<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://hdl.handle.net/2451/25921">
    <title>FDA Collection:</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2451/25921</link>
    <description />
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://hdl.handle.net/2451/33708" />
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://hdl.handle.net/2451/33696" />
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://hdl.handle.net/2451/33603" />
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://hdl.handle.net/2451/33582" />
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
    <dc:date>2026-04-06T16:33:10Z</dc:date>
  </channel>
  <item rdf:about="http://hdl.handle.net/2451/33708">
    <title>sdfsd</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2451/33708</link>
    <description>Title: sdfsd</description>
    <dc:date>2014-06-11T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://hdl.handle.net/2451/33696">
    <title>Inflated Responses in Measures of Self-Assessed Health</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2451/33696</link>
    <description>Title: Inflated Responses in Measures of Self-Assessed Health
Authors: Greene, William H.; Harris, Mark N.; Hollingsworth, Bruce
Abstract: This paper focuses on the self-reported responses given to survey questions of the form In general how would you rate your health? with typical response items being on a scale ranging from poor to excellent. Usually, the overwhelming majority of responses fall in either the middle category or the one immediately to the "right" of this (in the above example, good and very good). However, based on a wide range of other medical indicators, such favourable responses appear to paint an overly rosy picture of true health. The hypothesis here is that these "middle" responses have been, in some sense, inflated. That is, for whatever reason, a significant number of responders inaccurately report into these categories. We find a significant amount of inflation into these categories. Adjusted responses to these questions could lead to significant changes in policy, and should be reflected upon when analysing and interpreting these scales.</description>
    <dc:date>2014-05-29T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://hdl.handle.net/2451/33603">
    <title>Trade Adjustment Dynamics and the Welfare Gains from Trade</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2451/33603</link>
    <description>Title: Trade Adjustment Dynamics and the Welfare Gains from Trade
Authors: Alessandria, George; Choi, Horag; Ruhl, Kim
Abstract: We build a micro-founded two-country dynamic general equilibrium model in which trade responds more to a cut in tariffs in the long run than in the short run. The model introduces a time element to the fixed-variable cost trade-off in a heterogeneous producer trade model. Thus, the dynamics&#xD;
of aggregate trade adjustment arise from producer-level decisions to invest in lowering their future variable export costs. The model is calibrated to match salient features of new exporter growth and provides a new estimate of the exporting technology. At the micro level, we find that new&#xD;
exporters commonly incur substantial losses in the first three years in the export market and that export profits are backloaded. At the macro level, the slow export expansion at the producer level leads to sluggishness in the aggregate response of exports to a change in tariffs, with a long-run trade elasticity that is 2.9 times the short-run trade elasticity. We estimate the welfare gains from trade from a cut in tariffs, taking into account the transition period. While the intensity of trade expands slowly, consumption overshoots its new steady-state level, so the welfare gains are almost&#xD;
15 times larger than the long-run change in consumption. Models without this dynamic export decision underestimate the gains to lowering tariffs, particularly when constrained to also match the gradual expansion of aggregate trade flows.</description>
    <dc:date>2014-04-23T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://hdl.handle.net/2451/33582">
    <title>Antitrust and the Financial Sector - with Special Attention to "Too Big to Fail"</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2451/33582</link>
    <description>Title: Antitrust and the Financial Sector - with Special Attention to "Too Big to Fail"
Authors: White, Lawrence J.
Abstract: Antitrust and the financial sector have traditionally had a wary relationship with each other. However, an analysis of the special features of finance and of financial regulation shows that the pro-competition stance of antitrust is as appropriate for the financial sector as it is for the other sectors of the U.S. economy to which antitrust enforcement regularly applies.&#xD;
More recently, the involvement of “too big to fail” (TBTF) financial institutions in the financial crisis of 2008-2009 has caused some antitrust practitioners to believe that the “big” in TBTF must mean that antitrust somehow has a role to play in dealing with the TBTF problem. But TBTF is fundamentally a problem of subsidy and negative externalities, not of market power; consequently, this is not an antitrust issue.&#xD;
Nevertheless, antitrust is relevant for many of the standard issues of the creation, enhancement, and/or exercise of market power in and around the financial sector. In addition, whether the communication among and/or collective action by securities holders in various circumstances (e.g., the creditors of a troubled enterprise) warrants antitrust scrutiny deserves some careful thought and analysis.</description>
    <dc:date>2014-03-31T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </item>
</rdf:RDF>

