The General Economics Thread

The construction industry will flip out. /shrug

And so will Local Government.

We're due for a great zoning reset of some sort around the industrialized world. Demand to live in city centers mean cities will need to be effectively rebuilt anyway. There's a whole branch in my grad school which would find the subject infinitely engaging, but that's out of my degree program.

And in the areas around those cities, which is already pushing their infrastructure to the limit.

Scottish Power hit with 12-day sales ban by Ofgem

I'd like to see how this will affect the lives of the poor, and if it would have an effect on the whole "keep the poor out of our nice neighborhoods" thing.

Well, the bigger thing that would affect the "keep 'them' out of our neighborhoods" mentality would be advances in travel. Self-driving cars, etc.

It doesn't seem much differenct from many other prefab houses.

And while I am very glad they are finding ways to use more waste products resourcefully, I am concerned about how safe these houses are depending on location.

Most prefabs and mobile homes are quite safe and hold up to the elements well. But I live in a area where tornadoes kill people every year. My only concern would be if we started to massively use construction methods like this, we need to also make storm shelters or other modifications to aid the people there. How well would this pass an earthquake test?

Just something to think about and accommodate for. I would hate to build a happy little printed village for the poor only to have a twister come and kill them all.

NIMBYs? They aren't affected by travel, since they're usually commuters themselves. And as for your obsession with self-driving cars, I'm more interested in self-driving public transport, like buses, trains or aircraft^note  Which is somewhat possible or near-possible at the moment. Some drivers are there for safety or passenger-concerned reasons.

edited 4th Mar '15 1:42:24 PM by Greenmantle

An example of NIMBYism potentially hampering the country: Google wants to move to Mountain View in California for its headquarters. The City Council is leery over the potential traffic congestion, Google warping the character of their city, and that Google could end up being a majority of the city voter base.

Basically Silicon Valley start-ups would love to move around and spread themselves out, but there's a lot of NIMBY efforts to block them for one reason or another, and it's potentially hampering a lot of possible positive growth.

It's not all smog and hazardous waste dumping. "Pollution" from businesses can take many forms.

Not that it's necessarily smart of them.

It's smart of a town not to want to be entirely beholden to one huge employer. It's usually better to attract a diverse range of employers and businesses.

They're also worried that Google employees could become a majority of the city's voter base, giving the company outsized influence over the city's politics.

That got me thinking. Why not set up a Googletown, run as a company city a la Disney World? I mean, all they need to do is throw up a Googleplex and some high-density housing at a comfortably suburban distance from a big city, and a Google Bus route to said big city, then get Starbucks and other supporting businesses to sprout around that. Presto, instant town, perfectly-fashioned for Google's interests.

Google is to the internet what Disney is to entertainment. It's the one company I can see pulling off a Disney World type thing. It'd probably a Tomorrowland for the computer age.

Also, 11111 posts in and we still haven't got Fighteer to admit he's Paul Krugman. Tropers, I am disappoint.

He's good.

Hey! I thought I'd provided ample proof that I'm Krugman's ghost writer.

Nope, but thanks for doing so.

edited 6th Mar '15 8:07:45 PM by Silasw

Krugman on the unfair rap that the 70s always seem to get.

Yes, they were a recession, but they weren't nearly as bad as people like to claim. One data point really stands out: while there was a modest rise in median income from 1973 to 1979, there was nearly zero rise in the income of the top 1%. To the wealthy, the 70s were a disaster far worse than to the average citizen.

Also, the 70s mark the last gasp of the era of liberal governance, and it's in the interests of the right to slander it as much as possible to make sure that What Everyone Knows is that conservatism rescued America from those dirty liberals.

It was noted in the comments that was in part due to Government directly controlling prices and wages^note  That they could control — the oil price was not one of them! . Western Governments in general were a lot more interventionist in economic matters then they are now.

edited 8th Mar '15 2:55:49 PM by Greenmantle

Yes, and the wealthy hated that. It was at the heart of the pushback against liberal economics: the deep resentment felt by the folks on top of the pile that they weren't being allowed to rise ever higher.

Source: http://open.salon.com/blog/david_brin/2010/02/19/a_primer_on_supply-side_vs_demand-side_economics

Incidentally, Brin also brings up a modestly-strong Keynesian case for when we should cut taxes on the rich, with an example from the JFK presidency. Not an argument you'll see trotted out today, though.

edited 8th Mar '15 4:00:11 PM by Ramidel

Once again, Brin takes the side of the evidence, which is a credit to him. He's the kind of libertarian I can respect — the kind that I would be if the world might allow it.

edited 8th Mar '15 6:03:06 PM by Fighteer

There's an interesting note in this Reuters article:

edited 9th Mar '15 12:29:11 AM by Greenmantle

Tim Duy: “The February employment report almost certainly means the Fed will no longer describe its policy intentions as ‘patient’ at the conclusion of the March FOMC meeting. And it also keep a June rate hike in play. But for June to move from ‘in play’ to ‘it’s going to happen,’ I still feel the Fed needs a more on the inflation side…”

Yeah, the Fed really needs to hold off until there is actual inflation looming. This is turning into bad comedy.

IIRC, part of the problem is Fischer doesn't believe in some of the stuff Krugman does (I think with regards to Liquidity Traps?)

Dean Baker: “In a Washington Post column on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Larry Summers raises the right cautions… a trade deal should have rules that prevent countries from… deliberately lowering the value of their currency… not be about special privileges for corporations… not jeopardize public health by raising drug prices. Nonetheless it looks like Summers is likely still going to come down for the TPP… rationale… making East Asian markets more open to the United States. This is hard to see…"

I think inflation hawks are all full of hot air.