Total Posts:167|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
1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I've had a few lengthy posts planned, but I never had the will to finish them.

Why? Insufficient demand: there's been a precipitous decline in already anemic activity in this forum, and consequently the quantity (of content) I'm willing to supply has adjusted downward.

Therefore, let's make some content. Ask me anything--about economics, about the Fed's recent move, about Bernie Sanders's disgustingly ignorant plans for "financial reform," about any of the candidates' tax plans, etc. We'll have fun.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:26:17 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I'm also 50 posts away from 10,000 (49 if you count this post). Normally someone, like Ore_Ele, would show up around this time to start a stupid meme war to trick me into using up my milestone post.

Food for thought to anyone considering posting, but hesitant to do so.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:35:40 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I've had a few lengthy posts planned, but I never had the will to finish them.

Why? Insufficient demand: there's been a precipitous decline in already anemic activity in this forum, and consequently the quantity (of content) I'm willing to supply has adjusted downward.

Therefore, let's make some content. Ask me anything--about economics, about the Fed's recent move, about Bernie Sanders's disgustingly ignorant plans for "financial reform," about any of the candidates' tax plans, etc. We'll have fun.

This isn't really a question, but I am just glad that we agree that Bernie's economic plans are slightly towards the "I've never read anything about economics" side of the spectrum.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
mc9
Posts: 1,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:38:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I've had a few lengthy posts planned, but I never had the will to finish them.

Why? Insufficient demand: there's been a precipitous decline in already anemic activity in this forum, and consequently the quantity (of content) I'm willing to supply has adjusted downward.

Therefore, let's make some content. Ask me anything--about economics, about the Fed's recent move, about Bernie Sanders's disgustingly ignorant plans for "financial reform," about any of the candidates' tax plans, etc. We'll have fun.

Preferred economic system?
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,681
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:41:19 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I've had a few lengthy posts planned, but I never had the will to finish them.

Why? Insufficient demand: there's been a precipitous decline in already anemic activity in this forum, and consequently the quantity (of content) I'm willing to supply has adjusted downward.

Therefore, let's make some content. Ask me anything--about economics, about the Fed's recent move, about Bernie Sanders's disgustingly ignorant plans for "financial reform," about any of the candidates' tax plans, etc. We'll have fun.

https://www.google.com...
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:43:32 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I've had a few lengthy posts planned, but I never had the will to finish them.

Why? Insufficient demand: there's been a precipitous decline in already anemic activity in this forum, and consequently the quantity (of content) I'm willing to supply has adjusted downward.

Therefore, let's make some content. Ask me anything--about economics, about the Fed's recent move, about Bernie Sanders's disgustingly ignorant plans for "financial reform," about any of the candidates' tax plans, etc. We'll have fun.

What are these "few lengthy posts" about?
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -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
1/9/2016 2:43:49 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:35:40 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I've had a few lengthy posts planned, but I never had the will to finish them.

Why? Insufficient demand: there's been a precipitous decline in already anemic activity in this forum, and consequently the quantity (of content) I'm willing to supply has adjusted downward.

Therefore, let's make some content. Ask me anything--about economics, about the Fed's recent move, about Bernie Sanders's disgustingly ignorant plans for "financial reform," about any of the candidates' tax plans, etc. We'll have fun.

This isn't really a question, but I am just glad that we agree that Bernie's economic plans are slightly towards the "I've never read anything about economics" side of the spectrum.

I didn't say that. The majority of his policies are actually consistent with what Keynes would have recommended, and Keynes just so happened to be right. I'm referring to his policies on financial reform, particularly his heralding of Glassed-Steagall as a panacea, of which it is not, and his recent advocacy of an audit of the Fed and a whole bunch of other stuff. He's also hopelessly ignorant on trade.

That aside, he's a lot better than Trump and friends.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:44:51 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:38:58 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I've had a few lengthy posts planned, but I never had the will to finish them.

Why? Insufficient demand: there's been a precipitous decline in already anemic activity in this forum, and consequently the quantity (of content) I'm willing to supply has adjusted downward.

Therefore, let's make some content. Ask me anything--about economics, about the Fed's recent move, about Bernie Sanders's disgustingly ignorant plans for "financial reform," about any of the candidates' tax plans, etc. We'll have fun.

Preferred economic system?

A regulated market economy with protections for the least vulnerable and an activist central bank tasked with maintaining a trend rate of nominal spending.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:47:27 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:43:32 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I've had a few lengthy posts planned, but I never had the will to finish them.

Why? Insufficient demand: there's been a precipitous decline in already anemic activity in this forum, and consequently the quantity (of content) I'm willing to supply has adjusted downward.

Therefore, let's make some content. Ask me anything--about economics, about the Fed's recent move, about Bernie Sanders's disgustingly ignorant plans for "financial reform," about any of the candidates' tax plans, etc. We'll have fun.

What are these "few lengthy posts" about?

One was a rant about the current voting FOMC--particularly about the sh1t-for-brains Kansas City president, Esther George, who will be voting this year (or we could talk about the failed, shamed gubernatorial candidate, Neel Kashkari, who will be taking over the Minneapolis Fed, because I guess they just let anyone these days on the FOMC, from Narayana Kocherlakota, whom I greatly admire).

The other was about Bernie Sanders and his disgustingly ignorant policies on financial reform. I got into a flame war with some moron on YouTube about it, lol. That was a few days ago when I was banned for the whole "Imableacher" thing, but now I haven't the will to actually type out a post.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:47:42 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:41:19 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I've had a few lengthy posts planned, but I never had the will to finish them.

Why? Insufficient demand: there's been a precipitous decline in already anemic activity in this forum, and consequently the quantity (of content) I'm willing to supply has adjusted downward.

Therefore, let's make some content. Ask me anything--about economics, about the Fed's recent move, about Bernie Sanders's disgustingly ignorant plans for "financial reform," about any of the candidates' tax plans, etc. We'll have fun.

https://www.google.com...

What a cunt she is.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:48:56 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:44:51 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:38:58 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I've had a few lengthy posts planned, but I never had the will to finish them.

Why? Insufficient demand: there's been a precipitous decline in already anemic activity in this forum, and consequently the quantity (of content) I'm willing to supply has adjusted downward.

Therefore, let's make some content. Ask me anything--about economics, about the Fed's recent move, about Bernie Sanders's disgustingly ignorant plans for "financial reform," about any of the candidates' tax plans, etc. We'll have fun.

Preferred economic system?

A regulated market economy with protections for the least vulnerable and an activist central bank tasked with maintaining a trend rate of nominal spending.

*most vulnerable

Well, that would've been fcking Darwinistic, LOL.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:49:59 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:47:27 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:43:32 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I've had a few lengthy posts planned, but I never had the will to finish them.

Why? Insufficient demand: there's been a precipitous decline in already anemic activity in this forum, and consequently the quantity (of content) I'm willing to supply has adjusted downward.

Therefore, let's make some content. Ask me anything--about economics, about the Fed's recent move, about Bernie Sanders's disgustingly ignorant plans for "financial reform," about any of the candidates' tax plans, etc. We'll have fun.

What are these "few lengthy posts" about?

One was a rant about the current voting FOMC--particularly about the sh1t-for-brains Kansas City president, Esther George, who will be voting this year (or we could talk about the failed, shamed gubernatorial candidate, Neel Kashkari, who will be taking over the Minneapolis Fed, because I guess they just let anyone these days on the FOMC, from Narayana Kocherlakota, whom I greatly admire).

The other was about Bernie Sanders and his disgustingly ignorant policies on financial reform. I got into a flame war with some moron on YouTube about it, lol. That was a few days ago when I was banned for the whole "Imableacher" thing, but now I haven't the will to actually type out a post.

Oh. So Economy. Much ignorant. Such wow.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -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
1/9/2016 2:51:19 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:49:59 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:47:27 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:43:32 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I've had a few lengthy posts planned, but I never had the will to finish them.

Why? Insufficient demand: there's been a precipitous decline in already anemic activity in this forum, and consequently the quantity (of content) I'm willing to supply has adjusted downward.

Therefore, let's make some content. Ask me anything--about economics, about the Fed's recent move, about Bernie Sanders's disgustingly ignorant plans for "financial reform," about any of the candidates' tax plans, etc. We'll have fun.

What are these "few lengthy posts" about?

One was a rant about the current voting FOMC--particularly about the sh1t-for-brains Kansas City president, Esther George, who will be voting this year (or we could talk about the failed, shamed gubernatorial candidate, Neel Kashkari, who will be taking over the Minneapolis Fed, because I guess they just let anyone these days on the FOMC, from Narayana Kocherlakota, whom I greatly admire).

The other was about Bernie Sanders and his disgustingly ignorant policies on financial reform. I got into a flame war with some moron on YouTube about it, lol. That was a few days ago when I was banned for the whole "Imableacher" thing, but now I haven't the will to actually type out a post.

Oh. So Economy. Much ignorant. Such wow.

Indeed.

I mean, ignorance is one thing. Everyone is ignorant about something. I'm ignorant about electrical engineering. The difference is that I don't pontificate on it, and I don't incite mobs in favor of lost causes based on fairy tales my liberal friends and I hatch whilst reading ThinkProgress and drinking a soy latte at Starbucks.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:53:11 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
1) Would you prefer a truly free market or a fully government-regulated market?

2) Is isolationism sometimes needed to protect the interests of any given nation?

3) What is Bernie Sanders' economic plan that you so despise?
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -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.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:54:02 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:48:56 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:44:51 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:38:58 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I've had a few lengthy posts planned, but I never had the will to finish them.

Why? Insufficient demand: there's been a precipitous decline in already anemic activity in this forum, and consequently the quantity (of content) I'm willing to supply has adjusted downward.

Therefore, let's make some content. Ask me anything--about economics, about the Fed's recent move, about Bernie Sanders's disgustingly ignorant plans for "financial reform," about any of the candidates' tax plans, etc. We'll have fun.

Preferred economic system?

A regulated market economy with protections for the least vulnerable and an activist central bank tasked with maintaining a trend rate of nominal spending.

*most vulnerable

Well, that would've been fcking Darwinistic, LOL.

Social Darwinism is great.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 3:02:50 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Therefore, let's make some content. Ask me anything--about economics, about the Fed's recent move, about Bernie Sanders's disgustingly ignorant plans for "financial reform," about any of the candidates' tax plans, etc. We'll have fun.

I've asked you whether or not you believe in the claim that "Middle class incomes are stagnant/ have fallen". You said you don't believe in this claim, and you listed this:

(1) There's the CPI point you alluded to -- CPI overstates inflation by about 30 to 50 bps.
(2) Often that argument looks at average wages, though compensation is what ultimately matters.
(3) That "productivity has doubled" is extrapolating from an aggregate, when in reality productivity gains are more confined to certain industries that required higher levels of education -- so when Elizabeth Warren looks at an aggregate and disingenuously screams, "Fast food workers would earn $22 if you adjusted for productivity!", she's being an ignorant buffoon.
(4) The CPI looks at a basket of goods of what people buy, but not what they produce. The prices of things people consume have fallen at a pace far faster than what people consume -- and price reduction is a reflection of productivity, so that more closely align's people's actual productivity with their wage.
(5) The arguments often avoid looking at changing compositions of households -- particularly the fact that more people now live alone. After accounting for that, the gap falls.

Could you give me any more information? Are real incomes for the middle class actually rising? Or are health care costs eating up all of the productivity gains? And do you have any links to substantiate your claims?

I appreciate your feedback :)
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 3:08:19 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:53:11 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
1) Would you prefer a truly free market or a fully government-regulated market?

Bleh, lol.

So, in other words, which end of the extreme would I support?

Well, I've seen the latter, and it's fcking failed miserably. I've never seen the former, and I have a good reason to think that it would've ever actually exist. But if it were "truly" free market, sign me up.

2) Is isolationism sometimes needed to protect the interests of any given nation?

National security interests, perhaps, and protectionism is trade might be beneficial for developing countries. But it's usually counter-productive over any meaningful period of time, so I'd vote nay.

3) What is Bernie Sanders' economic plan that you so despise?

There's a lot.

(a) Bring back Glassed Steagall.

This sounds great on paper, but in reality it had (a) nothing to do with the financial crisis and (b) might even lead to *more* concentrated risk in the financial system, because actually extending loans to households tends to be the most risky things banks do.

Larry Summers, Ben Bernanke and others have written a lot on this extensively, and both are, rightly, flabbergasted at the renewed vigor over Glassed Steagall. It just proves that politics is not and has never been about substance; it's about mob mentality.

(b) Protectionism

There's like three protectionists left, and for good reason: they were all shunned from academia about two decades ago after they were proven demonstrably wrong time and time again. Bernie's insinuation that trade has resulted in the loss of "millions of good paying jobs" is so completely fcking bullsh1t that even his lead cheerleader, Robert Reich, doesn't subscribe to it. Displacement is another thing altogether: free trade does change the composition of jobs and might even exacerbate inequality, but protectionism reduces standards of living in the aggregate far more than job displacement that is readily containable by a reasonable social safety.

(c) "Devise a list of too-big-to-fail banks and force them to restructure within a year."

That doesn't sound so bad on the face of it until we acknowledge several crucial facts: (a) Dodd-Frank already did this--they're called SIFI's, it's called the Orderly Liquidation Authority, the financial institutions deemed most systemically important are subject to considerably high capital requirements and have to submit a plan to the Fed explaining how they could be orderly dissolved, and the Fed can deem those credible or not credible and force them to restructure, etc and (b) this is much better handled at the Fed, not the Congress, and (c) that timeframe is incredibly arbitrary and punitive, especially since the largest financial institutions were forced to consolidate ever further as a result of 07-09.

The ramifications of the frictions from literally forcing them to restructure are devastating. It's one thing to raise a big fuss about the bailout and the moral hazard or whatever; it's another to literally play with fire. This, to me, is on par with voting against the Wall Street bailout (which, if memory serves, Bernie actually did).

(d) Wall Street financial transactions task

This is another policy that sounds plausible on the face of it to non-technical people, but in reality would be cataclysmic. There are also considerable issues of market illiquidity that are exacerbated by the uncertain path of the Fed's policy rate. This would exacerbate those problems and prolong necessary corrections in asset prices, which are inevitable in a year where global policy divergence has perhaps never been as severe as it is today. This would be horrid policy.

(e) "Audit the Fed" and restrict emergency lending even further

The latter is just stupid pandering; the Fed did bail out several large financial institutions in the wake of the financial crisis, but that was only because the spillovers from it not doing so were dire for fcking everyone--not for the so-called "billionaire class." Should a crisis strike--and Bernie wants you to believe that it'll never happen once he reinstated the panacea known as Glassed Steagall, but that couldn't be more delusional--I'd rather the Fed than the taxpayers take on this role of lender of last resort. Dodd-Frank already prevented them from targeting certain institutions: they can only lend now in facilities with broad-based eligibility. That's salvageable, but he and Warren want to go further. They've got the wrong culprit, and their ignorance is searing.

The former is also incredibly dumb. I don't want dipsh1ts in Congress running monetary policy, especially when the old man himself wrote in his op-ed that "the Fed should never raise rates until unemployment falls below 4 percent." I'm the biggest dove you'll ever meet, and even I think that's arbitrary and stupid for an institution fixated on forward-looking, credible policy and well-anchored inflation expectations (as well as, for that matter, a gradual policy path). Not to mention, we know from the literature what happens when we destroy central-bank independence--which is why libertarian tards, like Rand Paul, are so off-base on this: short-term political pressures that lead to higher average inflation.

There's probably more, but that's a start.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 3:08:46 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:54:02 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:48:56 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:44:51 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:38:58 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I've had a few lengthy posts planned, but I never had the will to finish them.

Why? Insufficient demand: there's been a precipitous decline in already anemic activity in this forum, and consequently the quantity (of content) I'm willing to supply has adjusted downward.

Therefore, let's make some content. Ask me anything--about economics, about the Fed's recent move, about Bernie Sanders's disgustingly ignorant plans for "financial reform," about any of the candidates' tax plans, etc. We'll have fun.

Preferred economic system?

A regulated market economy with protections for the least vulnerable and an activist central bank tasked with maintaining a trend rate of nominal spending.

*most vulnerable

Well, that would've been fcking Darwinistic, LOL.

Social Darwinism is great.

In varying degrees, yes.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 3:16:40 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 3:02:50 AM, Contra wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Therefore, let's make some content. Ask me anything--about economics, about the Fed's recent move, about Bernie Sanders's disgustingly ignorant plans for "financial reform," about any of the candidates' tax plans, etc. We'll have fun.

I've asked you whether or not you believe in the claim that "Middle class incomes are stagnant/ have fallen". You said you don't believe in this claim, and you listed this:

(1) There's the CPI point you alluded to -- CPI overstates inflation by about 30 to 50 bps.
(2) Often that argument looks at average wages, though compensation is what ultimately matters.
(3) That "productivity has doubled" is extrapolating from an aggregate, when in reality productivity gains are more confined to certain industries that required higher levels of education -- so when Elizabeth Warren looks at an aggregate and disingenuously screams, "Fast food workers would earn $22 if you adjusted for productivity!", she's being an ignorant buffoon.
(4) The CPI looks at a basket of goods of what people buy, but not what they produce. The prices of things people consume have fallen at a pace far faster than what people consume -- and price reduction is a reflection of productivity, so that more closely align's people's actual productivity with their wage.
(5) The arguments often avoid looking at changing compositions of households -- particularly the fact that more people now live alone. After accounting for that, the gap falls.

Could you give me any more information? Are real incomes for the middle class actually rising? Or are health care costs eating up all of the productivity gains? And do you have any links to substantiate your claims?

I appreciate your feedback :)

Well, this could require some work, lol.....

I have a bunch of links I've cited in the past on this, and some of them I gave to 16k, which he used in one of his past debates. The CPI arguments are fully operative, but there's also the issue of the purchasing power of output versus the purchasing power of goods--if we judge real wages using output goods, which have fallen by more in price, real wages are higher--though there are arguments by some EPI fellows that this metric is flawed, because people don't literally eat machinery. I suppose that's somewhat convincing.

There's probably more I could find when I'm not super lazy, but the CPI/productivity measurement disparities capture almost all of them. There's also the issue of productivity measuring *average* productivity per hour when in reality it should be isolating productivity gains in certain sectors vis-a-vis real wage gains in those sectors: a lot of the disparity is due, for instance, to disparate skills and educational backgrounds--e.g., productivity for *some* workers is rising, and that's dragging up the average, but that isn't readily reflected in the average wage series because it isn't universal.

A simpler story is just basic wage rigidities. Productivity at the moment is utter crap, though. There are some differences in the literature as to whether we're properly measuring software (Goldman Sach's Jan Hatzius is a big proponent of this view), but some economists (John Fernald from the San Francisco Fed) retort that there aren't any issues with measuring productivity today that we haven't experienced in, say, the 90s. Real incomes are rising at the moment mainly because of falling energy prices, but it is true that healthcare costs eat up a large portion of that. Whether it eats up all of it I couldn't say for certain.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 3:22:42 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
What is your opinion on the Fed?
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -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
1/9/2016 3:24:32 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 3:22:42 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
What is your opinion on the Fed?

It's my baby, lol.

I think it's been far too restrictive in recent years, but on balance it's done a fantastic job and has succeeded where Congress has miserably and embarrassingly failed.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 3:26:22 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
How do you feel about the Flat Tax and the Progressive tax?
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -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
1/9/2016 3:30:21 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 3:26:22 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
How do you feel about the Flat Tax and the Progressive tax?

I think the flat tax just misses the mark. The optimal tax system should focus on (a) targeted efficiency (e.g., what are we taxing, and should we be taxing it?), (b) distribution (e.g., who bears the burden), and (c) sufficiency (e.g., does it generate sufficient revenue?). It fails on all three categories because to succeed at (c), it has to jack up rates on the middle class; if it doesn't, and instead aims to succeed at (b), it'll fail at (c), which will also result at failing at (b). The progressive income tax does slightly better, but both are still taxing *income*, which is an utterly meaningless metric. The right plan is a progressive consumption tax.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 3:33:44 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Ok. Let's try these:

Views on Welfare and it's relatedness to Socialism.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -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
1/9/2016 3:47:57 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 3:33:44 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Ok. Let's try these:

Views on Welfare and it's relatedness to Socialism.

Sure.

Socialism is a word that's thrown around a lot, though nine times out of ten the person using it (*cough* Trump *cough*) doesn't understand what it actually means. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Technically, to administer welfare, the government must collect taxes: insofar as it does that, it's "socialist." But that's pretty much as far as any sensible person should be willing to go: the mere acknowledgment that, indeed, taxation is "socialistic" but is a necessary facet to any civilized society.

I don't really have strong views on welfare. Most people who do scream about this supposedly rampant abuse, and I scratch my head as I look at the 1% abuse rate of popular programs like SNAP. There's reason to think that there's *some* point at which social programs would hinder the incentive to work, but we're nowhere near that point. In fact, over the past several years, labor force participation rates in the aggregate have come down, but they're risen for lower income people: so much for a "welfare state."

I mean, if someone wants to complain about welfare abuse, let's start with corporate welfare, namely oil subsidies.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 3:55:35 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I feel like I'm either boring you or keeping you entertained... I don't know which, lol.

What is more important in your opinion? Monetary Policy or Fiscal Policy and why?
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -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
1/9/2016 4:24:02 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 3:55:35 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:24:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I feel like I'm either boring you or keeping you entertained... I don't know which, lol.

Keeping me entertained, for sure, lol. All I have to do other than this is math.

What is more important in your opinion? Monetary Policy or Fiscal Policy and why?

In some sense, it depends. At the zero lower bound--or close to it--fiscal policy is a lot more important than it would be normally, and that's especially true if neutral real interest rates are going to be much lower in the future--around 1 percent or so, instead of the 2 percent they've been historically--which would increase the likelihood of hitting the zero lower bound per a given shock. Monetary policy can only casually impact the supply side of the economy, so fiscal policy has it uses there, and it has only minimal effects on distribution, so that comes down to societal decisions on how to properly allocate resources. But, when it comes to demand shocks, monetary policy is the be-all, end-all; inflation is, after all, "always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon."
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
DisKamper
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 6:08:04 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
What are your views on patents when it comes to drugs? Are they too short/long? Or do you advocate for something else entirely?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 6:39:22 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 6:08:04 AM, DisKamper wrote:
What are your views on patents when it comes to drugs? Are they too short/long? Or do you advocate for something else entirely?

It's really not something I've thought a whole lot about, though I do think patents in general stifle innovation and unnecessarily drive up costs, which isn't exactly desirable in the healthcare sector. I'd tend to come down against them.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
FullForce
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 1:29:40 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Do you think the US would be better off it adapted a Canadian style healthcare plan or if it stuck with what it has?