behavioural economics has been very succesfull in the past decades becuse it ofund fault in the narrow descriptio of the rational man
I understand that ergodicity economics want to relax the narrow ergodicity hypoithesis in economics to show as rational some of those decisions that for behavioural economics where biased and irrational
Tweestorming a rough chronology of economics since World War II
Caveats: 1. It’s not meant at introducing econ ideas but primarily at helping econ undergrads embed ideas & tools seen in micro/macro courses in specific times & places before going deeper in some episodes pic.twitter.com/S9BtBkUwjc
ECB Chief Lagarde does not mention inflation at all but only green. Decarbonization would be a great way to add some inflation to the system
A carbon tax is more or less an oil shock where the surplus stay in the domestic economic rather than flying to Saudi Arabia. Carbon tax would make great financial sense if the target is higher inflation (of course it will shock the economy, reallocate resources among economic sectors, offer various option on how to redistribute the increased taxes imagine a carbon dividend for example) So a green oil shock would serve many purposes and open up many dimensions of public policy
“for example, when New York decided to build the subway in 1900: 4.7 years later, they opened 23 subway stations, and in 2019 dollars, they spent just over a billion dollars doing so. So 23 stations, just over a billion dollars”
Relative abundances and scarcities define the economic times, I would for example expect that NY 1900 would be abundant of cheap workforce employable at very flexible terms, which I am sure it is not true today where most people works in services and with much higher protections on the job
My opinion is just general but I think in the right direction. one has to understand what drives development and growth, and today it’s not what it was 120 years ago. In 50 times someone will muse the good old days when Mark could amass 2 billion users in 15 years while now no matter how much money you spend you might expect just 2 o 3 hunderd millions. Oh cruel times, we are so bad compared to the intenret pionners, glossing over the fact that the users will have much more protection from spam and aggressive marketing (yeah, pipedream)
gullible, unprotected users is the relative abundance of our times
I said tech people fixation with tunnels, let’s not forget that one day Musk, frustrated with the time it takes to build tunnels today, bought a boring machine and started digging a hole under his company’s parking.
by the Richmond Fed, which states optimal to move less productive workers out of high-productivity hubs and give them UBI of 17,000$ rather than investing money into peryphery project in order to reduce growing income gap
the authors note how CNR or Cognitive non-routine workers are more productive while clustered together so instead of trying to lure them away from hubs where they would become inevitably less productive is better to lure away non CNR from hubs with a subsidy.
This is an economic thought experiment, in a political void, nonetheless there is a clear insight in how to spend development money in the periphery, do not try to create works, just give money away.
A new paper from the Richmond Fed finds that it would be optimal to continue to concentrating knowledge workers in specialized hubs while subsidizing less-educated to move and live in less productive cities with a UBI-like cut of the agglomeration bonus. https://t.co/vWXhgvufBw