Economics Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/august-wholesale-prices-rise-8point3percent-on-an-annual-basis-biggest-advance-on-record.html
Producer inflation accelerated in August, as wholesale prices rose record 8.3% from a year ago
____
I'm sure this is all just temporary....
Producer inflation accelerated in August, as wholesale prices rose record 8.3% from a year ago
____
I'm sure this is all just temporary....
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://reason.com/2021/09/10/house-democrats-housing-bill-includes-a-20-billion-bailout-of-federal-flood-insurance/
House Democrats' new housing bill devotes billions of dollars in new funding to making America's housing greener and more climate-resilient. It also spends much more money bailing out coastal homeowners most exposed to the rising sea levels caused by climate change.
Tucked away in the 135-page, $330 billion dollar legislation released by the House's Financial Services Committee yesterday is a provision that would wipe away all the debt the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) owes to the U.S. Treasury to cover the losses from its National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). That amounts to $20.5 billion in debt forgiveness.
NFIP, created back in the 1960s, offers low-cost insurance to homeowners in flood-prone communities. Because the premiums paid by homeowners don't cover actual flood risks to their properties, the program has continually had to borrow from the Treasury to cover its losses.
The gap between what the program collects in premiums and what it's had to pay out to policyholders has increased markedly in recent years thanks to more intense coastal development (which is effectively being subsidized by the NFIP) and more frequent flooding.
—————
Capitalizing on the enthusiasm to make people shoulder the costs of externalities and be personally responsible for their choices, how about we stop making taxpayers subsidize flood insurance to those people living in flood zones?
House Democrats' new housing bill devotes billions of dollars in new funding to making America's housing greener and more climate-resilient. It also spends much more money bailing out coastal homeowners most exposed to the rising sea levels caused by climate change.
Tucked away in the 135-page, $330 billion dollar legislation released by the House's Financial Services Committee yesterday is a provision that would wipe away all the debt the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) owes to the U.S. Treasury to cover the losses from its National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). That amounts to $20.5 billion in debt forgiveness.
NFIP, created back in the 1960s, offers low-cost insurance to homeowners in flood-prone communities. Because the premiums paid by homeowners don't cover actual flood risks to their properties, the program has continually had to borrow from the Treasury to cover its losses.
The gap between what the program collects in premiums and what it's had to pay out to policyholders has increased markedly in recent years thanks to more intense coastal development (which is effectively being subsidized by the NFIP) and more frequent flooding.
—————
Capitalizing on the enthusiasm to make people shoulder the costs of externalities and be personally responsible for their choices, how about we stop making taxpayers subsidize flood insurance to those people living in flood zones?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
sounds like a nice transfer program for rich people with beach houses
needless to say i oppose
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
It is common knowledge that the Democrats are all about making the wealthy pay their fair share and sticking up for the little people in the name of equity. This post seems to contradict that, and imply that a party dominated and funded by coastal elites is raiding tax dollars to hand out billions to wealthy coastal elites.
Please explain yourself.
acesfull86
Well-known member
Elites shouldn't be receiving subsidies, nor should the non-elites. This is a perfect example of a government intervening in a well-functioning market and screwing up incentives, rather than intervening to solve a market failure.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I don't know that there would be a well-functioning market. I think with climate change insurance companies don't know what's in the cards. It is like building a house on a major earthquake fault. No insurance company will underwrite that. But I don't think the rest of society should subsidize the risk of having a house on the San Andreas fault either. People have to decide if they want to take the risk and live with it without expecting a bailout from society. Kinda like going unvaccinated.
Last edited:
acesfull86
Well-known member
I'll take my chances with a free market over the government swooping in to offer subsidies...that's only going to exacerbate the problem by inciting over-population in the highest risk areas.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Insurance companies are pretty smart. Couldn't get earthquake insurance on my house in Oakland.
A few years ago, I went to the trouble to read the fine print on my business insurance. They kept adding exceptions to what is covered. The latest being damage from "earthquakes caused by human activity," which I believe refers to earthquakes caused by fracking, and drones. I got a chuckle out of those two. They always stay ahead of the game.
Tapate50
Well-known member
Earthquake coverage is a separate policy. About 10% of Californians carry it. Just like coastal folks have to buy separate wind/named storm/ flood coverage elsewhere.
It’s nothing new.
57Brave
Well-known member
Dan Price
@DanPriceSeattle
·
Dick's burgers in Seattle just upped its minimum wage to $19.
It gives workers free health care, 3 weeks paid vacation,
50% 401(k) match and $9,000 for tuition/childcare.
Its basic burger costs $1.80.
Harry Seaward Jr
@loltrumpism
·
Ironically the places that charge $20 for a burger treat
their employees like **** and complain that
they can’t find workers.
@DanPriceSeattle
·
Dick's burgers in Seattle just upped its minimum wage to $19.
It gives workers free health care, 3 weeks paid vacation,
50% 401(k) match and $9,000 for tuition/childcare.
Its basic burger costs $1.80.
Harry Seaward Jr
@loltrumpism
·
Ironically the places that charge $20 for a burger treat
their employees like **** and complain that
they can’t find workers.
Last edited:
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
THis is stupid.
Seattle's Minimum Wage is 16.69. So they're either getting 2.31 cents more than minimum wage.
As far as the "$1.80" burger is 2 ounces of beef with no toppings at all. That's basically a McDonald's hamburger with no onions, pickles, ketchup or mustard. I don't know if they offer ketchup or mustard on the side. But I'm assuming that they're making it work on the volume system. Which is fine. THere's no 20 dollar burger that comes with that little meat or without premium ingredients. Either it contains premium beef, or so much food it hurts.
Also odds are in a place that can charge 20 bucks for a burger, most of the kitchen crew is making more than 2.31 over minimum wage.
acesfull86
Well-known member
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2021/09/a-magic-trick-from-bidens-economists.html?m=1
A magician tricks his audiences by distracting them. While people focus on something that is attractive but irrelevant (a shiny object, the magician's beautiful assistant in a skimpy outfit), the magician can more easily hide his deception.
In a new CEA blog post, the Biden economics team does something similar. It asks what the average tax rate of the 400 wealthiest families would be if unrealized capital gains were included in the measure of their income.
This is a mildly interesting question. But why is the Biden team taking the time from their busy schedules to ask it? Because they want to convince you that the rich aren't paying their fair share in taxes.
The problem is that this question has little connection to the policies now being discussed. As I understand it, the essence of the plan under consideration is not a tax on the unrealized capital gains of the 400 richest families. Instead, the plan aims to raise the corporate tax rate, which in turn is paid by the many shareholders, workers, and customers of the companies. (Economists debate the relative incidence.) In addition, the plan aims to raise the tax rates applied to the already-taxed income earned by people making more than $400,000 a year. I would guess that this latter group includes about 1.5 million taxpayers. Needless to say, 1.5 million is a much larger number than 400. And the finances of the 400 are in no way representative of the finances of the 1.5 million.
Don't get distracted by this shiny object.
A magician tricks his audiences by distracting them. While people focus on something that is attractive but irrelevant (a shiny object, the magician's beautiful assistant in a skimpy outfit), the magician can more easily hide his deception.
In a new CEA blog post, the Biden economics team does something similar. It asks what the average tax rate of the 400 wealthiest families would be if unrealized capital gains were included in the measure of their income.
This is a mildly interesting question. But why is the Biden team taking the time from their busy schedules to ask it? Because they want to convince you that the rich aren't paying their fair share in taxes.
The problem is that this question has little connection to the policies now being discussed. As I understand it, the essence of the plan under consideration is not a tax on the unrealized capital gains of the 400 richest families. Instead, the plan aims to raise the corporate tax rate, which in turn is paid by the many shareholders, workers, and customers of the companies. (Economists debate the relative incidence.) In addition, the plan aims to raise the tax rates applied to the already-taxed income earned by people making more than $400,000 a year. I would guess that this latter group includes about 1.5 million taxpayers. Needless to say, 1.5 million is a much larger number than 400. And the finances of the 400 are in no way representative of the finances of the 1.5 million.
Don't get distracted by this shiny object.