McCann'sCans
Gwinnett Bound
As part of that generation, I appreciate it.
Economics Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
As part of that generation, I appreciate it.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
We do need to have a broad strategic focus on retaining technological supremacy. This can be done without involving the government in picking losers and winners (which always ends up in a cesspool of lobbying and campaign donations). For a high level overview of what this kind of strategy should look like, the testimony of Paul Romer last year is quite informative.
https://paulromer.net/statement-for-house-budget-comittee/
He makes a distinction between scientific leadership and technological leadership that is very important in these discussions.
Money paragraph:
So for me, the story of the US in the last 120 years is the story of the traverse from technological leadership to scientific leadership. From this perspective, the challenge now is not to invent a new strategy for being the worldwide technological leader. It is to revive the strategy that worked before, and in so doing, to find a better balance between the policies that foster basic scientific leadership and the ones that encourage technological leadership. This nation can do both, but it will not do both if the advocates for basic science always get their way in any policy decision.
I think these 3 principles offered by Romer are also very important:
I will close by offering some general principles that could help guide us back toward leadership in both basic science achievement and in technological progress, back toward a system that is a hybrid between the one that brought the US to worldwide preeminence in industrial technology before WWII and the one that displaced when the federal government took control and gave so much autonomy to professors.
1. People are what matter, not papers or patents
2. Achieve robustness via competition
3. Protect scientific integrity by separating the roles of decision-maker and fact-finder
These are obviously very high level principles. But we should view legislation such as what the Senate just passed through these lens. The stakes are high. We need to get this right.
https://paulromer.net/statement-for-house-budget-comittee/
He makes a distinction between scientific leadership and technological leadership that is very important in these discussions.
Money paragraph:
So for me, the story of the US in the last 120 years is the story of the traverse from technological leadership to scientific leadership. From this perspective, the challenge now is not to invent a new strategy for being the worldwide technological leader. It is to revive the strategy that worked before, and in so doing, to find a better balance between the policies that foster basic scientific leadership and the ones that encourage technological leadership. This nation can do both, but it will not do both if the advocates for basic science always get their way in any policy decision.
I think these 3 principles offered by Romer are also very important:
I will close by offering some general principles that could help guide us back toward leadership in both basic science achievement and in technological progress, back toward a system that is a hybrid between the one that brought the US to worldwide preeminence in industrial technology before WWII and the one that displaced when the federal government took control and gave so much autonomy to professors.
1. People are what matter, not papers or patents
2. Achieve robustness via competition
3. Protect scientific integrity by separating the roles of decision-maker and fact-finder
These are obviously very high level principles. But we should view legislation such as what the Senate just passed through these lens. The stakes are high. We need to get this right.
Last edited:
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.axios.com/pandemic-unemployment-fraud-benefits-stolen-a937ad9d-0973-4aad-814f-4ca47b72f67f.html
Criminals may have stolen as much as half of the unemployment benefits the U.S. has been pumping out over the past year, some experts say.
Why it matters: Unemployment fraud during the pandemic could easily reach $400 billion, according to some estimates, and the bulk of the money likely ended in the hands of foreign crime syndicates — making this not just theft, but a matter of national security.
Catch up quick: When the pandemic hit, states weren't prepared for the unprecedented wave of unemployment claims they were about to face.
They all knew fraud was inevitable, but decided getting the money out to people who desperately needed it was more important than laboriously making sure all of them were genuine.
By the numbers: Blake Hall, CEO of ID.me, a service that tries to prevent this kind of fraud, tells Axios that America has lost more than $400 billion to fraudulent claims. As much as 50% of all unemployment monies might have been stolen, he says.
Haywood Talcove, the CEO of LexisNexis Risk Solutions, estimates that at least 70% of the money stolen by impostors ultimately left the country, much of it ending up in the hands of criminal syndicates in China, Nigeria, Russia and elsewhere.
“These groups are definitely backed by the state," Talcove tells Axios.
Much of the rest of the money was stolen by street gangs domestically, who have made up a greater share of the fraudsters in recent months.
The Treasury Department declined to comment on these estimates.
——————
Anyone who posts here knows I have as low an opinion as anyone of our government’s ability to do most anything.
But these numbers can’t possible be right…right?!
Criminals may have stolen as much as half of the unemployment benefits the U.S. has been pumping out over the past year, some experts say.
Why it matters: Unemployment fraud during the pandemic could easily reach $400 billion, according to some estimates, and the bulk of the money likely ended in the hands of foreign crime syndicates — making this not just theft, but a matter of national security.
Catch up quick: When the pandemic hit, states weren't prepared for the unprecedented wave of unemployment claims they were about to face.
They all knew fraud was inevitable, but decided getting the money out to people who desperately needed it was more important than laboriously making sure all of them were genuine.
By the numbers: Blake Hall, CEO of ID.me, a service that tries to prevent this kind of fraud, tells Axios that America has lost more than $400 billion to fraudulent claims. As much as 50% of all unemployment monies might have been stolen, he says.
Haywood Talcove, the CEO of LexisNexis Risk Solutions, estimates that at least 70% of the money stolen by impostors ultimately left the country, much of it ending up in the hands of criminal syndicates in China, Nigeria, Russia and elsewhere.
“These groups are definitely backed by the state," Talcove tells Axios.
Much of the rest of the money was stolen by street gangs domestically, who have made up a greater share of the fraudsters in recent months.
The Treasury Department declined to comment on these estimates.
——————
Anyone who posts here knows I have as low an opinion as anyone of our government’s ability to do most anything.
But these numbers can’t possible be right…right?!
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
might be true might not be true
but some well-crafted dog whistles that will appeal to the nativists, xenophobes and racists
sturg33
I
You mean blindly pointing fire hose of cash at issues is NOT the most effective strategy??
Sure. What isn’t these days?
sturg33
I
Take it easy on him.
He just had another deeply held world view proven to be wrong again.
Gotta be exhausting being wrong all the time.
Let him preach his racist bs so he can have a moment of moral superiority
Runnin
Well-known member
Another weakness of the lack of govt oversight, aka the joys of freedom. The crime of stealing govt money, by citizens or govt officials, should be especially punitive.
sturg33
I
Our system is not free market
I agree.
A full free market is far better than what we have but it also has its downfalls as it naturally comes to a conclusion to our current system.
When capital is concentrated those that have the capital will ensure they influence policy so that they maintain their capital. This is always wha end stage capitalism looks like. It will never change.
A full free market is far better than what we have but it also has its downfalls as it naturally comes to a conclusion to our current system.
When capital is concentrated those that have the capital will ensure they influence policy so that they maintain their capital. This is always wha end stage capitalism looks like. It will never change.
striker42
Well-known member
One thing pretty much everyone can agree on is how broken the tax system is. There's no consensus on how to fix it but it's insanely broken.
The problem is that no matter how we structure the system it results in the middle class being screwed. The middle class is the perfect balancing point where you have people who have enough money to tax and yet don't have enough power to pass their tax burden off to someone else.
If you could figure out a tax system that actually kept the tax burden on the rich and kept them from passing it off to the middle class, I'd be all for it. But it seems to be a universal truth that the middle class gets screwed.
The problem is that no matter how we structure the system it results in the middle class being screwed. The middle class is the perfect balancing point where you have people who have enough money to tax and yet don't have enough power to pass their tax burden off to someone else.
If you could figure out a tax system that actually kept the tax burden on the rich and kept them from passing it off to the middle class, I'd be all for it. But it seems to be a universal truth that the middle class gets screwed.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/who-d-a-thunk-it-mandated-minimum-wage-increases-have-adverse-effects-and-lead-to-lower-compensation/
Some new research — “Evidence of The Unintended Labor Scheduling Implications of The Minimum Wages” — shows that every $1 an hour increase in government-mandated minimum wages (“political wage-setting”) leads to the following (mostly) adverse outcomes:
- a 27.7% increase in the total number of workers scheduled to work each week
- a 20.8% decrease in the average number of hours each employee worked per week
- For an average store in California, these two changes above translated into four extra workers per week and five fewer hours per worker per week, resulting in a 13.6% decrease in the total wage compensation of an average minimum wage worker
- a 23% decrease in the percentage of employees working more than 20 hours per week (making them eligible for retirement benefits)
- a 14.9% decrease in the percentage of employees working more than 30 hours per week (making them eligible for health care benefits)
- a 33% increase in fluctuations in the number of hours worked per week
- a 9.5% increase in fluctuations in the number of hours worked per day
- a 9.8% increase in fluctuations of shift start times and
- average net losses of at least $1,590 per year per employee, equivalent to 11.6% of workers’ total compensation (assuming that workers were able to use their reduced hours to work a second job — an assumption which may not hold true for many employees).
Some new research — “Evidence of The Unintended Labor Scheduling Implications of The Minimum Wages” — shows that every $1 an hour increase in government-mandated minimum wages (“political wage-setting”) leads to the following (mostly) adverse outcomes:
- a 27.7% increase in the total number of workers scheduled to work each week
- a 20.8% decrease in the average number of hours each employee worked per week
- For an average store in California, these two changes above translated into four extra workers per week and five fewer hours per worker per week, resulting in a 13.6% decrease in the total wage compensation of an average minimum wage worker
- a 23% decrease in the percentage of employees working more than 20 hours per week (making them eligible for retirement benefits)
- a 14.9% decrease in the percentage of employees working more than 30 hours per week (making them eligible for health care benefits)
- a 33% increase in fluctuations in the number of hours worked per week
- a 9.5% increase in fluctuations in the number of hours worked per day
- a 9.8% increase in fluctuations of shift start times and
- average net losses of at least $1,590 per year per employee, equivalent to 11.6% of workers’ total compensation (assuming that workers were able to use their reduced hours to work a second job — an assumption which may not hold true for many employees).
sturg33
I
Their policies always hurt poor people most
Meanwhile...
[tw]1404779200280764418[/tw]
acesfull86
Well-known member
It’s also a good illustration why only looking at unemployment rates to evaluate a minimum wage increase is misleading and incomplete
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I don't expect you to produce the post where I said this. But this is yet another one of the lies you claim not to tell.
I'm gonna save you the work and bump all of my posts in this thread from the past two months.