How would Sherdog fix the economy?

[Blackened]

I understand your position now. Thanks for taking the time to further explain it. Sorry about the miscommunication on my end.

Good post! Liked for honesty and willingness to listen.

 

[Jack V Savage]

1. What's your threshold for economic impact that makes something relevant to the thread? A simple dollar amount is fine.
2. Which exact ideas have been presented that reach that threshold?

1. I answered this already. Post 156.
2. I gave examples of this already. Same post.

Is your strategy to ignore the answers and continue asking the same questions until I get bored with you, and then declare victory because you've made yourself enough of a nuisance that I give you the last word?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

1. I answered this already. Post 156.
2. I gave examples of this already. Same post.

Let me take another look.

If there's no plausible mechanism for the change you support to be large enough to even be measured (either in terms of growth or distribution), it's not relevant to a discussion on economic fixes.

@kpt018 suggested something that could completely eliminate child poverty--wouldn't have a noticeable impact on growth, but that means a lot in terms of distribution. My suggestions would have significant long-run effects on growth, most likely. Some nut wanted *higher* interest rates, which I suppose makes sense if he thinks that what needs fixing is that the economy is growing too fast.


I don't put a ton of faith in those kinds of predictions, but even if so, I'm not seeing how it matters. Again, the economy is currently $18,000B annually, and it will be even bigger by then. And you don't show how a change in the legal status of the industry is supposed to do anything for anyone economically. $8B is nothing to the U.S. economy. We can raise taxes by a quarter on every hundred dollars collected to raise that.

Can you highlight the portion that tells me in numerical terms your threshold?

I'm asking what the specific suggestions are and don't consider "something" or "my suggestions" sufficiently informative. Nor is giving the results (you project) telling me what the actual proposal is.

If you're just listing goals without any strategies to get there then I misunderstood by thinking some sort of policy was proposed.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Can you highlight the portion that tells me in numerical terms your threshold?

I didn't put it in numerical terms because the terms shift. I defined it pretty clearly, though.

I'm asking what the specific suggestions are and don't consider "something" or "my suggestions" sufficiently informative. Nor is giving the results (you project) telling me what the actual proposal is.

Well, you can read the first page of the thread. That would be faster and easier than what you're doing, wouldn't it?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I didn't put it in numerical terms because the terms shift. I defined it pretty clearly, though.



Well, you can read the first page of the thread. That would be faster and easier than what you're doing, wouldn't it?

Your definition was "large enough to be measured". That's really the best you can do after you've already measured the impact of my idea? And it shifts, but you can't say between what numbers? Hard to take you seriously here. Especially after you ignored the impact it's had on Colorado.

Answering the question when I initially asked would have been the most expedient. Certainly compared to what you're doing. <shrug>

 

[KungFuJones]

Give all the money to the 1 percent.

 

[scoopj]

Fix the economy? I might need a better working definition of what is actually wrong with it first. Unemployment? Low Wages? Cost of Living?

Great question.

 

[rj144]

As an economics student, I'm curious what my fellow sherdoggers would do to fix the current economy if they were placed in a "benevolent dictator" type of position. What would your top priority (don't say "jobs") be for getting the economy back on track?

Responses need not be in-depth, just clear enough to encourage discussion.

Here's mine. I'm kind of into urban/labor econ, so my policies revolve around what economists in these fields generally support. By no means is this supposed to be exhaustive:

1) Decouple healthcare and labor markets (there is a lot to unpack here, and it doesn't necessarily mean a single-payer system).

2) Modest minimum wage increases in major cities, generous expansion of EITC (alternatively wage subsidies, direct cash transfers could be used)

3) Encourage mixed-use development in major cities, discourage driving to reasonable extents (either through gas taxes, toll roads); couple with public transit where population density is high enough

4) Open the US to trade, but as this is done, implement worker retraining programs so that people are able to continue supporting themselves

Anyway, apologies for disappearing for a bit there. Finals were kicking my butt (calculus 2 brutalized me).

Invest in infrastructure and alternative energy.

Calculus 2 brutalized you? Easy stuff man.

 

[shitpostmodern]

Calculus 2 brutalized you? Easy stuff man.

Honestly, it was the section on trig integration/substitution that really got to me, but that's because we don't use trig in economics. Like, at all.

Sequences and series was a breeze, though.

 

[Ice That Jaw]

The only sure thing goal is to get more people trained to apply for in demand jobs in tech, finance, medicine, etc.

The economy has been fine for people with good jobs. Its the bottom that we need to rise up from the shadows, as John Kasich put it during the primaries. The problem is that low skilled labor is leaving and not even Trump is going to fix it.

Our economy is going to remain a fincancial driven one and we just have to deal with the reality of it. Its up and down, up and down, money being traded back and forth. Real growth isnt occuring here.

 

[rj144]

Honestly, it was the section on trig integration/substitution that really got to me, but that's because we don't use trig in economics. Like, at all.

Sequences and series was a breeze, though.

How when you quoted me was it someone else's quote? What kind of Calculus is that?

Did Greoric even post in this thread?

 

[shitpostmodern]

How when you quoted me was it someone else's quote? What kind of Calculus is that?

Did Greoric even post in this thread?

Yikes! I was arguing with Gregoric earlier today, so his name must have somehow wound up in there. Weird.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Your definition was "large enough to be measured". That's really the best you can do after you've already measured the impact of my idea? And it shifts, but you can't say between what numbers? Hard to take you seriously here. Especially after you ignored the impact it's had on Colorado.

The impact it has had on Colorado isn't significant and wouldn't be replicated at the national level. To the extent there has been a positive impact, it's from tourism from other states, no? What happens if it's legal on a national level?

It's "hard to take (me) seriously" here because you don't like criticism and react emotionally to it, I think. And I didn't measure the impact of your idea. I made some extremely positive and unrealistic assumptions to show that it can't be expected to have any noticeable impact. That was easy, and fair play. If it's my own idea and I'm making extremely positive and unrealistic assumptions, that's bullshit. You always want to be harsher on your own views--or I and others who are interested in accuracy and honesty do.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The impact it has had on Colorado isn't significant and wouldn't be replicated at the national level. To the extent there has been a positive impact, it's from tourism from other states, no? What happens if it's legal on a national level?

It's "hard to take (me) seriously" here because you don't like criticism and react emotionally to it, I think. And I didn't measure the impact of your idea. I made some extremely positive and unrealistic assumptions to show that it can't be expected to have any noticeable impact. That was easy, and fair play. If it's my own idea and I'm making extremely positive and unrealistic assumptions, that's bullshit. You always want to be harsher on your own views--or I and others who are interested in accuracy and honesty do.

I haven't studied the numbers. Tourism would be some of it for sure.

Not sure why you're projecting emotions on to me that have nothing to do with the discussion. Nor am I sure where you criticized me in this thread. If that's what your contribution has deteriorated to, rather than talking about the ideas you support and the projected economic impact, then I guess we're done here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I haven't studied the numbers. Tourism would be some of it for sure.

Not sure why you're projecting emotions on to me that have nothing to do with the discussion. Nor am I sure where you criticized me in this thread. If that's what your contribution has deteriorated to, rather than talking about the ideas you support and the projected economic impact, then I guess we're done here.

I criticized your idea. Was that not clear? And if explaining the merits or lack of merit of an idea is your idea of unacceptable "deterioration" of a discussion, one wonders how you ever have any.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I criticized your idea. Was that not clear? And if explaining the merits or lack of merit of an idea is your idea of unacceptable "deterioration" of a discussion, one wonders how you ever have any.

It was clear. Was I supposed to take it personally?

"Deterioration" is referring to you projecting emotions while refusing to speak about the ideas you say are good ones, not your comments on the lack of merit in mine. It moves the discussion along for you to explain the superiority of the other ideas you alluded to. If you can't say exactly what they are and quantify the impact then what more should I expect from you here other than re-wording your established opinion that facilitating these two industries is small potatoes?

 

[Jack V Savage]

It was clear. Was I supposed to take it personally?

It would be nice if you didn't take everything so personally. I recognize that you do have a really hard time avoiding it, though.

"Deterioration" is referring to you projecting emotions while refusing to speak about the ideas you say are good ones, not your comments on the lack of merit in mine.

My first post in this thread included praise for what I considered good ideas and repeating others I thought were good. That's how it works, no? Then you decided to do your usual playing dumb stuff.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It would be nice if you didn't take everything so personally. I recognize that you do have a really hard time avoiding it, though.



My first post in this thread included praise for what I considered good ideas and repeating others I thought were good. That's how it works, no? Then you decided to do your usual playing dumb stuff.

More talk about my emotions and nothing to advance the discussion surrounding what you feel are good ideas.

Just focus up dude. I'll try to keep it simple in an effort to get you out of this rut. Ready?

Please pick one of the ideas you like and tell me what the quantitative impact will be, if you're able. For example, just saying there should be money given to kids doesn't describe the projected benefits as they pertain to the economy at large. If you're not able to elaborate on any of the details then just say so. If you are then I'd love to hear it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

More talk about my emotions and nothing to advance the discussion surrounding what you feel are good ideas.

Just focus up dude. I'll try to keep it simple in an effort to get you out of this rut. Ready?

Please pick one of the ideas you like and tell me what the quantitative impact will be, if you're able. For example, just saying there should be money given to kids doesn't describe the projected benefits as they pertain to the economy at large. If you're not able to elaborate on any of the details then just say so. If you are then I'd love to hear it.

I mentioned specifically that distributional benefits are also fair play here. I see the elimination of child poverty as a good in itself, even if it leaves some wealthier people slightly less well-off. That is, one doesn't need to justify such policy in terms of GDP growth. If you're making a similar argument--that shifting entertainment dollars from other businesses to marijuana sellers is a distributional change you'd favor despite it having no impact on the broader economy, you can say so (and I'd be very interested in seeing the explanation).

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I mentioned specifically that distributional benefits are also fair play here. I see the elimination of child poverty as a good in itself, even if it leaves some wealthier people slightly less well-off. That is, one doesn't need to justify such policy in terms of GDP growth. If you're making a similar argument--that shifting entertainment dollars from other businesses to marijuana sellers is a distributional change you'd favor despite it having no impact on the broader economy, you can say so (and I'd be very interested in seeing the explanation).

So you just like the idea for intrinsic value, not because you can point to any positive economical impact?

Is there an idea you've supported that you can quantify the impact of?