This is reason's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following reason's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
reason
Recent Activity
mulp ????? What are YOU on about now. What I am saying is that if I don't throw rubbish in the sea, it will still be messy if other people do. Don't know exactly why that set you of.
1 reply
More redistribution will do it, from both directions. 1. It means more income for the disadvantaged people. 2. It means more money flow in disadvantaged PLACES. The most direct redistributional tactic is a "national dividend", just give people more money, and pay for it by increasing excise taxes, marginal rates on top earners, higher inheritance taxes and higher rates on capital income.
1 reply
And it goes without saying of course that a basic income system would do this job even better.
1 reply
I think cm has it right. A better welfare system, means employees can pick their employers and jobs more carefully and so have a better opinion of work.
1 reply
From Robert Reich's piece "The rise of these two groups — the working poor and non-working rich – is relatively new. Both are challenging the core American assumptions that people are paid what they’re worth, and work is justly rewarded." Well no - it is not relatively new, it belongs to an ancient tradition - maybe it is relatively recently RENEWED. But I wonder about the whole idea that there is something abhorrent about people who don't want to work. Hands up, who is keen to be served by, or to work with, people who don't want to work? So why is it such an obsession?
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 03-31-15 at Economist's View
1 reply
Hint: The economy is not an entity, but the dynamic interactions of lots of entities. Things may be good or bad for (some or other of) the entities involved, but the economy doesn't care one way or the other.
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 03-31-15 at Economist's View
1 reply
I like the Washington Post headline (I won't read it - it surely will be pilloried by Dean Baker in the near future). It shows just how wonky our thinking is - "Is inclusiveness good for the economy?". Shouldn't the question be "Is the economy good for inclusiveness?"?
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 03-31-15 at Economist's View
1 reply
Sandwichman, I don't think that IS/LM is strictly understood only an equilibrium argument - since IS and LM are schedules that may or may not intersect - hence the importance of the zero lower bound. But I agree with you that uncertainty and equilibrium (especially general equilibrium) are the key points of dispute.
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 03-31-15 at Economist's View
1 reply
P.S. I see no reason to believe that individual actions will have much effect. They just make it cheaper for other people who like wasting fossil fuels.
1 reply
JJ Then I haven't got a clue what you are on about. Makes no sense to me.
1 reply
Jeff J Did you also take note of HOW FAST the solar system is warming up? (Hint: it matters a lot).
1 reply
na's comment is remarkable stupid by the way (unless it was meant as satire - you never can tell these days unless the commenter is well known). "In any case, a constructive approach is to think about actual economic actors facing constraints, not nebulous concepts like "aggregate demand" and "gluts"." Concepts like aggregate demand and gluts aren't nebulous, we can actually measure them. But the models we build of actual economic actors facing constraints using infinitely lived, representative agents with unbiased expectations of the future making continuous temporal allocation decisions is constructive in the sense of constructing a fantasy world.
1 reply
Matt, why are you looking at government spending (what sort of spending by the way - it matters) to GDP rather than actual government spending? And doesn't the concept of lags mean anything to you (looking at single figures - with one table in quarters and the other in years seems a bit odd to me)?
Toggle Commented 5 days ago on 'The Confidence Witch' at Economist's View
1 reply
Syaloch, I think this is an illustration of where economic analysis has got it completely wrong. Your friend is perfectly correct, competition is wasteful. But it is also creative. So short term inefficiency has to be balanced against long term evolutionary gain. It is a bit like sexual reproduction, if you like. Economics really is far too static, it needs to think more dynamically.
1 reply
Shouldn't the headline actually read "Lack of social insurance" (particularly single payer health insurance) "makes the US less entrepreneurial"?
1 reply
Another thing, re the baby sitting co-op is that economy is in fact a barter economy not a monetary economy (one hour of babysitting is always exchanged for one hour of babysitting) and so people suggesting a change in price are also missing an important port. A change in price in this case IS a change in interest rates.
Toggle Commented 6 days ago on 'Anti-Keynesian Delusions' at Economist's View
1 reply
Re the baby sitting co-op, I have pointed out before that many people (including Paul Krugman) miss an important point. It is that it matters HOW you increase the supply of Scrip. The problem is a relationship between now and the future and the price that is missing (wrong) is the interest rate. One possible solution would be to put an expiry date on the coupons (equivalent to inflation). Another would be increase wealth (issue everybody with more coupons).
Toggle Commented 6 days ago on 'Anti-Keynesian Delusions' at Economist's View
1 reply
na Judging by what you sent he seems to be a mostly a games theorist. Why does he think he is an expert on macro-economics. (And the rest of what you wrote shows that you understand nothing of macro-economics either.)
1 reply
I'm against saddling students with loads of debt (mainly from the point of view of encouraging some risk taking rather than penalizing it - I can't quite understand why the same people who idolize entrepreneurs also emphasize moral hazard - rather odd I think, unless they really just idolize the rich rather than the innovative). But I'm not really for meritocracy. Chris Dillow has often pointed out with the problems of seeing meritocracy as a target: e.g. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2014/05/meritocracy-mobility-fairness.html and http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2012/09/the-impossibility-of-meritocracy.html
1 reply
pgl In my view arrogance is just another form of stupidity.
1 reply
You missed the biggest argument - the possibility of interference from the heavens (e.g. magnetic field switch) http://www.livescience.com/18426-earth-magnetic-poles-flip.html .
Toggle Commented 7 days ago on Banning cash at Stumbling and Mumbling
He understates the problem in that quote. The skewed distribution of what growth there has been, makes the losses much greater and longer lasting. We can expect more aged poverty to return in the future because of this "great recession" and the response to it.
1 reply
I'm sorry but Levine just seems like a nobody trying to get attention, and attracting ridicule instead.
1 reply
WHO is this Levine character again?
1 reply
Why isn't this the headline on the front page of any newspaper?
1 reply