#so naturally there's a lot of economists arguing that development should be measured in other ways | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

beinglibertarian · 5 years

Text

Top 20 Being Libertarian Articles of 2018

It’s been an amazing year overall for us here at Being Libertarian LLC, and we wanted to wrap the year up with a list of our top articles from 2018. We definitely want to thank each and every author for their contributions throughout the year. Here they are for your reading pleasure, and definitely keep your eyes out for all of the great content we have planned for you in the year ahead. Enjoy!

1. ‘Rampant Voter Fraud’, Florida Gov. Scott Files Lawsuits After Uncovering 100,000 New Ballots

Author: Alex Croft

“Broward County stated on election night that there were 634,000 votes cast that day. As of 1 pm Thursday, that number was corrected to 695,700 and again later that day at 2:30 pm to 707,223. Thursday evening saw that number jump further to 712,840, as Palm Beach County claimed to find over 15,000 previously untallied votes.”

2. Want A Gun For ‘Self-Defense’? That Will Soon Be Illegal In South Africa

Author: Martin van Staden

“If this bill is passed into law in its current form, it will likely make it impossible for those who acquired their licences for the purpose of self-defense unable to renew those licences, which is required on a periodic basis. Aspirant firearm owners would be barred completely from using guns as a tool to defend themselves going forward.”

3. JuSt cAlL ThE PoLicE

Author: Mike Ursery

“Bloom ruled that the school district and the sheriff’s office had no constitutional duty to protect students not in custody. She wrote in her ruling that Cruz was a third party and not a state actor and that for the duty of protecting plaintiffs to exist, they would have to be in custody, such as prisoners or patients at a mental hospital.”

4. The Truth About Gun Violence

Author: Vinny Marshall

“Historically, what we can learn from past attempts to remove or regulate ownership rights of firearms from citizens is that it doesn’t do a whole lot to actually affect the rates of violence that exist, only the rates of violence with the weapon that you had set out to ban.”

5. Misconceptions of the Libertarian View of Abortion

Author: Nathan Kreider

“Block and Whitehead argue that a woman has the right to evict the fetus, but not to terminate it if it’s possible for the fetus to exist outside the womb with the help of medical technology. They point out that as technology advances, the point at which a fetus can exist outside the womb will inch closer to earlier stages of development, and thus the earlier the limit on abortions will be placed.”

6. The Dangers of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Author: Jenny Grimberg

“We examine three of her policy proposals to show that not only are they incorrect, but also to remind everyone that capitalism has helped millions of people, and we should not be taken in by the socialist tendencies of politicians like Ocasio-Cortez.”

7. The March for Our Tyranny – The Lowdown on Liberty

Author: Thomas J. Eckert

“And therein lies the problem: the anti-gun crowd wants solutions to their perceived problems, but how can we begin a discussion with a group so disingenuous about their intentions? It’s like trying to speak to a pickpocket as they reach for your wallet. As you ask them what they’re up to, they may reassure you they mean no harm and accuse you of being paranoid, but the truth is that in the end they want your wallet, regardless of what they say.”

8. Why People Are Left Wing – Freedom Philosophy

Author: Brandon Kirby

“I believe something similar has happened to the left. They very passionately want to abolish poverty, perhaps in some cases even more so than the right. Just as the greediest investor is not the most successful investor, the most passionate people aren’t the ones with the best ideas on how to accomplish this goal.”

9. The Rise of Jordan Peterson – What It Says About Us

Author: Adam Barsouk

“I believe Peterson’s claim to ideological fame is his seeming lack of interest in it. Most political pundits start and end their careers in politics. And yet, politics inherently do not produce any economic value—the entire essence of the job is to steal another’s earning while convincing that person it is for their own good.”

10. No, Vaccines Should Never Be Mandatory

Author: JSB Morse

“As with any medication or pharmaceutical, there are health risks that come with the benefits of vaccines. It is irresponsible to suggest that all people should get all such pharmaceuticals and it is illegitimate use of governmental authority to require it in order to receive benefits or other privileges.”

11. Jordan B. Peterson’s Twelve Rules is a Wakeup Call for a Nightmare Society

Author: JSB Morse

“We have collectively been lulled into an unnatural and inhumane philosophy of life through various diabolical agents. Twelve Rules is an urgently needed wake-up call for us to stand up and take responsibility for one’s life—not 50% or “just enough to get by,” but everything you can muster—100%.”

12. GM Cuts Over 10,000 Jobs, & No, It’s Not All Due To Tariffs

Author: Vinny Marshall

“While those who take issue with tariffs will be quick to point out the economic policy handed down by the Trump administration as the primary cause of the downsizing currently being undertaken by American automakers, tariffs seem to only be a portion of the issue at hand. Yes, the tariffs play a role as GM and Ford have both stated tariffs on steel have cost the company upwards of $1 Billion, and Toyota claims the tariffs will raise the cost of popular models by $1-3k dollars. However, tariffs do not seem to be the primary issue in this case.”

13. It’s Time to Focus on the ‘School’ in ‘School Shooting’ – The Lowdown on Liberty

Author: Thomas J. Eckert

“No matter how you slice it, it’s impossible to examine what we know about school shootings with any objective measure and not conclude that public schools may be a large contributing factor. The only problem is that new solutions seem to be unwelcome in – what feels like – a never-ending conversation.”

14. Liberty at Sea – Red Dirt Liberty Report

Author: Danny Chabino

“Many people are looking to the concept of “seasteading” as a new bold adventure into free societies that exist outside the hands of existing governing bodies. Seasteading is as it sounds – making a home on the open seas, sometimes in international waters, where no particular government is in charge, and sometimes by negotiated means in a free economic zone that has been established.”

15. FCC Lied About DDoS Attack to Downplay Opposition of Net Neutrality Repeal

Author: Alon Ganon

“Unfortunately, it appears that the Pai led FCC is sounding like they have no plans to tell the public what truly happened or whether they had lied, as it appears the FCC has gone silent about the issue.”

16. Why Only Stupid People Propose Taxing Churches – Freedom Philosophy

Author: Brandon Kirby

“Governments tax profits. They tax income. When a pastor takes out an income from the church they must pay taxes on it. Canada has decided that money going to a non-profit organization is not considered income, for the organization and the one giving the money, so donations are a tax deduction. Religious ministers, unless they’ve taken a vow of poverty, aren’t being given a free ride on taxation, the ones whose tax returns I’ve filled out seem to be as aggravated as the rest of us on tax day.”

17. Sexualized Content: Revival of Puritanism

Author: Killian Hobbs

“With Facebook joining this decision despite having no such issues themselves in recent history it seems like little more than the revival of Puritan thinking. Once again, the social media platforms we frequent daily are deciding for us what is an is not appropriate content. This is a decision that shouldn’t be left in the hands of a small handful of companies, but rather in the hands of the users.”

18. Before You Go To University: Top 10 Logical Fallacies

Author: Brandon Kirby

“The wonderful thing about logic is that when practiced properly it finds falsehood against which there is no response. People who are found guilty of these fallacies have false arguments. Professors, scientists, economists, politicians, pastors, even philosophers, who make such fallacies can have their arguments that take this form immediately dismissed without further discussion.”

19. The Self-Destructive Nature of the Libertarian Party

Author: Jake Dorsch

“If you pay any attention to Libertarian Party politics, you would know there are far more gaffes than this that I could mention just from Gary Johnson alone. That said, I like the people I mentioned here and I think the named people would make excellent governors and senators.”

20. GoFundMe For Trump’s Border Wall. Sadly, It’s True.

Author: Killian Hobbs

“In my personal opinion, this is both a good and a bad thing. It raises many questions about the mindsets of the average American that is donating the funds directly out of their own pocket towards this campaign. Despite the general uselessness such a wall would actually have compared to say additional border staff or the like (if their intention is to truly increase border defense) they still are making large donations. The one upside to this, however, is that if it does work it will open the American public’s eyes to a notion that we Libertarians have been espousing for years: fund these things yourself rather than using our tax dollars towards it.”

The post Top 20 Being Libertarian Articles of 2018 appeared first on Being Libertarian.

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2QZ48DZ via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #libertarian #beinglibertarian #being libertarian #freedom #free market

9 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

What Do Democrats Believe Vs Republicans

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-do-democrats-believe-vs-republicans/

What Do Democrats Believe Vs Republicans

Views Of The Democratic And Republican Parties

What Do Democrats Believe?

Just under half of Americans have a favorable view of the Democratic Party, while a slightly larger share have an unfavorable view.

The GOP is viewed more negatively 38% say they have a positive view of the Republican Party, while 60% rate it unfavorably. These views are modestly changed since last summer, with the share of Americans rating the GOP unfavorably slightly higher than it was in August and the share of Americans with a negative view of the Democratic Party down slightly .

About three-quarters of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents view the GOP favorably, while 81% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents view the Democratic Party positively.

Nearly all Republicans who say they strongly identify with the Republican Party express a favorable opinion of the GOP. Among Republicans who say they not so strongly identify with the party, 77% say have a favorable view, while 56% of independents who lean toward the Republican Party say the same.

Democrats who very strongly identify with the Democratic Party nearly universally view their party favorably, as do 87% of Democrats who describe themselves as not-so-strong Democrats. About six-in-ten Democratic leaners have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party.

Within both partisan groups, views of the opposing party are overwhelmingly unfavorable across-the-board, with more than eight-in-ten strong partisans, not so strong partisans and leaners alike saying this.

Barack Obama On Gay Rights

President Obama is the first president to stand up in support of gay rights and gay marriage. President Obama is a supporter of gay marriage, but he wasnt always outspoken about the issue. When he finally spoke out in support of the issue, he stated, Ive been going through an evolution on this issue. Ive always been adamant that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. At a certain point Ive just concluded that, for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. When asked about his previous hesitation, Obama says, I had hesitated on gay marriage, in part because I thought civil unions would be sufficient And I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people the word marriage was something that invokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs and so forth.

Regulating The Economy Democratic Style

The Democratic Party is generally considered more willing to intervene in the economy, subscribing to the belief that government power is needed to regulate businesses that ignore social interests in the pursuit of earning a return for shareholders. This intervention can come in the form of regulation or taxation to support social programs. Opponents often describe the Democratic approach to governing as “tax and spend.”

As A Public Service I Have Endeavored To Distill The Differences Between The Parties Into Fair Terms That Children Can Understand

To keep the baseball analogy alive, the two parties are like the American and the National Leagues in baseball. If you have a little sports fan in your home, perhaps this analogy might help. In politics, the primaries are like the early playoff rounds. The parties will pick their winner like the American and National Leagues pick theirs. In baseball, the league winners play in the World Series. In politics, the primary winners will face off in the general election. The winner of the general election becomes President of the United States.

Jessicas note: Heres another take on it, in case your kids arent eloquent in the language of baseball. Imagine the boys and the girls in a class wanted to see who was the best at something. The boys would have a contest to pick their very best boy. Thats like the primary. And then all the girls would pick their best girl. And then everyone in the school would choose between the best boy, and the best girl. The winner over all is like the President.

Back to our baseball analogy. In baseball, there are differences between the leagues. One league has a designated hitter and considers the foul poll fair. The other league does not.

Democratic Beliefs On Social Issues

There are many social issues on which the Democratic and Republican parties have differing stances. Generally speaking, Democratic policy is collectivist, focusing on the good of society as a whole. Democrats support systems that provide social safety nets and give people access to goods and services that they need to survive and thrive. To this end, Democrats favor bigger government and more government intervention in citizens’ lives to ensure safety and quality of life.

The Democratic Party And Health Care Coverage

While Democrats believe that health care should make birth control and abortions affordable to all women, they also support providing financial aid to women who cannot financially support carrying a baby to term. They believe that every pregnant woman should be supported, by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs. They believe that the way to join 36 other industrialized nations in making sure everyone has access to affordable health care is with health care reform. They hope to do this by fixing the prescription drug program and investing in stem cell and other medical research. On the topic of stem cell research, Democrats state, we believe in investing in life saving stem cell and other medical research that offers real hope for cures and treatment for millions of Americans.

Gay People Deserve Equal Rights

Gay people deserve equal rights. This includes the right to marry. Further, transgender people deserve protection. Gay people deserve equal rights because homosexuality is not a choice. Democrats usually support most LBGTQIA calls for support and action. Democrats believe that government should not persecute those in minorities. The Left believes that these groups deserve protection from discrimination.

Gay Rights And Religion

While the Democratic Party stands behind gay couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples, Democrats also believe that religious organizations should be able to choose what they do and do not recognize as marriage in terms of a religious sacrament. For this reason, they do not believe in mandating that churches recognize homosexual marriages the same way that the government must. The 2012 Democratic Party Platform states, we also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.

Why Are An Elephant And A Donkey The Party Symbols

2021 Democrats VS Republicans- Round 2 | What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans?

The Democratic party is often associated with the colour blue and the donkey mascot.

That dates back to Democratic candidate Andrew Jackson’s 1828 presidential campaign, when opponents called him a “jackass” for his stubbornness.

Instead of taking the nickname as an insult, Jackson embraced it and used the donkey image on his election posters.

It was then quickly adopted by newspapers and political cartoonists.

The Republican’s elephant symbol came along years later.

Many believe it came about, in part, due to a widely used expression during the Civil War led by Republican president Abraham Lincoln.

Soldiers entering battle were said to be “seeing the elephant” a phrase that means learning a hard lesson, often with a profound cost.

The symbol was then popularised by political cartoonist Thomas Nast; an early rendition featured in the 1879 edition of Harper’s Weekly.

Both symbols are still largely used for political campaigns.

Who Are Prominent Democrats

Notable Democrats include Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was the only president to be elected to the White House four times, and Barack Obama, who was the first African American president . Other Democratic presidents include John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. The latters wife, Hillary Clinton, made history in 2016 as the first woman to win the presidential nomination of a major U.S. political party, though she ultimately lost the election. In 1968 Shirley Chisholm won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, becoming the first African American woman elected to Congress, and in 2007 Nancy Pelosi became the first woman to serve as speaker of the House.

Democratic Party, in the United States, one of the two major political parties, the other being the Republican Party.

Harper’s Weekly

Renewable Energy And Fossil Fuels

Democrats support increased domestic renewable energy development, including wind and solar power farms, in an effort to reduce carbon pollution. The party’s platform calls for an “all of the above” energy policy including clean energy, natural gas, and domestic oil, while wanting to become energy independent. The party has supported higher taxes on oil companies and increased regulations on coal power plants, favoring a policy of reducing long-term reliance on fossil fuels. In addition, the party supports stricter fuel emissions standards to prevent air pollution.

Which Party Is Better For The Economy

Princeton University economists Alan Binder and Mark Watson argue the U.S. economy has grown faster when the president is a Democrat rather than a Republican. “The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns,” they write.

However, rather than chalking up the performance difference to how each party manages monetary or fiscal policy, Binder and Watson said Democratic presidencies had benefitted from “more benign oil shocks, superior performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future.”

The Legal Fight Over Voting Rights During The Pandemic Is Getting Hotter

Or as former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, told NPR, there are no “fair” maps in the discussion about how to draw voting districts because what Democrats call “fair” maps are those, he believes, that favor them.

No, say voting rights groups and many Democrats the only “fair” way to conduct an election is to admit as many voters as possible. Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams, who has charged authorities in her home state with suppressing turnout, named her public interest group Fair Fight Action.

Access vs. security

The pandemic has added another layer of complexity with the new emphasis it has put on voting by mail. President Trump says he opposes expanding voting by mail, and his allies, including White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, call the process rife with opportunities for fraud.

Even so, Trump and McEnany both voted by mail this year in Florida, and Republican officials across the country have encouraged voting by mail.

Democrats, who have made election security and voting access a big part of their political brand for several years, argue that the pandemic might discourage people from going to old-fashioned polling sites.

Abortion Should Be Legal

The average Democrat favors abortion rights. They are pro-choice. The Left wants women to make decisions about their own health care. This includes ending a pregnancy. Further, Democrats believe that allowing safe abortions, even if it means government assistance, is important. Access to abortion is also important. Democrats favor easy access. However, that does not mean people should use abortion as birth control.

Capital Punishment Is Wrong

Generally, Democrats oppose the death penalty. Research shows that the death penalty does not detour crime. Moreover, the Left opposes the death penalty because of hard data. That data reveals many people on death row because of an ineffective legal defense. Those with money can evade the death penalty. Poor people cannot evade the death penalty because they cannot afford good representation. Our legal systems does not apply the death penalty fairly. The Left also believes that the state should have no role in killing people.

History Of The Republican Party

The Republican Party came into existence just prior to the Civil War due to their long-time stance in favor of abolition of slavery. They were a small third-party who nominated John C. Freemont for President in 1856. In 1860 they became an established political party when their nominee Abraham Lincoln was elected as President of the United States. Lincolns Presidency throughout the war, including his policies to end slavery for good helped solidify the Republican Party as a major force in American politics. The elephant was chosen as their symbol in 1874 based on a cartoon in Harpers Weekly that depicted the new party as an elephant.

Democrat Vs Republican: Us Political Parties

Republicans and Democrats Explained! What is the Difference?

What do Republicans and Democrats stand for in the US? The Democrat vs Republican debate is the biggest division in American politics today, but that was not always the case. While the Democratic and Republican political parties now seem like a universal feature of American politics, there is actually no discussion of political parties in the American Constitution. Indeed, parties have shifted and evolved over time, and the Democratic and Republican parties are only the current largest parties in the country. The most recent Democratic president in the US is Joe Biden, who was elected in 2020. The most recent Republican president was Donald Trump, who was elected in 2016.

The symbol of the Democratic party is a donkey, while the symbol of the Republican party is an elephant. The exact origins of these images are not entirely clear, but they were popularized and codified by cartoonist Thomas Nast in the late 1800s. Today, the symbols are highly recognizable and are ubiquitous ways of depicting the two parties.

An error occurred trying to load this video.

Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support.

Taking The Perspective Of Others Proved To Be Really Hard

The divide in the United States is wide, and one indication of that is how difficult our question proved for many thoughtful citizens. A 77-year-old Republican woman from Pennsylvania was typical of the voters who struggled with this question, telling us, This is really hard for me to even try to think like a devilcrat!, I am sorry but I in all honesty cannot answer this question. I cannot even wrap my mind around any reason they would be good for this country.

Similarly, a 53-year-old Republican from Virginia said, I honestly cannot even pretend to be a Democrat and try to come up with anything positive at all, but, I guess they would vote Democrat because they are illegal immigrants and they are promised many benefits to voting for that party. Also, just to follow what others are doing. And third would be just because they hate Trump so much. The picture she paints of the typical Democratic voter being an immigrant, who goes along with their party or simply hates Trump will seem like a strange caricature to most Democratic voters. But her answer seems to lack the animus of many.

Democrats struggled just as much as Republicans. A 33-year-old woman from California told said, i really am going to have a hard time doing this but then offered that Republicans are morally right as in values, going to protect us from terrorest and immigrants, going to create jobs.

What Does Republican Mean

The word republicanmeans of, relating to, or of the nature of a republic. Similarly to the word democratic, the word republican also describes things that resemble or involve a particular form of government, in this case the government in question is a republic. A republic is a government system in which power rests with voting citizens who directly or indirectly choose representatives to exercise political power on their behalf.

You may have noticed that a republic sounds a lot like a democracy. As it happens, most of the present-day democracies are also republics. However, not every republic is democratic and not every democratic country is a republic.

For example, the historical city-state of Venice had a leader known as a doge who was elected by voters. In the case of Venice, though, the voters were a small council of wealthy traders, and the doge held his position for life. Venice and other similar mercantile city-states had republican governments, but as you can see, they were definitely not democratic. At the same time, the United Kingdom is a democratic country that has a monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, and so it is not a republican country because it is not officially a republic.

Energy Issues And The Environment

There have always been clashes between the parties on the issues of energy and the environment. Democrats believe in restricting drilling for oil or other avenues of fossil fuels to protect the environment while Republicans favor expanded drilling to produce more energy at a lower cost to consumers. Democrats will push and support with tax dollars alternative energy solutions while the Republicans favor allowing the market to decide which forms of energy are practical.

Government Should Help People

It is the role of government to help people. And it should help to solve problems. While Democrats, like Republicans, are capitalists, everyone believe in the free market. Their disagreements are over degree. How much government regulation is okay? The Left clearly believes that government should play a larger role in our lives. Among those roles are regulating business and protecting consumers. Government should also help people with poverty. Basically, the Left favors more government. The Right favors less government.

What Is Republican

Republicans, just as the name suggest, support government as a republic. The Republican Party was founded in 1854. The Republican Party elected Abraham Lincoln, as the first Republican president. The party was known as GOP, widely understood as Grand Old Party, in the 1870s.

Initially created to support a free market economy that countered the Democratic Partys agrarian leanings and support of slave lobor, the Republicans have been associated with reducing taxes to stimulate the economy, deregulation, and conservative social values.

The Republican partys mascot is the elephant. Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, George Bush are some of the famous Republican Presidents.

How To Avoid Wars

One of the most important jobs that a President has is to decide when the country goes to war. Neither party wants America to fight in wars. Most Republicans believe that the best way to stay out of wars is to have a strong army that other people are afraid to fight. Most Democrats believe that the best way to stay out of wars is to be cooperative and not intimidate other countries.

Era Of Good Feelings 18171825

Monroe believed that the existence of political parties was harmful to the United States, and he sought to usher in the end of the Federalist Party by avoiding divisive policies and welcoming ex-Federalists into the fold. Monroe favored infrastructure projects to promote economic development and, despite some constitutional concerns, signed bills providing federal funding for the National Road and other projects. Partly due to the mismanagement of national bank president William Jones, the country experienced a prolonged economic recession known as the Panic of 1819. The panic engendered a widespread resentment of the national bank and a distrust of paper money that would influence national politics long after the recession ended. Despite the ongoing economic troubles, the Federalists failed to field a serious challenger to Monroe in the 1820 presidential election, and Monroe won re-election essentially unopposed.

Red States And Blue States List

Democrats Vs Republicans | What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans?

Due to the TV coverage during some of the presidential elections in the past, the color Red has become associated with the Republicans and Blue is associated with the Democrats.

The Democratic Party, once dominant in the Southeastern United States, is now strongest in the Northeast , Great Lakes Region, as well as along the Pacific Coast , including Hawaii. The Democrats are also strongest in major cities. Recently, Democratic candidates have been faring better in some southern states, such as Virginia, Arkansas, and Florida, and in the Rocky Mountain states, especially Colorado, Montana, Nevada, and New Mexico.

Since 1980, geographically the Republican “base” is strongest in the South and West, and weakest in the Northeast and the Pacific Coast. The Republican Party’s strongest focus of political influence lies in the Great Plains states, particularly Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska, and in the western states of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah.

The Democratic Party General Policy And Political Values

The Democratic Party generally represents left-leaning, liberal and progressive ideological values, thus advocating for a strong government to regulate business and support for the citizens of the United States. Thus, one of the key values emphasized by Democrats is social responsibility. Overall, Democrats believe that a prominent and powerful government can ensure welfare and equality for all. Much like the Republican Party, political opinions within the Democratic Party stretch across a wide spectrum, as both parties are, to a large degree, decentralized. However, from a general point of view, Democrats tend to support heavy taxation of high-income households. In comparison to Denmark, where taxes are generally high, the Democratic taxation policy may not seem excessive, but on a U.S. taxation scale these tax percentages are in the heavy end.

Republican View On Healthcare

Republicans take pretty much the opposite view of Democrats. Traditionally dedicated to the notion that less government is better government, and the free market makes adjustments on its own without regulation, the party has fought every reform the Democrats have enacted. Much of this comes down to their traditional diametrically opposed notions of what is best for Americans. Citing freedom of choice and the sacrosanct doctor-patient relationship, predicting huge losses to the economy in general, arguing that the ACA doesnt work despite years of evidence to the contrary, the GOP would rather scrap it and go with the status quo as it stood before the ACA was passed. Their key phrase is Why should healthy people pay more to cover sick and poor people?

Looking to make a difference? Consider signing one of these sponsored petitions:*Rantt Media may receive compensation from the partners we feature on our site. However, this in no way affects our news coverage, analysis, or political 101’s.

Hillary Clinton On Abortion

Hillary Clinton is a strong proponent of making abortion safe but rare. She strongly supports initiatives that will decrease the number of abortions occurring, but still wants to see it as an option where unwanted pregnancy does occur. Clinton states, I have spent many years now, as a private citizen, as first lady, and now as senator, trying to make it rare, trying to create the conditions where women had other choices.

Democratic Candidate Joe Biden

Reuters: Carlos Barria

The Democrats are the liberal political party and their candidate is Joe Biden, who has run for president twice before.

A former senator for Delaware who served six terms, Biden is best known as Barack Obama’s vice-president.

He held that role for eight years, and it has helped make him a major contender for many Democrat supporters.

Earlier this year, Biden chose California Senator Kamala Harris as his vice-presidential running mate.

The 77-year-old has built his campaign on the Obama legacy, and tackling the country’s staggering health care issues.

He is known for his down-to-earth personality and his ability to connect with working-class voters. He would be the oldest first-term president in history if elected.

According to 2017 Pew Research Centre data, a vast majority of the African American population supports the Democratic party, with 88 per cent voting for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential elections.

From Watergate To A New Millennium

From 1972 to 1988 the Democrats lost four of five presidential elections. In 1972 the party nominated antiwar candidate George S. McGovern, who lost to Nixon in one of the biggest landslides in U.S. electoral history. Two years later the Watergate scandal forced Nixons resignation, enabling Jimmy Carter, then the Democratic governor of Georgia, to defeat Gerald R. Ford, Nixons successor, in 1976. Although Carter orchestrated the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel, his presidency was plagued by a sluggish economy and by the crisis over the kidnapping and prolonged captivity of U.S. diplomats in Iran following the Islamic revolution there in 1979. Carter was defeated in 1980 by conservative Republican Ronald W. Reagan, who was easily reelected in 1984 against Carters vice president, Walter F. Mondale. Mondales running mate, Geraldine A. Ferraro, was the first female candidate on a major-party ticket. Reagans vice president, George Bush, defeated Massachusetts Governor Michael S. Dukakis in 1988. Despite its losses in the presidential elections of the 1970s and 80s, the Democratic Party continued to control both houses of Congress for most of the period .

0 notes

statetalks · 3 years

Text

What Do Democrats Believe Vs Republicans

Views Of The Democratic And Republican Parties

What Do Democrats Believe?

Just under half of Americans have a favorable view of the Democratic Party, while a slightly larger share have an unfavorable view.

About three-quarters of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents view the GOP favorably, while 81% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents view the Democratic Party positively.

Barack Obama On Gay Rights

Regulating The Economy Democratic Style

As A Public Service I Have Endeavored To Distill The Differences Between The Parties Into Fair Terms That Children Can Understand

Back to our baseball analogy. In baseball, there are differences between the leagues. One league has a designated hitter and considers the foul poll fair. The other league does not.

Democratic Beliefs On Social Issues

The Democratic Party And Health Care Coverage

Gay People Deserve Equal Rights

Gay Rights And Religion

Why Are An Elephant And A Donkey The Party Symbols

2021 Democrats VS Republicans- Round 2 | What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans?

The Democratic party is often associated with the colour blue and the donkey mascot.

That dates back to Democratic candidate Andrew Jackson’s 1828 presidential campaign, when opponents called him a “jackass” for his stubbornness.

Instead of taking the nickname as an insult, Jackson embraced it and used the donkey image on his election posters.

It was then quickly adopted by newspapers and political cartoonists.

The Republican’s elephant symbol came along years later.

Many believe it came about, in part, due to a widely used expression during the Civil War led by Republican president Abraham Lincoln.

Soldiers entering battle were said to be “seeing the elephant” a phrase that means learning a hard lesson, often with a profound cost.

The symbol was then popularised by political cartoonist Thomas Nast; an early rendition featured in the 1879 edition of Harper’s Weekly.

Both symbols are still largely used for political campaigns.

Who Are Prominent Democrats

Democratic Party, in the United States, one of the two major political parties, the other being the Republican Party.

Harper’s Weekly

Renewable Energy And Fossil Fuels

Which Party Is Better For The Economy

The Legal Fight Over Voting Rights During The Pandemic Is Getting Hotter

Access vs. security

Even so, Trump and McEnany both voted by mail this year in Florida, and Republican officials across the country have encouraged voting by mail.

Abortion Should Be Legal

Capital Punishment Is Wrong

History Of The Republican Party

Democrat Vs Republican: Us Political Parties

Republicans and Democrats Explained! What is the Difference?

An error occurred trying to load this video.

Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support.

Taking The Perspective Of Others Proved To Be Really Hard

What Does Republican Mean

Energy Issues And The Environment

Government Should Help People

What Is Republican

The Republican partys mascot is the elephant. Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, George Bush are some of the famous Republican Presidents.

How To Avoid Wars

Era Of Good Feelings 18171825

Red States And Blue States List

Democrats Vs Republicans | What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans?

Due to the TV coverage during some of the presidential elections in the past, the color Red has become associated with the Republicans and Blue is associated with the Democrats.

The Democratic Party General Policy And Political Values

Republican View On Healthcare

Hillary Clinton On Abortion

Democratic Candidate Joe Biden

Reuters: Carlos Barria

The Democrats are the liberal political party and their candidate is Joe Biden, who has run for president twice before.

A former senator for Delaware who served six terms, Biden is best known as Barack Obama’s vice-president.

He held that role for eight years, and it has helped make him a major contender for many Democrat supporters.

Earlier this year, Biden chose California Senator Kamala Harris as his vice-presidential running mate.

The 77-year-old has built his campaign on the Obama legacy, and tackling the country’s staggering health care issues.

He is known for his down-to-earth personality and his ability to connect with working-class voters. He would be the oldest first-term president in history if elected.

From Watergate To A New Millennium

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-do-democrats-believe-vs-republicans/

0 notes

rulystuff · 3 years

Text

https://servicemeltdown.com/a-disregard-for-serving-the-public-the-united-states-government-at-work/

New Post has been published on https://servicemeltdown.com/a-disregard-for-serving-the-public-the-united-states-government-at-work/

A DISREGARD FOR SERVING THE PUBLIC: THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AT WORK

Editor’s note: A recent reader to my blog asked: “I’m interested in your perspective on the recent government stalemate regarding spending. Is this a total disregard for serving the public or rather two sides that are firmly looking to serve their constituents? Your book addresses how to reconcile the seemingly conflicting objectives of pursuing revenue while achieving customer satisfaction. How would you apply the same thinking to this problem?” My response follows.

In today’s economy it is not so much a debate about spending but about debt spending. The debt of the United States is currently in excess of $28 trillion or about 127% greater than the nation’s annual economic output or GDP. This makes the debt-to-GDP ratio the highest since the end of WWII. And, with Democrats at the helm in Washington hell-bent on buying votes the level of spending is expected to grow by many more trillions of dollars before they get voted out of power. Thirty years ago, in contrast, the ratio of debt to GDP hovered around 50%.

Roughly seventy-eight percent of the current debt total or about $22 trillion represents IOU’s – Treasury bills, bonds or notes – held by you and me as taxpayers, corporations, and foreign governments. The rest of the debt or about $6 trillion is money owed by the government to various departments and agencies. The Social Security Trust Fund, most notably, accounts for about 50% of all intra-governmental obligations. Given this backdrop, we have a perfect right to be antsy about when or whether we’ll get paid back. Social Security, particularly, should be of grave concern as it is precariously balanced at a break even between tax revenues taken in and benefits paid out.

The current debt level is financially troubling for the nation. Each U.S. taxpayer now carries nearly $200,000 of national debt on his back. This is roughly three times the debt-load citizens carried when President Obama came to power. That administration was all about spending, driving total debt from around $10 trillion – or about 67% of GDP – to in excess of $20 trillion, while stifling GDP growth by enacting endless regulatory roadblocks, and raising taxes. It is no wonder that the nation’s average annual growth rate of 2% was the slowest in almost a generation. You don’t have to be an economist to conclude that our nation’s lot has not improved over the last twelve years or so and it can be argued, quite convincingly, that it is nearly three times as worse off.

IF YOU CAN MEASURE IT THERE IS A CHANCE YOU CAN MANAGE IT

Granted, not every phenomenon is measurable – pride, purpose, patriotism, etc. But a financial metric indicative of a nation’s economic health is clearly measurable, trackable, and given sufficient political will manageable. George Shultz, former Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury, and economist John Taylor remind us in their book Choose Economic Freedom that the nation was devoid of the economic indicators that would have forecast, if not prevented, the inflationary and interest rate crises of the 60’s and 70’s never mind the fiasco that was the Great Recession of 2007-2009. We are apt to repeat those mistakes, however, if our political leaders fail to act. Incidentally, the Federal Reserve seems nonplussed by any of this while continuing to accommodate deficit spending. Just recently, Jerome Powell, Chairman of the FED indicated that “there is no question of our ability to service our debt for the foreseeable future.” This is the same FED that under Alan Greenspan refused to regulate over-the-counter derivatives which played a huge role in the aforementioned Great Recession.

Leaders in various countries have become more responsive to their citizens by coalescing around a national metric of financial prudence. Countries such as Switzerland, and Germany, have instituted “debt brakes” to keep spending within specified limits subject only to emergency conditions. Poland has gone a step further by constitutionally mandating a debt-to-GDP ratio of 60%. In the United States, nearly all states have balanced budget requirements while some even have specific spending caps. The stringency with which those requirements and caps are applied, however, varies widely from state to state.

Our political system has no such financial unifying principle or metric at the federal level other than the vague aspiration of serving the public and providing for the “common good” to guide the actions of elected officials. The upshot of such ambiguity is that even if in our wildest dreams we could imagine a Congress populated largely by selfless public servants the lack of a concrete metric to gauge the so-called common good would still lead to endless divisions and debates. Clearly, if a metric lacks clarity prescribing a course of action – never mind judging the merit of an action – is hardly an objective exercise.

The United States Congress, despite jawboning the matter for decades, has failed to set an objective standard of performance for which we as citizens can hold its members accountable – at least insofar as the nation’s debt management is concerned. It is little wonder that the debt ceiling is raised almost on cue every year. From 1980 to 2017, for instance, the debt ceiling was raised a total of 46 times. That’s 46 times in thirty-seven years. And, some years especially in the decades of the 1980’s and the 1990’s the debt ceiling was raised multiple times in a given year. The debt ceiling was most recently raised in 2019 by more than $2 trillion.

It is true, that a coterie of GOP senators – John Kennedy of Louisiana, and Rand Paul of Kentucky among them – has long argued for instituting spending cuts to offset debt limit increases but their enthusiasm for such an initiative has never been shared by the big spenders on both sides of the aisle. And, so the hobos dance around the barrel fire while taxpayers endure an eroding standard of living.

CAN GOVERNMENT LEARN ANYTHING FROM BUSINESS?

In business there are metrics aplenty. The vast majority of these metrics are indeed financial in nature. Fortunately, while of recent vintage, the debate has begun to turn so as to temper the uber-emphasis on revenue performance – or more correctly, earnings performance – versus customer satisfaction. And, although there are plenty of ways to directly gauge a customer’s satisfaction the assumption now is that there is no better proxy for the long-term potential of a business in the service and information age than the strength of its customer satisfaction ratings. Yes, there is much lip service that still surrounds the need to to serve customers with avidity. But executive leaders are now nearly unified in their belief – if not in their actions – that a satisfied customer is a most desirable long-term corporate objective.

The battles that now rage are more tactical and center mostly around the planning horizon over which the benefit of achieving high customer satisfaction ratings should be measured. Most executive leaders, unfortunately, are still of a mind that undertaking initiatives on behalf of the customer are fine if the benefit of such initiatives can be seen on the bottom line in the short term. This behavior, of course, is born of ingrained compensation schemes that reward executives for financial performance, this month, this quarter, this year. And, until such time as this myopic view of corporate performance is altered executives will flail in pursuit of sustainable competitive strategies while ironically lining their own pockets at the expense of shareholders.

THE DEBT CEILING DEBATE: A FINGER IN THE EYE OF THE U.S. TAXPAYER

In many ways, the hair-trigger reaction by Congress to raise the debt ceiling as spending nudges ever upward has much to do with voting constituencies that are not willing to give up any benefits that come their way. Keep in mind that roughly 62% of all federal spending goes for mandatory programs such as Social Security and Medicare so there is little Congress can do in these areas without undertaking major and radical changes. Approximately 8% goes to service the federal debt – a ratio which is apt to explode when interest rates, currently at .25%, return to historical averages. This leaves a not inconsiderable 30% of available budget dollars for discretionary items such as national defense, foreign aid, transportation, and education. It is the magnitude of the discretionary budget that gives rise to the spending jamboree which citizens witness each year as Congress kows to one political expediency or another. If that weren’t the case members of Congress would soon develop a stiff backbone and they would get serious about adopting a more prudent fiscal policy.

The behavior of politicians in the debt ceiling debate has been nothing more than political theater and posturing. In the process, nothing much gets done. And, until unifying principles emerge that can rally a bi-partisan Congress to satisfy the will of the people in this regard the stalemate over the debt ceiling will continue to constitute a finger in the eye of the U.S. taxpayer. If there is a positive to the endless debates about the debt ceiling, however, is that it shines a light on the seriousness of our nation’s financial mismanagement by those in Washington. Clearly, the nation’s debt is growing faster than the economy. That path is unsustainable and will inevitably lead to making painfully difficult spending choices – guns or butter – that will only make the current debate look like kids’ play.

0 notes

orbemnews · 3 years

Link

Coal Is Set to Roar Back, and So Are Its Climate Risks The pandemic abruptly slowed the global march of coal. But demand for the world’s dirtiest fuel is forecast to soar this year, gravely undermining the chances of staving off the worst effects of global warming. Burning coal is the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions, and, after a pandemic-year retreat, demand for coal is set to rise by 4.5 percent this year, mainly to meet soaring electricity demand, according to data published Tuesday by the International Energy Agency, just two days before a White House-hosted virtual summit aimed at rallying global climate action. “This is a dire warning that the economic recovery from the Covid crisis is currently anything but sustainable for our climate,” Fatih Birol, the head of the agency, said in a statement. Coal is at the crux of critical political decisions that government leaders need to make this year if they are to transition to a green economy. Scientists say greenhouse gas emissions need to be halved by 2030 in order for the world to have a fighting chance at limiting dangerous levels of warming. In short, this a historic juncture for coal. For 150 years, more and more of its sooty deposits have been extracted from under the ground, first to power the economies of Europe and North America, then Asia and Africa. Today, coal is still the largest source of electricity, though its share is steadily shrinking as other sources of power come online, from nuclear to wind. Global spending on coal projects dropped to its lowest level in a decade in 2019. And, over the last 20 years, more coal-fired power plants have been retired or shelved than commissioned. The big holdouts are China, India and parts of Southeast Asia, but, even there, coal’s once-swift growth is nowhere as swift as it was just a few years ago, according to a recent analysis. In some countries where new coal-fired power plants were only recently being built by the gigawatts, plans for new ones have been shelved, as in South Africa, or reconsidered, as in Bangladesh, or facing funding troubles, as in Vietnam. In some countries, like India, existing coal plants are running way below capacity and losing money. In others, like the United States, they are being decommissioned faster than ever. Nonetheless, demand is still strong. “Coal is not dead,” said Melissa C. Lott, research director for the Center for Global Energy Research at Columbia University. “We have made a lot of progress, but we have not made that curve.” Coal is the lightning rod of climate diplomacy this year, as countries scramble to rebuild their economies after the coronavirus pandemic while at the same time, stave off the risks of a warming planet. The Biden administration has leaned on its allies Japan and Korea to stop financing coal use abroad. And it has repeatedly called out China for its soaring coal use. China is by far the largest consumer of coal, and is still building coal-fired power plants at home and abroad. China’s president Xi Jinping took a swipe at that criticism on Monday by pointing to the historical responsibility of Western industrialized nations to do more to slow down warming. The United States accounts for the largest share of emissions in history; China accounts for the largest share of emissions today. “The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities must be upheld,” Mr. Xi said at his own global summit in the city of Boao. ‘Growing opposition against coal’ Since the start of the industrial era, coal has been the main fuel to light up homes, power factories and, in some places, to cook and heat rooms, too. For over a century, Europe and the United States consumed most of the world’s coal. Today, China and India account for two-thirds of coal consumption. Other energy sources have joined the mix as electricity demand has soared: nuclear, wind, and, most recently, hydrogen. Coal made room for new entrants but refused to retreat. Today, several forces are rising against coal. People are clamoring against deadly levels of air pollution, caused by its combustion. Wind and solar energy, once far costlier than coal, are becoming competitive, while some countries are facing a glut of coal-fired plants already built. So, even in countries where coal use is growing, the pace of growth is slowing. In South Africa, after years of lawsuits, plans to build a coal-fired power station in Limpopo Province were canceled last November. In at least three countries, Chinese-funded projects are in trouble or dead. In Kenya, a proposed coal plant has languished for years because of litigation. In Egypt, a planned coal plant is indefinitely postponed. In Bangladesh, Chinese-backed projects are among 15 planned coal plants that the government in Dhaka is reviewing, with an eye to canceling them altogether. Pakistan, saddled by debts, announced a vague moratorium on new coal projects. Vietnam, which is still expanding its coal fleet, scaled back plans for new plants. The Philippines, under pressure from citizens’ groups, hit the pause button on new projects. “Broadly speaking, there’s growing opposition against coal and a lot more scrutiny right now,” said Daine Loh, a Southeast Asia power sector energy specialist at Fitch Solutions, an industry analysis firm. “It’s a trend — moving away from coal. It’s very gradual.” Money is part of the problem. Development banks are shying away from coal. Japan and Korea, two major financiers of coal, have tightened restrictions on new coal projects. Japan is still building coal plants at home, rare among industrialized countries, though Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga said in October that his country would aspire to draw down its emissions to net-zero by 2050. There are some big exceptions. Indonesia and Australia continue to mine their abundant coal deposits. Perhaps most oddly, Britain, which is hosting the next international climate talks, is opening a new coal mine. And then there are the world’s biggest coal consumers, China and India. China’s economy rebounded in 2020. Government stimulus measures encouraged the production of steel, cement and other industrial products that eat up energy. Coal demand rose. The capacity of China’s fleet of coal-fired power plants grew by a whopping 38 gigawatts in 2020, making up the vast majority of new coal projects worldwide and offsetting nearly the same amount of coal capacity that was retired worldwide. (One gigawatt is enough to power a medium-sized city.) Coal’s future in China is at the center of a robust debate in the country, with prominent policy advisers pressing for a near-moratorium on new coal plants and state-owned companies insisting that China needs to burn more coal for years to come. India’s coal fleet is growing as well, bankrolled by state-owned lenders. There is not much of a signal from the government that it wants to reduce its reliance on coal, even as it seeks to expand solar energy. The government in New Delhi is allowing some of its oldest, most polluting coal plants to remain open, and it is seeking private investors to mine coal. If India’s economy recovers this year, its coal demand is set to rise by 9 percent, according to the I.E.A. But even India’s coal fleet isn’t growing as fast as it was just a few years ago. On paper, India plans to add some 60 gigawatts of coal power capacity by 2026, but given how many existing plants are operating at barely half capacity, it’s unclear how many new ones will ultimately be built. A handful of state politicians have publicly opposed new coal-fired power plants in their states. How much more coal India needs to burn, said Ritu Mathur, an economist at The Energy & Resources Institute in New Delhi, depends on how fast its electricity demand grows — and it could grow very fast if India pushes electric vehicles. “To say we can do away with coal, or that renewables can meet all our demand,” Dr. Mathur said, “is not the story.” ‘The big question is around gas’ What has most quickly come to replace coal in many countries is that other fossil fuel: gas. From Bangladesh to Ghana to El Salvador, billions of dollars, some from public coffers, are being poured into the development of pipelines, terminals and storage tanks, as the number of countries importing liquefied natural gas has doubled in less than four years. Gas now supplies nearly one-fourth of all energy worldwide. Its proponents argue that gas, which is less polluting than coal, should be promoted in energy-hungry countries that cannot afford a rapid scale-up of renewable energy. Its critics say multibillion dollar investments in gas projects risk becoming stranded assets, like coal-fired power plants already are in some countries; they add that methane emissions from the combustion of gas are incompatible with the Paris Agreement goal of slowing down climate change. Gas supplies a growing share of electricity in the United States (35 percent) and Europe (20 percent). The United States, buoyed by the fracking boom, is among the world’s top gas exporters, alongside Qatar, Australia and Russia. American companies are building a gas import terminal and power station in Vietnam. Gas demand is growing sharply in Bangladesh, as the government looks to shift away from coal to meet its galloping energy needs. Ghana this year became the first country in sub-Saharan Africa to import liquefied natural gas. And the U.S. Agency for International Development has been promoting gas as a way to electrify homes and businesses across Africa. And there’s the rub for the Biden administration: While it has set out to be a global climate leader, it has not yet explained its policy on advancing gas exports — particularly on the use of public funds to build gas infrastructure abroad. “There’s fairly strong consensus around coal. The big question is around gas,” said Manish Bapna, acting president of the World Resources Institute. “The broader climate community is starting to think about what a gas transition looks like.” Julfikar Ali Manik and Hiroko Tabuchi contributed reporting. Source link Orbem News #Climate #coal #Risks #Roar #Set

0 notes

lodelcar · 7 years

Text

THE FUTURE ECONOMIC PLAYERS: SMALL AGAINST ALL COMMON SENSE

Picture

Picture: Citizens produce home made artifacts after financial crisis in Iceland and sell them in Museum Perlan, Reykjavik (Iceland)

The winner takes it all?

“In the modern economy scale is increasingly important. The companies with the biggest hoards of data can train their machines most effectively; the social network that everyone else is on is most attractive to new users; the stock exchange with the deepest pool of investors is best for raising capital. These returns to scale create fewer, superstar firms clustered in fewer, superstar places. Everywhere else is left behind.” [1] This is the basic trend of a recent article of The Economist. And this trend is still followed by a lot of economists worldwide. It is the principle that was already sung by ABBA in the eighties: “The winner takes it all”.

A question tag is put behind this principle nowadays. People start to admit that the largest companies with the largest pockets become a danger for society, rather than create benefits to it. Silicon Valley tech giants would change the world significantly, and especially for its benefit. That image is now on the scrapheap. After Europe, the critics are also in the US: "Those companies are a danger to our society.” In his recent book “The Four”, Scott Galloway, Marketing Professor at NYU Stern Business School, makes firewood from the four successful technology companies from Silicon Valley: Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon, also called GAFA. His arguments are that these giant companies create monopolies in which they destroy start-ups by eating them and destroy future employment by their power. Moreover they also manipulate public opinion and public taste and undermine therefore the public’s fundamental right on freedom of speech and freedom in general. Capitalists always say: what is good for the customer and the shareholders is also good for society. Now we have to ask ourselves the difficult question: is that adage still applicable? [2]

The call for control on big companies becomes louder and louder. They do not only avoid taxes on a large scale and therefore do not contribute to redistribution programs of welfare in society. They more and more act like God, starting from the point of view that the law is not made for them. And crush all those who try to act against them. The actions from Rio Tinto against local miners in Bolivia[3] and Monsanto trying to influence objective research on the use of glyphosate in herbicides[4] are examples among so many. The U.S. Senate overturning a rule aimed at making it easier for customers to sue banks, handing financial firms a big win in their battle against post-crisis regulations, is another one.[5] Impunity became one of the characteristics of American society, where the major companies and banks became too big to be tackled by justice. This to the contrary of the EU, where the European Commission fights a crusade against large multinationals and punishing them also with very important fines, even to the discontent of countries that host them. [6]

Anti-globalisation speech as the remedy?

The classic populist speeches blaming globalization and immigration for all what goes wrong in the world, does not work either. We see that once put into practices, like Donald Trump tries to do, the working class is the first to suffer from protectionist measures and the opinion approves that immigrants have a role to play in our aging western world.

But what we see and believe, is the impact of cities and regions and their leaders to make the difference between falling down and being dismantled and resilience in a structured way.

I visited Lyon a couple of months ago. Third city of France, the region has suffered with the decline of traditional industries such as silk fabrics and textile. The city had a very specific know-how that unfortunately almost disappeared. Nowadays, efforts are made to keep the remnants of this skill in town. Moreover, the city specialized in chemistry, pharmaceuticals, but also in new textiles. The city has also specific engineering skills in Nuclear energy and ICT .Thanks to an intensive regional approach, the region of Lyon is now to be considered second most attractive economic location of France. But this effort went jointly with an important infrastructural [7] and societal renovation effort, among others inspired by several religious congregations.

Small is beautiful ? Towards a regional approach.

In 1973, German born British economist E. F. Schumacher published a collection of essays “Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered”. The book pleaded against the dangers of globalization. He warned also for the unstoppable use of natural resources and argues that nature’s resistance against pollution was fragile. He then already pleaded for sustainable development, because unsustainable economy would exhaust the world.[8] Schumacher pleaded also for an economy of permanence or enoughness, based upon the sustainability of natural resources. His was a great partisan of decentralization and believed in self-reliance of communities.

The principle was contradictory to the principle of globalization and the neo-liberals claimed for more than twenty years the benefit of growth and expansion worldwide. It is only since ten years, and especially these last years, that the benefits of globalization have been put into question. Unfortunately, most of the time for the wrong reasons. Canadian journalist Naomi Klein, who become famous for her anti-globalisation best-seller “No Logo” declared in a recent interview: “Trump's biggest weakness is the big economic promises he made to the American working class. Politically, he is the most vulnerable if the fraud that lies behind his economic promises to the workers will be unmasked.” [9] French right-wing Marine Le Pen had already been unmasked when she claimed her willingness to abandon the euro, not seeing that the first victims of this decision would be the lower class population that voted for her.[10]

But in the same interview, when talking about new trends, Klein points out to a regionalization and localization trend: “I see a renewed and growing interest in the governance of cities and municipalities. In Birmingham, in the conservative southern state of Alabama, a very progressive, black thirtier has just become mayor. This is very encouraging.”[11]

Even the Economist, in its above quoted article steps away from the traditional advice to make dynamic inhabitants move from bad performing to better performing areas. Because, that creates a brain-drain leaving those with less potential behind in an even more precarious situation. And subsidizing those who stay behind, is not a good solution either, because they then live in a golden trap. One solution proposed by the magazine would be “to focus on speeding up the diffusion of technology and business practices from high-performing places.”[12] The Economist also pleads for the decentralized creation of applied-research institutions, spreading know to less performing areas.

The suggestion for a decentralized approach of economy and the focus on local economy is not out of the air anymore. The raise of the Portuguese economy, after its decline in 2010, is mainly due to a local appreciation of products and the local marketing and distribution of quality products. The authors of a recent study of the Central bank admit that the growth is less due to technological improvement but an accumulation of factors. In other words: the physical involvement of the human being is very important, much more than the factor productivity.[13] From basic manufacturing such as clothing and textile, and basic agriculture, they moved to fashion and gastronomy.

Also in Spain, there are remarkable stories. The policy of the Comunidad autónoma de Galicia has always been to follow the European policy in terms of regional development. This enabled them to develop further existing opportunities such as the presence of a Citroen assembly plant in Vigo and of the headquarters of Zara, Inditex in La Coruña.

The region’s present policy tends to strengthen the local SMEs suppliers to Citroen into creating more opportunities. There is an initiative for the creation of an aeronautical research centre. This will enable spare part suppliers to produce also for the creation of drones and specialized airplanes for firefighting. This initiative is taken on the former airport of Lugo (aeródromo de Rozas) by a consortium around the university of Vigo and INTA, the National Institute of Aeronautical Technics of the National Ministry of Defence. They received European money for this initiative that has been one of the first examples of PPI Public Procurement of Innovative Solutions.

Another example of the same application has been the initiative Hospital 2050 – INNOVA-Saude. This is a group of 14 subprojects by which innovative solutions fulfil current and future healthcare needs. It was initiated by the regional ministry of Health Care. The starting point was the scattered aging population in Galicia. They had to develop new methodologies to reach them on time and to be able to offer them high quality health care. Therefore there is a need of remote follow-up and of dissemination of follow-up data throughout all public health care centres of the region.

Galicia also works in close collaboration with the North of Portugal in the framework of the Galicia-Northern Portugal Euroregion. And even if this area attracts more new companies because of the lower price of industrial zonings, the lack of red tape in setting up businesses, and the lower salaries, Galicia has products it can easily distribute to the north of Portugal. They are net suppliers. Moreover, they also supply workers.

Finally, we should talk about the remote society of Iceland, which I visited during the summer time. Of course, the island has a unique asset, thanks to its geology and hot water sources. It is self-sufficient in energy as well for generating energy thanks to the steam as in heating residences and factories thanks to the hot water. That cheap energy enables the island also to have aluminium-melting as an industry. 3 plants are operational and several others planned. Fish and relates sector are the most important economic sector of the island, representing an overall contribution to GDP of 27.1% in 2011. But the island enables also people to live decently in very remote areas, building and maintaining its roads in very harsh climatic circumstances, maintaining hospitals and sick transportation in a very high standard level. Maintaining schools and higher education spread over a country with only 338.000 inhabitants. The financial crisis of 2007–2010 produced a decline in GDP and employment that has since been reversed entirely by a recovery aided by a tourism boom starting in 2010.[14] The redistribution of wealth and the sustainability of the economy are the most important political themes. The tourism sector was expanded since a couple of years, enabling people in remote areas to contribute to their daily income thanks to whale and bird watching in summer time. Local knitting products are also sold to tourists. (see picture) But this expansion shows already how vulnerable this can be for a small society and has to be revised in the coming years.

Towards a more honest economy

Thomas Picketty’ best-selling book Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013),[15] was one of the first triggers of a call for more honesty in economy, opposing to economic inequality. The author has not only treated the case of France, but has also done comparative work on inequality in other developed countries. The book's central thesis is that inequality is not an accident but rather a feature of capitalism that can be reversed only through state intervention.[16] In many occasions we see that national politicians are unwilling to follow-up this advice, because often ideologically right-wing, heavily supported by important companies, focusing on job creation and almost blackmailed by these same large companies, threatening to quit the country in case of important legal or fiscal changes.

On the other hand, we meet mayors and regional leaders in countries, much less ideologically biased, but pragmatically involved in the wellbeing of their city and/or region. They are confronted with the day-to-day problems of their citizens, and, provided they have the willingness and the courage to make the world a better place, they put their hands to the plow and start to take measures. They talk with local employers as well as with the local GMs of international companies and they call for good citizenship. They organize community debates and try to find common ground for the initiatives and measures to be taken. The look for partnerships with universities and technical colleges in their area in order to innovate socially and economically. And if they live in a democratic country, they are able to appeal for funds that can be used for these practical plans.

Inhabitants living in a dynamic environment like that, are flexible and willing to participate to a common improvement process. They are also more touchy when it comes to the misuse of public funds. Social media become a danger for leaders who like to play their games behind closed doors. Local leaders are unable to do so and therefore receive much more appreciation. It is time give them the chances they need. And to listen to their solutions tackling inequality on a local level. Captains of industry who contribute to this purpose are much more appreciated by the community than those who want to pry like a peacock in a stand-alone picture.

Louis Delcart, Member of the board European Academy of the Regions

[1]

Globalisation’s losers. The right way to help declining places in The Economist oct 21th 2017

[2] Karsten Lemmens, Gisteren nog helden, vandaag het grote kwaad (Yesterday heroes, nowadays the big Satan) in De Standaard, 21-10-2017

[3] Emma Temmerman, De mijnwet houdt Bolivia in een greep (The mining law holding Bolivia in its grip) in M.O.Magazine, 26-4-2014

[4] Vincent Harmsen, Glyfosaat: veilig in de EU, mede dankzij Monsanto (Glyphosate, safe in the UE, thanks to Monsanto) in Knack, 25-04-2017

[5] Elisabeth Dexheimer, The Senate Voted to Make It Harder to Sue Banks, Bloomberg, 25-10-2017

[6] Silvia Amaro, EU hopes Ireland will recover money from Apple “very soon”, CNBC, 18-05-2017

[7] Le Monde: A Lyon, une rénovation urbaine exemplaire, 30-04-2016

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful

[9] Naomi Klein: “Trumps grootste zwakte? Zijn loze beloftes aan arbeiders” (Trumps’ biggest weakness is his empty promises to the working class) in De Standaard, 24-10-2017

[10] Guillaume Poingt: Marine Le Pen et l'euro : retour sur plusieurs mois de revirements, Le Figaro, 20-10-2017

[11] Naomi Klein: “‘Trumps grootste zwakte? Zijn loze beloftes aan arbeiders” (Trumps’ biggest weakness is his empty promises to the working class) in De Standaard, 24-10-2017

[12] Globalisation’s losers The right way to help declining places. Time for fresh thinking about the changing economics of geography in the Economist, 13-10-2017

[13] João Amador† & Carlos Coimbra, Characteristics of the Portuguese Economic Growth:What has been Missing? In Banco do Portugal, Working Papers, 8/2007, April 2007

[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iceland

[15] Thomas Picketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2014)

[16] Ryan Cooper (25 March 2014). "Why everyone is talking about Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century". The Week.

#regional approach #localisation #globalisation #inequality #honest economy

1 note · View note

365datascienceblog · 4 years

Text

How to Transition to Data Science from Economics?

Why transition to Data Science from Economics?

Have you ever wondered “So, what’s next for me?”

Well, you’re not alone! Many graduates aren’t too sure what they want to do after graduation. That’s especially true for Econ majors. Trust me – I am one.

And one of the often-overlooked options is data science.

So, in this article, I’ll tell you how to transition to data science from economics.

I’ll examine the good, the bad, and the ugly; answer some of the most important questions running through your mind, like: “Can I”, “Should I” and “How can I” make this switch. And I’ll explain the pros and cons before finding the best way to transition to data science from economics.

How to Transition to Data Science From Economics

Let’s start with “Can I make the switch?”

The answer here is a resounding “Yes!”.

Roughly 13% of current data scientists have an Economics degree. For comparison, the most well-represented discipline is data science and analysis, which takes up 21% of the pie. Therefore, Economics is indeed a competitive discipline when it comes to data science.

This isn’t at all surprising for several reasons.

First, unlike STEM disciplines, social studies help develop great presentational skills that are essential for any data scientist.

Through presentations and open discussions, students learn how to present a topic, as well as argue for or against a given statement. These activities result in developing a confident and credible way of showcasing actionable insights. Moreover, most econ majors deeply care about human behavior and response to different stimuli.

Hence, social-studies majors can capably serve as mediators between the team and management.

Second, economists often have a different approach than Computer Science or Data Science majors.

Due to their superior understanding of causal relations, social-studies graduates can add another perspective when looking at the data and the results. This is extremely important because their casual inference allows them to think beyond the numbers and extract actionable insights.

Furthermore, Economics frequently intertwines with Mathematics, Finance, Psychology, and Politics.

Therefore, an economist’s approach is always meant to be interdisciplinary.

Finally, the technical capabilities of an economist are often quite impressive.

An average economist has a good understanding of Machine Learning without really referring to it as such. Linear regressions and logistic regressions are studied in almost all economics degrees.

I think we are pretty convinced about the “Can I” part. So, let’s move to the “Should I” part.

Should I transition to Data Science from Economics?

Well, the answer here is “Yes” – with a very small asterisk next to it.

Now, any Economics graduate possesses many of the required skills to transition into Data Science, but that doesn’t necessarily suggest they should do it… They might be more suited for something else.

For example, an Economics graduate with an affinity for Political science will most likely thrive better in a policy advisory role in a bank or hedge fund or even in a government position. Similarly, less-coding-savvy social-studies graduates are a finer fit for data analyst positions, where machine learning algorithms are relied upon less frequently. It’s not that either one wouldn’t be able to succeed as a data scientist, but their skills are better suited for different career paths.

So, let’s look at the question like an economist would – through the lens of incentives.

Where does one find the incentives? That’s right – in a job ad.

The main components of a job ad are the level of education, years of experience, and indispensable skills.

We already discussed how popular Economics is compared to STEM degrees, so you know it’s a good choice for a potential career as a Data Scientist. When it comes to economics degrees, 43% of the job ads in our research require a BA and an additional 40% a Master’s. Hence, due to the interdisciplinary nature of social sciences, you don’t need to get a doctorate to be successful in the field.

As for years of experience, if you’re transitioning from another position in business, you’ve probably had to do some analytical thinking already.

Usually, 3 to 4 years in such a setting are enough to ensure a smooth transition. But this is tightly related to your level of education. A Master of Science will need 2 fewer-years of experience in a business setting due to their additional academic qualifications.

However, if you’re trying to make a transition straight out of college, you might want to go for an entry-level job in the field.

When it comes to skills, one of the key parts is understanding statistical results and their implications.

Luckily, economics degrees are often based on statistical study cases and experiments, so you should feel comfortable interpreting the results. Of course, this expands to understanding the intuition behind machine learning algorithms and their limitations. As we already stated, Econometrics incorporates linear and logistic regressions, so Economics graduates have a great grasp of the intuition behind Machine Learning models.

Additional skills listed in such job ads include problem solving and strong analytical thinking.

A lot of economics degrees heavily rely on examining study cases, solving practical examples, and analyzing published papers, so you probably possess these qualities already.

Of course, communication skills are essential when working in a team.

As mentioned earlier, Economics graduates often serve as a bridge between the data science team and higher management.

Lastly, anybody making the switch to data science needs a certain coding pedigree.

Whether it’s R, Python, or both, knowing how to use such software is a must if you want to succeed in the field.

If you’re an Economist in your 20s, we can assume you have seen some Python or R code. Hence, you only need to gather more work experience in a business setting.

If you are above 30 and you aren’t a Computer Science graduate, you most probably didn’t use the computer in your university classes. So, you may think your main challenge is the lack of programming skills. But that shouldn’t be the case.

Just focus on the technical part – programming and the latest software technologies.

Coding has never been easier, and anyone can learn. Especially a person from an economics background. We all know you have seen some very complicated stuff.

We answered the “can” and “should” parts of the discussion, so let’s dive into the “how-to” part.

How can I transition to Data Science from Economics?

There are generally 4 crucial things you need to do to make the switch.

The first one is picking your spot.

As discussed, there is plenty of room for Economics graduates in data science. All you need to make sure you’re ready to fit exactly that role and demonstrate your strengths.

Employers value your understanding of causal inference, so you need to highlight that in your application.

Showcase the analytical part of your work. Mention insights you gained through research or academic work and quote their measurable impact. These bring credibility and provide recruiters with a glimpse of what they’ll be getting once they hire you.

Second – use your social science advantage.

By knowing how surveys and experiments are constructed, you know where to look when examining the results. You see beyond the data and understand which Machine Learning approach should work best in each case.

In contrast, Data Science and Computer Science graduates often have a mindset of “How can I pre-process the data before I run a machine learning algorithm?”, instead of looking at the way the data was gathered. Your understanding of collinearity, reverse causality, and biases can help you accurately quantify interdependence within the data. Thus, you can have great synergy with the rest of the members on your team.

The third and most crucial change you need to make is to adapt your way of thinking.

Even though the cause & effect mentality will help you settle in your career, you need to be able to look for other things as well. The findings of Neural Networks algorithms can be confusing because they discover patterns rather than causal links. Hence, you need to be ready to demonstrate flexibility in your thinking and adjust accordingly.

Of course, this isn’t a change that can happen overnight, but rather one that happens gradually with experience.

Last but not least, you’ll need to learn a programming language or BI software.

Lucky for you, programming languages such as Python and R aren’t that hard to learn. And once you’re fluent in one programming language, you can easily master another one, despite coming from an economics background.

This also falls into the “learn as we go” area, so just make sure to be proficient in at least one of either Python or R, and your transition into the field should be smooth as butter.

All things considered, Economics majors can, and should, try to pursue a career in data science because they have the necessary skills and there is high market demand. Surely, economics skills are mandatory for any data science team. Thus, there is no doubt that you, dear Econ major, could be that person.

Ready to take the next step towards a data science career?

Check out the complete Data Science Program today. Start with the fundamentals with our Statistics, Maths, and Excel courses. Build up a step-by-step experience with SQL, Python, R, Power BI, and Tableau. And upgrade your skillset with Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Credit Risk Modeling, Time Series Analysis, and Customer Analytics in Python. Still not sure you want to turn your interest in data science into a career? You can explore the curriculum or sign up 12 hours of beginner to advanced video content for free by clicking on the button below.

https://365datascience.com/transition-data-science-economics/ #Career, #DataScience, #ProTips, #Tips

#career #data science #pro tips #tips #Articles #Career Advice

0 notes

hudsonespie · 4 years

Text

The Green Energy Transition After the Coronavirus Pandemic

[By Nancy Bazilchuk]

Winston Churchill famously remarked “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” It’s hard to argue that the coronavirus pandemic is a “good” crisis, but it is certainly monumental.

Governments across the globe are racing to save businesses and individuals whose lives and livelihoods have been upended by shutdowns from the coronavirus.

This might push us in a greener direction, because oil prices are falling. The Norwegian oil sector has a lot of expertise. Lots of that knowledge could be used for offshore wind power, for example.

At the same time, the sweeping, painful economic downturn has achieved something that years of climate negotiations have not: huge drops in CO2 and other emissions linked to burning fossil fuels, and changes in the ways companies and individuals go about their daily lives and work.

Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, thinks governments should embrace the chance to build a “Green New Deal” into their bailout packages.

In a recent commentary, he encouraged governments to “put clean energy at the heart of stimulus plans to counter the coronavirus crisis. … The progress this will achieve in transforming countries’ energy infrastructure won’t be temporary – it can make a lasting difference to our future.”

But how likely is this to happen? And will consumers and companies themselves permanently adopt behavioural changes that limit the spread of the disease — and are also good for the planet? We talked to a range of NTNU researchers to see what they think.

A golden ticket

Torbjørn Knutsen is a political scientist at NTNU who says an important factor in answering this question is something called “state capacity.” This is not a measure of how much money a state has, but the amount of trust that a population has in its government and thus the ability of government to get its decisions through.

If governments are clever and they are serious in making a shift to greener economies, now is their golden chance. State capacity matters when it comes to planning, especially in the wake of the coronavirus crisis, he said.

A country like Norway, where people trust the ruling government even if they differ with the political leadership, is said to have high state capacity. China also has high state capacity, although because it is a dictatorship, “you don’t know if people are obedient to government decrees because they’re scared of the government or if they trust the government to do the right thing,” he said.

That trust in government should give Norway the freedom to plan for a greener future, he said. In countries like the United States, where distrust in the leadership is high and there is strong division between political parties, change will be more difficult.

Knutsen says the crisis gives governments worldwide a “golden ticket” to plan for change.

“If governments are clever and they are serious in making a shift to greener economies, now is their golden chance — they have gotten a golden ticket,” he said. “The virus has done for them what responsible parties have been reluctant to do— cut consumption and many of these polluting industries.”

But he is not optimistic that many countries will actually act on this opportunity.

“Once the crisis is over, then governments can plan their recoveries,” he said. “But I think stimulating the economy and getting people employed again will be more important than stopping carbon emissions.”

The double whammy from oil

Ragnar Torvik is an NTNU economist who has looked at the workings of economies that rely heavily on natural resources, such as oil.

Norway, with its vast investments in North Sea oil, is in a difficult economic position when it comes to oil and the coronavirus, he said, in part because of chance. But that could also push the country closer to embracing greener technologies, he said.

“Oil has gone down a lot in recent weeks. The first main reason is the crisis itself, demand for oil is much lower, and prices have dropped,” he said. “This is a temporary situation, and when the economy is back on track, consumption and prices could go up.”

But a series of other events make lower oil prices almost certain to persist over time, he said.

New producers, like the United States, are able to produce oil much more cheaply than Norway. At the same time, OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which once had a stranglehold on production and could control prices, no longer has that power.

And in early March, negotiations between OPEC and Russia to prop up oil prices collapsed. Both countries increased their output and oil prices plummeted.

“This might push us in a greener direction, because oil prices are falling,” he said. “The Norwegian oil sector has a lot of expertise. Lots of that knowledge could be used for offshore wind power, for example.”

In its latest of three crisis packages, the Norwegian Storting appeared to agree.

Of three climate related measures, one calls for investments in CO2 capture and storage to be accelerated this autumn. Another confirms the creation of a financing plan for offshore wind. A third allocates NOK 200 million to developing zero emission boats/green shipping.

You might also like: Hybrid vessels will soon be on the market

New ways of meeting

But what about people themselves? Will some of the behavioural changes that we have had to make to stop the coronavirus become permanent?

Francesca Verones is a researcher at NTNU’s Industrial Ecology Programme who normally travels widely for her work. Now, like everyone across the globe, she’s grounded. And yet, she says, internet technologies have made even big scientific conferences possible online.

“This crisis really shows us how little travel is needed,” she said. “I’m not saying no more physical meetings any more, travel helps open your mind, travelling is important, but it shows that there are so many things that can be done online.”

Verones had planned to attend the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry in Dublin in May. But now, because of the coronavirus, the meeting will be virtual.

Conference organizers are being creative in finding ways to offer programmes virtually. Screenshot from the SETAC virtual conference in Dublin, scheduled for May. “It’s a great initiative, instead of just cancelling it,” she said. “Of course it is a shame to miss out on the physical interaction, but if you are going for the scientific information, you can get it.”

Part of the recent Norwegian bail-out packages included support for the three airlines that service Norway — SAS, Norwegian and Wideroe. But policymakers ought think carefully about what these airlines should look like when travel restrictions are lifted, she said.

Verones acknowledges that the crisis has been hard for airlines and their employees, but thinks that the realization that we don’t have to travel as much as we have in the past “could be a step to changing the way that we approach travel. It is also a push to getting us to embrace digitalization.”

A different story across the Atlantic

NTNU political scientist Jennifer Bailey’s research ranges widely, from fisheries policy to comparative politics. But the American-born researcher also keeps a sharp eye on what is happening to the United States, especially in the Trump era.

Perhaps not surprisingly, she’s not convinced that the coronavirus crisis will lead to a shift to greener technologies in the United States. As an example, in the midst of the coronavirus crisis, the Trump administration relaxed US fuel emissions standards for new cars.

“If we had a US Congress that could work, this might be the time to reconstitute our agencies of government,” she said. “There are lessons from the pandemic, and we have a chance to restructure things.”

Bailey’s colleague Espen Moe, a political scientist who focuses on energy policy, says that the economic fallout from the coronavirus crisis is more of a shock than a crisis. That means when the shock has ended, it will be tempting for politicians to try to return to the status quo, particularly in the United States.

“Corona is a shock and it will take time to rebuild the economy,” he said. “But it is a shock —there is no incentive to change things.”

Even so, Moe says, in Norway anyway, politicians have shown that they see the wisdom of adopting green technologies — at least when those technologies can take advantage of workforce strengths.

“Offshore wind can be developed with different kinds of subcontractors whose skills come from the oil sector,” he said. “Equinor will not be competitive in fixed wind power — there are already too many companies out there. But for floating wind power, the market is not yet cornered and Norway has a lot of leading expertise.”

“This ticks the climate box, the energy box and the industry box — and could have a positive effect,” he said.

This article appears courtesy of Gemini News and may be found in its original form here.

from Storage Containers https://maritime-executive.com/article/the-green-energy-transition-after-the-coronavirus-pandemic via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes

johnmauldin · 5 years

Text

That Time Keynes Had a Point

John Maynard Keynes once said:

“Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”

While true, it doesn’t go far enough. The problem isn’t simply defunct economists or “scribblers of a few years back.”

We are in the grip of economists who, far from being defunct, hold great power. Whether they hear voices in the air (or Twitter), I can’t say, but they are indeed madmen in authority.

Not all economists are in that category. Many provide valuable insight or are at worst harmless. They don’t pretend they can change human nature or prevent the inevitable.

Unfortunately, some economists do believe those things. Worse, they are in places from which they can wreak havoc, and they are.

Last weekend I received two emails referring me to articles about the economics profession that stirred my writing juices.

I don’t agree with everything in the articles. They are, however, important because they try, at least, to describe and possibly fix the problem Keynes identified.

We have to address them, not just economically but politically. We can’t just put our heads in the sand and think this will go away.

The whole debt bubble, the income and wealth inequality angst, a growing deficit which will get worse after the next recession, and lack of economic understanding among voters is all coming home to roost.

Better to think about that now, while we can still act and maybe even change things.

False Assumptions

The first item is a July 2019 TED talk by Nick Hanauer, a self-described Seattle “plutocrat” who founded and sold several companies.

He is now a venture capital investor. Hanauer is far to my left politically, but his thinking reminds me a bit of Ray Dalio, and as we will see, some of the proponents of neo-Keynesian “new economics.”

Hanauer’s latest TED talk is titled “The dirty secret of capitalism—and a new way forward.” He begins by describing the widening inequality problem we have discussed before, then quickly zeroes in on what he thinks is the problem: neoliberal economics.

Economics has been described as the dismal science, and for good reason, because as much as it is taught today, it isn't a science at all, in spite of all of the dazzling mathematics. In fact, a growing number of academics and practitioners have concluded that neoliberal economic theory is dangerously wrong and that today's growing crises of rising inequality and growing political instability are the direct result of decades of bad economic theory.

What we now know is that the economics that made me so rich isn't just wrong, it's backwards, because it turns out it isn't capital that creates economic growth, it's people; and it isn't self-interest that promotes the public good, it's reciprocity; and it isn't competition that produces our prosperity, it's cooperation.

What we can now see is that an economics that is neither just nor inclusive can never sustain the high levels of social cooperation necessary to enable a modern society to thrive.

I know, those are fighting words to most free-market defenders, but hear this out. Hanauer blames the sad state of modern economics on three false assumptions.

First, it isn’t true the market is an efficient equilibrium system. You may have read my “sandpile” article that is one of my most popular ever.

It describes how our astronomically complex modern economy is anything but an equilibrium. It is a growing sandpile whose collapse is certain. As Hyman Minsky wrote, stability breeds instability.

If, as too many economists believe, you think you can manage an economy toward equilibrium, you simply help the sandpile grow bigger so its eventual collapse is even more violent. That’s how we get crises like 2008, and the one we will have again in due course.

The second false assumption is that price always equals value. That’s the heart of the efficient market hypothesis, that stock prices always reflect all available information. Clearly, they don’t, since we have all seen both overvalued and undervalued markets.

In fact, we have economist-run institutions like the Federal Reserve working to make sure prices don’t equal value.

They intentionally distort prices, starting with the most important one: the price of money, what we call “interest rates,” with all kinds of harmful effects (and often benefits to those who already own assets).

The third false assumption is that humans are rational, utility-maximizing machines who look out for our own interests first. It’s just not true.

Humans are social animals, and we will, in the right conditions, sacrifice our own interests for others. Soldiers don’t heroically jump on grenades because they’re selfish. Parents and friends often sacrifice for their children and their friends.

People accept lower returns to invest in ways they think improve the world, or pursue behaviors they feel are in the common and general interest but not their own individual interests. Happens all the time.

If we were all so naturally self-maximizing, there would be no such thing as love, which is a choice to place someone else’s good ahead of your own. If you have some hidden selfish motive, it’s not really love, is it? Not in the way any religion I know describes it.

Yet many economists persist in believing we are all competitive, all the time, and this somehow leads to equilibrium and prosperity.

That is false and if it is your base assumption, all your other answers are going to be wrong. This is not an embrace of human nature, but a denial of it.

Meanwhile, another Seattle billionaire had some words on the same subject recently. Bill Gates didn’t say exactly “economists know nothing,” but that’s clearly what he meant in this Quartz interview.

“Too bad economists don’t actually understand macroeconomics,” the Microsoft co-founder said. Asked what he meant by that, Gates continued:

“It’s not like physics where you take certain inputs and you predict certain outputs. Will interest rates ever return to normal, and why aren’t they returning to normal? You won’t get a consensus between economists quite the way that if you dropped a ball out your window and called up physicists and asked, ‘What the hell happened?’ There’s so many factors including what [economist John Maynard] Keynes called ‘animal spirits’ in the economic equation that we don’t have predictability.

Even today, people are still arguing about what happened in 2008. So it’s even harder to look forward. [Look at] the role of the bond rating agencies in 2008, which is completely unreformed. Why would that be? Well, there must be a lack of consensus.”

Both Hanauer and Gates make a point. Economists began assuming equilibrium must exist early in the 20th century. General equilibrium was wonderful because it let them model the economy on paper (and later, computers).

Economists have physics envy. In essence, they assume away whatever doesn’t fit the model. Unsurprisingly, the models don’t work when put to the test, because the assumptions are not anchored in reality.

The entire premise of equilibrium economics is false. The world is a complex system. To model it requires complexity mathematics and theory. Sadly, but not unsurprisingly, we are decades away (if ever) from actually being able to model the economy as long as one continues to assume equilibrium at some point.

Of course we can make observations and theories and propose policies. But we shouldn’t do so under the illusion that some mathematical model allows us to know what we’re doing. “Lies, damn lies and models” should have been the quote. So when Gates and Hanauer and others, including me, say that economists don’t understand economics, our real point is that they rely on incorrect models and assumptions.

It gets worse when the politicians get economists to create models for them. These economists are every bit as trained as any circus animal and they don’t even need a whip.

The economists’ assumptions inevitably lead to the conclusions the politician wants. Of course, they all have “neutral data and facts.” What would a model be without facts and data?

Necessary Debate

The second article came to me from a person who thought it ridiculous. He sent it along with a lengthy preface warning about its (in his view, false) claims.

I appreciated the thought but I am also trying very hard to break out of the tribal box. I now often say that I’m neither Republican nor Democrat, but American.

I don’t automatically reject ideas simply because of their origin. If I reject them, it’s because I have studied them and concluded they are wrong.

That said, this one has a lot of problems but is still worth reading. The author is Jared Bernstein, an economist who once advised Vice President Joe Biden. In this piece he describes what he calls a “new economics” that will create a more “just” America.

Like Dalio and Hanauer, I think Bernstein correctly identifies many of our problems. It is not the case that everything would be peachy if government just got out of the way; we have deeper issues. I completely endorse Bernstein’s first sentence: “The American economy has some serious, structural problems—and the economists are partly to blame.” He goes on:

It is not a coincidence that the new economics is in ascendency at this moment. Though by some measures, inequality has not grown much in recent years, it remains at levels as high as the late 1920s, which, for the record, didn’t end well. In one of the most disturbing developments emerging from recent research, the inequality of income and wealth is increasingly associated with the inequality of life expectancy.

The assumption that self-interested firms would self-regulate gave rise to repeated rounds of deregulation that gave us what I call the “shampoo economy”: bubble, bust, repeat. The old economics wrongly claimed we couldn’t have persistently low unemployment without spiraling inflation, yet that’s precisely what we’ve enjoyed in recent years.

In other words, the new economics isn’t arising just because we want “better” outcomes from our markets. It’s also arising because a lot of the old stuff has turned out to be just plain wrong.

That is mostly true but I think it’s because deregulation hasn’t gone far enough. Large companies use political influence to have government protect them from competition.

The result is a bunch of “zombies” engaged in counterproductive activities that market discipline would quickly send to the graveyard, were it allowed to work.

The solution, in my opinion, is not for government to further regulate private business, but for it to stop picking winners and losers. Consumers could then decide what works.

Of course, there’s room for reasonable regulation; we all want safe vehicles, clean food, etc. But regulations should promote competition, not suppress it.

I think many of Bernstein’s policy ideas won’t have the desired results, and some would be disastrous, but these are debates we need to have. We will achieve better results if we engage in them civilly and sincerely. That is hard in today’s polarized environment… but avoiding it will be even harder.

Keynesian Sense?

That brings us back to Lord Keynes. Many now regard him as one of the “defunct economists” he himself blamed for the problems of his time.

In certain quarters, “Keynesianism” is as unpalatable as socialism. In fact, while Keynes was a leftist by today’s standards, he wasn’t against capitalism.

Recently I ran across a 2009 article by Bruce Bartlett with the provocative headline, Keynes Was Really a Conservative. That overstates it, but Keynes was more conservative than you might think. Here’s Bartlett.

Keynes completely understood the central role of profit in the capitalist system. This is one reason why he was so strongly opposed to deflation and why, at the end of the day, his cure for unemployment was to restore profits to employers. He also appreciated the importance of entrepreneurship: "If the animal spirits are dimmed and the spontaneous optimism falters… enterprise will fade and die." And he knew that the general business environment was critical for growth; hence business confidence was an important economic factor. As Keynes acknowledged, "Economic prosperity is… dependent on a political and social atmosphere which is congenial to the average businessman."

Indeed, the whole point of The General Theory was about preserving what was good and necessary in capitalism, as well as protecting it against authoritarian attacks, by separating microeconomics, the economics of prices and the firm, from macroeconomics, the economics of the economy as a whole. In order to preserve economic freedom in the former, which Keynes thought was critical for efficiency, increased government intervention in the latter was unavoidable [at least to him]. While pure free marketers lament this development, the alternative, as Keynes saw it, was the complete destruction of capitalism and its replacement by some form of socialism.

"It is certain," Keynes wrote, "that the world will not much longer tolerate the unemployment which… is associated—and, in my opinion, inevitably associated—with present-day capitalistic individualism. But it may be possible by a right analysis of the problem to cure the disease whilst preserving efficiency and freedom."

In Keynes' view, it was sufficient for government intervention to be limited to the macroeconomy—that is, to use monetary and fiscal policy to maintain total spending (effective demand), which would both sustain growth and eliminate political pressure for radical actions to reduce unemployment. "It is not the ownership of the instruments of production which is important for the State to assume," Keynes wrote. "If the State is able to determine the aggregate amount of resources devoted to augmenting the instruments and the basic rate of reward to those who own them, it will have accomplished all that is necessary."

One of Keynes' students, Arthur Plumptre, explained Keynes' philosophy this way. In his view, Hayek's "road to serfdom" could as easily come from a lack of government as from too much. If high unemployment was allowed to continue for too long, Keynes thought the inevitable result would be socialism—total government control—and the destruction of political freedom. This highly undesirable result had to be resisted and could only be held at bay if rigid adherence to laissez-faire gave way, but not too much. As Plumptre put it, Keynes "tried to devise the minimum government controls that would allow free enterprise to work."

There’s actually a lot to like here. A government that focuses on keeping the “macro” playing field level while letting producers and consumers control the “micro” economy would be a vast improvement over what we have now.

That last quote from Plumptre is well said. Keynes wanted “the minimum government controls that would allow free enterprise to work.” He sought a balance between central planning and anarchy. He saw a lot of room between the extremes.

Likewise, by establishing conditions in which market forces could work, Keynes sought to prevent the kind of radical policies some of his modern followers want.

The crazy ideas we now fear—negative rates, MMT and the rest—didn’t appear spontaneously. Their proponents see them as solutions to real problems. These ideas would go nowhere if the economy functioned better.

Today we’re still seeking the balance Keynes wanted. We need an economics profession with clear thinkers. They’re out there. We have to amplify their voices.

The Great Reset: The Collapse of the Biggest Bubble in History

New York Times best seller and renowned financial expert John Mauldin predicts an unprecedented financial crisis that could be triggered in the next five years. Most investors seem completely unaware of the relentless pressure that’s building right now. Learn more here.

#keynesian economics #Keynesianism #keynesian

0 notes

jeroldlockettus · 5 years

Text

Why Rent Control Doesn’t Work (Ep. 373)

Caption: In the U.S., median rent has doubled since the 1990’s, outpacing inflation. Politicians and the public think rent control is the solution. Spoiler alert: it’s not. (Photo: Caelie Frampton)

As cities become ever-more expensive, politicians and housing advocates keep calling for rent control. Economists think that’s a terrible idea. They say it helps a small (albeit noisy) group of renters, but keeps overall rents artificially high by disincentivizing new construction. So what happens next?

Listen and subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or elsewhere. Below is a transcript of the episode, edited for readability.

For more information on the people and ideas in the episode, see the links at the bottom of this post.

* * *

I’m sure you know this already, but let me say it anyway: cities have become really popular, all over the world. An ever-larger share of the U.S. and global population lives in cities, and that large share is expected to get even larger. As demand for city living grows, the supply of housing often can’t keep up. Which results in — and you know this too — a rise in prices. In the U.S., median rent has doubled since the 1990’s, outpacing inflation by quite a bit. In many cities, this makes it hard for people who already live there to stay, and hard for people who’d like to move there. I’m sure you’ve heard the horror stories about rents in cities like London and Hong Kong; Seattle and San Francisco, where the median one-bedroom apartment costs about $3,700 a month. The problem is so bad in New York City that it inspired a new political party.

Jimmy McMILLAN: I represent the Rent Is Too Damn High Party. People are working eight hours a day and forty hours a week and some a third job.

New York, like many cities, has over time put in place various affordable-housing policies. One time-honored tradition is some form of rent control. That might mean setting a price cap on what a landlord can charge or limiting the amount the rent can be raised. Here’s the Stanford economist Rebecca Diamond.

Rebecca DIAMOND: From an economics point of view, it provides insurance against getting priced out of your neighborhood.

And rent control seems to be having a moment. It already exists in a number of places.

DIAMOND: The most expensive cities in the U.S., they almost all have rent control.

And the appetite is spreading.

DIAMOND: You see rent control popping up politically when housing prices and rents are going up.

Among the cities currently considering some form of rent control are Chicago, Philadelphia, Providence, and Denver. Oregon recently became the first state to pass a rent-control bill. A statewide proposition in California failed, but some cities there are moving ahead on their own. A recent report by a consortium of affordable-housing advocates says that if all the proposed rent-control legislation were to pass, nearly one in three American tenants would have some kind of rent protection.

* * *

Most economists say that rent control is a bad idea, as is just about any form of price control. They believe that markets work best when supply and demand are allowed to find a natural equilibrium, with price acting as the referee. Here’s one such economist.

GLAESER: My name is Ed Glaeser and I am the Fred and Eleanor Glimp professor of economics at Harvard, where I teach both microeconomic theory and the economics of cities.

DUBNER: Ed, you have one minute to convince someone that rent control is a terrible idea. Go.

GLAESER: All right. So, I’ve already squandered five of my seconds. It’s not particularly fair. It’s not a good way of allocating scarce space. It’s not a good way of helping the downtrodden. It’s a way that freezes a city and stops it from adjusting to changes, a way that freezes people in apartments and stops the motion that is inherent in cities.

So that’s a baseline economic take, at least. Let’s try to unravel this issue, starting with a brief history of rent control.

GLAESER: Rent controls really became ubiquitous in World War II, and the idea here was, the nation was laying down its life to try and bring freedom to the world, and it seemed wrong that some people who were well-placed should earn some form of extra bonuses by being able to raise up rents on people, maybe whose sons and daughters were off fighting for the U.S. elsewhere. And rent control was seen as being a way of, somehow or other, trying to keep America being a bit fairer during World War II. Now, lots of places introduced rent control during this period. After the war, most of them got rid of it because that cause seemed to be a little bit less pressing. But, some cities kept it, and New York, of course, is the most famous place that still has it.

Glaeser himself grew up in New York.

GLAESER: I lived in a rent-stabilized unit for the first ten years of my life. I mean something like 72, 74 percent of New York City’s households were renters in those days. And indeed, the mid-1970s was an era in which New York’s housing didn’t seem that expensive, affordability just wasn’t the same issue that it was today. Now, flash forward 30 years, the cities have been enormously successful they haven’t built enough to accommodate the new demand. They risk becoming boutique towns affordable only to the wealthy, and people are desperate to see that those cities don’t push out every poor resident, that they don’t become monocultures built around the privileged and the rich, and rent control appears to be at least one avenue for doing it. But it’s a very blunt instrument.

Just how blunt? There are decades’ worth of economic research describing the downsides of rent control. The first major paper was written in 1946 by Milton Friedman and George Stigler; here’s Friedman:

Milton FRIEDMAN: Rent control is a law that supposedly is passed to help the people who are in housing. And it does help those who are in current housing. But the effect of rent control is to create scarcity, and to make it difficult for other people to get housing.

Where did this scarcity come from? For one, developers had less incentive to build new housing if there was a ceiling placed on what they could charge. Friedman also argued that rent control created a “haphazard and arbitrary allocation of space.” This was echoed in a 1972 paper by Edgar Olsen, which found that rent control led to what economists call an “overconsumption” of housing.

GLAESER Let’s say you rented an apartment in New York in 1955, you had three small kids, you rented a three-bedroom. It was perfectly matched for the needs of you with your kids growing up. They moved out of the house in the early 70’s. By the late 80’s, maybe your husband or wife actually died and you’re living on your own in a three-bedroom apartment in New York. But, my goodness, would you ever move out? Your rent is a fraction of what the market rent is. One of my favorite stories about this — and this is quoted by Ken Auletta’s The Streets Were Paved with Gold, he cites Nat Sherman, the famous tobacconist to the world, who had this big shop on Fifth Avenue, who said that he pays, I forget what it was.

DUBNER: $355 a month for a six-room apartment, it says here.

GLAESER: Isn’t that amazing? Keep in mind, it’s a few decades ago. But it’s an unbelievable deal. Now, what’s outrageous about this is, he then says, “I think it’s fair because I use it so rarely,” right? Which means that he’s not getting very much value out of it, but the crazy thing about this is, there were lots of New Yorkers who would love to have that apartment and it would get a lot more value out of it.

In 1997, Ed Glaeser did his own analysis of rent control in New York City, trying to determine just how economically inefficient it was. He and his co-author, Erzo Luttmer, found that “this misallocation of bedrooms leads to a loss in welfare which could be well over $500 million annually to the consumers of New York, before we even consider the social losses due to undersupply of housing.” Glaeser’s work has also inspired a new generation of economists to further the literature on rent control.

DIAMOND: Historically, people relied much more on theory in making their arguments about rent control.

That’s Rebecca Diamond again. She’s a former student of Ed Glaeser’s.

DIAMOND: Because even without a lot of data you can make some pretty simple theoretical predictions about what rent control might do to a housing market.

But there are some things that theory alone cannot tell you.

DIAMOND: One of the biggest open questions in the literature of rent control is: what happens to those tenants that get rent control? Really, how much are the renters benefiting, because they’re the potential big winners of rent control. And to measure that, you really need to have data on where everybody lives, and who gets access to rent control, and whether they decide to stay in that rent-controlled apartment or go somewhere else. And traditional data sources that economists work with very rarely track migration of an individual.

DUBNER: So you recently co-authored with Tim McQuade and Franklin Qian a paper called “The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco.” First, if you would, talk about the data.

DIAMOND: Yeah, we have some really cool data. So, traditional data sets, you can get things on the distribution of earnings and income, things like that. But you won’t also see their migration. So, we have this, you could call, administrative data, which tracks people’s address histories.

DUBNER: And where did these migratory data come from?

DIAMOND: We bought them from a company called Infutor. They are a company that works in “identity management,” So they have this history of addresses for everyone which they collect from a number of different sources and stitch them together, which is very useful for the private sector and firms that need to keep track of up-to-date addresses. But from a research perspective, it’s super-exciting data because it’s so big and so detailed.

Armed with this super-exciting data on individual tenants, Diamond and her fellow researchers set out to measure some of the long-term effects of rent control in San Francisco. They made particular use of a change in the city’s rent laws. San Francisco had rent control, but it didn’t apply many of the city’s smaller apartment buildings.

DIAMOND: And the exemption was basically thought of as, “Well, these are mom-and-pop landlords. They don’t have market power. They’re not corporations. So we don’t need to regulate their rents.” And then newspapers reported that those smaller multi-family buildings were increasingly purchased by corporate entities, because that’s really where you could make your money in the housing market. And that led to a vote in 1994 where everyone in the city got to vote about whether we could remove this small multi-family exemption, and that would then expand rent control, not just to the large multi-family housing stock, but also the small multi-family housing stock. And that, indeed, passed.

DUBNER: So, you’ve got this awesome new law — awesome for you guys, at least, as researchers — that lets you mark before and after. It’s a perfect little natural experiment with a control group. And then you’ve got these wonderful data sets. And then you mash up all of these data together and analyze it and you find the following: your paper concludes that among many things “rent control limits renters’ mobility by 20 percent and lowers displacement from San Francisco, especially for minorities.” So let’s start with this: what does it mean exactly that renters’ mobility is lowered by 20 percent, and why is that important?

DIAMOND: So, we look at whether the renters who get access to rent control choose to remain in their newly rent-controlled apartment. So, we find that they are 20 percent more likely to remain there, relative to our control-group renters who don’t get access to rent control.

DUBNER: So, that seems totally unsurprising, yes?

DIAMOND: Yes, I more see that result as a validation that our data is good and high-quality and we have some something to work with here.

DUBNER: Okay. Further, you write that “rent control lowers displacement from San Francisco.” What does that mean, exactly?

DIAMOND: So, we can look at not just whether you remain in the actual apartment you lived in when you got access to rent control, but whether you remain in San Francisco as a whole. We find rent control has a dramatic impact on whether you actually live in San Francisco or not. So, it prevents those renters from leaving the city as a whole, which I think from a policy perspective of rent-control advocates, that’s one of the goals they talk about as preventing displacement from the city.

DUBNER: And then you write that, especially for minorities, that displacement is lowered.

DIAMOND: Right. So, when you look at that first cohort of renters that already lived in the city at the time of rent control, it is definitely helping minorities more. It’s preventing displacement of them especially.

DUBNER: Furthermore, you write that landlords who are susceptible to rent control “reduce rental housing supplies by 15 percent either by converting to condos, selling to owner-occupants, or redeveloping buildings.” So, now it starts to get a little more complicated. Can you talk about who’s now starting to win here and who’s starting to lose here?

DIAMOND: So, obviously, when the landlord is first notified about rent control, he or she can quickly deduce that his or her rental stream is going to be lower than previously expected. And just like any other business owner, they might think about changing their business strategy. So, if renting out their apartments is no longer very profitable, now they may decide, “Oh, maybe it’s worthwhile to convert to condos and sell off the apartments to owner-occupants” and that would be a way to recover some of this lost income. Or, another thing they could do is, say, knock down their old building and build some new construction and either sell those as condos or rent them out as apartments.

Both of those options would avoid them having to pay this tax of rent control, help recoup some of their losses — which is good for the landlords, but is going to undermine the goals of rent control because now we’re going to have less rental housing out there available for rent control.

So you can start to see how rent control may be accomplishing a narrow, short-term goal — making existing housing more affordable for a select group of people — at the expense of the long-term goal of making a city more affordable generally.

DIAMOND: When you pass rent control, the landlords of the property suddenly getting covered by rent control are losing so much money, they no longer really want to rent their apartments out at the prevailing new prices, so they decrease their supply of rental housing to the market. And if there’s less supply, that’s going to drive up prices.

DUBNER: Okay, so, let me just make sure I have it pretty straight. You find evidence that rent control increases gentrification, one component of which is the displacement of low-income tenants. On the other hand, you also find evidence that low-income people, including minorities — at least those who are in rent-controlled units already — they’re likely to disproportionately benefit from rent control.

So, if I’m an affordable-housing advocate, I might say, “Oh, fine, fancy Stanford professor — who I’m sure has some kind of great income and/or housing subsidy and/or situation — I don’t care that some landlords are suffering. I don’t care that the policy is having some downstream effects that you don’t like. I need to make sure that low-income people aren’t going to get a rent increase of 50 percent overnight.” So, how do you respond to that argument?

DIAMOND: So, when you think about those initial tenants, that’s the best bet you’re going to get for the benefits of rent control to low-income tenants: the people that are already in the housing. But even though we find that those tenants are much more likely to stay in their apartment, when we look 10, 15 years later, the share of those 1994 residents that are still there is down to 10 percent or so. So 90 percent of them no longer live in that initial apartment.

And it’s that next low-income tenant that wants to live in the city, that low-income tenant is going to have a very hard time finding an affordable option, because now there’s going to be less rental housing, the prices that that low-income tenant are going to face when they want to initially move in are going to be higher than they would have been absent rent control.

DUBNER: I’m curious how generalizable you think your findings from San Francisco are for other cities.

DIAMOND: I would suspect that the actual quantitative loss of rental supply or benefits to the tenant will depend a little bit city to city, but I think the qualitative takeaway that landlords are savvy and are going to work hard to not lose money on their investments, I think is a very general point.

For economists who already felt confident in the theoretical arguments against rent control, research like Diamond’s provides empirical evidence that essentially tells the same story. Yes, there are some winners in rent control; but the losing is more widespread, and longer term. But how about empirical evidence from a reverse angle — that is, not when a city adds or expands rent control, like San Francisco did, but when it gets rid of it?

DIAMOND: So, there’s other work by David Autor and coauthors that looks at the removal of rent control in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1994.

By the early 1990s, Cambridge was one of the few remaining rent-control strongholds in Massachusetts. Landlords had been trying to get rid of it for years. But there are a lot fewer landlords than there are tenants, so any attempt to change the local law was voted down. Finally, the rent control opponents had a winning idea: put the issue up on a statewide referendum, where there might be less empathy for all those city dwellers with below-market rents. When the referendum was held, nearly 60 percent of the voters in Cambridge were opposed — but, statewide, it passed, and so Cambridge began to deregulate its rents. Years later, a trio of M.I.T. economists examined the effects of removing rent control.

GLAESER: Okay, so, the classic paper on this has been written by David Autor, Parag Pathak, and Chris Palmer.

Ed Glaeser again.

GLAESER: It showed that when units were brought out of rent control, their owners invested in them. So, they upped the quality of the units; there was more of a supply of higher-end housing.

DIAMOND: They find that the rent-controlled apartments experience a lot of renovation. Landlords renovate a lot, and that drives up the desirability of living in those apartments. Also, they find that that creates spillovers onto the nearby apartment buildings that they themselves weren’t rent-controlled.

GLAESER: So neighboring apartments became more valued as a result of the end of rent control. And the most recent paper has shown that crime has gone down — particularly, street crime has gone down right after the elimination of rent control in Cambridge.

DIAMOND: So it looked like rent control had negative externalities on the neighborhood.

So what does economic research tell us about rent control? There are at least two conclusions — which, if I’m reading it right, sort of work against each other. The first conclusion is that rent control doesn’t help many people for very long, in part because it constrains the supply of affordable housing. The second conclusion is that just getting rid of rent control does not, in and of itself, lead to more affordable housing; in fact a deregulated housing market can easily lead to less affordable housing. The Boston-Cambridge area is one of many places experiencing a steep shortage in not just affordable housing but housing overall.

So even if you accept that rent control is a big contributor to the affordable-housing problem, getting rid of it isn’t necessarily a solution. You can see why politicians and policy-makers are confused. In Massachusetts, in fact, there’s currently a movement to bring back statewide rent control. And as we mentioned earlier, Massachusetts is not alone.

DIAMOND: So, we just had this big vote in California about whether we should repeal a statewide law that restricts the scope of rent control in California, and indeed we did not repeal that law.

DUBNER: So, somebody read your paper.

DIAMOND: It was interesting to see how our results were used by policy makers and media on both sides of the fight. Because indeed, some of our results are, like, rent control are good, others make them look bad. You’ve got to read the whole paper and take it all into account to make a decision, but it was a very policy-relevant paper for that discussion.

DUBNER: I’m curious what you can tell us about the political dimensions of rent control. I may be wrong, but I believe that rent control is generally supported by Democrats and generally opposed by Republicans.

DIAMOND: I think it’s a simplification to say all Democrats support rent control. But I think in the short run, you can see the benefits of rent control — the tenants right away benefit. What’s much harder to see are these indirect effects that take a long time, and it’s harder to put your finger on that. The losses are spread everywhere a little bit, and harder to see walking down the street or talking to your constituents.

GLAESER: There certainly are some poor people who can benefit. And, it’s a very tangible benefit, right? It’s not some complicated thing which requires you to trust in the market. It’s just sort of very clear, and if you think that people on the left, many of them just don’t trust markets to begin with, then saying there’s going to be some negative market effect to them, that sounds like capitalist hocus-pocus, whereas, what they can see right now is that Mrs. Reyes’s rents won’t go up because of their regulation.

Vicki BEEN: Economists tend to believe their models and say, “End of story,” and, “Believe me,” right?

That’s Vicki Been.

BEEN: But communities don’t necessarily have to believe economists, and so economists need to do a better job of responding to the very real fears that communities have.

Been used to be commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. Now she’s a law professor at New York University, and she directs the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy.

BEEN: The Furman Center has embarked on a project that we call “Not Your Grandmother’s Rent Control” to try to figure out, if you were starting from scratch, and you were designing the most efficient rent-regulation system, what would that look like?

* * *

As we’ve been hearing, economists are generally opposed to rent control. It rewards some people, but fairly arbitrarily; it punishes many others, and generally doesn’t do much to improve overall access to housing. That said, most people don’t think like economists, or even believe them. Which is why many politicians and members of the public think rent control is a great idea.

David EISENBACH: Well, I’m in favor of residential rent control and rent regulations.

That’s David Eisenbach; he teaches history at Columbia University and he recently ran for a citywide office in New York called public advocate. There are in New York City about 3.4 million apartment units, nearly 1 million of which are rent-stabilized. And New York’s rental market is incredibly expensive — as it is in many other cities with regulated rents, like San Francisco. Economists argue that overall high prices are a direct consequence of rent regulation; what does Eisenbach think?

EISENBACH: I disagree. I mean, there are a lot of reasons why real estate in San Francisco and real estate in New York are high. Blaming it on rent stabilization is definitely not it. The consequences of getting rid of either rent control and/or rent stabilization would be the immediate displacement, of a big portion of the population, and that would just be cruel at this point. I don’t know how anybody could justify — even somebody looking at it purely in economic terms — how anybody could justify that, just in human terms. You’re going to blame the high rents on rent control? Come on.

Okay, so Eisenbach does not believe the economic research on rent control. What does he believe in?

EISENBACH: Well, first and foremost, I’m an angry New Yorker who walks around the streets of New York and sees empty storefront after empty storefront, and just feels like my city is dying.

New York’s commercial rents have spiked along with its residential rents. And in some parts of Manhattan, as much as 20 percent of the retail space is either vacant or soon to be vacant.

EISENBACH: And I found out that there is this bill called the Small Business Jobs Survival Act. It was initially submitted back in the 1980’s and I figured, why don’t I run for office pushing this bill? And so I ran for public advocate on the platform, “We’re going to pass this bill; it’s going to save small business in New York City.”

We should say that Eisenbach did not win the election. He came in 13th in a field of 17. But he did get a fair amount of attention for talking about all those empty storefronts, which have upset a lot of people.

EISENBACH: There are two major provisions of the Small Business Jobs Survival Act. One: it guarantees a 10-year lease renewal offer from the landlord to the tenant for any tenant with a commercial lease in New York City. Number two: if the landlord and tenant cannot come to an agreement, they go to legally binding arbitration, and that arbitrator then will pick a fair market rent, which will then be charged in the next 10-year lease renewal.

Opponents of this proposal call it commercial rent control.

EISENBACH: But this bill, the Small Business Jobs Survival Act, is absolutely not rent control. It doesn’t put a limit on how much rent can be charged, which is the very definition of rent control. It’s legally binding arbitration. Much different.

DUBNER: Are there other cities that have this kind of small-business jobs protection on the real-estate front that works well?

EISENBACH: It’s going to be unique.

Even though Eisenbach lost his election, he still believes the Small Business Jobs Survival Act may get through New York’s City Council. I was interested to know what the economists we’ve been speaking with — Rebecca Diamond of Stanford and Ed Glaeser of Harvard — what they thought about commercial rent regulation.

DIAMOND: So, I’m also very interested in that, and I also know almost nothing about it. I have never seen any work on it.

GLAESER: You can easily tell a story where the threat of some form of rent control makes a vacancy problem worse in the short run. So, for example, I don’t want to rent right now to a lower-end tenant who could fill my space, because I’ll be locked in by the rent-control law and I’ve got that tenant forever. So, that means, I’m going to really hold out for a blue-chip tenant because I have this threat of this law over my shoulder.

So, do I think vacant empty storefronts are a problem? Sure. I mean, we can talk about it from a perspective merely as an urbanist, where we think it’s unattractive to have these things, but I’m also disturbed by it as an economist, because someone’s got space to sell, there are people who want to buy that space. Why isn’t the transaction happening, right? It’s sort of — the market is going awry. And the answer to that — of why the market is going awry — is not immediately obvious.

There are of course plenty of theories as to why so many storefronts in New York are vacant. Here again is Vicki Been, the former housing official who studies the real-estate market at NYU.

BEEN: I think there are a lot of questions about how commercial rent regulation would work and how it might interfere with an efficient market. One concern that I would have right now is, we seem to be in the middle of an upset, of a transition in retail in general, because of the availability of Internet retail. A lot is in flux.

GLAESER: But there are two points of evidence against that. One of which is that many of these storefronts formerly held services, and I don’t think a nail salon has been made obsolete by Amazon just yet. And secondly, the rents, the asking rents, at least according to the most recent Real Estate Board of New York report, in many of these areas are still sky-high. It’s not like there’s no demand for areas where you’re charging $300, $400 per square foot to rent these areas.

In the long term, all the economic push for both the landlords and the tenants is to get those units occupied and get the rent payments again flowing to the landlord.

Landlords, whether small or large, are often left out of public discussions about property markets. And if they’re not left out, they’re usually drawn as villains. Vicki Been, in thinking about the project she calls “Not Your Grandmother’s Rent Control,” is trying to change that.

BEEN: I think the thing that you really need to focus on is: how can I ensure that the landlord is getting a reasonable return, right? Because otherwise, people will take their money and put it elsewhere and you won’t get building. And how can we at the same time try to close some of these avenues that landlords could use to try to escape rent regulation without it becoming a system that’s so weighed down with so many different enforcement challenges that it kind of collapses of its own weight, right?

You need to pay attention to the different ways in which property owners are making money on the property, so you really need to have a holistic look. At the same time, you need to have very open-eyes view of the kinds of costs that we’re imposing on them.

There’s one huge cost that drives real-estate prices, whether we’re talking about rentals or sales, for both commercial and residential buildings.

BEEN: In New York City, for example, a very high percentage of rent goes for property taxes. So we can’t be saying to landlords, “Hey, keep prices down — but by the way, your property tax just went up by 10 percent. So we have to recognize that, okay, we as a taxpaying body have an obligation to understand the effect that those increases may have on rents, and we can’t just turn around and say to the landlord, “You absorb them,” right? “Don’t pass them onto the tenant.” Because that’s an unsustainable system.

GLAESER: It’s certainly true that renters implicitly have to pay for property taxes. And it’s not obvious that’s wrong, because the idea of property taxes is they’re paying for city services and renters use city services, too. That’s obviously not wrong.

DUBNER: So, here’s a big question that I really hope you can answer, because I’ve wondered this for a long time. Some of the biggest property owners in a city like New York — and some of the wealthiest property holders generally — are universities, religious institutions, hospitals, and other not-for-profit institutions, which makes them either partially or wholly exempt from paying property taxes. So, I’m curious, how does that exemption affect a) the taxes paid by everyone else, and how does that b) ultimately affect housing prices for everyone.

GLAESER: First of all: clearly, you’re right. The government has decided to subsidize certain institutions by enabling them not to pay property taxes. And from a purely accounting point of view, those taxes need to come from somewhere else.

On the other hand, it is also true that at least some of the institutions that you’re talking about have proven to be extraordinarily important for the economic health of the area, right? We’re subsidizing the university student, right? We’re making it cheaper for them to rent than it would be otherwise. Is that fair? Well, we thought that, somehow or other, it was a good idea to subsidize educational institutions at one point in time. We thought there might be some spillovers from that, some benefits from encouraging people to become educated. But, we should be open to re-investigating that, and anyway, you shouldn’t take my word for it, because after all, I’m the employee of an educational institution.

We can ask whether or not the blanket property-tax exemption that we’ve given to religious institutions and educational institutions is appropriate. I mean, that seems like a reasonable question to ask. In the case of religious institutions it in some sense goes back to fundamental issues about separation of church and state in the U.S., but we can still ask this question.

I would be surprised if we think that changing those tax rates is the number-one step to take to promote affordability in New York City though, relative to bringing more space on market that you can actually build on, changing the regulations. I mean, it seems like that’s not likely to be the case, but it is true that you move stuff to a religious or educational use, in many cases you’re moving away from an owner who would actually build on it. And that’s also correct.

So what have we learned about housing, especially affordable housing, especially in the most desirable cities? For starters, we’ve learned that it’s complicated. Property taxes play a large, underappreciated role in driving up costs, and the tax burden isn’t necessarily spread so equitably. Rent regulations, meanwhile, appeal to the public and politicians, but they also create perverse incentives that in the long run work against affordable housing. How about housing vouchers: aren’t they a more flexible way to subsidize housing?

BEEN: The advantage of a voucher is, you can go through all of those eligibility requirements and really target the voucher to the families that you think are most in need. And we in New York, and in many other major cities, we have prohibitions against a landlord refusing a tenant because they’re using a voucher rather than earned income.

But we’re still getting enormous resistance from landlords, because if you have a federal government that shuts down and isn’t paying its voucher payments, and there, the landlord is stuck with that, right? Or if you have a city, like New York City did, that issued vouchers and then changed its mind, and said, “Oops, that program is over,” then the landlord has a tenant in place who no longer can pay the rent and the landlord has to take them to court and bear the costs of that.

Meanwhile, the market price of housing in a place like Manhattan lies somewhere between punitive and prohibitive. So if rent control isn’t a viable tool in the fight for affordable housing, what is?

GLAESER: The most natural tool towards affordability is supply, and to make sure that we are making it easy enough to build moderate-cost rental-apartment buildings in these cities.

Ed Glaeser again.

GLAESER: We’ve used regulations to so restrict our ability to provide affordable housing units that now we’re at this restricted frozen-in-amber form. In the case of New York — gosh, New York is New York. It’s hard to imagine how much housing you’d really need to sate demand for New York.

DUBNER: What about Boston, where you live? Boston is facing what it calls a historic housing shortage. The city’s growing, not enough housing to match. What do you suggest Boston do to accommodate that surge, other than let the market work its famous magic?

GLAESER: Look, drive around Boston. It doesn’t look overcrowded to me, and I don’t think it should look overcrowded to anyone else. There’s a lot of vacant industrial space that could easily house tens of thousands of units. If you made it easy enough to build, I’ve got to think that this is a doable problem, at least from an engineering and economics point of view. The politics, of course, are more difficult.

DUBNER: What, specifically, would need to be done to change it?

GLAESER: So, the big answer is, you need, as-of-right zoning that enables fairly high-density levels over a fair amount of space. So, currently Boston’s zoning plan is highly antiquated. Every project is handled on an ad-hoc basis. Usually, it involves variances that are quite high from the original plan, which means that they are highly subject to judicial challenge. All of that is a recipe for uncertainty and delay and endless community meetings.

The thing that works best is when you have something where you’ve decided in advance, “This is how much we’re going to allow to build; there are a couple of simple rules that you’ve got to follow. Come here, bring your units and make it happen.” And that’s what’s needed. That’s what actually works. It’s not something that involves a 10-year negotiation process, but something that says, “Here are the rules upfront. Go to it.”

It should be noted that not all U.S. cities impose the same level of red tape you see in Boston and New York and San Francisco.

GLAESER: If you want to look for affordability, the American Sunbelt is pretty great. The Atlantas, the Houstons, the Dallases, the places that just have made it very easy to build over the last 40 years — you want to ask why Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix each added a million people between 2000 and 2010 as metro areas, it’s because they make it astonishingly easy to build. And you can go and you can buy a great-looking house for a fraction of what you’d pay in New York in these places.

We don’t have an affordable housing crisis in the U.S. nationally. We have lots of affordable housing in places with names like Atlanta, but just not in New York City.

Many European cities, meanwhile, are more like New York — in fact, exaggerated versions of New York.

GLAESER: Much of Europe is quite restrictive in your cities, but I’m much more comfortable about the idea that much of central Paris is patrimony of the world that needs to be protected.

While policies vary from city to city and country to country, almost all major European cities have rent control.

GLAESER: Sweden, of course, is the place where Assar Lindbeck, the famous economist — and although he was market-oriented, he certainly skewed to the left — Assar famously said that, “short of bombing, I know of no way to destroy a city that was more effective than rent control,” and he certainly had Stockholm in mind.

Tommy ANDERSSON: Right now, there are around 10 million people living in Sweden. Around 550,000 of these people were standing in a queue waiting for an apartment in Stockholm. That is 5 percent of the Swedish population.

That’s the economist Tommy Andersson.

ANDERSSON: I am a professor at Lund University, which is located in the south of Sweden. I focus on an area called market design.

Sweden has nationwide rent control.

ANDERSSON: The rental system in Sweden is based on collective bargaining. So according to the Swedish law, there is a union called the Swedish Union of Tenants and their job is essentially to negotiate the rents for tenants. And it’s based on something which is called the utility value, which essentially means that if you have two comparable apartments, they should have the same rents. Another objective that they have is that they should keep the rents low. The rents cannot be increased by too much.

If you’ve been listening closely, it may not surprise you to learn that this system has led to a housing shortage.

ANDERSSON: Because people will not invest in new buildings unless they can get good returns. So if you look at this report written by the National Board of Housing, Building, and Planning from 2016, they estimated that Sweden needs around 440,000 new homes before 2020.

And that’s not going to happen. This shortage is what can lead to long lines to get an apartment, especially in the more desirable places. How long do you have to wait in Stockholm?

ANDERSSON: You have to wait for 10 or 20 or even 30 years to get an apartment right now, if you would sign up today.

What if you don’t want to wait 10 or 20 or 30 years for an apartment?

ANDERSSON: So, there are no official figures because it’s a black market. But it’s clear that there exists a black market. You can get an apartment in several different ways. So one of them is essentially to buy contract with black money. You can also bribe someone in charge of allocating available apartments to get the better position in the queue. And another thing which is popular is these fake swaps. So, you’re allowed by law to swap apartments with other persons. So you’re just pretending that you are swapping apartments, but essentially you’re not.

In the old days what I had heard — and I must stress that I don’t have any scientific evidence of this — but apparently, black contracts used to cost around 10 percent of the market value. But in recent years it has actually grown to say 20 percent of the market value of the apartment. So it’s expensive to buy a black contract. You know, it’s always a risk to be involved in this business because even if you paid the money, it’s not clear that you will get the apartment simply because, I mean, there are criminal gangs involved in this as well.

That doesn’t sound like what the designers of the Swedish rental system were going for. But the housing market in Stockholm is so bad that even business leaders there have risen up in protest.

ANDERSSON: The C.E.O. and the founder of Spotify, in 2016, he wrote an open letter to the people of Sweden saying that unless you solve this housing situation in Stockholm, Spotify may consider moving its headquarters out of Stockholm simply because we cannot find housing for our future employees.

If policy makers can’t figure out smarter ways to encourage more affordable housing, you can expect to see this kind of scenario playing out in cities all over the world.

* * *

Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Dubner Productions. This episode was produced by Zack Lapinski. Our staff also includes Alison Craiglow, Greg Rippin, Harry Huggins, Matt Hickey and Corinne Wallace. Our theme song is “Mr. Fortune,” by the Hitchhikers; all the other music was composed by Luis Guerra. You can subscribe to Freakonomics Radio on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Here’s where you can learn more about the people and ideas in this episode:

SOURCES

Rebecca Diamond, Associate Professor of Economics at Stanford Graduate School of Business.

David Eisenbach, history lecturer at Columbia University.

Vicki Been, former commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development and law professor at the New York University School of Law.

Ed Glaeser, Fred and Eleanor Glimp Professor of Economics at Harvard University.

Tommy Andersson, economics professor at Lund University.

RESOURCES

“Roofs or Ceilings?: The Current Housing Problem,” by Milton Friedman and George J. Stigler (Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 1946).

“An Econometric Analysis of Rent Control,” by Edgar O. Olsen (Journal of Political Economy, 1972).

“The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco,” by Rebecca Diamond, Tim McQuade, and Franklin Qian (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2019).

“Housing Market Spillovers: Evidence from the End of Rent Control in Cambridge, Massachusetts,” by David H. Autor, Christopher J. Palmer, and Parang A. Pathak (Journal of Political Economy, 2014).

The post Why Rent Control Doesn’t Work (Ep. 373) appeared first on Freakonomics.

from Dental Care Tips http://freakonomics.com/podcast/rent-control/

0 notes

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

What Do Democrats Believe Vs Republicans

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-do-democrats-believe-vs-republicans/

What Do Democrats Believe Vs Republicans

Views Of The Democratic And Republican Parties

What Do Democrats Believe?

Just under half of Americans have a favorable view of the Democratic Party, while a slightly larger share have an unfavorable view.

About three-quarters of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents view the GOP favorably, while 81% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents view the Democratic Party positively.

Barack Obama On Gay Rights

Regulating The Economy Democratic Style

As A Public Service I Have Endeavored To Distill The Differences Between The Parties Into Fair Terms That Children Can Understand

Back to our baseball analogy. In baseball, there are differences between the leagues. One league has a designated hitter and considers the foul poll fair. The other league does not.

Democratic Beliefs On Social Issues

The Democratic Party And Health Care Coverage

Gay People Deserve Equal Rights

Gay Rights And Religion

Why Are An Elephant And A Donkey The Party Symbols

2021 Democrats VS Republicans- Round 2 | What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans?

The Democratic party is often associated with the colour blue and the donkey mascot.

That dates back to Democratic candidate Andrew Jackson’s 1828 presidential campaign, when opponents called him a “jackass” for his stubbornness.

Instead of taking the nickname as an insult, Jackson embraced it and used the donkey image on his election posters.

It was then quickly adopted by newspapers and political cartoonists.

The Republican’s elephant symbol came along years later.

Many believe it came about, in part, due to a widely used expression during the Civil War led by Republican president Abraham Lincoln.

Soldiers entering battle were said to be “seeing the elephant” a phrase that means learning a hard lesson, often with a profound cost.

The symbol was then popularised by political cartoonist Thomas Nast; an early rendition featured in the 1879 edition of Harper’s Weekly.

Both symbols are still largely used for political campaigns.

Who Are Prominent Democrats

Democratic Party, in the United States, one of the two major political parties, the other being the Republican Party.

Harper’s Weekly

Renewable Energy And Fossil Fuels

Which Party Is Better For The Economy

The Legal Fight Over Voting Rights During The Pandemic Is Getting Hotter

Access vs. security

Even so, Trump and McEnany both voted by mail this year in Florida, and Republican officials across the country have encouraged voting by mail.

Abortion Should Be Legal

Capital Punishment Is Wrong

History Of The Republican Party

Democrat Vs Republican: Us Political Parties

Republicans and Democrats Explained! What is the Difference?

An error occurred trying to load this video.

Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support.

Taking The Perspective Of Others Proved To Be Really Hard

What Does Republican Mean

Energy Issues And The Environment

Government Should Help People

What Is Republican

The Republican partys mascot is the elephant. Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, George Bush are some of the famous Republican Presidents.

How To Avoid Wars

Era Of Good Feelings 18171825

Red States And Blue States List

Democrats Vs Republicans | What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans?

Due to the TV coverage during some of the presidential elections in the past, the color Red has become associated with the Republicans and Blue is associated with the Democrats.

The Democratic Party General Policy And Political Values

Republican View On Healthcare

Hillary Clinton On Abortion

Democratic Candidate Joe Biden

Reuters: Carlos Barria

The Democrats are the liberal political party and their candidate is Joe Biden, who has run for president twice before.

A former senator for Delaware who served six terms, Biden is best known as Barack Obama’s vice-president.

He held that role for eight years, and it has helped make him a major contender for many Democrat supporters.

Earlier this year, Biden chose California Senator Kamala Harris as his vice-presidential running mate.

The 77-year-old has built his campaign on the Obama legacy, and tackling the country’s staggering health care issues.

He is known for his down-to-earth personality and his ability to connect with working-class voters. He would be the oldest first-term president in history if elected.

From Watergate To A New Millennium

0 notes

cryptoga-blog · 7 years

Text

Why HODLing Is Hobbling Bitcoin's Prospects as a Typical Currency

http://www.cryptoga.com/news/why-hodling-is-hobbling-bitcoins-prospects-as-a-typical-currency/

Why HODLing Is Hobbling Bitcoin's Prospects as a Typical Currency

Michael J. Casey is the chairman of CoinDesk’s advisory board and a senior advisor for blockchain research at MIT’s Electronic Currency Initiative.

In this feeling piece, 1 of a weekly collection of columns, Casey argues that bitcoin’s attractiveness as an investment decision could diminish its efficiency as a forex and calls for testing choice cryptocurrency products.

Bitcoin traders like to say their very best buying and selling approach is not to buy and hold, but to buy and “HODL” – hold on for dear everyday living.

For the umpteenth time, it really is paying out off. Bitcoin’s selling price has rebounded from a sharp fall in September, conquering a bout of wild volatility that would scare off even the most seasoned Wall Avenue trader from other markets. Inspite of a slew of unambiguously destructive information, from China shutting down bitcoin exchanges to a looming fork in the cryptocurrency’s code that threatens chaos and acrimony in the community, in this article we are again with a new all-time high of in excess of $5,200 established right now and fairly quite possibly additional ahead.

I see two main explanations why bitcoin commands this kind of value – no question to the bafflement of folks like JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon.

1 is to some degree tautological, and that is the truth that bitcoin exists at all, that it seemingly are not able to die. As if to verify the HODLers’ worldview, circumstances like individuals of the earlier two months are likely to examination, and finally establish, the competition that bitcoin’s decentralized design can resist any hard work to shut it down, no matter whether from outside or within its community of end users.

That is what is beneficial about it. The additional bitcoin shrugs off assaults, the additional it highlights its main value as an immutable forex of the folks.

The second pillar beneath bitcoin’s value is its scarcity. Though bitcoin will continue to keep making new cash until finally its overall provide reaches 21 million in 2140, the protocol has entrance-loaded that distribution this kind of that 80 percent of individuals are by now in users’ palms. That petered-out distribution purpose will continue to keep bitcoin scarce into the long run.

There is, having said that, a paradox in this article: this scarcity element could in fact undermine bitcoin’s attractiveness as a forex.

HODLing = hoarding

In its aspirations to satisfy the 3 functions of revenue – a retail store of value, a medium of exchange and a unit of account – bitcoin could be cursed by achievements. The constructed-in scarcity, up towards anticipations for rising demand from customers for an immutable economic instrument, has developed an magnificent retail store of value for the decentralized, electronic economic system of the 21st century.

Bitcoin is in this slender feeling is a significantly much better, very liquid, electronic variation of gold. But so long as all these HODLers continue to keep cash out of circulation, there will not likely be plenty of of them close to for folks to use it to buy merchandise and expert services.

Certainly, payment processor BitPay is reporting a surge in transactions, but this kind of gains occur off a extremely very low foundation. The vast majority of bitcoin transactions usually are not commercial in mother nature, and a selection of retailers that experimented with bitcoin in 2014 and 2015 have because stopped accepting it.

As a part of world commerce, bitcoin is a pipsqueak.

This distinct failure is possible to proceed even if 1 or both equally of the two sides sparring in excess of how to scale bitcoin’s transaction throughput do well in their objective, no matter whether through on- or off-chain remedies. Quickly, very low-payment transactions will not likely entice folks to element with their bitcoin if they understand that it really is additional beneficial to hold it. In maintaining with Gresham’s Law that “negative revenue drives out good,” they’ll as an alternative transact in an inferior forex. These types of as the dollar.

Of study course, any good, performing forex ought to be to some degree scarce in buy to hold its value no 1 wants to take Venezuelan bolivars suitable now. But as numerous economists usually stage out, neither should a forex be overly desirable as a retail store of value. If far too numerous folks hoard the forex, far too small receives into circulation as a medium of exchange, which in change can make it a lot less possible to be quoted as a unit of account.

This principle indicates that an great monetary plan includes a modest quantity of inflationary expectation. It can be why most central banking companies formally focus on a 2 percent inflation level, signaling that they intend to locate a harmony among far too significantly and far too small monetary expansion. The dilemma is that numerous of them are unsuccessful to achieve that objective and stop up debasing the forex, in the form of extreme inflation like Venezuela’s, or develop hazardous deflation, as with Argentina’s forex peg in 1991. Potentially there is certainly a much better, automated way to improve monetary plan so that folks both equally save and shell out their forex – preferably with a cryptocurrency that no 1 can shut down.

The dilemma is that numerous of them are unsuccessful to achieve that objective and stop up debasing the forex, in the form of extreme inflation like Venezuela’s, or develop hazardous deflation, as with Argentina’s forex peg in 1991. Potentially there is certainly a much better, automated way to improve monetary plan so that folks both equally save and shell out their forex – preferably with a cryptocurrency that no 1 can shut down.

Of study course, it really is almost not possible to visualize bitcoin’s algorithm at any time being altered to increase its provide. Buyers, miners and enterprises would in no way concur to this kind of a diminishment in its value proposition.

It can be reasonable to say we would in no way have bitcoin – and the broader discipline of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technological know-how – if Satoshi Nakamoto hadn’t constructed in a scarcity element to bootstrap demand from customers for it. But now that the precedent has been established, developers of altcoins have an possibility to experiment.

Experimenting with inflation

That is what’s taking place at the MIT Media Lab’s Electronic Currency Initiative, where by I am a senior advisor. The DCI has introduced K320, an experimental cryptocurrency that is the 1st software of the cryptokernel blockchain toolkit formulated by researcher James Lovejoy.

K320 starts out with a bitcoin-like frontloaded launch plan for its 1st eight a long time, but then slots into a constant increase of 3.2 percent each year following that. It can be modeled on Milton Friedman’s “k-percent rule,” which posits that revenue provide should be greater by a fixed level annually, regardless of the state of the economic system.

The 3.2 percent selection is a very best-guess try to build a level of increase that is high plenty of earlier mentioned the common 2 percent central bank inflation focus on to develop adequate anticipations of depleting value for folks to use the coin – but not so high that it encourages them to dump it.

But we can only know by testing it. It may well be that a additional dynamic product is essential, 1 in which, for occasion, revenue provide is adjusted mechanically, based on a digitally verifiable measure of the velocity of transactions. What’s essential is new discipline of crypto-financial experiments.

Whichever the benefits of these research, I never consider bitcoin traders have nearly anything to dread. In the long run, bitcoin’s immutability, in-constructed scarcity and political neutrality give it the likely to turn into a variety of world reserve forex for the masses – a digitally native backstop that absolutely everyone owns, significantly as nations hold dollar reserves as a form of national insurance policy.

Even now, the true promise of cryptocurrencies is that they let us overhaul our broken monetary and payment devices, producing them a lot less oppressive, additional economical and accessible to all. We need a unit of value that folks will readily exchange with each and every other.

And for that, a closely HODLed, deflationary asset just will not likely lower it.

Rusty bitcoin image by way of Shutterstock

The chief in blockchain information, CoinDesk strives to offer you an open platform for dialogue and discussion on all items blockchain by encouraging contributed content. As this kind of, the opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the watch of CoinDesk.

For additional facts on how you can submit an feeling or assessment article, watch our Editorial Collaboration Manual or electronic mail [email protected].

Disclaimer: This article should not be taken as, and is not meant to supply, investment decision information. Make sure you perform your own extensive research ahead of investing in any cryptocurrency.

0 notes

pearljewelryset · 7 years

Text

( Rapaport ) - Yo-yo ("devil on the thread") - a simple toy, created by the ancient Greeks 500 years BC. Yo-yo throws down, it falls, until the thread allows, the thread is rolled up towards the hand, then it is caught, and you can throw again.

The word "yo-yo" has 12 times more synonyms than antonyms. Probably the best synonyms are the expressions "to be impermanent" and "to suddenly change behavior." As for the antonyms, the best words, I think, are "to show consistency" and "to continue."

In a world in which information falls on us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, we all tend to digest this information and use it to develop a script that we adhere to in our actions. This, of course, is typical for very nature-savvy traders. This is also characteristic of many economists, professionals in the securities market, as well as in the foreign exchange market. The geopolitical situation is changing at unpredictable rates, and people are trading transactions in nanoseconds. Responding to news and messages sometimes overshadows the cause and pushes into the background a deeper understanding of the issue.

We, the traders working with diamonds and diamonds, often behave like a yo-yo toy, suddenly changing their behavior, as we are all part of the trading business. This probably explains why our joyful enthusiasm is very quickly replaced by indifference. Currently, the market seems to be at the bottom. Looking ahead, I can argue that the situation and the mood in the industry from this point will only improve.

Liquidity Question

Our industry does not have complex liquid markets, which would allow us to quickly enter or enter into business with diamonds and diamonds. In this sense, it is similar to most industries, except for industries that sell financial instruments. The industry is also very dependent on consumer demand, which is more constant and usually grows.

The recent avalanche of industry news articles on banks that stop financing the industry, large discounts offered by dealers experiencing a liquidity deficit, and the irresponsible statements of several individuals who do not want to fulfill their debt obligations to the Antwerp Diamond Bank (ADB) may be mistaken So that the soap bubble allegedly burst. But this is not so. The announcement that the ADB is curtailing its activities did not at all serve as an unexpected reason for the current state of affairs. This scenario, which was formed gradually, and this can happen in any business.

The current liquidity difficulties facing the industry can in fact be broken down into three phenomena that have united and created the existing situation. These phenomena include a reduction in bank financing, a decline in business profitability and an increase in inventories. See https://weddingpearlneecklace.tumblr.com/

Reduction of bank financing

Prior to the financial crisis, the diamond and diamond industry was traditionally funded around the world by two specializing banks: ABN Amro and ADB. There were also a lot of Indian banks operating in India and abroad, as well as a handful of Israeli banks in Israel and the United States.

Financing the diamond and diamond industry has always been very profitable for banks. These banks have always sought to support customers, and sometimes one-time loan agreements in a special situation were reached even in a few minutes by phone.

Banks preferred to keep companies as controlled customers. ABN Amro has managed to remain the main creditor for the industry for many years. It is for this reason that certain banks historically have - and still have - exclusive rights.

Standard Chartered Bank actively entered the business of financing the diamond industry in 2009 and began to take back some of its large customers, which Viktor Van Der Kwast, the then head of the diamond and jewelery group at ABN Amro, did not like, as And other bankers.

It is necessary to clearly understand the facts that explain current concerns:

- ADB ceases its activity after almost 80 years of financing the diamond and diamond industry due to the government's decision to take the parent company KBC Group out of the crisis after the financial crisis of 2008/2009. ADB was considered a "non-core asset" for the KBC group, which was required to sell its non-core assets as part of the conditions for withdrawal from the crisis. - The current portfolio of ADB loans is about $ 1.5 billion, but not so long ago it was $ 2 billion. This decline occurred gradually over the past nine months after the announcement of his takeover by Yinren, but in the last month the deal did fail. - ABN Amro went through a similar process of unbundling due to the government's measures to pull out of the crisis and recently conducts an initial public offering (IPO). In its normal operations, the bank reduced risks and optimized its loan portfolio by consolidating to maintain its "good" assets through selective regulation in certain types of business. - Standard Chartered has selectively reduced its loans in order to balance its market share. But, as I learned from one of the key persons in this bank, Standard Chartered will continue to work closely with its customers and support them in meeting their business needs. - Standard Chartered Bank is the largest member of the industry and will remain with them. - Bank Leumi, which has branches in Israel and the United States, is being replaced by various non-traditional lenders in the United States. - Other banks in Israel and India have not expressed any intention to leave.

As often said Erik Jens, head of diamonds and jewelry at ABN Amro Bank, "there is always money for good customers."

Profitability of business

Since 2010, there has been a price stabilization in the industry, followed by two difficult years (2012 and 2013) for cutters and polishers, who were caught between high diamond prices and low diamond prices, mainly due to tough measures against conspicuous consumption in China .

It was an ominous portent. As the banker from this industry said to the diamond producers: "We do not finance the losses of your customers ...".

Key bankers (including ABN Amro and Standard Chartered) have begun to reduce their risks gradually, but firmly that their diamond and diamond customers focus more on profits rather than on revenues, and on retaining most of their profits in Its business, which began to show sustainable profitability, starting in the fourth quarter of 2013 and beyond.

The beginning of 2014 was interesting. ALROSA together with Bain and Company forecasted a 2-3% increase in diamond prices, while other analysts forecast a diamond price increase of about 4 percent. Des Kilalea, a leading analyst in the diamond mining industry from Royal Bank of Canada, believes that by August, prices actually rose by about 7-8 percent. What caused the price increase, surpassing even the highest expectations of manufacturers?

Increase inventory

The fourth quarter of 2013 was good for Chinese retailers, and they began to replenish their inventory, especially stones weighing 4 grains (one-carat) with lower color and stones weighing less than one carat, preparing for growth. The industry has increased the production of diamonds of this quality; But the laboratory could not cope with the influx of stones, which, according to some estimates, at the beginning of this year led to a huge accumulation of products worth more than $ 2.5 billion. This meant that, although a peak in the number of goods was reached in the diamond pipeline, there was nevertheless a huge shortage of diamonds certified by laboratories.

This led to a sharp increase in the price of diamonds in the first quarter. Diamanters took advantage of this increase and were happy to pay a higher price for diamonds, which led to an increase in the average price of diamonds by more than 7 percent. But the diamonds from which Pointers and larger diamonds turned out, in fact, have grown by more than 10 percent.

Recently, the situation in the certificating laboratories was significantly depleted, and more offers appeared on the market. This led to the accumulation of stocks of goods, which, unfortunately, was purchased at high prices. Meanwhile, retailers moved to lower price targets due to high prices coupled with a decrease in sales by retailers working in China and with Chinese tourists abroad.

This has led to an increase in inventories and lower prices for diamonds, as people have to fulfill their own financial obligations.

A good sign is that the United States continues to hold a firm footing, like other markets in Asia and the countries of the Persian Gulf.

This situation with runoff under normal conditions can develop as follows:

- According to existing estimates, at the present time, the Gemological Institute of America (GIA) and other laboratories have accumulated diamonds worth about $ 1.5 billion.

- The new volumes of certification for diamonds have recently decreased, and the certification capacity far exceeds the amount of new diamonds that will be cut and certified.

- This excessive accumulation in the GIA is expected to fall to $ 500 million already in the first quarter of 2015, taking into account the fact that the volumes of new diamonds submitted for certification remain at the current low level.

- The market should get certified diamonds for about $ 1 billion, and eventually with liquidity will actually become easier once excess stocks are sold and paid.

"Those who monitor Rapaport should understand that the volume of the product register in the RapNet trade network is at the highest level for all times and is close to $ 8 billion.

"The industry will correct itself mainly due to more reasonable purchases, and I would say that commodity stocks for another $ 500 million will soon turn into money.

0 notes

creativesage · 7 years

Photo

(via The Despair of Learning That Experience No Longer Matters - The New Yorker)

Two Princeton economists suggest that rising white-working-class mortality might be related to another phenomenon: people are aging but aren’t getting what they think they’ve earned.

By Benjamin Wallace-Wells

[PHOTOGRAPH BY PORTER GIFFORD / BW / CORBIS VIA GETTY]

Of all the accounts of the plight of the white working class that appeared during the 2016 election, the work of the married Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton seemed to cut most deeply. In 2015, Case and Deaton published research finding that although mortality is declining for virtually every other demographic group in every developed country, it has been rising for middle-aged white Americans since the early nineteen-nineties. The increase, they argued, was due almost exclusively to what they called “deaths of despair”—suicides, drug and alcohol poisoning, and chronic liver disease. During the campaign, their findings raised the possibility that whatever energies had consumed the white working class were not limited to political or cultural grievances but had a more pathological source, one that showed up in the United States but nowhere else.

Case and Deaton published a second paper last month, in which they emphasized that the epidemic they had described was concentrated among white people without any college education. But they also searched for a source for what they had called despair. They wondered if a decline in income might explain the phenomenon, but that idea turned out not to fit the data so well. They noticed that another long-running pattern fit more precisely—a decline in what economists call returns to experience.

The return to experience is a way to describe what you get in return for aging. It describes the increase in wages that workers normally see throughout their careers. The return to experience tends to be higher for more skilled jobs: a doctor might expect the line between what she earns in her first year and what she earns in her fifties to rise in a satisfyingly steady upward trajectory; a coal miner might find it depressingly flat. But even workers with less education and skills grow more efficient the longer they hold a job, and so paying them more makes sense. Unions, in arguing for pay that rises with seniority, invoke a belief in the return to experience. It comes close to measuring what we might otherwise call wisdom.

“This decline in the return to experience closely matches the decline in attachment to the labor force,” Case and Deaton wrote. “Our data are consistent with a model in which the decline in real wages led to a reduction in labor force participation, with cascading effects on marriage, health, and mortality from deaths of despair.”

The return to experience is not the best-known economic concept, but it is alive in most of our contemporary economic spook stories, in which the callow private-equity analyst has the final power over an industry in which people have long labored, in which the mechanical robot replaces the assembly-line worker, in which the doctor finds his diagnosis corrected by artificial intelligence. It seemed to match at least one emotional vein that ran through the Trump phenomenon, and the more general alienation of the heartland: people are aging, and they are not getting what they think they have earned.

I spoke to Case by phone recently, and she emphasized that the connections between the deaths from despair and the declining returns to experience are still at the hypothesis stage. But, if you wanted to spool out the hypothesis, you could find a compelling story. The chronology matched some general changes in the nature of working-class work, which grew less skilled over time and therefore provided lesser returns to experience. If you focussed on white workers without a college degree, the decline in returns to experience began with those born around 1955. This matched the story of despair deaths, whose appearance Case and Deaton pinpointed at 1990, just when the 1955 birth cohort passed into early middle age. As that group’s declining wages helped usher them out of the labor force, it made sense that more of them might turn to drugs, alcohol, and suicide. The pattern, begun thirty-five years ago, has not abated. “There are still returns to experience,” Case said, “but they are lower for every birth cohort.”

Since they published their first paper, Case and Deaton have found their e-mail in-boxes filling up with emotional responses from people for whom the idea of an epidemic of despair had personal resonance. “People want to tell their stories,” Case said. In those stories, economic and social despair and health crises often intertwined. “Not being able to get a good job and my girlfriend threw me out,” she said, recounting themes that came up over and over. “Hurt my back at work, lost my job, got evicted, couldn’t get another job.”

Case said that she had lately been drawn to the research of the scholars Sara McLanahan, of Princeton, and Andrew Cherlin, of Johns Hopkins, who study the relationship between family structure and economic circumstance, and whose statistics tended to match many of the stories that were coming in via e-mail. Declining economic prospects seemed to wind their way into all kinds of difficulties. “People who have less education, people whose job prospects aren’t great, are finding it harder and harder to get married,” she said. People were having children and cohabiting, but not necessarily forever. When they encounter a setback, or when their health begins to decline, they find themselves without support. “That’s a story we hear quite a lot,” she said.

One reaction to Case and Deaton’s work has been that the data have been chosen to fit a story. Andrew Gelman, a statistician at Columbia, argued after their first paper that the excess deaths among middle-aged white people were far less extreme than Case and Deaton suggested, and that, if they had slightly adjusted their age cohorts, they would have had a much more modest conclusion. “Aggregate mortality trends are vague generalizations,” Gelman wrote in March, with a co-author, Jonathan Auerbach. “There are many relevant ways to slice up these trends,” they wrote, “and it’s not clear to us that it’s appropriate to frame these trends as a crisis among middle-aged whites.” They also pointed out, as Malcolm Harris did at the Pacific Standard, that African-Americans still have higher fatality rates than whites. Harris noted that Case and Deaton had used different scales for black and white fatalities on their graphs. “In these graphs white lives literally count more, and black lives less.”

The arguments about Case and Deaton’s work have been an echo of the one that consumed so much of the primary campaign, and then the general election, and which is still unresolved: whether the fury of Donald Trump’s supporters came from cultural and racial grievance or from economic plight. Case and Deaton’s scholarship does not settle the question. As they write, more than once, “more work is needed.”

But part of what Case and Deaton offer in their new paper is an emotional logic to an economic argument. If returns to experience are in decline, if wisdom no longer pays off, then that might help suggest why a group of mostly older people who are not, as a group, disadvantaged might become convinced that the country has taken a turn for the worse. It suggests why their grievances should so idealize the past, and why all the talk about coal miners and factories, jobs in which unions have codified returns to experience into the salary structure, might become such a fixation. Whatever comes from the deliberations over Case and Deaton’s statistics, there is within their numbers an especially interesting story.

[Entire article — click on the title link to read it at the New Yorker, and to view all of the illustrations.]

***

You’re working on your goals, and your team’s goals, for 2017. We can help you spring into action and develop a real plan that you can implement in a smart way, so you’ll start seeing results immediately, before you feel discouraged. If you feel that you’ve already gone off-track, we can help you get your focus and motivation back.

At Creative Sage™, we often coach and mentor individual clients, as well as work teams, in the areas of change management, building resilience, making personal, career or organizational transitions — including to retirement, or an “encore career” — and facilitating development of leadership, creativity and collaboration capabilities. We also work with clients on work/life balance, focus and productivity issues.

We guide and mentor executives, entrepreneurs, intrapreneurs, artists, and creative professionals of all generations, to help them more effectively implement transition processes, and to become more resilient in adjusting to rapid changes in the workplace — including learning effective coping techniques for handling failure, as well as success. We work with on-site and virtual teams.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you would like to discuss your situation. You can also call us at 1-510-845-5510 in San Francisco / the Silicon Valley. Let’s talk! An initial exploratory phone conversation is free. When you talk with me, I promise that I’ll always LISTEN to you with open ears, mind and heart, to help you clarify your own unique path to a higher vista of success.

~Cathryn Hrudicka, Founder, CEO and Chief Imagination Officer of Creative Sage™, Executive Coach and Mentor.

***

0 notes