John C. Mallery

John C. Mallery is the CTO of WFA Group LLC. Since 1980, he has been a researcher at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and its successor the Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in various capacities from graduate student to research scientist. He is also an Oxford Martin School Associate, a Senior Fellow at the Security and Defence Research Centre of the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers (CNAM) in Paris, and an affiliate of the Digital Society Institute at the European School for Management Technology (ESMT) in Berlin.

During the 1990s, he was the principal architect and developer of the White House Electronic Publications System that served the Clinton Administration from 1992-2001. He created and fielded the first large-scale wide-area collaboration system for the Vice President’s 1994 Open Meeting on the National Performance Review with 4000 Federal workers, pioneered online survey research in 1992 leading up to hierarchical adaptive surveys in 1996, and implemented the first production HTTP 1.1 Web server and URN resolver.

By this expert

To Save the Economy, Save People First

Article | Nov 18, 2020

Targeted Measures and Subsidies for Cost Effective COVID-19 Abatement

Featuring this expert

INET research showing countries that prioritized health policies fared better economically is cross posted in Le Monde

News Dec 15, 2020

Three American researchers, crossing the figures for growth and mortality due to the Covid-19 pandemic from many countries, conclude that containment is effective, provided it is accompanied by strong public subsidies.

Thomas Fricke has an article in Der Spiegel citing an INET study showing that prioritizing health in the pandemic has led to better economic outcomes

News Dec 7, 2020

“Calculations by Phillip Alvelda, Thomas Ferguson and John Mallery, which have just been published by the Institute for New Economic Thinking, suggest how scary the choice between life and business is in the corona crisis . A comparison of all possible countries and strategies over the past year then gave a fairly clear picture: Those who consistently aimed to stop the epidemic through hard lockdowns have significantly fewer deaths - even if they initially suffered greater economic damage; while it is with countries like the UK it was exactly the opposite, which initially hesitated with the lockdown and raised all the more money to avoid economic damage. With the fatal result that precisely because of this, the second wave became all the more violent - and economic output collapsed in the end. Conclusion of the study: The more negligent governments allow the pandemic to work in order not to harm the economy, the more the economic costs will pile up over time and ever new waves. Almost no matter how hard these rulers and central bankers try to counter it with economic stimulus programs. The damn virus finds activity between people (also economic) pretty good.” — Thomas Fricke

INET study is cited in the Socialist Worker

News Dec 7, 2020

“Rich economies have more resources to spare to prioritise saving lives. And Wolf reproduces the Institute for New Economic Thinking’s now famous chart that refutes the idea there is a “trade-off” between saving the economy and saving lives. On the whole, those states that prioritised saving lives also lost less economic output. China is the standout case. But it isn’t just about how rich an economy is. The same chart shows that the states that suffered the biggest losses of lives and output include Italy, Britain, Spain, and France. The US and Belgium aren’t far behind.” —Alex Callinicos

INET article cited in NTV on how to handle the pandemic this winter

News Dec 7, 2020

“A look around the world shows that so far no country has managed to effectively protect its risk groups when the number of infections is high - Sweden at the beginning of the pandemic or Switzerland in the second wave also had to pay for their special routes with many deaths. And if such a strategy fails, you have wasted valuable time and may find yourself confronted with an infection that is completely out of control. This would mean a collapse of the health system with all the ensuing consequences. This also includes immense damage to the economy. This is also confirmed by a study by the Institute for New Economic Thinking. Those who reacted belatedly or wavered between strategies not only had very high casualties, but were also the most damaging to their economies, it said. The authors cite Great Britain as a negative example.” — Klaus Wedekind