This is reason's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following reason's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
reason
Recent Activity
Larry Summers bit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/27/larry-summers-trump-is-undermining-his-own-treasury-secretary/#pq=Amqmri mmm.. It is a bit hard to feel sorry for "Munchin". But I don't know what the surprise is - in Trump's cabinet everybody undermines everybody else. It is absolutely par for the course. Hasn't he noticed? The reason is obvious. Trump hasn't a clue what he is doing, and he likes to play one advisor off against another. In order to protect themselves they do likewise.
Toggle Commented 14 hours ago on Links for 04-28-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
I sort of wonder why he is against estate taxes (although I prefer to rename them inheritance taxes). I think they are IN GENERAL a good thing. Or does he think relatives are always better managers?
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 04-27-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Yes but: http://equitablegrowth.org/equitablog/value-added/the-student-loan-crisis-is-fueled-by-a-weak-labor-market/ It doesn't seem healthy to have a system that only functions well if other conditions are favorable. Given uncertainty in general, anything saddling young people with debts that they may not be able to repay is a bad thing, not just for those young people, but for the whole society. Society should be looking to decrease economic security, not increase it.
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 04-27-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Normally, I steer a wide course around anything from John Cochrane. But I found the idea in this interesting. http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.de/2017/04/a-progressive-vat.html Of course like the ideas behind progressive consumption taxes in general, I regard them as requiring company taxes, land taxes and inheritance taxes for balance. Growing inequality of wealth is a long term threat that should not be ignored.
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 04-27-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
A national dividend has no effect whatsoever on the reward to work (i.e. income is NOT detached from work). It only changes the degree of punishment for not being part of the paid workforce, treating the poor the same as those with rich relatives.
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 04-26-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
" Though in team sports it would be an interesting exercise to match men against women of similar physical attributes. There is probably little interest in that, I speculate especially the aspect of the risk of men being shown up by women in "their own" game." No I don't think that is the reason. Women are not just different in size but in skeletal features, muscles and reflexes. The body designs of men and women are optimized for different things. Testosterone makes a difference (hence it is regarded as cheating to administer it to enhance performance). I used to be quite a good squash player (two levels down from the top amateur level) and sometimes practiced against the very top level of amateur women. They were better than me at everything, except their responses were slower so I was competitive.
Toggle Commented 2 days ago on Links for 04-25-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
children, children!
Toggle Commented 2 days ago on Links for 04-25-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Who exactly do you think reads Brad Delong's presentations to INET by the way?
1 reply
How does this omission of the general equilibrium assumption line up with this - (for instance): https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/inclusive-growth-requires-maintenance-of-full-employment/
1 reply
"https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/inclusive-growth-requires-maintenance-of-full-employment/" No - you can use redistribution to ensure that everybody benefits to some extent (i.e. a national dividend).
Toggle Commented 2 days ago on Links for 04-26-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
If you CAN prove ...
1 reply
?????? If you prove the assumptions underlying macro are reasonable go ahead. What is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.
1 reply
"The competitive model has too great a hold: "Brad, you're the only person I've ever heard say that Card-Krueger changed their mind on how much market power there is in the labor market..." This misses the point. In this particular case market power is not the only issue (there may indeed be a competitive market for relatively low skilled labor), but disequilibrium (even if only local) IS. The market power arises not only from asymmetric costs, but from supply/demand imbalance. He missed totally the general equilibrium issue. General equilibrium is THE wrong turn.
1 reply
Good thanks. I just think that paine's world view is dated. I don't like class war of either type (down or up) it is too costly for the bystanders (just like any war). Today most people don't fit cleanly into one class (workers) or the other (capitalists)- actually they never did women and children are a majority not to mention the increasing ranks of the retired. We live in a world where most people are both workers and owners - that is almost the definition of a middle class society. And many rely on "rents" from their hard won qualifications. Marxism is just too simple a view of world, and as it turns out unnecessary. High taxes and redistribution do the job nicely, just ask Norway.
Toggle Commented Apr 20, 2017 on Links for 04-20-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Mark "What's needed now is a government that makes it very much harder to become filthy rich" - I'm not so sure that is right. What we need is for it to be much harder to STAY filthy rich.
Chris Dillow hits one out of the park again: http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2017/04/neither-inequality-nor-poverty.html
Toggle Commented Apr 20, 2017 on Links for 04-20-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
It seems Paul Krugman isn't the economist who doesn't necessarily agree with Sanders all the time. http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.de/2017/04/personnel-is-policy-presidential.html Still, all this really shows is how incredibly dysfunctional the ancient US system is. Time for a constitutional renewal process.
Toggle Commented Apr 20, 2017 on Links for 04-20-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Is that your disproof of my point? A bit like people who react violently when it is suggested they have problems with anger management.
Toggle Commented Apr 19, 2017 on Links for 04-18-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Sort of reminds me of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance". (Where a teacher refused to release marks on corrected work although he kept them to himself. He noted that some students failed themselves, it made no difference to the best students and some students - borderline passing students - freaked out. Interestingly he found he found he identified most with those who failed.)
Toggle Commented Apr 18, 2017 on Links for 04-18-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
"... in his student(')s willingness to pay .." I'm pretty sure the author is female. http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/about-frances-woolley.html
Toggle Commented Apr 18, 2017 on Links for 04-18-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
My first attempt got swallowed (I used a banned word it seems - I'll try to get around it). Peter Thiel is an AH. One of the worst. But my take on that is that Basic Income is so good that even has some AH supporters. It will still help lots of people anyway. And no there are not lots of varieties of basic income. The idea is simple - you give people some money for being alive - the same as you currently give people tax deductions or access to streets for being alive. And then you probably match that by broadening some taxes and reducing some means tested benefits. This means both that the welfare/tax system is more progressive and that some poverty traps (very high effective marginal rates on low incomes) disappear and that less invasive bureaucracy is needed. Both Libertarians AND progressives should like it!
Toggle Commented Apr 18, 2017 on Links for 04-18-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Capital is an awful word. Like savings it has 3 or 4 different meanings and the different meanings are so often interchanged it just leads to confusion. The parasite is not capital - it is not even the ownership of capital - it is rent extraction.
Toggle Commented Apr 18, 2017 on Links for 04-18-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
We have conservative trolls here but kthomas is not one of them. He is almost as abusive as you are though.
Toggle Commented Apr 18, 2017 on Links for 04-18-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Trump - the last thing Trump wants to do is make people more independent. He wants everybody to think they are dependent on Trump. And where will a congress majority come from for the necessary tax increases, with a Republican congress. This guy is on LSD.
Toggle Commented Apr 18, 2017 on Links for 04-18-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
And a very major part of the technological change that makes this inevitable is cheap communication and transportation. I often thought, the real tragedy is that we got the cheap communication and transportation long after massive international inequality had developed. Things might have been very different if it happened the other way around.
1 reply