries and the mix of tracked items does not change, as happens when comparing Japanese and U.S. incomes.

Related Articles:

  • Europe Versus America: A Response to the Critics — The author argues that standard productivity measures do not carry the implications for cross-country comparisons of living standards and economic welfare that many economists assume, rather than that European productivity is mismeasured. Faster measured US productivity growth coexists with European relative productivity and purchasing power at current prices not declining.
  • The Mismeasurement of European Productivity — European productivity growth has trailed the United States for three decades, and measures using current purchasing-power-parity conversions versus national price deflators answer different questions. The authors argue the flat current-purchasing-power-parity series reflects changing the price yardstick each year rather than showing Europe is keeping pace.
  • The Future of European Competitiveness – A Competitiveness Strategy for Europe — A European Union competitiveness report attributes the EU's labour productivity growth gap with the US largely to weaker activity in information and communications technology and large-scale digital services; excluding main ICT sectors, EU productivity was broadly at par with the US from 2000-2019. It estimates Europe's investment share must rise about 5 percentage points of GDP.
Showing 74 database articles primarily about Growth