Sunday, October 9, 2011
Monday, September 5, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Friday, August 5, 2011
What's it all about? ...and an article on social assistance.
Hello all.
I made a promise to myself to post here about once a week starting this month. I want to get into the habit of writing short or longer blurbs about something fairly regularly
I spend a lot of time reading various political writings on the internet. Generally I take in the various bits of information and perspectives, think about it for a bit and hopfully store it somewhere in my subconscious. I also save interesting pieces to my favourites files where I usually never look at them again.
So I'm starting this blog with the humble goals of:
1) getting on my ass and writing more; in order to practice getting it done consistenly and consisely and also
2) save my thoughts and the thoughts of others from falling hopelessly down the memory hole.
There is a more long term goal of spreading truth and enlightenment, but the complexity of this goal has tended to stop me from actually writing.
That said this is not simply a journal to myself. I want to be able to share my thoughts and the thoughts of others I find interesting. PLEASE feel free to comment and especially to comment critically. I think this is a pretty good medium for debate because it gives us the opportunity to think about what we want to say (write) and provides an actual record of what was argued.
Finally, in the spirit of just getting stuff down, here's an article on how, despite welfare rates still being down (adjusted for inflation) over 30% from the 1990's, talk of raising them is not politically popular.(Here) Ideally I would want to comment on the stuff I pass on as well, but for now I'm just going to pass some of it on instead of forever agonizing over what exactly I want to say about it. The blog btw is quite recommended.
http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2011/07/24/is-social-assistance-a-poverty-pariah/
I made a promise to myself to post here about once a week starting this month. I want to get into the habit of writing short or longer blurbs about something fairly regularly
I spend a lot of time reading various political writings on the internet. Generally I take in the various bits of information and perspectives, think about it for a bit and hopfully store it somewhere in my subconscious. I also save interesting pieces to my favourites files where I usually never look at them again.
So I'm starting this blog with the humble goals of:
1) getting on my ass and writing more; in order to practice getting it done consistenly and consisely and also
2) save my thoughts and the thoughts of others from falling hopelessly down the memory hole.
There is a more long term goal of spreading truth and enlightenment, but the complexity of this goal has tended to stop me from actually writing.
That said this is not simply a journal to myself. I want to be able to share my thoughts and the thoughts of others I find interesting. PLEASE feel free to comment and especially to comment critically. I think this is a pretty good medium for debate because it gives us the opportunity to think about what we want to say (write) and provides an actual record of what was argued.
Finally, in the spirit of just getting stuff down, here's an article on how, despite welfare rates still being down (adjusted for inflation) over 30% from the 1990's, talk of raising them is not politically popular.(Here) Ideally I would want to comment on the stuff I pass on as well, but for now I'm just going to pass some of it on instead of forever agonizing over what exactly I want to say about it. The blog btw is quite recommended.
http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2011/07/24/is-social-assistance-a-poverty-pariah/
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
angry bear: taxes good for growth?
Here's a blog post and interview with Dr. Mike Kimel an Economist who blogs at AngryBear. Kimel takes the view that taxes can be good for growth.
The idea that taxes/spending necessarily hurt the economy has already taken hits from high places. The well-recieved Growing Public by Peter Lindert argued that the studies purporting to show a negative correlation between spending and growth were flawed because they treated all spending equally. Lindert focussed on 'social spending' and took uber-corrupt states (where taxes would go to buy, say, Phd's for the plaigerist son's of dictators) out of the picture. Doing this he found no negative correlation and a (very slight) positive correlation.
Lindert, an economist at the mainstream us think tank National Bureau of Economic Research suggests two reasons why taxes and spending would not hinder growth. The first is that spending, if it is truly social spending, tends to go toward useful things. Those useful things, such as health care, education and childcare leads to a healthier and smarter workforce which is good for growth. The second is that, states that have more taxes and spending tend to structure their state so that (aside from having more taxes and spending) they are in a way more 'incentive friendly'. Part of this means having higher consumption taxes and lower corporate taxes.
Lindert argues in his book that the conventional economic case against taxes, the 'Deadweight Loss' argument is theoretically valid. What he further argues is that the extent of the 'deadweight loss' may not be as great as imagined and also- as outlined above- he argues that the spending our taxes finance is good for growth. In the end, the deadweight loss is basically balanced out.
Instead of saying "no" to free market economists, Lidert says "yes, but also this."
Mike Kimel by contrast, (who's book Presimetrics I have NOT read) *seems* to be arguing also that the spending is good for growth. However, judging from a breif listen to his interview here he seems to also be arguing MUCH unlike Lindert that taxes THEMSELVES can be good for growth. In other words he is saying NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! to free market economists. Counterintuitive even for a filthy hippie like me.
Links:
http://www.presimetrics.com/blog/?p=253
http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2011/02/the_truth_about_taxes.html
I say Lindert's book was well recieved because it was positively cited by the popular economics blog http://marginalrevolution.com/ which is far more libertarian than hippie. The Economist also reviewed it fairly positively, however it argued that the welfare state was quite regressive noting for example the reliance on regressive consumption taxes which hurt the poor disproportionately. As I recall, Lindert does not argue this, however this should be left to another post. It's almost morning.
The idea that taxes/spending necessarily hurt the economy has already taken hits from high places. The well-recieved Growing Public by Peter Lindert argued that the studies purporting to show a negative correlation between spending and growth were flawed because they treated all spending equally. Lindert focussed on 'social spending' and took uber-corrupt states (where taxes would go to buy, say, Phd's for the plaigerist son's of dictators) out of the picture. Doing this he found no negative correlation and a (very slight) positive correlation.
Lindert, an economist at the mainstream us think tank National Bureau of Economic Research suggests two reasons why taxes and spending would not hinder growth. The first is that spending, if it is truly social spending, tends to go toward useful things. Those useful things, such as health care, education and childcare leads to a healthier and smarter workforce which is good for growth. The second is that, states that have more taxes and spending tend to structure their state so that (aside from having more taxes and spending) they are in a way more 'incentive friendly'. Part of this means having higher consumption taxes and lower corporate taxes.
Lindert argues in his book that the conventional economic case against taxes, the 'Deadweight Loss' argument is theoretically valid. What he further argues is that the extent of the 'deadweight loss' may not be as great as imagined and also- as outlined above- he argues that the spending our taxes finance is good for growth. In the end, the deadweight loss is basically balanced out.
Instead of saying "no" to free market economists, Lidert says "yes, but also this."
Mike Kimel by contrast, (who's book Presimetrics I have NOT read) *seems* to be arguing also that the spending is good for growth. However, judging from a breif listen to his interview here he seems to also be arguing MUCH unlike Lindert that taxes THEMSELVES can be good for growth. In other words he is saying NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! to free market economists. Counterintuitive even for a filthy hippie like me.
Links:
http://www.presimetrics.com/blog/?p=253
http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2011/02/the_truth_about_taxes.html
I say Lindert's book was well recieved because it was positively cited by the popular economics blog http://marginalrevolution.com/ which is far more libertarian than hippie. The Economist also reviewed it fairly positively, however it argued that the welfare state was quite regressive noting for example the reliance on regressive consumption taxes which hurt the poor disproportionately. As I recall, Lindert does not argue this, however this should be left to another post. It's almost morning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)