Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • Agreed. But economics prevent many of them as much as leaving the farm to fight

    Agreed. But economics prevent many of them as much as leaving the farm to fight summer wars prevented many in the past. https://t.co/nK8kSfdV6K


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-25 16:28:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1221107700253093888

  • Another axis of causality is the difficulty in cooperating on externalities, whe

    Another axis of causality is the difficulty in cooperating on externalities, when it’s the collective sum of externalities that produces scale returns on cooperation (trust, velocity, tolerance).


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-24 12:54:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1220691458258296832

    Reply addressees: @DegenRolf

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1220365382441226241


    IN REPLY TO:

    @DegenRolf

    Robin Dunbar argues that religion evolved to allow humans to live together in previously unknown large-scale communities without killing each other. https://t.co/gyUNYBdBxr https://t.co/lWSgDVdT1Q

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1220365382441226241

  • Another axis of causality is the difficulty in cooperating on externalities, whe

    Another axis of causality is the difficulty in cooperating on externalities, when it’s the collective sum of externalities that produces scale returns on cooperation (trust, velocity, tolerance).

    We make many decisions every day that can be biased for or against the group interest regardless of cost to us.

    Likewise hostile groups within a polity can bias their decisions against the host people’s interests.

    This is how social warfare is conducted: undermining.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-24 07:57:00 UTC

  • ” I’d be curious to hear cowardice put into economic terms. I’d say something li

    —” I’d be curious to hear cowardice put into economic terms. I’d say something like: an irreciprocal transfer of risk onto the leadership/heros.”–Daniel T. Johnson

    It’s the conservative form of GSRRM. Guilting others for not acting on their behalf, as cover for their cowardice on acting on all of our behalf. It’s fraud. Allegations of irreciprocity to cover one’s irreciprocity.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-22 12:06:00 UTC

  • THE ECONOMIC POLICY OF ELIZABETH WARREN by Tyler Cowen Jerry Taylor has made som

    THE ECONOMIC POLICY OF ELIZABETH WARREN

    by Tyler Cowen

    Jerry Taylor has made some positive noises about her on Twitter lately, as had Will Wilkinson in earlier times. I genuinely do not see the appeal here, not even for Democrats. Let’s do a quick survey of some of her core views:

    1. She wants to ban fracking through executive order. This would enrich Russia and Saudi Arabia, harm the American economy ($3.5 trillion stock market gains from fracking), make our energy supply less green, and make our foreign policy more dependent on bad regimes and the Middle East. It is perhaps the single worst policy idea I have heard this last year, and some of the worst possible politics for beating Trump in states such as Pennsylvania.

    2. Her private equity plan. Making private equity managers personally responsible for the debts of the companies they acquire probably would crush the sector. The economic evidence on private equity is mostly quite positive. Maybe she would eliminate the worst features of her plan, but can you imagine her saying on open camera that private equity is mostly good for the American economy? I can’t.

    3. Her farm plan. It seems to be more nationalistic and protectionist and also more permanent than Trump’s, read here.

    4. Her tax plan I: Some of the wealthy would see marginal rates above 100 percent.

    5. Her tax plan II: Her proposed wealth tax would over time lead to rates of taxation on capital gains of at least 60 to 70 percent, much higher than any wealthy country ever has succeeded with. And frankly no one has come close to rebutting the devastating critique from Larry Summers.

    6. Student debt forgiveness: The data-driven people I know on the left all admit this is welfare for the relatively well-off, rather than a truly egalitarian approach to poverty and opportunity. Cost is estimated at $1.6 trillion, by the way (is trillion the new billion?). Furthermore, what are the long-run effects on the higher education sector? Do banks lend like crazy next time around, expecting to be bailed out by the government? Or do banks cut bank their lending, fearing a haircut on bailout number two? I am genuinely not sure, but thinking the question through does not reassure me.

    7. College free for all: Would wreck the relatively high quality of America’s state-run colleges and universities, which cover about 78 percent of all U.S. students and are the envy of other countries worldwide and furthermore a major source of American soft power. Makes sense only if you are a Caplanian on higher ed., and furthermore like student debt forgiveness this plan isn’t that egalitarian, as many of the neediest don’t finish high school, do not wish to start college, cannot finish college, or already reject near-free local options for higher education, typically involving community colleges.

    8. Health care policy: Her various takes on this, including the $52 trillion plan, are better thought of as (vacillating) political strategy than policy per se. In any case, no matter what your view on health care policy she has botched it, and several other Dem candidates have a better track record in this area. Even Paul Krugman insists that the Democrats should move away from single-payer purity. It is hard to give her net positive points on this one, again no matter what your policy views on health care, or even no matter what her views may happen to be on a particular day.

    All of my analysis, I should note, can be derived internal to Democratic Party economics, and it does not require any dose of libertarianism.

    9. Breaking up the Big Tech companies: I am strongly opposed to this, and I view it as yet another attack/destruction on a leading and innovative American sector. I will say this, though: unlike the rest of the list above, I know smart economists (and tech experts) who favor some version of the policy. Still, I don’t see why Jerry and Will should like this promise so much.

    Those are some pretty major sectors of the U.S. economy, it is not like making a few random mistakes with the regulation of toothpicks. In fact they are the major sectors of the U.S. economy, and each and every one of them would take a big hit.

    More generally, she seems to be a fan of instituting policies through executive order, a big minus in my view and probably for Jerry and Will as well? Villainization and polarization are consistent themes in her rhetoric, and at this point it doesn’t seem her chances for either the nomination, or beating Trump, are strong in fact her conditional chance of victory is well below that of the other major Dem candidates. So what really are you getting for all of these outbursts?

    When I add all that up, she seems to have the worst economic and political policies of any candidate in my adult lifetime, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders (whose views are often less detailed).

    I do readily admit this: Warren is a genius at exciting the egalitarian and anti-business mood affiliation of our coastal media and academic elites.

    If you would like to read defenses of Warren, here is Ezra Klein and here is Henry Farrell. I think they both plausibly point to parts of the Warren program that might be good (more good for them than for me I should add, but still I can grasp the other arguments on her behalf). They don’t much respond to the point that on #1-8, and possibly #1-9, she has the worst economic and political policies of any candidate in my adult lifetime.

    For Jerry and Will, I just don’t see the attraction at all.

    That said, on her foreign policy, which I have not spent much time with, she might be better, so of course you should consider the whole picture. And quite possibly there are other candidates who, for other reasons, are worse yet, not hard to think of some. Or you might wish to see a woman president. Or you might think she would stir up “good discourse” on the issues you care about. And I fully understand that most of the Warren agenda would not pass.

    So I’m not trying to talk you out of supporting her! Still, I would like to design and put into the public domain a small emoji, one that you could add to the bottom of your columns and tweets. It would stand in for: “Yes I support her, but she has the worst proposed economic policies of any candidate in the adult lifetime of Tyler Cowen.”


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-19 13:04:00 UTC

  • HUMAN CAPITAL In that branch of economics called Political Economy, Human capita

    HUMAN CAPITAL

    In that branch of economics called Political Economy, Human capital consists of the size of the population, their age distribution, their health, their fitness, their intellect and character, and the sum of training in behavior, skills, and knowledge: every physical emotional and intellectual asset a person can have.

    Human capital is beneficial not just for the individual in achieving his or her full potential but that the economy and the polity achieve their fullest potential together when there is more human capital. This is rather obvious, but it helps to tie the world together for people.

    The government relies on education as the primary means by which to ensure that everyone rather than just those who can afford it, can achieve their potential, and as a consequence the society achieves its greatest potential.

    The reason for mass education was just as much to prevent so many indolent useless criminal malcontents as it was to improve the lives of children. lol.

    We don’t often add that success is more dependent on the average intelligence and personality trait distribution of the group than it is on the education because that would be improper in the context.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-19 10:05:00 UTC

  • RT @ATabarrok: CEO pay has risen because firms are much larger now so CEO decisi

    RT @ATabarrok: CEO pay has risen because firms are much larger now so CEO decisions matter more and there is greater competition for talent…


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-18 20:36:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218633292255236096

  • No high investment parenting. Subsidy of single mothers. And you end marriage. T

    No high investment parenting.
    Subsidy of single mothers.
    And you end marriage.
    There was zero value adding women to the work force. It was all consumed in taxation that reversed 1000+ years of eugenic family development.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-17 13:16:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218160176320122881

    Reply addressees: @tuliparbitrage @clairlemon @vincentharinam @robkhenderson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218159896216113152


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @tuliparbitrage @clairlemon @vincentharinam @robkhenderson Human mating patterns over time reflect class structures which is why classes exist. High-Together, Medium Serial Marriage, Low no-marriage, and underclass expansion and social disintegration because of it. High investment parenting meant marriage was enforced for economic cause.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1218159896216113152


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @tuliparbitrage @clairlemon @vincentharinam @robkhenderson Human mating patterns over time reflect class structures which is why classes exist. High-Together, Medium Serial Marriage, Low no-marriage, and underclass expansion and social disintegration because of it. High investment parenting meant marriage was enforced for economic cause.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1218159896216113152

  • Of course. Incentives. The agrarian age is over

    Of course.
    Incentives.
    The agrarian age is over. https://t.co/gM1qXU70aW


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-17 12:49:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218153325880803328

  • 21) But that we do not abandon those who by accident of birth or circumstance re

    21) But that we do not abandon those who by accident of birth or circumstance requires extra market organization – not possible to organize in the production of commons under the pricing systems incentives. We merely limit their reproduction to one child – and time cures all.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-16 14:54:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1217822481110663168

    Reply addressees: @HliosX @MurraySuggests

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1217822011453530112


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @HliosX @MurraySuggests 20) And be upfront and honest that eugenics has been our strategy, and that markets are softly and empirically eugenic, if we limit reproduction to those who can afford their reproduction by participation in those markets.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1217822011453530112


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @HliosX @MurraySuggests 20) And be upfront and honest that eugenics has been our strategy, and that markets are softly and empirically eugenic, if we limit reproduction to those who can afford their reproduction by participation in those markets.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1217822011453530112