Matt Nolan

My main questions about the nine day fortnight

/7 Comments/in /by

It appears that more details on the nine day fortnight will be avaliable over the coming days – excellent.  I am looking forward to having this element of the policy explained to me:

Affected workers would spend the 10th day of their working fortnight in training or education, paid for by the Government.

Where exactly do you get training once a fortnight?

What exactly constitutes training/education – does it have to be accredited, or can “doing your job” be training?

If doing your job is the training isn’t this effectively a wage subsidy?  (Something I have noticed the National party don’t want to call it – even if it is one of the few ways to make some potential economic sense of the policy).

Matt Nolan

TWI and growth

/in /by

Roger J Kerr at the Rates Blog uses the following graph to state that GDP growth will recover sharply over the coming year.

Source (Rates Blog)

Although it is a pretty picture – it only tells us part of the story. And it does not imply that we will see a sharp rise in economic activity.

Read more

jamesz

Is organic farming sustainable?

/11 Comments/in , /by

Paul Roberts has a very interesting and worthwhile discussion of sustainable farming over at Mother Jones. The key issue is:

  1. Organic farming uses a LOT more resources than normal farming;
  2. To call yourself organic and get that market recognition you need to be 100% organic;
  3. There is no market standard for recognising that a farmer is more sustainable or environmentally friendly than their rivals if they’re not organic.

I think that most consumers who buy organic are also the type of people who want to do the environmentally friendly thing. While organic farming may not be as polluting as farming with synthetic fertilizer it is much more resource intensive. So where’s the incentive for farmers to move towards less resource hungry AND more sustainable alternatives? Read more

Matt Nolan

Quote 18: Evelyn Beatrice Hall

/in /by

A quote that currently hold resonance with me:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

This quote is often misattributed to Voltaire – in fact, before I fact checked it today I thought it was a quote from Voltaire.

This quote helps me find peace in the face of different value judgments that I don’t agree with or don’t understand.

Matt Nolan

Sociology summary

/1 Comment/in /by

Personally, I hold an interest in social sciences outside of economics.  The only problem is that I have even less knowledge about these other social sciences than I do about economics.

As a result, I was glad to see this post on the four major “traditions” of sociology:

  1. Hard core interactionism/social constructionism
  2. Critical social theory.
  3. Values, institutions, and relations.
  4. Resources and Action.

I especially like the ordering – from the most holistic to the most reductionist.

Economists strongly work with the fourth category – but have been known to dabble in (or at least understand the value of) the third category.  However, many modern economic theorists keep clear of the first two categories, and the idea of a “social reality” (as we fundamentally believe that society is reducible to the incentives of individuals).  Are we missing anything by ignoring this concept?

Matt Nolan

Quote 17: Dani Rodrik on the problem with economist

/6 Comments/in /by

Dani Rodrik’s blog can be found here. I found this quote insightful:

“The problem wasn’t with the economics but with the economists.” Theories and models are tools, but “we have fixated on one of the possible hundreds of models and elevated that above the others,” he said, referring to free market theory. “We form a narrative of the moment, which fits the zeitgeist.”

From the New York times (ht The Big Picture).

Like we have said a million times – the economic method is awesome for framing issues. But picking a model (which involves picking a set of value judgments) is not necessarily our strong point.

Previously, I have felt that economists could focus on setting up the framework and letting other people throw in the value judgments – but this process has not described the way economists have acted. As a result, it also shouldn’t describe what people judge economists on.

The economic method is great for making value judgments transparent – but it appears (some) economists seem more interested in clouding their models for political purposes than making full use of the framework. This is the message I gained from Dani Rodrik’s quote 🙂