This is Gibbon's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Gibbon's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Gibbon
Recent Activity
>Meanwhile DeLong and Krugman are for Hillary. Meanwhile DeLong and Krugman think Hillary might give them a job.
1 reply
I nugget I roll over in my head is there is likely demand for better more productive and thus higher paying jobs. So I get kinda spastic when people freak out at the thought of higher wages. To me is sounds a lot like the mistake they warn industrial engineers about, which is trying to optimize the metrics instead of the process. My take, the labor share of GDP is historically low. Worrying about whether the economy is at full employment (whatever that means) is wrong by inspection.
1 reply
That's generally my feeling. People that occupy high level policy positions aren't the type to not take an opportunity to ratfuck their enemies.
1 reply
Taxes would have been paid in grain not coin.
1 reply
> Krugman and many of supporters literally believe that physical violence took place. Krugman thinks Hillary will give him a seat on the Fed or a position at the Treasury. He's deluded.
Toggle Commented May 20, 2016 on Links for 05-20-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
That average poorness is decreasing while people in the first world lose ground reminds me of the Simpson's paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox Also claims as such do a slight of hand and imply that the world economy is a zero sum. So for the people living on $2/day to improve their lot the people in the wealthy countries need to give up wealth. IE, the current system is working for everyone but you which means you're a loser who needs to STFU.
Toggle Commented May 19, 2016 on Worlds of Inequality at Economist's View
1 reply
Wow the management class figured out that they don't own those factories in China?
1 reply
You should accept that you lost that exchange
Toggle Commented May 12, 2016 on Send In The Clowns at Economist's View
1 reply
You reminded me of an old paper I read. Which attempts to answer the question, why do companies locate their head offices where they do. Ans: Companies locate their main offices where their CEO's board members, want to live. Which reminds me of a friend who has a decent job in LA. And the company is 'moving' the head quarters to Waco Texas. Everyone who works there is freaking out. The gay boys are freaking out. My friends went on a junket to visit which included a tour of the local schools. Where they were gleefully informed that the school didn't teach any of they 'evolution nonsense' My friend checked out a private school and it was worse. So the problem seems not that SF, San Jose, etc aren't willing to build high rise buildings. It's that places in the rest of the country have embraced neo-liberal economic policy's. Along with the conservative social polices. And thus are driving everyone of merit to the handful of places that haven't.
1 reply
Read that as "unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to be contracted'" Lately every time I read about contracts and freedom to choose' I keep thinking about the oaths in the 9th century onward that bound busted out dirt farmers to the lord of the manor.
1 reply
I've read anecdotes that cheap labor in China slowed the pace of automation in the period 1980-2000. Why invest in expensive machines when you can hire a legion of Chinese workers to turn screw drivers. However the pace is up again. One is the cost of automation is down and the price of Chinese workers is up. Second quality concerns drive automation. I wonder as well there is a paradox that productively doesn't increase across the board. We've automated agricultural and industrial work to the point where the labor share consumed by the those industries is low. If you assume that production is demand limited[1], then that constrains the total production. And then you divide that by total workforce. Seems like as the share of the workforce occupied by agriculture and manufacturing shrinks, then productivity tends to increasingly reflect the jobs that aren't easy to automate. [1] Also can be limited by resource availability.
1 reply
When you say, reduce carbon emissions by 80% in 25 years I start thinking not carbon taxes, but command economy actions. Meaning hard limits on production and rationing.
Toggle Commented Apr 21, 2016 on 101 Boosterism at Economist's View
1 reply
>argument to the effect that businessmen do not become wealthy through competition but by destroying the competition Seemed to have worked well for Bill Gate. Amusing bit, the only reason Microsoft got the contract to supply DOS for the IBM PC was because IBM was under an anti-trust order,
1 reply
I have friends that have made comments that a high percentage of students in grad school are on 'mood stabilizers'. I suspect that an unacknowledged result of the winner take all economy as that we are selecting people for leadership positions via a process of destructive testing. Probably also explains the increasing mortality rate among middle aged white males. High stress during 20's and 30's results in higher mortality in 40-50's
1 reply
Well deLong moderates his comments and I think not just for spam and ad hominem attacks but also for goldbuggery and other such nonsense.
1 reply
And E) Low cost robust power transistors for handling DC power efficiently. F) Cheap microprocessor based controllers The necessary devices weren't available until the early 1980's when you saw the first variable speed drives and only for truly large motors ~1000 to 10000kW. Took ten years from 1985 to 1995 for the cost to drop enough for use in 50kW motors commonly found in electric/hybrid cars. So the stuff has been available since the early 1980's but only recently at price points that are economic for electric cars. The sort of stuff could have been developed faster if there was the political will. Consider though that most of our political leaders if they had their druthers would use their legislative power to block adoption of these technologies and we're lucky we get here as fast as we did. Electric power storage is pirating off technologies developed for laptops/cell phone originally. And laptops/cell phones weren't considered serious business until the late 90's a mere 15-20 years ago.
1 reply
Story mostly I think is the Soviets weren't willing to wait for the nuclear scientists to design smaller nukes, so they designed and built big IBCM's. Which were just the thing to throw satellites and men into space. So the United States got caught somewhat flat footed. One of my Maximums: If a country is honestly committed to do something technical and has the resources they'll usually succeed at it.
1 reply
I remember I think seeing someone overlay recessions with droughts/grain harvests, and it looked like most recessions/downturns were preceded by a decline in agricultural output. (Pretty sure most economists would snort at the idea)
1 reply
I have a tiny itsy bitsy comment to make. The $100,000 saved by ma and pa investor is all from heavily taxed earned income saved by the simple expedient of foregoing consumption.
1 reply
Not sure how making life less stressful for bankers is a win though. Especially as the cost of raising income inequality, a stressed workforce, and knocking economic growth down from 3-4% to 2% per year.
1 reply
Offhand thought of the day of how a lot of economic 'thinking' offends my sensibilities as an engineer. The story. Economist seem to think the story isn't science. Science is data and number and equations and models. It's not, all rigorous fields take a story and check and cross check to see that it's correct and then run numbers on it. And everyone knows if the story is bullshit your numbers don't mean anything. Not economists.
1 reply
""One can safely claim, to the extent that these things that be causally proven, that the rapid worldwide progress in poverty alleviation is due to globalization."" One can safely claim that the rapid worldwide progress in poverty alleviation is due to rising literacy and education rates. Particularly that of women. Num nuts.
1 reply
I think the difference is it was easy to ignore Marcy's victims when they were mere undergrads -> post doc's. But not now as they are moving to positions of authority and power outside the university, it can't be ignored. This will never be the case for Yoo's victims. What is cowardice?
1 reply
Dead inflation lies dreaming until the stars are right. Seriously, it's gone. You won't see 5% inflation again in your lifetime.
1 reply
I get the point, but classical mechanics is really just a degenerate case of relativity. What's interesting is the description the ancient Greeks had. They believed that the path of an arrow had three parts, a flat trajectory, followed by a curved, followed by falling straight down. Which is, absolutely a correct description of an arrows path. That's sort of the dispute here, the post modern economists are in the position of saying, see I've PROVED that an arrow follows a parabolic path. Proved!!!!! And then the economists that aren't willing to give up observational studies say, uh uh, a real arrow doesn't follow that path. Who is right? The moldy empiricists. That to give credit where it's due, the micro foundations, post modern economists are saying an arrow follows a straight line really. (So empirically false it's embarrassing)
1 reply