Things Economists Agree On • Hacker News Board

Re: Things Economists Agree On

#21

Post by igrekel » Sat, Oct 30, 2010, 2:19 AM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #4

I'm curious about the "Eliminate Agriculture Subsidies" one. I don't know enough to give a good opinion, but it seems to me like that could wind up pricing basic, quality food out of the hands of the poorest people, and they'd either have problems with starvation or be forced to eat junk. I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I could have sworn it was The Man that is keeping eggs down at around $3/dozen and milk around $4/gal…

Well I tend to believe the really poorest people are more affected by the current dumping of the excess produce than the poor americans you refer to would ever be affected.

Re: Things Economists Agree On

#22

Post by icegreentea » Sat, Oct 30, 2010, 2:25 AM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #4

I'm curious about the "Eliminate Agriculture Subsidies" one. I don't know enough to give a good opinion, but it seems to me like that could wind up pricing basic, quality food out of the hands of the poorest people, and they'd either have problems with starvation or be forced to eat junk. I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I could have sworn it was The Man that is keeping eggs down at around $3/dozen and milk around $4/gal…

Agricultural subsidies are one of the weird parts of countries economic policies. Simply put, nearly every single developed country has them. And nearly every country agrees that 'in the long run we should probably get rid of them', but then also agrees 'realistically, nothing will budge, so we'll ignore it as much as we can at every WTO (previously GATT) meeting'

And the reason why they continue to exist, and will probably continue to exist is that there are relatively few farmers in each of those countries, who make up incredibly homogenous democgraphics within their election ridings. Government that even proposes eliminating the tariffs will lose their rural seats/votes/whatever. Every single one of them.

Re: Things Economists Agree On

#23

Post by tocomment » Sat, Oct 30, 2010, 2:26 AM UTC

What does this one mean?

"If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly. (85%)"

Re: Things Economists Agree On

#24

Post by kiujhgbnj » Sat, Oct 30, 2010, 2:31 AM UTC

Interesting that all economists seem to be pro-business, anti-tax, anti-worker rights. You would almost think that most economists worked at banks or for university business schools.

In other research naval officers believe in a larger navy with lots of ships

Re: Things Economists Agree On

#25

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 30, 2010, 2:33 AM UTC

splat wrote: post #15

I find it rather strange that even predictions that should be fairly clear-cut and straightforward (e.g. "A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.") only get around 9/10 agreement. As a non-economist, I would have thought that a seemingly simple (and testable!) question like that would be like polling physicsts with the question "Does F = ma?". And I would sure hope that more than 93%…

[deleted]

Re: Things Economists Agree On

#26

Post by WingForward » Sat, Oct 30, 2010, 2:41 AM UTC

tocomment wrote: post #23

What does this one mean? "If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly. (85%)"

It means its okay to go into debt for a few years, as long as we pay it back when the going gets good.

A business cycle doesn't have a defined length, which is one of the problems of the approach. I think 3-7 years is a decent range.

Re: Things Economists Agree On

#27

Post by astine » Sat, Oct 30, 2010, 2:41 AM UTC

kiujhgbnj wrote: post #24

Interesting that all economists seem to be pro-business, anti-tax, anti-worker rights. You would almost think that most economists worked at banks or for university business schools. In other research naval officers believe in a larger navy with lots of ships

You might think that economistshold pro-business, anti-tax, anti-worker rights biases. Or you might think that the more easily demonstrated principles of economics hold pro-business, anti-tax, anti-worker rights biases. Given my limited studies of history and economics, I'd suggest the later.

Re: Things Economists Agree On

#28

Post by skybrian » Sat, Oct 30, 2010, 2:43 AM UTC

tocomment wrote: post #23

What does this one mean? "If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly. (85%)"

It's a question about how a balanced budget amendment should work (if we had one). Balancing the budget every year would be a worse idea than requiring it to balanced over several years.

Re: Things Economists Agree On

#29

Post by jswinghammer » Sat, Oct 30, 2010, 2:46 AM UTC

tocomment wrote: post #23

What does this one mean? "If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly. (85%)"

This is a Keynesian and Monetarist view of budgets. The idea is that IF you balance the budget (they often don't think this is ever a great idea anymore) then it should be balanced over the ups and downs of the business cycle.

So let's say a business cycle starts up again and somehow the government doesn't spend all that extra money before it comes in and there is surplus. Now booms are followed by an inevitable bust no matter what anyone tells you when the next one starts up.

Keynes argued that you should spend during busts to keep aggregate demand up and let the economy recover. So you run a deficit during this time. If you consider a balanced budget then they might argue that you should balance it with consideration to short term gains and losses.

If you're interested this video is a fun and very accurate way to learn about two different views of the business cycle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

For the record I'm with Hayek in this video :)

Re: Things Economists Agree On

#30

Post by dstorrs » Sat, Oct 30, 2010, 2:48 AM UTC

kiujhgbnj wrote: post #24

Interesting that all economists seem to be pro-business, anti-tax, anti-worker rights. You would almost think that most economists worked at banks or for university business schools. In other research naval officers believe in a larger navy with lots of ships

Yep, many economists do work for those institutions. And yep, all of them have /some/ particular axe to grind (everyone does -- I do, you do, etc). That doesn't mean that what they're saying isn't correct.

- Businesses are, in fact, what generates most of the wealth and innovation in a country

- Taxes, whether personal or corporate, are not economically efficient. Government can be compared to an electrical grid -- the money comes in one place, flows out somewhere else, and there are line losses on the way. (Government overhead, wastage, etc)

- As to workers' rights: any society represents a particular set of choices about production needs and social needs. Sometimes those needs are cooperative, sometimes orthogonal, and sometimes they are in opposition. When "workers' rights" means "give us the money and the time to innovate and consume outside of work", it's good for society. When it means instead "give us the power to force you to comply with stupid and inefficient rules about who can do what" (e.g. most modern union shops that I've encountered), that's bad for society.