jetpack domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131updraftplus domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131avia_framework domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131I appeal to economic authority at least five times every day!
]]>I’m not really focusing on climate change here – I’m looking into an analogy that compares it to economics.
It would appear more consistent to be either skeptical of both or supportive of both – but I often find that this is not the case!
]]>I like the analogy as it can be seen as cutting both ways as well – the key thing is that often those most dismissive of economics are the most supportive of climate science. Given the similarities in methodological issues (with the added complication in economics that we have forward looking agents), the fact people are willing to appeal to authority on climate but not economics is fascinating!
]]>Global warming stuff is complicated, I just wanted to use the analogy 🙂
]]>It looks to me that Skidelsky is attacking lazy economics – there is a definite temptation to equate labour supply and money to welfare, while ignoring the disutility of work, and the relation of policy to non-pecuniary matters. Actual normative/policy analysis shouldn’t – and often doesn’t – do this.
I hadn’t seen the OECD bit, do you have a link? Would love to have a look and give you my thoughts.
]]>^^^^^
I have seen much more of this than the other.
http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2014/01/councils-experts-among-last-still.html
Funny thing is, one could be forgiven for assuming that people of the ilk of Cresswell would admire Gore’s enterprise!
By the way, I only happened upon the above because Eric, amazingly, reposted the rubbish, here:
http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/2014/01/flood-risk.html
]]>Also with the topic of wages/income in the news alongside NZ’s supposed “Rock-Star-Economy” status I was hoping you (or anyone else out there Econ cyber-land) may be able to help with the following:
The OECD recently did some analysis on the % of income/wealth in each country that is attributable to labour and what is attributable to capital (I can’t find it online). Treasury also does these calculations I believe, and the split in NZ is something like (approx) 60% to capital and 40% to labour. Apparently only Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak republic have less going to labour than NZ.
Why is this? Is it because the base of our economy is primarily farming/Auckland property speculation etc.? Is it because we don’t tax gains on capital and as a result more activity flows to that side of the ledger? (Tax distortions, dead-weight-losses etc. etc.)
I would really love to know if you are able to share any thoughts! 🙂
]]>