Detractors of capitalism often blame the market for government. I mean, it couldn’t be any more obvious here. The government (FDA) “approved” a product (cigarettes), which is now sold in a highly regulated market. It must be capitalism’s fault. You know, how leftists claim that “deregulation” has been a problem, and then go blame capitalism for regulations.
It really doesn’t make any sense how they’ve reached this conclusion. Somehow, deregulation equals regulation. More FDA should fix that. (more…)
Today’s lesson in economics: Everything has costs and costs affect prices!
Noble intentions always begin somewhere in the political sphere. At face value, they sound great. Who wouldn’t support feeding the homeless? Every noble endeavor, however, does not come cost-free and we must consider those costs to fully understand the issue. (more…)
NARRATIVE: Redistributive measures, such as social welfare spending, are necessary adjustments to “fix” wealth inequality.
REALITY: Politicians and pundits often advocate for policies to “fix” a supposed ill. More often than not, these policies are supported without consideration for the unseen, unintended effects. (more…)
Economics becomes convoluted once injected with political conviction. Emotional rhetoric quickly replaces logic and empirics. Catch phrases manifest and misconstrue reality to accomplish an agenda. If we think beyond stage one, many of these purported economic ills quickly dissipate. (more…)
Bernie Sanders has committed a fixed pie fallacy. It is the belief that an economy is static and doesn’t change or grow. While he is correct about manufacturing employment, he ultimately uses this political claim to form his platform about the economy. However, we can render it meaningless by looking at the economy as a whole and as it has changed and grown. (more…)
When a policy related to economics is up for debate, I almost always see people discussing the direct consequences of said policy. It’ll go back and forth that doing X or Y will cause A or B, and which one is more desirable. Rarely is it asked whether X or Y may have consequences elsewhere in society that are not immediately obvious at first glance.
As an economics junkie, I find Bernie Sanders both entertaining and frustrating. He has been the center of two of my articles, both of which rustled the Sanders Circle. A good friend brought it to my attention that Sanders was doing a Reddit AMA to promote his presidential candidacy. Needless to say, I felt the need to address a few of his answers. The socialist has struck again! (more…)
In discussions about politics and economics, we see a lot of one stage thinking. Virtuous arguments are made without considering factors below the surface or beyond stage one. If we consider these factors, we can fully articulate the issue at hand and make an informed opinion.
Google “college degree compensation” and most of the results will tell you that college degree holders unquestionably earn more than high school. Although true, there are other factors that may change your opinion on the value of a college degree. (more…)
Firebrand progressive Elizabeth Warren has created such a storm that even democrats are concerned with how her far-left rhetoric could be politically damaging. From income inequality to minimum wage, Warren’s flare for “middle class economics” (whatever that is) makes her appealing to the socialist left. She hypocritically blasts the rising cost of tuition and “predatory” student loaning practices. Her supporters view her as a demigod incapable of mistruths. (more…)
Household income trends are often cited as reason for “solutions” to income inequality. As a raw statistic, HHI is very misleading because it fails to account for individual behavior in any given economy. Let’s do a thought experiment to explain why, and then look at a more accurate measure of income distribution. (more…)