There are lots of measures of inequality.  If we are interested only in income distribution within the United States, it doesn’t matter much which one we look at:  They all show rising inequality. But when we look at inequality internationally, which measure we look at makes all the difference.

The new tax legislation pushed through by Donald Trump and congressional Republicans is virtually certain to raise the budget deficit and, in turn, the current-account deficit. Whatever the resemblance to the Reagan-era tax cuts of 1981-1983, it's not morning in America.

Inequality has been on the rise within the United States and other advanced countries since the 1980s and especially since the turn of the century.  The possibility that trade is responsible for the widening gap between the rich and the rest of the population has of course become a major political preoccupation

Congress is expected any day now to pass a really awful tax bill. If you want to understand why economists are confident that the tax cuts will not pay for themselves and why Republicans are disingenuous to claim otherwise, I recommend what Jason Furman and Larry Summers have been writing, e.g. in this column in the Washington post.

The Republicans, it is said, absolutely must pass a massive tax bill by Christmas, in order to have some major accomplishment to show for 2017, the first year in which they control all branches of government. Having apparently failed in their seven-year campaign to deprive some 20 million Americans of health insurance, they dare not fail in their Scrooge-like campaign to transfer billions of dollars to the ultra-rich.

The US has plenty of experience with irresponsible tax cuts. Yet its leaders seem not to have learned their lesson. Should Republicans secure the legislative victory they so desire, the entire country – with the exception, perhaps, of the wealthiest few – will lose.

There has been speculation that after Trump picks one of the five candidates to be chair of the Federal Reserve (with Jay Powell now apparently the front-runner), he could pick another one of them to be Vice-chair.  This latter position is the one that, sadly, Stanley Fischer is now vacating.

The Trump Administration has said it will announce its choice for the new Chair of the Federal Reserve Board by November 3. Subject to Senate confirmation, the chosen candidate will succeed Janet Yellen, whose term ends February 3.

The White House has said it views five candidates as front runners. Two are eminent economists with unusually impressive records — both in academic research, mostly at West Coast universities, and as practitioners of macroeconomic policy. That would be Yellen herself, who is a strong candidate for reappointment, and Stanford’s John Taylor. The other three front-runners are not professionally trained as economists, but rather come from financial backgrounds: Gary Cohn, Jerome Powell, and Kevin Warsh. They worked, respectively, for Goldman Sachs, Dillon Read, and Morgan Stanley; all three also have important government experience.

US President Donald Trump’s administration is expected, by 2 November, to announce its choice, subject to Senate approval, to succeed Janet Yellen as chair of the Federal Reserve Board in February 2018. The White House has indicated it is weighing up five potential candidates. Not all of them would be a good choice.