Hehehe. Hopefully heads will roll

Why do economists insist on giving rich people more money? Why can’t economists realise that if poor people got more money they would be healthier, happier and live longer?

Trickle down economics doesnt work, and its the fault of the economists that invented it.

Amen.

From reading the documents they are also insulted by the fact that we seem to believe that private agents can allocate resources better then they can – sort of missing the point methinks.

Some people blame us for using the word allocation – because it makes it sound like something amiable to central design and control. Personally, I blame people for saying they want to derive the “best allocation of resources” without asking the experts of allocation – economists 😀

Maybe they think that “sustainable economics” is best discussed in a group without people who insist on using bad words like “scarcity”, “price”, and “rationing”?

I would have to read the book – which I intend to do, but for some reason can not find a copy in town.

I have written my concerns from reading up about the book, but I couldn’t post till I have read it:

http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2010/08/18/spirit-level-a-more-fundamental-concern/

I’ll think about it – I still believe I will just be ignored. I am after all an “economist” (sort of).

It is sort of like the fact that they haven’t invited a single economist from VUW to speak at the “sustainable economics” thing on Friday – this confuses me. Their economics reading list is also 5 first year text books – and they say that neo-classical economics is static and ignores resource constraints. Sort of like they have never read any economics …

I think if you read The Spirit Level, and decried it publicly as the worst piece of populist econo-poop since Silent Spring, and that nowhere in the entire book is there a single worthwhile casual link, NRT might have to respond. Call for a boycott of the workshop and accuse NRT of intellectual dishonesty. Say something that is wildly wrong and offensive to gain attention, then when you have their attention quickly concede the error, but say that the general sense of the book and workshops wrongness lives on in your other criticisms.

Something like “Wilkinson once used inequality to excuse his kicking of a guide-dog” ought to do the trick.

If you really wanted traction, get DPF to commit one post to it on a rainy morning.

No, the best corporate masters beat you harder – as it shows a passion that only said beating can represent.

“I think it would be an interesting cross-blog debate.”

I would love to have a cross blog debate regarding a specific policy issue. But I severely doubt that anyone would want to 🙁

The causal mechanism is the most interesting thing, I reckon. If he had something solid to contribute there, I expect we would have heard about it by now. Maybe you can ask NRT to describe that mechanism? I think it would be an interesting cross-blog debate.

I didn’t think you were dismantling him per see – just telling me that such things had occurred, which I appreciate. And I was just pointing out the specific issues I want to see touched on – but even after exploring for information I have not been able to find anything.

Ahhh, our corporate masters – I see. I always forget that name calling is a great way to avoid relevant criticism 😉

Also, I always find it interesting how much people are willing to ignore the quality of analysis if it supports their own priors …