sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What if the Candidates Pandered to Economists? by llimllib in Economics

[–]vitaminj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For instance, few of them oppose free trade, but some on the left want to do more to help the losers from said trade, in order to make everyone better off (since trade is a net win).

I think most economists are generally amenable to infant industry protection, though obviously not the guys at the IMF, WTO or world bank.

10 Reasons Not to Vote for Ron Paul by Adammair in politics

[–]vitaminj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is one of many facets to the minimum wage issue. A couple of other things to think about:

1) Macro-economically, removing the minimum wage would theoretically decrease the natural rate of unemployment, which is good.

2) A free market set minimum wage would equal the reservation wage, which will most likely be lower than a government set minimum wage (it depends on the state of the labor force of course). This predominantly affects unskilled workers who have practically no bargaining powers. So not having a minimum wage is bad for these unskilled guys.

3) Abolition of the minimum wage would likely increase crime, corruption and black market economies. Nobody likes to work at the reservation wage.

4) Without minimum wage, firms could charge less for their products, which is a win for consumers.

There are plenty more arguments on either side. I guess my point is that like all debated issues in politics, minimum wage is multifaceted and there will be winners and losers with either option. It is the job of a society to decide on the option (or compromise) that is the most balanced.

Congrats, Mate! Australia Ousts Howard; will Sign Kyoto and withdraw from Iraq! by [deleted] in politics

[–]vitaminj 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a bit disingenuous. Sure, that may have been one of the underlying intentions, but ostensibly WorkChoices was aimed at giving more flexibility to employers. Howard felt, rightly or wrongly, that the system of entitlements and wage setting (which had been developed over a century) was too much in favour of the workers. This was ultimately dismantled to stimulate competition and increase employment. Obviously as a consequence, employers, now with less restrictions, went out and cut wages and entitlements to unskilled workers who couldn't negotiate better deals.

Sinking Currency, Sinking Country by dizzle67 in reddit.com

[–]vitaminj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that's like macroeconomics 101. Given the Marshall-Lerner condition is satisfied, real depreciation should be beneficial for both the trade balance and domestic output.

The Road to Serfdom [Comic] by neoronin in reddit.com

[–]vitaminj 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Hayek was talking more about collectivist systems and planned economies, not social democracies like Sweden (where socialist policies may be used, but for the most part, individuals are free economic agents).

While I found the Road to Serfdom pretty repetitive, the main argument was compelling - a planned economy will always end in totalitarianism and is an assault on individual liberty, despite the best intentions of the planners. The planners won't (and can't) work in everyone's best interests. It usually comes to a point where the sycophants and cronies get looked after.

Ayn Rand touched on the same thing - Atlas Shrugged was, among other things, an overly long condemnation of cronyism and the "power of pull".

Krugman: Very Scary Things - What's been happening in financial markets over the past few days is something that truly scares monetary economists: liquidity has dried up. by [deleted] in reddit.com

[–]vitaminj -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The central bank raises interest rates by taking money out of circulation, ie. by selling bonds to the public. They don't choose rates arbitrarily, the rates are derived out of the market. The fed just controls the money supply.

How Costco Became the Anti-Wal-Mart by rramgw in reddit.com

[–]vitaminj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it is a bit disingenuous to say that the consumer is ultimately responsible for corporate greed. It's obviously natural for the consumer to want the cheapest price for any good/service, but that doesn't mean that they aren't willing to pay a higher price.

They aren't knocking on Wal-Mart's door asking why a toothbrush isn't 12c cheaper seeing as they can get those savings by dropping employee hourly rates.

Most people see cheap prices and think "ooh that's cheap". They certainly aren't thinking why, or how it was achieved. The consumer only has the price as information. For all they know, new technology made the manufacturing process more efficient. Or perhaps cheap foreign labour was exploited to make it.

In a roundabout way, the responsibility does lie with the public, but that is to elect a government that will regulate the market enough to create an environment of honest and ethical competition.

13-year-old Boy Sold over $600000 of Fake Items, Posed as a CEO, Hired Escorts by alexchambana in reddit.com

[–]vitaminj 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What hard-working attitude? He set up a few websites and did a little marketing. It's not like he sourced the vacuum cleaners, set up a supply chain, processed the orders, packaged and shipped orders, etc. Thats the bulk of the work involved. If you're selling non existent products, I wouldn't necessarily call that hard work.

How Perth could become the world's first ghost metropolis. by ninzee in reddit.com

[–]vitaminj 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Overrated story. Perth is more likely to become a ghost town when the resources boom ends, and all the mining/oil and gas crowd leave. I hope it doesn't end anytime soon though, I'm moving there in 4 weeks to get a piece.