Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Econ AMA

ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2015 10:23:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, the primaries are underway, and naturally the candidates are already spewing hot air emissions. It's quite sad, actually. The folks at politifact were having a field day going after Donald Trump the other day.

Anyway, ask away! Questions can be anything from "Can you explain X concept?" to "Is Y policy desirable?" or "Is X candidate telling the truth when he says Y?" Politicians, of course, are not economists, and when political types try to opine on economics, they often end up saying utterly stupid things and making fools of themselves.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 4:28:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/9/2015 10:23:44 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Well, the primaries are underway, and naturally the candidates are already spewing hot air emissions. It's quite sad, actually. The folks at politifact were having a field day going after Donald Trump the other day.

Anyway, ask away! Questions can be anything from "Can you explain X concept?" to "Is Y policy desirable?" or "Is X candidate telling the truth when he says Y?" Politicians, of course, are not economists, and when political types try to opine on economics, they often end up saying utterly stupid things and making fools of themselves.

1. Are you a right- or left-wing economist?

2. What taxes do you support?
"You're more of a fluentic fail doer who sometimes does a doo dah with a diggity ding, managing to push open doors that weren't meant to be opened, only to find that there's no floor, so you instead become spiderman and crawl on the walls." -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 4:31:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 4:28:04 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
1. Are you a right- or left-wing economist?

I'm pretty apolitical, tbh. I prefer to focus on objective analysis in lieu of supporting X policy over Y policy because party affiliation dictates that I have to support A to support B.

But, that notwithstanding, I'd say I'm probably left-leaning, though I'm inclined to vote Republican because the main issue we face that isn't solvable by monetary policy is permanent damage to the long-run supply curve, and only good supply-side policy (and possibly some productive investments) can readily ameliorate that.

2. What taxes do you support?

Ideally, I'd support a progressive consumption tax. Since that's probably unrealistic, I'd favor reducing rates generally -- and, ideally, I'd want to untax capital income and estate taxes -- but raises Pigovian taxes on things like carbon emissions.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 4:37:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 4:31:45 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/10/2015 4:28:04 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
1. Are you a right- or left-wing economist?

I'm pretty apolitical, tbh. I prefer to focus on objective analysis in lieu of supporting X policy over Y policy because party affiliation dictates that I have to support A to support B.

But, that notwithstanding, I'd say I'm probably left-leaning, though I'm inclined to vote Republican because the main issue we face that isn't solvable by monetary policy is permanent damage to the long-run supply curve, and only good supply-side policy (and possibly some productive investments) can readily ameliorate that.

You're moderate, lol. You support cutting corporate tax rate, no?



2. What taxes do you support?

Ideally, I'd support a progressive consumption tax. Since that's probably unrealistic, I'd favor reducing rates generally -- and, ideally, I'd want to untax capital income and estate taxes -- but raises Pigovian taxes on things like carbon emissions.

Two-tiered progressive tax with less loopholes, upper rate 28%?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 4:44:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 4:37:27 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/10/2015 4:31:45 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/10/2015 4:28:04 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
1. Are you a right- or left-wing economist?

I'm pretty apolitical, tbh. I prefer to focus on objective analysis in lieu of supporting X policy over Y policy because party affiliation dictates that I have to support A to support B.

But, that notwithstanding, I'd say I'm probably left-leaning, though I'm inclined to vote Republican because the main issue we face that isn't solvable by monetary policy is permanent damage to the long-run supply curve, and only good supply-side policy (and possibly some productive investments) can readily ameliorate that.

You're moderate, lol. You support cutting corporate tax rate, no?

I think it depends on how you define "moderate," lol. To me, that label implies unwillingness to take a position, though that certainly isn't the case for me. For instance, on monetary policy I'm "to the left" of almost anyone. I generally feel more comfortable on that side, tbh, though I support good supply-side reforms.

Yeah, I'd support that. I'd probably want to close some loopholes so it doesn't balloon the deficit, though. Obama and Clinton support that as well, if I recall correctly.



2. What taxes do you support?

Ideally, I'd support a progressive consumption tax. Since that's probably unrealistic, I'd favor reducing rates generally -- and, ideally, I'd want to untax capital income and estate taxes -- but raises Pigovian taxes on things like carbon emissions.

Two-tiered progressive tax with less loopholes, upper rate 28%?

I'd have to look at it more closely. Generally I support more progressivity over less, but what ultimately matters is effective rates, and to me it seems under that system that poor people would incur a significant tax hike and rich people a tax cut. I like the latter, but dislike the former. Rand Paul's proposal was intriguing to me, irrespective of the fact that it's a flat tax, because it has a nice fat exemption on par with that in the PCT. I could support it, I suppose, though I'd have to see the numbers more closely.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 4:49:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 4:31:45 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/10/2015 4:28:04 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
1. Are you a right- or left-wing economist?

I'm pretty apolitical, tbh. I prefer to focus on objective analysis in lieu of supporting X policy over Y policy because party affiliation dictates that I have to support A to support B.

But, that notwithstanding, I'd say I'm probably left-leaning, though I'm inclined to vote Republican because the main issue we face that isn't solvable by monetary policy is permanent damage to the long-run supply curve, and only good supply-side policy (and possibly some productive investments) can readily ameliorate that.

So you are a moderate, like me, except I lean a little more to the right: http://www.debate.org...


2. What taxes do you support?

Ideally, I'd support a progressive consumption tax. Since that's probably unrealistic, I'd favor reducing rates generally -- and, ideally, I'd want to untax capital income and estate taxes -- but raises Pigovian taxes on things like carbon emissions.
"You're more of a fluentic fail doer who sometimes does a doo dah with a diggity ding, managing to push open doors that weren't meant to be opened, only to find that there's no floor, so you instead become spiderman and crawl on the walls." -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 4:52:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/9/2015 10:23:44 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Well, the primaries are underway, and naturally the candidates are already spewing hot air emissions. It's quite sad, actually. The folks at politifact were having a field day going after Donald Trump the other day.

Anyway, ask away! Questions can be anything from "Can you explain X concept?" to "Is Y policy desirable?" or "Is X candidate telling the truth when he says Y?" Politicians, of course, are not economists, and when political types try to opine on economics, they often end up saying utterly stupid things and making fools of themselves.

Would enough revenue be generated if the US were to maintain an income tax at a flat rate of 13% like in Russia? It seems Russia is gaining revenue, and Acosta-Ormachea and Yoo 2012 suggests that, if it generates enough revenue, a low flat tax is optimal.

A classical economic worldview suggests that a minimum wage would generate increased unemployment. I have previously heard you support that view. A study by Card and Krueger [http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...] suggests otherwise. How would you rebut that study?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 4:53:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 4:49:16 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/10/2015 4:31:45 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/10/2015 4:28:04 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
1. Are you a right- or left-wing economist?

I'm pretty apolitical, tbh. I prefer to focus on objective analysis in lieu of supporting X policy over Y policy because party affiliation dictates that I have to support A to support B.

But, that notwithstanding, I'd say I'm probably left-leaning, though I'm inclined to vote Republican because the main issue we face that isn't solvable by monetary policy is permanent damage to the long-run supply curve, and only good supply-side policy (and possibly some productive investments) can readily ameliorate that.

So you are a moderate, like me, except I lean a little more to the right: http://www.debate.org...

I can't recall exactly where I score on the political compass since it's been a long while since I've taken it, but I think I'm probably to the left of you on economics and a bit more libertarian on social issues. I'm hesitant to use the phrase "moderate," though, because I think it's generally associated with figures like Olympia Snowe (and Dalton is going to kill me for saying this, lol) who hedge their bets constantly. For instance, she wasn't willing to take a position for or against the stimulus package: she shaved a little bit off and called it a day. That's not taking a position on the policy substance. It either works or it doesn't, and I certainly have a position, with caveats, as to whether it would work.

I also reject the mantra that if only both parties were to "work together," Washington would be brilliant. Paul Krugman and I have a lot of similarities in our views of the current composition of Congress, though the reason I stopped reading him is, ironically, because I can't stand political grandstanding, lol.


2. What taxes do you support?

Ideally, I'd support a progressive consumption tax. Since that's probably unrealistic, I'd favor reducing rates generally -- and, ideally, I'd want to untax capital income and estate taxes -- but raises Pigovian taxes on things like carbon emissions.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 5:00:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 4:52:22 PM, tejretics wrote:
Would enough revenue be generated if the US were to maintain an income tax at a flat rate of 13% like in Russia? It seems Russia is gaining revenue, and Acosta-Ormachea and Yoo 2012 suggests that, if it generates enough revenue, a low flat tax is optimal.

I think the question is what constitutes "enough" revenue and, more importantly, who bears the burden of paying forward that revenue. It might be enough, sure, but that brings in normative questions as to the size of government and the distributional aspects: e.g., if we grow the pie, where does it go? My view has always been -- and this might be my most profound disagreement with 16k -- that monetary policy makes the tide rise, and fiscal policy distributes it properly such that it doesn't rain down too heavily upon one demographic. I don't think a rising tide raises all boats, so ultimately the tax system should reflect that value -- and a low-rate flat tax just seems to me to make that a whole lot worse.

A classical economic worldview suggests that a minimum wage would generate increased unemployment. I have previously heard you support that view. A study by Card and Krueger [http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...] suggests otherwise. How would you rebut that study?

I think Caroline Baum can explain it better than I can. Here's a link to her letter to the editor when Paul Krugman rashly asserted that there's "no" evidence that the MW induces unemployment: [http://www.themoneyillusion.com...].

Basically, the 1994 study was highly unscientific, and focused on phone interviews. The 2000 study ignored the fact that the impacts of the MW operate with a lag and Pennsylvania was a poor control group due to existing patterns of employment amongst teenagers in the state, who obviously bear the highest cost of a MW hike.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 5:03:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 4:53:48 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/10/2015 4:49:16 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/10/2015 4:31:45 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/10/2015 4:28:04 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
1. Are you a right- or left-wing economist?

I'm pretty apolitical, tbh. I prefer to focus on objective analysis in lieu of supporting X policy over Y policy because party affiliation dictates that I have to support A to support B.

But, that notwithstanding, I'd say I'm probably left-leaning, though I'm inclined to vote Republican because the main issue we face that isn't solvable by monetary policy is permanent damage to the long-run supply curve, and only good supply-side policy (and possibly some productive investments) can readily ameliorate that.

So you are a moderate, like me, except I lean a little more to the right: http://www.debate.org...

I can't recall exactly where I score on the political compass since it's been a long while since I've taken it, but I think I'm probably to the left of you on economics and a bit more libertarian on social issues. I'm hesitant to use the phrase "moderate," though, because I think it's generally associated with figures like Olympia Snowe (and Dalton is going to kill me for saying this, lol) who hedge their bets constantly. For instance, she wasn't willing to take a position for or against the stimulus package: she shaved a little bit off and called it a day. That's not taking a position on the policy substance. It either works or it doesn't, and I certainly have a position, with caveats, as to whether it would work.

I see why you would be hesitant to use "moderate."


I also reject the mantra that if only both parties were to "work together," Washington would be brilliant. Paul Krugman and I have a lot of similarities in our views of the current composition of Congress, though the reason I stopped reading him is, ironically, because I can't stand political grandstanding, lol.

Both parties working together will never happen, lol.



2. What taxes do you support?

Ideally, I'd support a progressive consumption tax. Since that's probably unrealistic, I'd favor reducing rates generally -- and, ideally, I'd want to untax capital income and estate taxes -- but raises Pigovian taxes on things like carbon emissions.
"You're more of a fluentic fail doer who sometimes does a doo dah with a diggity ding, managing to push open doors that weren't meant to be opened, only to find that there's no floor, so you instead become spiderman and crawl on the walls." -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 5:07:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 5:03:44 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/10/2015 4:53:48 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/10/2015 4:49:16 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/10/2015 4:31:45 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/10/2015 4:28:04 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
1. Are you a right- or left-wing economist?

I'm pretty apolitical, tbh. I prefer to focus on objective analysis in lieu of supporting X policy over Y policy because party affiliation dictates that I have to support A to support B.

But, that notwithstanding, I'd say I'm probably left-leaning, though I'm inclined to vote Republican because the main issue we face that isn't solvable by monetary policy is permanent damage to the long-run supply curve, and only good supply-side policy (and possibly some productive investments) can readily ameliorate that.

So you are a moderate, like me, except I lean a little more to the right: http://www.debate.org...

I can't recall exactly where I score on the political compass since it's been a long while since I've taken it, but I think I'm probably to the left of you on economics and a bit more libertarian on social issues. I'm hesitant to use the phrase "moderate," though, because I think it's generally associated with figures like Olympia Snowe (and Dalton is going to kill me for saying this, lol) who hedge their bets constantly. For instance, she wasn't willing to take a position for or against the stimulus package: she shaved a little bit off and called it a day. That's not taking a position on the policy substance. It either works or it doesn't, and I certainly have a position, with caveats, as to whether it would work.

I see why you would be hesitant to use "moderate."

Yeah, though evidently the "both sides are at fault" narrative is all the rage these days.


I also reject the mantra that if only both parties were to "work together," Washington would be brilliant. Paul Krugman and I have a lot of similarities in our views of the current composition of Congress, though the reason I stopped reading him is, ironically, because I can't stand political grandstanding, lol.

Both parties working together will never happen, lol.

Oh, precisely, lol, and when they sort of do it's immediately chalked up as a success, irrespective of whether the final product resulted in abandoning both sides' principles. I must rather have a reasoned debate and find out whose principles are right when they're as mutually exclusive as "investment is X is necessary" and "government isn't the solution to the problem, but the problem."

It does irritate me, though, when John Kasich points to the 1990s as the gold standard of congressional cooperation. Obviously, that was.. far from the case, but that notwithstanding, he's a pretty reasonable guy.



2. What taxes do you support?

Ideally, I'd support a progressive consumption tax. Since that's probably unrealistic, I'd favor reducing rates generally -- and, ideally, I'd want to untax capital income and estate taxes -- but raises Pigovian taxes on things like carbon emissions.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 5:23:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/9/2015 10:23:44 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Well, the primaries are underway, and naturally the candidates are already spewing hot air emissions. It's quite sad, actually. The folks at politifact were having a field day going after Donald Trump the other day.

Anyway, ask away! Questions can be anything from "Can you explain X concept?" to "Is Y policy desirable?" or "Is X candidate telling the truth when he says Y?" Politicians, of course, are not economists, and when political types try to opine on economics, they often end up saying utterly stupid things and making fools of themselves.

Another one: What do you think of the economic train wreck that Russia is becoming?
"You're more of a fluentic fail doer who sometimes does a doo dah with a diggity ding, managing to push open doors that weren't meant to be opened, only to find that there's no floor, so you instead become spiderman and crawl on the walls." -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 5:39:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 5:23:18 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/9/2015 10:23:44 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Well, the primaries are underway, and naturally the candidates are already spewing hot air emissions. It's quite sad, actually. The folks at politifact were having a field day going after Donald Trump the other day.

Anyway, ask away! Questions can be anything from "Can you explain X concept?" to "Is Y policy desirable?" or "Is X candidate telling the truth when he says Y?" Politicians, of course, are not economists, and when political types try to opine on economics, they often end up saying utterly stupid things and making fools of themselves.

Another one: What do you think of the economic train wreck that Russia is becoming?

Russia admittedly has been off my radar relative to the trainwreck of, say, China. I do know that they raised interest rates to about 17 percent last year to combat a plummeting rubble, and they slashed them 4 times this year by about 6 percentage points -- which is probably the most clarion sign of failure I've ever seen -- but admittedly it's not a country I know a whole lot about.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 6:09:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 5:39:03 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/10/2015 5:23:18 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/9/2015 10:23:44 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Well, the primaries are underway, and naturally the candidates are already spewing hot air emissions. It's quite sad, actually. The folks at politifact were having a field day going after Donald Trump the other day.

Anyway, ask away! Questions can be anything from "Can you explain X concept?" to "Is Y policy desirable?" or "Is X candidate telling the truth when he says Y?" Politicians, of course, are not economists, and when political types try to opine on economics, they often end up saying utterly stupid things and making fools of themselves.

Another one: What do you think of the economic train wreck that Russia is becoming?

Russia admittedly has been off my radar relative to the trainwreck of, say, China. I do know that they raised interest rates to about 17 percent last year to combat a plummeting rubble, and they slashed them 4 times this year by about 6 percentage points -- which is probably the most clarion sign of failure I've ever seen -- but admittedly it's not a country I know a whole lot about.

Ah.
"You're more of a fluentic fail doer who sometimes does a doo dah with a diggity ding, managing to push open doors that weren't meant to be opened, only to find that there's no floor, so you instead become spiderman and crawl on the walls." -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 1:37:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/9/2015 10:23:44 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Well, the primaries are underway, and naturally the candidates are already spewing hot air emissions. It's quite sad, actually. The folks at politifact were having a field day going after Donald Trump the other day.

Anyway, ask away! Questions can be anything from "Can you explain X concept?" to "Is Y policy desirable?" or "Is X candidate telling the truth when he says Y?" Politicians, of course, are not economists, and when political types try to opine on economics, they often end up saying utterly stupid things and making fools of themselves.

I have one.

One of Bernie's proposals is a plan to to eliminate public college tuition (https://www.youtube.com...). What are your thoughts on this?
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 3:40:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
How would socializing healthcare (making it freely available to all) affect the economy? Would it be a good or bad decision.
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 6:43:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So, as I said elsewhere, I'll be taking an extended break from DDO due to real-life obligations. That notwithstanding, I'm going to quickly reply to the few lingering posts here.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 6:53:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 1:37:00 PM, Nac wrote:
At 8/9/2015 10:23:44 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Well, the primaries are underway, and naturally the candidates are already spewing hot air emissions. It's quite sad, actually. The folks at politifact were having a field day going after Donald Trump the other day.

Anyway, ask away! Questions can be anything from "Can you explain X concept?" to "Is Y policy desirable?" or "Is X candidate telling the truth when he says Y?" Politicians, of course, are not economists, and when political types try to opine on economics, they often end up saying utterly stupid things and making fools of themselves.

I have one.

One of Bernie's proposals is a plan to to eliminate public college tuition (https://www.youtube.com...). What are your thoughts on this?

I think there several trade-offs to his proposal. The positives are that, on balance, funding education via creating demand amongst people who otherwise wouldn't be financially capable of attending, lest they be saddled with student loan debt until they're 40. It should (a) increase demand, (b) increase workforce skills, which will apply upward pressure on currently-tepid estimates of longer-term trend growth, (c) introduce genuine competition into the education market, which might reduce tuition charges from for-profit colleges, and (d) ameliorate the burden of student loan debt, either by allowing students to graduate debt-free or by inducing private colleges to offer grants, scholarships, etc. to compete, so that has positive ramifications for future household formation, spending decisions, and broad-based economic participation amongst the youth, including but not limited to qualifying for mortgages.

The harms, though, are (a) the budgetary costs, since it isn't immediately clear this would "pay for itself" since its success is contingent on enough capable people entering the right fields and using their education in ways that are productive, (b) the implications for the supply of quality professors, since private colleges may need to sharply reduce their pay, and (c) it might devalue a college degree in the job market: if everyone has a bachelor's degree, for instance, the quality of the workforce is obviously up and that's positive, but that no longer becomes a differentiating factor, so employers might demand Master's degrees. The wrinkle to that is higher levels of education *might* -- and this is probably overly optimistic and depends on all the pins properly aligning -- increase the productive capacity of the economy, in which case the gross number of jobs increases because the LRAS shifts right and the NAIRU falls, so there wouldn't necessarily be "crowding out" amongst people who are relatively less skilled.

It's an interesting idea, I think, and I support increasing funding for education, but this might go a bit too far. That aside, something needs to be done about the cost of college and student-loan debt, as I think that poses the next "big" crisis in this country. The homeownership rate, for instance, is at a 35-year low on a seasonally adjusted basis (or 48-year low if you don't seasonally adjust), and that's largely driven by student-loan debt, so there are obvious implications to the future health of the housing market, which tends to drive most recoveries. A good first step, and one I think Bernie would probably support, would be to do something about current student-loan debt. I think he said something about slashing interest rates on existing student debt. Sounds great from the perspective of the student, though I'm admittedly skeptical as to its broader-based efficacy.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 6:59:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 3:40:08 PM, TheProphett wrote:
How would socializing healthcare (making it freely available to all) affect the economy? Would it be a good or bad decision.

In a few ways:

One, private insurers would pretty much go out of business, so in the very short run we'd see a non-insubstantial drop in spending. Granted, some countries like Canada have some sort of "secondary" insurance, so some insurers may go back to that -- in which, rich people would probably be able to access a higher quality of care than most, though they still pay into the system via paying taxes, so the program is still technically "sustainable."

Two, it would be extremely expensive, though whether it actually "pays for itself" over the longer run through, say, higher labor force participation remains to be seen. I've seen a study for instance on labor force participation of pregnant mothers who were placed on Medicaid, and there was actually evidence that participation *fell,* and that heath patterns tended to disintegrate. In other words, this program led to people becoming, to put it bluntly, lazier and more content.

Three, it would probably streamline care to make it broadly available, and to keep costs down doctors may have to take a pay cut, so there might be a shortage of available doctors. Costs would probably rise, on balance, due to the costs of administering care, though obviously costs of marketing, profits, etc. that private insurers normally fund would be virtually nonexistent.

I'm unconvinced that it's the right system, nor do I think it's politically feasible. A public option though as an addendum to the ACA, though, is a much more interesting scenario, and one I think would probably reduce costs rather considerably.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 7:01:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 4:02:04 PM, XLAV wrote:
So you think Capitalism will last?

I think it depends on how you define "capitalism." I'll avoid myself from going on too extended a rant here, but I think there's a plausible argument that "capitalism" in it purest form doesn't really exist. Surely, we can't really call a system bought and paid for by a few affluent individuals and large banks in exchange for political favors "capitalism." Not to mention, a perfect "free market" has never existed in any human civilization, nor will it.

But, in a more lenient sense, yes, I think we'll always have some sort of a market economy -- or a mixed, to be more precise -- and I think that's a good thing.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
lannan13
Posts: 23,111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 1:04:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/9/2015 10:23:44 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Well, the primaries are underway, and naturally the candidates are already spewing hot air emissions. It's quite sad, actually. The folks at politifact were having a field day going after Donald Trump the other day.

Anyway, ask away! Questions can be anything from "Can you explain X concept?" to "Is Y policy desirable?" or "Is X candidate telling the truth when he says Y?" Politicians, of course, are not economists, and when political types try to opine on economics, they often end up saying utterly stupid things and making fools of themselves.

If money is neutral then how does it cause inflation?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 2:40:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 1:04:53 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 8/9/2015 10:23:44 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Well, the primaries are underway, and naturally the candidates are already spewing hot air emissions. It's quite sad, actually. The folks at politifact were having a field day going after Donald Trump the other day.

Anyway, ask away! Questions can be anything from "Can you explain X concept?" to "Is Y policy desirable?" or "Is X candidate telling the truth when he says Y?" Politicians, of course, are not economists, and when political types try to opine on economics, they often end up saying utterly stupid things and making fools of themselves.

If money is neutral then how does it cause inflation?

'Money is neutral' simply means real values don't change in the long run... e.g. if the LRAS doesn't move, real GDP will return to the potential level in the long run, even if you use monetary policy to push AD to the right.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
xoSanchezxo
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 12:54:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Isn't it irritating that the candidates don't talk much about their programmes. They rather talk about what they had accomplished in past, which is logical. However this is the biggest portion.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 10:09:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And... I'm back from the dead! For now, at least. Resuming this AMA.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 10:13:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 4:23:43 AM, XLAV wrote:
At 8/9/2015 10:23:44 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Whats the best way to start a business?

That's outside my purview, I'm afraid.

A preliminary step would be to develop some gauge of your competition: who are they, what are they selling, and how have them achieved their success to date to the extent they have? Market research is obviously critical, and in many cases it's already been done for you. Your goal should be not to "blend in," but to account for some current weakness that the current industry is unable or unwilling for whatever reason to exploit. The problem of course is that barriers to entry tend to be high, due particularly to the regulatory climate in the U.S. and elsewhere, and probably a shortage in novel ideas. If you've thought of it, odds are some brainiac, to whom [Insert Large Corporation Here] outsourced the brains of its operations, did as well.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 10:18:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 1:04:53 PM, lannan13 wrote:
If money is neutral then how does it cause inflation?

Diqui did a good job on this, but I'll expand on his answer a bit.

"Money is neutral" is to say that, in the long run, monetary policy cannot impact real variables and the quantity theory of money holds. This equation is:

MV = PY

where:

M = money supply
V = velocity of money
P = Price level
Y = Real GDP

We can rewrite this as:

Money growth + change in velocity = inflation + RGDP growth

In the long run, V and Y are "fixed," meaning that an X% increase in the money supply translates to an X% increase in prices. In the short run, the composition of RGDP and Inflation (Y and delta-P) is determined by the elasticity of the aggregate supply curve, or the extent to which wages and prices are flexible. In the short run, prices and wages are "sticky." If AD were to shift backward, for instance, wages and prices cannot readily adjust--i.e., the AS curve can't immediately shift right--to equilibrate markets, which explains most downturns. Over the longer run, price and wage flexibility tends to increase, so we can still move the AD curve up and down, but wages/prices will tend to adjust almost immediately, meaning that only inflation, a nominal variable, will increase, but real variables (RGDP, employment, real wages, real interest rates, and real exchange rates) won't move, and will be contingent on the economic fundamentals.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 10:21:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 12:54:14 PM, xoSanchezxo wrote:
Isn't it irritating that the candidates don't talk much about their programmes. They rather talk about what they had accomplished in past, which is logical. However this is the biggest portion.

I agree, and in most cases this is because the electorate doesn't actually care about policy: they care about which candidate can beat his (or her) chest the most vociferously and proclaim they're going to be "tough on China!", irrespective of whether their position has any basis in fact. Trump's position on the border and on China are particularly irrational, but don't count on the average voter to figure that out.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah