This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 149150151 152153 ... 502
4501
« on: July 04, 2015, 07:07:05 AM »
Having the majority of your infrastructure being under current standards is still not good either. If our power system was up to date I'm sure the amount of power outages would be reduced due to them being built to handle the amount of power being used now. If what you said is true about it not being able to meet current standards then why continue using it the way it is when it's no longer up to standards? Structurally deficient or not having an infrastructure that's outdated is just as bad. It's creating problems and it can be dangerous. You seem to be completely missing the point; repairing perfectly serviceable infrastructure not only makes zero sense, but it largely can't be done unless you want to blow a couple of bridges up and then re-build which is a whole other level of stupid. How wouldn't that boost the economy Broken-window fallacy.
4502
« on: July 04, 2015, 06:54:07 AM »
yeah, but it'll help people who are fucking poor not drown in debt and shit, so..there's that.
Not if people lose/can't get a job in the future because the price floor placed on their labour is too high. Minimum wage is actually a pretty terrible anti-poverty strategy; we should be using targeted transfers which give people earning nothing a guaranteed income and top-up the wages of low-paid workers up to a certain benchmark.
4503
« on: July 04, 2015, 06:52:36 AM »
Opinion on Tim Hunt?
People getting pissed off over nothing.
4504
« on: July 04, 2015, 06:49:04 AM »
So we have structurally deficient infrastructure that isn't up to current construction standards (as a result of having those standards increased), and you don't think it's a good idea to improve upon it to achieve those standards? Sure, "structurally deficient" doesn't necessarily mean "dangerous", but so what? Are you saying we should honestly wait up until a point where our infrastructure deteriorates to such an extent where it would become dangerous to utilize it? Why not be proactive and keep everything up to snuff before everything collapses? No, I'm not suggesting that we should wait until a bridge or whatever is literally dangerous. The point is that the information being used to argue for this apparent under-investment is biased, and the group peddling it has a clear stake in its widespread acceptance. The point is that rebuilding what is currently perfectly-serviceable infrastructure would be a gross mis-allocation of resources. Does there really need to be "evidence" to suggest that improving infrastructure promotes growth? You're improving infrastructure--I mean, it seems tautological to me. You're building your civilization. Unless I'm missing your point. It's essentially a subtle form of the broken-window fallacy, which states that you can increase aggregate wealth by breaking people's windows. Because then they will need to call up a guy who makes windows, have it fitted and then the money with circulate et cetera, et cetera. But this is fallacious precisely because of that mis-allocation I mentioned above. You'd be essentially forcing resources into an endeavour that you've only managed to make productive by your prior destruction. You're creating a need for something unnecessarily, and then arguing it promotes growth. This isn't a problem you have with Sanders as much as its a problem you have with our campaigning procedures. Sure, but I'd hardly call thinking Sanders would be a regulation/subsidy man "speculation". He did, for instance, vote to bar a website promoting Yucca Mountain as a potential nuclear waste site. I don't know about your priors on nuclear energy, but that seems heavy handed to me. In what ways? Are you asking how trade unions misbehave, or about the benefits of works councils? Could you name me some other candidates who are also proponents of wage subsidies, as opposed to minimum wage? If not, this isn't much of a point, unless you honestly think that a better solution to the issue is to do nothing at all. Which would be crap. Republicans generally have a bias to raising the EITC before raising the MW. But, as you said earlier when I "speculated" about Bernie's platform, details are ubiquitously in short supply. Doing nothing at the federal level isn't entirely infeasible as a solution, either; if the EITC isn't going to be expanded, then it'd be better to allow the states and cities to determine their minimum wage. Doing nothing, and leaving it at $7.25/hr, it better than hiking it across the country to $15/hr which both Clinton and Sanders support. So you're saying that less people should be going to college and pursuing degrees? Well my main point was that Sanders' contention that college is unaffordable is mostly incorrect, but if you're asking if I think less people should go to university then yeah, I do. Tertiary education is supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff at the end of high school (or in my case, sixth form) and it's clearly failing in that regard if half of all the US's graduates are over-educated for their jobs. And, not to mention, it harms those who do get an appropriate degree by inflating the supply of degrees across the economy. No doubt some tweaks could be made to the labour market itself, but the only credible long-term solution is to fix the failing primary and secondary public schools and make it so less people practically need to go to university. All he's saying is that college is too expensive, which it is. The problem isn't that the cost of college per se is too high, it's that you can't file for bankruptcy with your student loans. As usual, I don't have very many details to go on. Why would there be? I think you're underestimating the capacity for mainstream economics to reach a consensus. I'm less concerned about the economy than I am concerned about the public's quality of life, which is harmed when there's such inequality, but that's just me. The two really aren't separable. I think, at the very least, you have to say that inequality increases public unrest but we also know how much people mis-perceive inequality. I mean, the US has a fucking high standard of living. Inequality obviously hasn't brought that crashing to the ground. I really didn't want to touch upon any points involving economics, but this part just seems too silly, again. Come on. Abolishing corporate taxes?... It would end up paying for itself?... Has this idea really not been debunked before? Yes, and I didn't claim it would pay for itself. Cutting corporation tax would result in a some partial re-gain of lost revenue as all the benefits I've mentioned take hold, but it wouldn't cover the cost of the actual loss. To which, you either cut spending or make-up the revenue with something actually progressive like a land tax or a bump in the top bracket of income tax. How is giving corporations even more money going to help anyone but themselves in the long run? I gave you a list of benefits with a source. Whether or not you think corporations should have a certain amount of money is irrelevant; workers are the ones who pay the tax in the end, regardless. It's just a horrible tax. I mean, who the fuck thought it was a good idea to try and tax the rich through taxing a company's profits.
4505
« on: July 04, 2015, 06:22:04 AM »
LOLOLOLOL
Why do you think it's okay to be a shitlord when you're convinced you're correct? You haven't addressed a single point I've made, and you're always pulling the holier-than-thou horseshit on Challenger when he says practically what you've just said.
4506
« on: July 04, 2015, 06:18:41 AM »
Show me a link that isn't government-invented propaganda.
Yeah, and I'm not justified in calling you a conspiracy theorist.
4507
« on: July 03, 2015, 10:13:27 PM »
The workers deserve more than what they're getting. America is run by less than 100 people, all who are going to make more money than they'll be able to spend in ten lifetimes. That's downright wrong. Labor unions are the only groups with enough guts to actually challenge our corporate overlords.
UNTHINK UNGOOD THOUGHTS, CITIZEN. REPORT YOURSELF TO THE NEAREST RE-EDUCATION CAMP.Seriously, get the fuck out of here with this black helicopter, "corporations run America and I'm clearly qualified to say how much people should be getting paid" bullshit. Do you have any logic for simply assuming income distribution is zero-sum? Do you have any refutation for the fact that I've already pointed out the confusing nature of income inequality stats? Do you have any reason for supporting unions over works council, besides blind ideology? Why do you apparently think labour unions are the perfect representation of labour's interests as opposed to beasts unto themselves? Do you have anything to say about the ambivalent evidence regarding the effects of trade unions? Fuck, do you have anything to say which isn't tiresome and worn-out rhetoric?
4508
« on: July 03, 2015, 09:57:42 PM »
>being against trade unions
Opinion disregarded.
>blindly supporting trade unions to the detriment of both the economy and labour Op-- Oh, wait. I never gave a fuck about your retarded opinions in the first place.
4510
« on: July 03, 2015, 09:53:11 PM »
Here's one from a couple of years ago. Because I'm too fucking lazy to take a new one.
4511
« on: July 03, 2015, 09:32:29 PM »
Reddit has really being going down the shitter recently, and it's just sped up with the inauguration of Chairman Pao.
At this point I only really visit r/badeconomics and r/dsge.
4512
« on: July 03, 2015, 07:14:26 PM »
I love lightning.
4513
« on: July 03, 2015, 07:11:10 PM »
Do you think George Orwell was a capitalist?
No.
4514
« on: July 03, 2015, 06:43:17 PM »
i'll be back
Like all elections, it basically comes down to "Who are these people likely to put in key bureaucratic positions". You can't really go wrong with Bush on that count, and you could probably get away with Clinton. But for God's sake, don't vote for Sanders or Paul.
4515
« on: July 03, 2015, 06:40:29 PM »
Jeb Bush
aw hell no
There really is nobody else I could tolerate. Rubio's economic plans would probably be better than Bush's, but I'm not too sure on the rest of his platform. And Paul is just a fucking joke. Like, Rand Paul is the Bernie Sanders of Republicans.
4516
« on: July 03, 2015, 06:24:29 PM »
Who's a better candidate?
Jeb Bush, I'd say. More moderate than the likes of Walker, with some decent economic advisors and, AFAIK, policy proposals. Clinton is essentially in the same boat, although she comes with the surcharge of being Clinton.
4517
« on: July 03, 2015, 06:07:46 PM »
I don't like him. Here's why: Here is Bernie Sanders' platform. Let's review. I'll try to address all of his proposals, but some of them have pretty much zero content on them. I'll tackle what I can. Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure:It's more correct to say that America has mis-invested rather than under-invested in infrastructure. The problem of America's infrastructure is wildly over-stated. The American Society of Civil Engineer's uses the Department of Transportation's "red list" to support their analysis of infrastructural well-being (which is hardly impartial), and it's essentially a dishonest attempt at mincing with the words "structurally deficient". People usually take it to mean "dangerous", when in fact all it means is not up to current construction standards. Most of the things on the DOT's list were simply built prior to an increase in said standards. Most of what appears on the red list offers no value in terms of replacement, and is completely serviceable. IGM has conducted a poll of economists on this issue, and the results are pretty clear: there are high-return projects available, but it's far from clear that they will I) be identified and II) actually promote growth. Sanders also seems interested in infrastructural projects exactly for growth and jobs. Despite the fact there is very little evidence to suggest that infrastructure does promote growth when considered in a neoclassical model, and New Keynesian models only find a moderate positive effect for highway spending over the medium-run. Reversing climate change:No real content to these proposals either. Exactly how does Sanders want to induce this paradigm shift to sustainable energy? Given his priors, it will probably be a combination of regulation and subsidies which are pretty much universally considered to be inefficient when compared to a Pigouvian excise tax on the production and importation of goods. It's also interesting to see no mention of nuclear power, despite the fact that it's currently our most promising route for achieving cleaner energy. The other policy worth considering besides a tax on pollution would be precisely to lower the regulatory burden on nuclear energy, given the disproportionate amount they shoulder. Growing the trade unions:I'm actually going to endorse Clinton on this issue. Allow work councils to represent labour over trade unions. Trade unions are monolithic beasts who too often act like the people they claim to be protecting workers against. Raising the minimum wage:I've dealt with this before; wage subsidies are a much better solution to poverty, minimum wages are pretty ineffectual actually and have demonstrable long-run negative consequences on employment growth. The idea of a living wage is incredibly stupid, and probably doublespeak for a $15 MW. If we can't have an expansion of EITC, I'd support a $10 MW, but $15 is fucking lunacy. Pay equality for women:Nope. Not even fucking touching this one. Trade policies that benefit American workers:Well this is just dumb. Free trade doesn't result in unemployment, it probably doesn't increase inequality and involves a transfer, not loss. of wages. I also feel the need to comment on the fact that it's ridiculously chauvinistic of Sanders to essentially discount the massive gains the poorest in the world feel from trade because he wants to appeal to American workers. He's either incredibly stupid, or incredibly callous. Making college affordable for all:I don't even know where this is coming from, really. There's very little evidence for credit constraints; the issue stems from the fact that tuition loans can't be dealt with via bankruptcy. If anything, the US is producing too many people with degrees. Taking on Wall Street:This is just a long line of errors and mistaken ideas. Financial investment doesn't count towards GDP, so the comparison is pretty much useless. There is some evidence to suggest that the US has a larger financial sector (and individual banks) than is optimal for an economy, although it's possible that the Recession itself corrected this. Nevertheless, breaking up the banks is just a bad idea; the US should be seeking to emulate Canada, which has huge banks who manage to avoid financial crises by virtue of being highly diversified. Personally, I also think some macroprudential regulation to increase capital requirements, end too-big-too-fail and control the use of mortgage-backed securities are good moves. Sanders also seems to be conflating the financial crisis and the Recession; the financial crisis was, indeed, caused by toxic, securitised mortgage debt but there is little evidence that the ensuing debt crisis and financial disintermediation had any serious negative consequences for the economy. There's some evidence that falling house prices in 2006-7 led to an initial consumption shock, although the primary cause of the Recession seems to be monetary disequilibrium which then triggered and intensified the sub-prime debt crisis. Healthcare as a right for all:Bernie Sander's dislike for the US healthcare system is warranted, of course. . . It's a fucking mess. I've seen him criticise rising healthcare costs in the past, but estimates for healthcare premiums are relatively unchanged at around 20-30pc; rising costs come primarily from technological changes. It's nigh-on impossible to compare outcomes in healthcare between developed countries, since public health will be determined more by lifestyle than the actual effectiveness of the healthcare industry; some very limited evidence suggests that, if we could control for lifestyle bias, the US would probably come out on top. Changing to a single-payer system wouldn't be particularly good (evidence from such systems like the NHS would suggest there isn't any guarantee of quality or success, and given the nature of the US political system this criticism is more than relevant. If anything, the US should transition to a multi-tiered insurance system like that of Germany. Protecting the most vulnerable Americans:Again, less meat and more problems. Strengthening social security is just a short-term cover-up to a long-term problem which isn't going to disappear by throwing more and more money at it. Certain population dynamics make it an unsustainable system (seriously, why the fuck are you giving welfare to well-off seniors?). Current CBO projections put soc-sec as running out of money in 2033. It's essentially just a redistributive tax; what the US needs to do is start transitioning to mandatory, private retirement funds. When it comes to poverty, it's again pretty clear what we should do: wage subsidies, like the EITC. Real tax reform:This is pretty much all shit. There isn't any kind of consensus on whether or not income inequality has increased in the US. CPS doesn't accurately measure income, and CPI doesn't accurately measure inflation across all income groups; people just don't experience inflation in the same ways. Accordingly, a straight GINI line records growing income inequality simply through data bias. Even if this were the case, there isn't any clear economic evidence that inequality harms the economy; personally, I think it does to some degree, but it's far from the case that Sanders has the answers. When it comes to capital's share of income displacing labour (think Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century), the primary issue is coming from land and associated things like rent. Land itself is artificially made scarce by legislation which restricts planning (zoning laws, and the like). This is true of both Britain and the US. Consensus on corporation tax does exist, and they're fucking terrible. Corporation taxes should be abolished, outright. They are paid mostly by labour in the long-run, in the form of lower wages and are ridiculously distortionary. The abolition of corporation taxes in the US would have myriad benefits, including greater investment, higher output, wage growth, higher savings and an expanded tax base. It would, quite clearly, result in a Pareto improvement and provide significant welfare benefits for future generations. The problem with having strong opinions on how tax ought to be structured is that people are often unwilling to consider that they might be wrong, simply by virtue of confusing an economic issue for a political one. I, personally, prefer a combination of progressive consumption and property taxes; although a good tax plan which Sanders would never accept is the X-tax, which combines a flat tax with progressive wage subsidies.
4518
« on: July 03, 2015, 05:16:19 PM »
LOL, as if being "bought" by unions is even a bad thing.
Because the downtrodden proles are only ever leading a morally necessary fight against the oppressive bourgeoisie, right?
4519
« on: July 03, 2015, 04:42:33 PM »
Literally?
Yup.
I've been thinking of doing a thread on why Sanders fucking sucks for a while. Now might be a good time.
i can't wait
it's gonna end his career
4520
« on: July 03, 2015, 04:25:30 PM »
Literally?
Yup. I've been thinking of doing a thread on why Sanders fucking sucks for a while. Now might be a good time.
4521
« on: July 03, 2015, 04:19:27 PM »
Sanders is literally the worst candidate there is in almost every way.
4522
« on: July 03, 2015, 09:43:44 AM »
From the San Francisco Fed. The SF Fed notes the standard calculation: The figure suggests that households at the lower end of the income distribution spend more than twice what they make. At the upper end, households spend about two-thirds of what they make. Given this large difference in the propensity to consume between low- and high-income households, we consider the economic impact of levying a $1 tax on the rich and transferring it to the poor. This would reduce the high-income household’s spending by about $0.66 and increase the low-income household’s spending by $2, assuming each group spent additional dollars at their average rates. On net, it would create an increase in spending of more than $1.25. Even if the average for households in the bottom decile is overstated and they simply consume all the income they make, Figure 1 suggests every $1 of redistribution from the top earners to the bottom one-third of the income distribution would boost spending by at least $0.33. They go on to note that the actual effect is lower than the standard calculation: First, let’s focus on the lower end of the income distribution. Figure 1 suggests that spending of the 10% of households with the lowest levels of income is about twice as much as they make a year. Households in the second and third deciles of the income distribution spend, on average, 40% and 26% more than they make, respectively. In fact, taking these data at face value we would conclude that only households in the top 60% of the income distribution have positive saving rates on average. This would imply that a large segment of the population, approximately 40%, is spending well beyond its means. The primary reason for this, according to the SF Fed is poor reporting of actual income statistics in the US, as ex post income transfers aren't taken into account. Accordingly, there are disparities between income and consumption statistics. Another measurement issue that may explain the observed high spending rates of households in the bottom of the income distribution is that they may understate their actual income. This could result from underreporting government transfer payments, as documented in Meyer, Mok, and Sullivan (2009), or other sources of income. In conclusion: Surveys show low-income households tend to spend a larger share of their income than high-income households. Because of this, temporarily redistributing income from the rich to the poor could stimulate consumption and, through that, the economy as a whole. However, there is evidence that differences in propensities to consume this additional income across households are smaller than commonly assumed. I'm posting this to try and elucidate the idea that redistributive policy should be done for the sake of eliminating poverty and providing a stable social safety net. When it comes the countercyclical policy, it should be left primarily to monetary and macroprudential endeavours.
4523
« on: July 03, 2015, 08:35:45 AM »
Eh dunno how to feel about this.
If they were just shutting down mosques for the sake of it, then it'd be certainly a bad policy. But considering that the mosques in question are essentially rogue/without surveillance then I can see it as justified.
4524
« on: July 03, 2015, 07:42:09 AM »
monetary or fiscal policy?
Always monetary. Although technically the printing of money and the distribution of said money to citizens would count as fiscal policy, although it incurs no debts or revenue shortfalls.
4525
« on: July 03, 2015, 07:41:22 AM »
What's the next pair of economic underwear you'll be wearing?
I don't understand the question.
4526
« on: July 03, 2015, 07:36:03 AM »
I always find it funny how Marxist/Socialists seem enamoured with Keynes. The man was an incredibly ardent supporter of capitalism, to the point of publicly refuting a close friend who claimed he had read Marx and agreeing with the sentiments of Hayek's Road to Serfdom. Hell, he even said this about Marxism in Russia: How can I accept a doctrine which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete economic textbook which I know to be not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application for the modern world? How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeois and the intelligentsia who, with whatever faults, are the quality in life and surely carry the seeds of all human advancement? Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the turbid rubbish of the Red bookshops? Keynes's description of the Great Depression essentially captured this: "We have magneto trouble". Keynes's view was that the history of capitalism was a history of technical faults to be corrected, not that capitalism was inherently contradictory or had some kind of sociological time-limit. The fundamental distinction between Keynesianism and Marxism is that Keynesianism is good economics. Marxism just doesn't hold up to scrutiny: While radical economics has provided a critique of economic theory, it has been more concerned with presenting a critique of capitalism. It is not just that markets do not provide a constrained Pareto efficient outcome—though that is a welcome first step in the critique—but that capitalism is fundamentally flawed. Mainstream economists have not only found concepts like exploitation and power to be useless in explaining economic phenomena, but they worry about introducing such emotionally charged words into the analysis. But that is presumably precisely why the radical economists choose to use such words: they want the analysis to motivate action. It is in their implicit or explicit policy prescriptions that radical economists fail to make their case. The contention that markets are not constrained Pareto efficient does suggest a role for government, but even that needs to be qualified: the theorems have little to say about whether actual governments can undertake the appropriate roles. Moreover, proving that markets are imperfect does not necessarily imply anything is radically wrong with the capitalist system. Even when it comes to the more moderate social democrats, the love with Keynes is somewhat misplaced. The creation and development of a welfare state primarily came from Germany under Bismarck, before Keynes was born, and then from Beveridge in Britain. (As an interesting aside, Beveridge actually viewed the welfare state as a potential channel for eugenics, believing people who had to be supported by the State should suffer "complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights – including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood."). Keynes's view on a social welfare net is rather, well, non-existent. Keynes didn't believe a social safety net would be necessary, since he viewed the government's role as one of a massive consumer which would push the economy towards full employment whenever it deviated. When it comes to programmes like the New Deal, Keynes was rather critical, believing it to be poorly constructed. Basically, Keynes was a reactionary, capitalist pig.
4527
« on: July 03, 2015, 07:24:13 AM »
Regional Post.TUNISIA : Prime Minister, Habib Essid, told on Friday that the Tunisian government plans to shutter 80 mosques that remain beyond the state control kindling violence as a protective measure after the terrorist attack at a hotel in Sousse that killed 39 people.
The Prime Minister announced the clampdown after a gunman blindly opened fire on families and tourists staying at a resort in Sousse city.
Whilst speaking to a news conference, Mr.Habib informed that about 80 mosques outside government control were suspected of “spreading venom” and would be padlocked within a week.
Furthermore, Essid promised to clear the country free of any party or group acting “outside the constitution”.
As per the AFP report, the attack is believed to be the worst in the recent history of the northernmost country of Africa, killing at least 39 people, including tourists and children, on Friday in a bloodbath at a Tunisian tourist beach resort.
The startled holidaymakers reported scenes of utter chaos and confusion as the mass murderer opened fire at them.
Moreover, the interior ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Aroui, confirmed that an armed man entered the hotel from the back and opened fire at the people basking in the sun.
The attack victimized several people, including 15 Britons. Many are also reported to have been hospitalized. The gunman was shot at the scene.
The terrorist attack came only a few months after another attack in Tunis on the Bardo National Museum in March, in which 21 foreign tourists and a policeman bid farewell to their lives. Good on them.
4528
« on: July 03, 2015, 04:36:33 AM »
Ellen Pao is a piece of shit.
4529
« on: July 03, 2015, 04:23:05 AM »
It's amazing how the kind of anti-Americanism we see today didn't even need the Soviets to help it arise.
When people prance around saying things like "America is a terrorist state" or that "America is an empire" they truly are beyond the pale. America, Canada, Western Europe and Australia are the best countries on the planet. If you can't see that, you're an idiot.
4530
« on: July 02, 2015, 12:26:36 PM »
but we aren't trying to become a world that ignores race.
We kind of are.
Pages: 1 ... 149150151 152153 ... 502
|
Show Posts
