What do economists agree on?

 
More Than Mortal
| d-d-d-DANK ✑ πŸ”₯πŸ”₯πŸ”₯ 🌈πŸ‘
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MetaCognition
ID: Meta Cognition
IP: Logged

15,060 posts
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
Consensus is a notoriously hard thing to come across in economics, especially since it looks from the outside as if there are numerous divergent schools of thought (there are really only two, in truth: saltwater and freshwater, with numerous strands within). So, allow me to elucidate just what the profession actually agrees on.

Of course, given that we're discussing economics, don't take "consensus" to mean "accepted by all mainstream economists without proviso".

Economic growth and inequality:
Spoiler
- In the long-run, economic growth comes mostly from increased labour productivity.

- The increases in real US median income since 1980 substantially underestimates how much people in the median household are better off now.

- The recent decline in oil prices will promote higher real GDP in the US.

- Piketty was wrong about inequality.

- Rising market wages are a better explanation for the fall in family size than changes in medical technology or social norms.

- Automation has historically not reduced employment in the US.

- Sustained tax and spending policies that boost consumption at the expense of savings are likely to result in lower long-run living standards.

- Technological change has probably contributed to inequality.

Monetary policy, taxes & spending and recessions:
Spoiler
- In the long-run, the rate of inflation is directly proportional to the rate of growth in the money supply.

- In the long-run, the level of output is independent of the money supply (above source).

- In the short-run, monetary policy affects both inflation and output.

- The government should use stabilisation policies to counter-act recessions.

- Monetary and fiscal policymaking should be analysed by rules instead of discretion.*

- Macroeconomic policy is affected by how the private sector
perceives such policies.

- Monetary policy wouldn't benefit from greater Congressional oversight.

- If monetary policy is stabilising the business cycle, there is no need for fiscal stimulus.

- In the long-run, exchange rates reflect purchasing power parity. In the short-run, we have no idea what drives exchange rates.

- Changes to tax rates can affect revenue by altering people's behaviour.

- Had the Scottish voted for independence, they would've likely faced greater macroeconomic instability for many years.

- Due to the Obama stimulus, the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would've been otherwise.

- The benefits of Obama's stimulus will likely end up exceeding its costs.

- Chairman Ben Bernanke will be judged favourably in future economic analysis.

- If the US government fails to make scheduled payments on interest or principle debt, businesses and households will suffer severe economic consequences.

- Bitcoin sucks.

Trade:
Spoiler
-Policies which decrease the trade deficit will usually not increase the population's welfare.

- Fast-track authority for trade deals allows major trade deals to be concluded more expediently.

- Past major trade deals have benefited most Americans.

- Trade with China makes most Americans better off.

- Free trade is great

Immigration:
Spoiler
- The average US citizen would be better off if large numbers of low-skilled immigrants were allowed to enter the US each year.

- Unless they were somehow compensated, low-skilled US workers would be worse off if large numbers of immigrants were allowed to enter the US each year.

- The average US citizen would be better off if a large number of high-skilled immigrants were allowed to move to the US each year.

Welfare, healthcare and the minimum wage:
Spoiler
- Many US state and local governments understate their pension liabilities.

- Unless US states cut spending, raise taxes or change public-sector pensions over the next two decades, many of them will require severe austerity, a federal bailout or default.

- Raising the minimum wage to $9/hr is worth it.

- Long-run fiscal sustainability will require cuts to Medicaid.

- Loosening certain licensing requirements in US healthcare would benefit consumers.

Vaccines, California's drought, the financial system, discrimination, Uber, small businesses and manufacturing:
Spoiler
- Not getting vaccinated imposes a cost upon other individuals. And, the social benefit of mandating vaccinations outweighs the social cost.

- Californians would be better off if all final users in the state paid the same price for water, even if food prices rose and some farms failed.

- There is a social value to having financial institutes which issue liquid liabilities backed by illiquid assets.

- Employers which discriminate in hiring will be at a competitive disadvantage, presuming the customers do not care.

- Uber's surge pricing raises consumer welfare.

- Policies that focus on small business probably aren't useful.

- The US wouldn't make the average US citizen better off if they tried to increase manufacturing employment.

Last Edit: July 07, 2015, 11:58:11 AM by Meta Cognition


The Lord Slide Rule | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: MrMeatyMeatball
PSN:
Steam: SexyPiranha
ID: SexyPiranha
IP: Logged

4,306 posts
My stupidity is self evident.
This is a lot of information along with the sources.

Bookmarked for later


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
Any thoughts on the disproportionate wage growth between the top percentage of earners and the bottom 90% over the past five decades?


BrenMan 94 | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL: BrenMan 94
PSN:
Steam: BrenMan 94
ID: BrenMan 94
IP: Logged

1,886 posts
 
I'd argue that economists are inherently biased toward the state because they are typically employed by government or banks, meaning that any "consensus" derived by economists would be fallacious.

That also is to say that free-market economists are inherently biased against the state because they are typically employed by entities that would benefit from less state control of the market.


 
More Than Mortal
| d-d-d-DANK ✑ πŸ”₯πŸ”₯πŸ”₯ 🌈πŸ‘
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MetaCognition
ID: Meta Cognition
IP: Logged

15,060 posts
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
Any thoughts on the disproportionate wage growth between the top percentage of earners and the bottom 90% over the past five decades?
I have to point out immediately that I don't have any solid evidence on the matter. But, I think, a couple of things could be said about such an issue:

- There isn't actually a consensus on whether or not income inequality has increased in the US, and to what degree if it has. Income brackets just don't experience inflation in the same way, and accordingly a straight GINI line which doesn't capture these divergences will be led to show increasing inequality simply through data bias.
- There isn't any definitive evidence that income inequality harms economic growth. I think it does, personally, but the jury's out there.
- Inequality stats in the US are woeful; you're measuring income prior to any government transfers. What you really ought to be looking at is consumption inequality; the US performs much better in such instances.
- The rising share of national income going to capital is due to higher rents as a result of poor housing/planning regulation.