The General Economics Thread

So the referendum was what really united the other nations against Greece. Perhaps understandable, but not the greatest implications.

Some interesting analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis shows that the Labor Force Participation Rate in the US has fallen more then in other nations with similar demographic trends. It suggest that the labor market in the US is a lot weaker then it looks which is bad news for the economy down the line.

Here is a link to the Fed Bank's own article on the issue

From that article on Greece and Germany: "...At the height of crucial negotiations over the latest bailout of Greece this month, Germany circulated a proposal that undercut decades of promises about the march toward deeper European unity: Greece, it said, could be offered a temporary exit from the euro...

...From Lisbon to Latvia, from creditor countries to debtors, among some left-wing leaders as well as conservative governments, the response to Greece reflected a deep aversion to government spending as a tool to fight economic slumps and faith in deregulated labor markets. It is a vision of austere, market-based policies that are a break with Europe’s past."

It sounds like Europe is going through what the US went through under Bush. A passing phase, or a more permanent cultural shift?

It seems that, like Keynesianism back in the mid-20th century, Europe has taken yet another economic doctrine and run with it, unlike the U.S. where our politics seem to mitigate against the extremes of either side. In neither case, however, did the people in power understand what they were doing, and so they messed it up.

edited 29th Jul '15 8:15:43 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Whereas I think they know exactly what they want to do, and it has very little to do with developing economies in a way that benefits all economic classes.

Well, sure, but it's being sold as "good economic sense", which sounds good because the people who are not in their pay are ignorant enough to believe them.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

The general public is just under-educated regarding basic economic principles, and angry enough at stagnant growth to be looking for a scapegoat.

Europe's been on a rightward lurch for some time now, it's just harder to track because they made it further into proper social democracy, and now there are powerful interests in favor of social democracy who will fight against its dismantlement.

Apparently those forces are not speaking up for the Greeks.

I THOUGHT IT HAD TO DO WITH THE LACK OF PRAYER IN SCHOOLS GOD BLESS

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Well, no, the labor unions in Europe are much like they are elsewhere in the developed world, primarily self-interested and less about "the struggle" unless they're a union representing a marginalized class. The SEIU here in America is a good example, it's more engaged because it has to be since it represents our most-abused workers.

Also, Europe's people strongly favor social democracy in many places, but their governments don't care what the electorate thinks, which is what's driving the far right right now.

Marine Le Pen is the frontrunner in France right now, which ought to tell Germany that something's wrong.

That is a depressing fact.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Le Pen is a related, but separate, issue of massive anti-immigrant sentiment. Whatever else might be wrong with them, Merkel's CDU has done well to draw the line between immigration policy and prejudice and clearly stay on the correct side of that line.

In other words, what is already shitty and expensive is going to become even more expensive.

Just NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

It is not like we're getting milked dry due to our government fuck ups already.

The original article is in Portuguese.

edited 29th Jul '15 12:55:40 PM by AngelusNox

Inter arma enim silent leges

Yeah, that's not a thing that's going to work. Tax capital profits, not consumption.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

With the amount of taxes in Brazil dedicated to just that, I won't be surprised at all if they charged a tax on bandwidth or over the amount data transmitted/received.

Even if they start taxing the profits, that tax will be passed down to the consumers anyway, which is another unneeded expenditure that no one called for.

Inter arma enim silent leges

Indirect taxes are f'd up.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Royal Dutch Shell cutting 6,500 jobs.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."

Must-Read: Harold Pollack, Bill Gardner, and Timothy Jost: Valuing Medicaid

This is kind of a crazy article, not because of its content but because of the research that it's referring to, in which the "value of a human life" is being recalculated to justify cutting Medicare expenditures, based on inquiries as to how much a poor person might pay to extend their life.

It's grossly cynical and frankly disturbing.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Is it any better than the British NHS denying use of a new drug because it's too expensive?^note  It happens, fairly regularly Let's just say there, barely a day goes by without the NHS being in the news.

edited 30th Jul '15 11:17:07 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

Expense is relative. To a wealthy person, USD 100,000 (for example) might be a trivial price to extend life and health. To a poor person, it's as out of reach as the Moon. This is why "value of a life" calculations are so important when discussing social insurance, particularly towards the end of an individual's span.

In the end, it may not be cost effective in the sense of value returned to society, but we consider it a moral issue not to abandon our elderly to die of disease.

Usually, discussions about Medicare expenditures revolve around raising the eligibility age, although that makes no sense even from a purely financial standpoint as most costs are incurred in the final year of a person's life, not immediately upon their retirement. Cutting those end-of-life costs at least has possible financial benefits, regardless of the moral aspects.

Krugman: Dentists and "skin in the game" — a look at how making consumers pay a greater share of health costs does not improve quality, price, or access as one might expect in a competitive market environment.

edited 30th Jul '15 11:30:48 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Makes sense, since major insurers have real bargaining power while average customers have bugger-all bargaining power, and since dental demand is relatively inelastic, it doesn't make good things happen.

Depending on how expensive "too expensive" is, and whether there are other options (eg, can they pay for it out of pocket? take a loan to cover the costs? etc), that's quite frankly a sad fact of life. Until we reach a post-scarcity society, there comes a point where it's simply not possible to pay for treatment. It sounds monstrous, but it's not — it's just the reality of the situation.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Note it's not the patient that's paying for the drug — since the NHS is a single-payer system, it's the NHS itself (or at least their Clinical Regulator) that thinks the drug is too expensive, due to a (more or less permanent) lack of resources.

edited 30th Jul '15 12:32:33 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

Sure, I understand that. But that doesn't change anything at all — there's still a limited amount of resources to go around, so there's always going to be some potentially life-saving treatment that's too expensive, regardless of who's paying for it. That problem is deciding where to draw the line of what's considered too expensive and what's not.

edited 30th Jul '15 12:34:32 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.