Posts by Dismal Soyanz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: On Price Gouging, in reply to Sacha,
True - economists are not immune. In fact, the politics is a huge element of it. I know plenty of policy analysts who will only put up to Cabinet papers which they know will receive a sympathetic ear. But I don't think it is fair to say that because a certain piece of information was not acted upon as part of a political process is a fault inherent in economics or economists in general. Ultimately, in order for the known to be acted upon (or explicitly included) requires a mandate (in whatever form) from the electorate.
-
Hard News: What Now?, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Hopefully, but given the council caved to building owners’ demands over timeframe to update to 1/3 current standard I wouldn’t hold my breath. If the council looks like it might start getting uppity, expect appeals to the government to blunt the charge.
Here’s an idea for an economic nudge: The City Council makes it mandatory for building owners to display publicly how far up the scale of the current building standard the building is (using some independent analysis).
-
OnPoint: On Price Gouging, in reply to Sacha,
Though I would hazard a guess that if it were widely known amongst policymakers and other economic agents, it would have been recognised in some form. I suspect that environmental concerns have not been ignored by all economists (and by extension economics) but that it is taking time to be incorporated into mainstream practice.
None of which to say that some economists won't willfully close their eyes and ears to concepts that do not suit them, just that it is unfair to say that this is endemic behaviour.
-
OnPoint: On Price Gouging, in reply to Bart Janssen,
theory is sometimes built on observation of past events without the ability to properly test by experiment. In such situations it possible to build plausible consistent but ultimately wrong theories.
Kinda like paleontology?
-
OnPoint: On Price Gouging, in reply to Sacha,
Rational decisions is a minefield. Actually just about every decision can be described as rational – it just depends on the framing. For example, an addict’s decision to continue with the addiction is entirely rational when a heavy enough weight is put on near term utility. The problem with the usage of rationality in economics has not been the concept of rationality but rather the information set that is used. [ETA: And things like what goes into the utility function.] There is plenty of work going on in behavioural economics that looks to extend this.
I’m taking a stab at what you mean by environmental limits – perhaps an example of considerations that we can see in hindsight but were not taken into account previously. In that such things are an implicit assumption in that they do not feature in decision making, I agree. Certainly environmental concerns are increasingly being taken into account, reflecting greater both social awareness and also better information. Not sure if that is what you are getting at tho.
-
OnPoint: On Price Gouging, in reply to Idiot Savant,
I think the problem with many economists (and the reason why they are so publicly disparaged, despite being engaged in a vital inquiry) is precisely that they don’t think about those things, dismissing them as “value-laden” – while all the time pretending that the unstated moral assumptions in their theories are not similarly “value-laden”. Its spectacularly hypocritical, and it does the entire discipline an enormous disservice.
Actually, if you are to slag economists about "unstated moral assumptions", I would say they are pretty transparent about it. Of course, you might be focusing your comments on Eric Crampton's piece but any substantial economic analysis let's the reader know what the assumptions are.
When an economist puts out research that is heavily dependent on its assumptions then it will typically get described as such by his/her peers. Lay people love to say that economists don't agree but fail to see that disagreement is actually useful in highlighting what the underlying assumptions are.
that is a little too close to regarding economics a science. when in fact is a social science
I doubt any economist would have a problem with describing economics as a social science. Economics is ultimately about how people, and the institutions that surround them, interact.
As for "profession", I don't believe I have ever ticked the occupation box as a "professional" - a subtle but important diference. If you can talk of teaching as a profession, you can also say economics is a profession.
-
Hard News: Again: Is everyone okay?, in reply to Russell Brown,
it seems hugely impressive to me, too.
I'm sure Matthew Poole has something to say on this and is way better informed than me. But as someone who will be at the sharp end of some of the rescue work if - no, when - we get the Big One in Wellywood, the CIMS system and CDEM are things in which we implicitly and literally in the case of ChCh entrust our lives. The fact that our country is highly earthquake prone is arguably one of the big reasons why we have been so organised. Of course we cannot anticipate every possibility but the idea is that we have a system that streamlines the way in which we respond and gives the rescue teams the best chance of being able to do their job.
Jack Perkins was talking on RNZ today about some time he spent with the USAR team during training out at Porirua Hospital. Great stuff and gave a good flavour to the stuff for which rescue teams train.
-
Hard News: Again: Is everyone okay?, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Ouch. Not sure it's about ego but in the past she has at times dug a little too hard for the scandalous sound-bite.
I totally agree about the quality of NR reporting. On the first day, TV3 coverage provided the immediate visual impact - this is the scene, viewers can easily come to their own opinion as to how bad things are. But after the first period of shock, the plight of Christchurch residents, what was going on, what was being done - it just seemed more appropriate for that to come through on the radio.
TVNZ failed to impress.
-
Hard News: Again: Is everyone okay?, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
I assume it just reduces your tax to pay for the year
You get a refund direct into your bank account to the tune of 33% of the donation up to 33% of your total taxable income but only after the end of the tax year. The tax you pay over the course of the year through PAYE or any additional/refund at the end of the the tax year is not affected.
More details here.
-
Hard News: Again: Is everyone okay?, in reply to Jackie Clark,
If you wish to join us, send money.
Is there a team colour? Also, do we get auditing? Always wanted to be an accountant....