Jump to content

OldGimletEye

Members
  • Content Count

    9,762
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About OldGimletEye

  • Rank
    Assistant To The Assistant Manager

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

25,803 profile views
  1. In that case, it seems to me that the issue isn't whether we have communism or some kind of libertarian fantasy capitalism, but about how much of each, and where and when government involvement in the economy is justified.
  2. With regard to "socialist" regimes, are we talking about those that have mixed economies? I don't really have a problem with that, as I'm not a fan of some libertarian fantasy economy, just as I am skeptical about full blown communist regimes.
  3. Informational asymmetries are at the heart of all principal-agency problems. I was suggesting its a problem in both systems. In your view, what is?
  4. Without a high degree of decentralization, it in my view is unworkable. Two reasons. 1) The issue of what gets produced. And 2) the issue of knowledge production and how it gets disseminated.
  5. In economics its known as the principal & agent problem. And it affects both private industry and government. With respect to private industry, the attempted solution was the granting of stock options to management, which I think we can now say, hasn't worked out as advertised. I don't really endorse communism, but the principal & agent problem potentially can affect all our institutions, private and public, and its something worth often thinking about.
  6. I have often complained about the basic labor market model that gets presented in economic textbooks. One of my problems with it is that, I don' think prices clear labor markets because there are large informational problems. Anybody, that has one point, spent time looking for employment intuitively understands this. Employers often use a college degree as a signalling device, to distinguish between potential employees. And it seems to be getting worse, with there being "degree inflation" whereby employers demand college degrees for jobs that don't really require them or didn't once and a masters degree is the "new" bachelor's degree.This seems to me to be a waste of resources. I would like us to find cheaper ways for employees to demonstrate they have the skills for a job, without necessarily having to bear the expense of college a degree. I'd also like to see an expansion of CLEP type testing, whereby somebody can demonstrate their competency at a particular subject for much cheaper. I think we also need to think about new ways to deliver education. Right now, I'm a big fan of online learning.
  7. In my view, the biggest thing that will change economics as we understand it is the growth of AI. It's something that we will need to keep an eye on.
  8. This is not as simplistic as you make it. Among other things, it is going to turn upon the production processes of a given nation. There are good reasons to think that foreign "low skilled" labor acts as a complement to native labor and capital, which raises raises their marginal productivity and the wages that go to those factors of production. So there is a quite strong case, in my view, that even "low skilled" immigration can boost a nation's standard of living. The only thing that might offset this is the amount of debt that would need to be spent to make new immigrants eligible for a country's public benefits. Assuming full employment, the issue of new bonds might "crowd out" capital investment. But, then again, capital investment would tend to increase if low skilled immigration is complementary (and I think there are some strong reasons to think that is the case) because it raises the marginal return to capital and because natives with higher incomes would likely invest more. Also children of immigrants are likely to become like native labor and their increase would tend to raise the return on capital. The bottom line is that saying that lower skilled immigration will make a country poorer is way over simplistic. It's going to turn on a number of parameters. I think that there is a strong case to made, that moderate levels "low skilled" immigration are likely to be beneficial.
  9. As it stands to today, do people go around quoting George Wallace. Now, maybe, I've misremembered something, but I don't think I was the first to bring him up. (Correction I did now that I think about it.). Still what would have happened if he had been suppressed by the government. And finally what is your explanation for the 1964, 1965 civil rights act.
  10. Okay, this what I'm trying to figure out. I'd probably be okay with Canada's approach. Germany's not so much. Though it seems to me that Canada's approach still lets in speech you probably wouldn't want to hear. While I'd probably be okay with updating the constitution to reflect a free speech regime that is close to Canada's, I'm not okay with giving legislatures unlimited discretion. Whatever provisions that would go into the Constitution would need to be carefully drafted. Well since you've clarified that you would prefer Canada's approach over other countries, I have closer understanding of where you at on this. Then they are based on what? In your opinion has general public opinion changed since 1776. Is it better or worse? Also, economic systems do seem stable at times. Would be difficult to achieve if people's opinions didn't match reality at times. You can read it about in the learning literature. I recommend the book by Evans. Lastly, if people didn't learn, then it would be easy to make arbitrage profits in gambling markets, financial markets etc. But, while those markets aren't purely efficient, they are difficult to make profits in. And where do those priors come from? Is it always a Dutch Book situation. Do priors evolve? Why? Well this is a clarification I'm wanting. If your intended speech regulations are just about stopping the Richard Spencers of the world from preaching ethnic cleansing and such of the world, I don't really object. It seems to me that regulation could be tightly crafted to stop that, without removing legitimate speech. Do some emotional appeals count more than others? That is what I'm trying to nail down here. On the contrary I'm learning more about your precise position. If your inclined to be on the Canada side of speech regulation, we might be able to reach some sort of agreement about where we should go. I'm also learning about or trying to clarify your position on why you think free speech, to some extent, is good. So the reporting of Trump's missteps aren't part of the debate about his presidency? It's a lot easier for me to take your position on free speech more seriously if you can offer up a reason why you think it is valuable. After reading your prior comments, certainly you think that is the case. It's the most fundamental question to ask when we start to think about regulating free speech. Many people who sided with MLK didn't have his "personal experiences". Certainly police beatings opened many people's eyes to the reality of the situation. But, I'd submit their moral revulsion at seeing those things weren't arbitrary. Requires people to have a notion of "unjust".
  11. Both George Wallace and MLK made emotional appeals. Who got the better of the argument?
  12. Are emotions arbitrary. Or are some better grounded than others? That is what I'm trying to get a clarification on.
  13. So people voting for Obama was just an arbitrary act? Why should they be allowed is what I'm asking you. Is it possible that their perception matches the reality of the situation? Nope. Like which ones? But, I thought the evidence proffered up said people generally form their political opinions when they are young adults and then tend to be stable throughout their lives. So in other words the factual circumstances around those speeched mattered?
  14. Well it seems to me that Germany is far more restrictive than Canada. So which one do you prefer? The justice systems decision though will be based on how the restrictions are written. Well a lot of speech can be alleged to cause harm. Would you ban it all? So those emotional reactions are just purely arbitrary, I don't think people are rational all the time. But they do learn over time. And, again, are some emotions better grounded than others. Or is it all an exercise in arbitrariness. Well sure people can be vulnerable to emotional manipulations. That is why it is why it is important to have a robust system of civil liberties that a con man like Trump can't easily change. Another important check is to make sure people like Trump can't suppress criticism.
  15. Trump nominates literally about the biggest moron he can find to the FED. I've read Shelton's malarky over the years. What a quack. https://www.vox.com/2019/6/5/18652025/judy-shelton-nomination-federal-reserve-board-trump Well, not surprising.
×
×
  • Create New...