This is reason's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following reason's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
reason
Recent Activity
I wonder where you find managers experienced in planetary crises? =)
1 reply
Figures, I think one of the great divides is between substance over form people and form over substance people. I think you have just made a vote.
Toggle Commented May 30, 2014 on 'Don't Raise Rates' at Economist's View
1 reply
And we could take the revenue and use it start moving towards a citizen's basic income which would solve a lot of other problems as well as being necessary to sell the tax politically.
1 reply
(In other words, besides food, transport, health and cleanliness, shelter and clothing, entertainment and display what is there)?
1 reply
pgl, come on, surely you can reconize blatant sarcasm?
1 reply
It seems odd to me that you student debt repayments are not deductable. Companies can deduct depreciation on their investments from their taxable income. Why aren't investments in education tax deductable?
1 reply
Do you mean before or after the USA existed?
1 reply
You misunderstand me. The effect of changes in the percentages of the workforce in retirement or unemployed CETERUS PARABUS have a much smaller effect on the median than the mean. And it doesn't matter how much less retirees earn than they were earning when they are working, because the only move from above the median to below the median - there income alone has no direct effect on the median. Those changes in the median mainly reflect changes in wages, not changes in the status of the workforce.
1 reply
Besides which as we saw from New Orleans there are two extra issues: 1. Insurance is not sufficient (not all the risks are financial), and not all the required assistance is financial. 2. Insurance will be unaffordable to many at risk.
1 reply
Robert Shiller is, and always was, a shill for the insurance industry. OK. First I'll admit my priors, I'm a sceptic when it comes to private insurance, and particularly for profit insurance. Firstly, here we are talking about unknown risks, insurance can manage well known risks, but unknown risks are beyond it, but even for known risks there are large issues when there are new sorts of insurance or rapidly expanding insurance volume due to revenue being received long before claims are made. This means that in the short term irresponible behaviour (underpricing the risk) is rewarded, so fraud or agency-principal problems are a major issue. Secondly, this means that insurance companies look constantly for ways (often devious) to avoid paying claims (so that the customer cannot always be confident that his coverage is either reliable or adequate). The incentives are there for insurance companies to promise the world, and deliver nothing, and profit makes this worse. I'm sorry, but I really can't warm to Shiller. And I think that ultimately there is no better insurance, that a livelihood you can fall back on, if worst comes to worst (i.e. a citizen's basic income).
1 reply
I can think of 75% and higher tax rates that even say, Greg Mankiw, might think is good policy. (Hint, some things have large external costs).
Toggle Commented May 23, 2014 on Links for 5-23-14 at Economist's View
1 reply
In fact this is even worse when I think it through. If an institution is covered by LORL, but not if it is "insolvent", then it would automatically become insolvent when the LORL is removed (because it would be riskier to lend to it, so its debt would be discounted). So the institution deciding on the insolvence has the ability to make a regulated institution insolvent. So why is it a good idea to pick people with power over such decisions from Wall Street (who may have personal preferences and emnities). Paulson (indirect influence only, admittedly) for instance?
1 reply
Yes, exactly, this seems just odd. In the event of a major bank failure, then every institution is insolvent (as a major part of its assets become worthless). Didn't the framers ever think about this?
1 reply
cm - yes and no. 1. I was mainly complaining about the habit of journalists, not to just report the facts, but to make a bullshit narrative about it. 2. This doesn't explain the particular post-2007 dynamics involved. 3. Cities have attractions independent of jobs. 4. This doesn't say where the people bidding up the prices in the suburbs/exurbs are coming from. 5. Telecommuting not on enables people in the suburbs and exurbs to work from home, it also enables people in other countries to do the work (as you should well know).
Toggle Commented May 23, 2014 on Links for 5-22-14 at Economist's View
1 reply
"If taxes grow more slowly than interest rates rise" What is this supposed to mean - the units are not comparible? "and G runs a deficit, then G is, by definition and in reality, in default" no it is not (at least not that G with printing press).
1 reply
"In a way, anything is slavery that robs you of your ability to control your own life" You mean like illness?
1 reply
"After two years of solid urban growth, more Americans are moving again to suburbs and beyond." Journalistic distortion pure. People are almost certainly not moving to the suburbs and beyond - where are they coming from? (Most likely the suburbs - moving out from living with their parents.) What is happening is that more of those people who can afford to set up a household are finding it cheaper to do so away from now more expensive city centers.
Toggle Commented May 22, 2014 on Links for 5-22-14 at Economist's View
1 reply
"Anne, remember that median annual income includes those who are unemployed and retired so it tends to track the employment to population ratio." Not much it doesn't. (Median income remember is the income of single individual - the individual for who is exactly in the middle of the income distribution. So although some of the unemployed and retired would have moved from above the median to below the median, because the median is in the thick middle of the distribution it doesn't move much - much less than the mean would.)
1 reply
Is this relevant? It seems to me like this comment belongs on Amazon, not here. Here is is merely ad hominem.
1 reply
You're all in favour of unemployment then? I'm not quite sure sometimes what you think you (and we as a society) are trying to acchieve. What is the point of ít all? All I get from you is passivity and nihilism. P.S. My comment was of course thinly disguised sarcasm, as you have clearly demonstrated. P.P.S. Think about what you wrote " The economy continues to stagnate, in spite of QE and low interest. Therefore, they should stop. " Does not follow - let me use an analogy - "Heating the house in winter failed to make it warm enough - so we should stop."
1 reply
A small question David, if you yourself, don't think the issue of allocative efficiency is important here - why even mention it? P.S. I really appreciate authors that interact with the comments section. Thanks.
1 reply
Interesting read: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/05/wolf-richter-chart-fate-housing-america-student-loans-bankrupt-whole-generation.html
Toggle Commented May 21, 2014 on Links for 5-21-14 at Economist's View
1 reply
Besides which - in which parallel universe is it that excess unsecured credit is a major problem (with companies now have record hoards of cash and banks being eager to lend at low interest rates to solvent clients). Sorry folks, I know I should learn to ignore, but sometimes the crazy just gets too much.
1 reply
1 "However people are not going to buy houses they can't afford, no matter how low the interest." History says otherwise unfortunately. 2. "The fact that the economy continues to stagnate should be a hint that the policies of QE and low interest are not the answer." So you are in favour of more fiscal stimulus? You surprise me!
1 reply