4
5

BadEconomics Discussion Thread, 04 September 2015 (self.badeconomics)

AutoModerator[M] が 投稿 - stickied post

Welcome to the automated Discussion Thread for the End-o-week.

Chat about any bad (or good) economic events. Remember to use the NP posts and whatnot.

全 14 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]messenakAcademic Imperator 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Remember to support either TheFederalReserve or PraxAcceptance in my contest to determine the dankest Econ subreddit. Literally multiple page views hang in the balance.

[–]___OccamsChainsaw___I love endogenous expectations. They're so bad. 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Based on exactly four seconds of reflection I declare this to be the best thing that ever was or will be. Hell of a good job /u/usrname42.

[–]When_Doves_Cry 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Why do wealthy countries produce most of the world's capital goods, while less wealthy countries produce consumer goods? Why do industrialising countries move from producing consumer goods to capital goods as they develop?

[–]CutlasssI am the Lord your Gold 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Capital goods are a more specialized form of manufacture which takes special expertise to develop. You have to know the industry(s) which you are designing capital goods for. And you need a market which includes a lot of users. Machine tools grew up in concert with the gun industry. Which is why they were once concentrated in southern New England. With the rise of the auto industry, the center moved towards Detroit. Industries tend to cluster together, because there are feedbacks from having other firms in your industry nearby. That's probably less relevant now, because communication and transportation are so easy. But you'll notice how many tech companies are located someplace like the Bay area or Seattle.So clustering is still a thing. For a less developed nation to break into those capital goods market it would have to know the industry it is creating machines for. How could it if those industries don't exist where they come from? And are developed enough to need advanced equipment? The higher wages in developed countries means that firms using capital equipment there want more advanced machines than places with lower wages need. So the firm that would want to build capital equipment in the LDC has less opportunity to develop the expertise needed to do so and compete internationally.

[–]shunt31 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because consumer goods are more labour intensive, and capital goods are more capital intensive? That sounds a bit silly to write out, but I think that is the reason. Less developed countries have lower wages than more developed ones, and so are better suited to producing goods that need more labour input then capital input. As the country develops, their productivity increases, so their wage increases (don't shoot me, everyone else!), so they produce less labour intensive goods.

This is a good article about it. It's not entirely relevant, but it should make the same points I hope.

[–]FatBabyGiraffeWhat do you want it to be? 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I convinced my girlfriend to be an Econ major. I asked her if she thought eventually jobs would be automated away. She said yes but she was taught no. I asked how long she has been a horse. It did not end well.

There is hope for her.

[–]usrname42There is no God but Keynes, and Krugman is his prophet 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

HealthcareEconomist3 irl

(NSFW language)

[–]timpattinson 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

What evidence is there that QE actually changed the structure of the US economy (or in other places QE has been used)?

It's a statement i keep seeing in different places, but is there any credibility to it?

[–]CutlasssI am the Lord your Gold 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Changed the structure? How so?

[–]timpattinson 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can't really pin down any comments like I remember.

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue55/Hudson55.pdf is one examples

[–]timpattinson 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Also submitting this CMV thread. What do people think?

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3jkgk8/cmv_if_bernie_sanders_or_another_presidential/

[–]grevemoeskrHumans are horses! 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

True, unless you make enrollment merit based. Considering Bernie like Scandinavia, he'd probably look here for the solution. We basically sort the applicants after their high school grades, and enroll them in the education they most want to study. Then you send those not enrolled to their 2nd priority, see if they can get in there, and repeat. Then, of course, there happens something I'm not aware of that puts downward pressure on the number of enrolled. Otherwise, there would 10000 new vets each year

[–]prillin101Fiat currency has a 27 year lifespan 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have a question.

So, I've noticed that part of the reason manufacturing jobs dissapear is because it simply makes more money to move them to cheaper countries with cheaper labour.

What if a country were to purposely artificially pull down the cost of living by keeping housing/rent supply way higher than demand and same for food costs, which would cause the cost of living to be incredibly lower and therefore wages lower. This would obviously be a nation starting out as low-skill labour, but what if they worked to over time to bring the work force to high-skill levels with an enormous academic and technical education. Wouldn't this make them a prime location for manufacturing because they have a cheap high-skill labour force?

What problems would arise?

[–]shunt31 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I know lots of people here say that much of what Naomi Klein and friends think about the economy is wrong, and rightly so, but there is a reason why they think what they do. I wrote a post about it recently (in the FTWD subreddit, strangely). Take a look.

Climate change is going to be really bad, and the only plausible way to stop it is to degrow, pretty much.
I think I saw a climate economist about here somewhere, so they'll probably jump in and destroy what I wrote.