Discussion Tuesday
Similar to last week:
People in society care about absolute differences in income not relative differences. As a result, in a growing society income inequality measures understate this concern.
Hiding value judgments behind economic rhetoric: The case of obesity
Note: Renamed this from “Discussion Thursday” as I ended up inadvertently writing a post rather than a comment …
Sorry, a bit busy to do real posts. Also wanted to get a discussion going on this excellent quote from Eric Crampton about using sugar taxes to pay for the “health care externality” from obesity/sugar consumption:
What happens then if we find that it’s those healthy exercise people who cost the system more, on the whole, because they live longer (costing the superfund) and consume health services over a longer period?
Be careful wanting to tax all the fiscal externalities. You might not like where it leads.
Let me throw up a quick first comment here 😉
Discussion Tuesday
Let’s do some inequality stuff.
The wealthier a society is, the less (relative) income inequality it should be willing to accept
Discussion Tuesday
Recently, I’ve been attempting to do aerial yoga. This has led my friends to call me a hippy for some reason, what can I say economists are strange. Anyway, this led to the following discussion statement from my friend – which he suggested I post (and I agree it would be fun to discuss).
Why would your null hypothesis be that being a hippie makes you less likely to be a dick than being a yuppie? If anything, hippies refusal to compete socially on the dimension of income just means that competition on all other dimensions is likely to be more fierce.
Discussion Tuesday
From Lew on Twitter:
The greatest threat to democracy isn't PR practitioners, the media, politicians or the military: it's behavioural economists
— Lew (@LewSOS) April 8, 2014
Discuss!
Discussion Tuesday
Double-barrel question today – make sure to answer them separately, or point out if you are only answering one part. The answers to both questions are not obvious btw:
In New Zealand, the government is now a larger part of the economy than it was under Muldoon.
In New Zealand, the government should be a larger part of the economy than it was under Muldoon, given the changes in technology and social structure.
Once again, remember that these are points for discussion – I am not saying I agree or disagree with them.