Epstein Secrets

); Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist, 276 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2002) ("[A] p

t something about their individual circumstances, suggests that `what is true in general is not true in the particular case ... '" United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986) (quoting United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir.1985)). "The quantum of evidence required to rebut t

); Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist, 276 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2002) ("[A] p

t something about their individual circumstances, suggests that `what is true in general is not true in the particular case ... '" United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986) (quoting United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir.1985)). "The quantum of evidence required to rebut t

2006, 2016, 40 L.Ed.2 476 (1974); New Eng- land Power Co. United States, 693 F.2d 239, 244 (1st Cir.9

he mmunity. See, e.g., Smith, 79 F.3d at 1210-1211 citing United StatesDillon, 938 F.2d 1412 (1st Cir. 1991); Suppa, 799 F.2d at 119; United taus, Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 706 n.7 (7th Cir. 1986); Hurtado, 779 F.2d at 147i-79; United States `Contreras, 776 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1985). nited Stata Hazime, 762

rd University, July 30, 2008. II. THE PURCHASING POWER PARITY PUZZLE AND RELATED PUZZLES *Kenneth Rogof

t's Baaack: Japan's Slump and the Return of the Liquidity Trap," Brookings Papers on Macroeconomic Activity, 1998, v2, 137-205. (including comment by Dominguez and Rogoff) (N.B.: Our focus will be on the analytics as covered in the HANDOUT). Eggertsson, Gauti B. and Michael Woodford, “The Zero Bound on Inte