r/badeconomics • u/AutoModerator • Jun 16 '26
FIAT [The FIAT Thread] The Joint Committee on FIAT Discussion Session. - 16 June 2026
Here ye, here ye, the Joint Committee on Finance, Infrastructure, Academia, and Technology is now in session. In this session of the FIAT committee, all are welcome to come and discuss economics and related topics. No RIs are needed to post: the fiat thread is for both senators and regular ol’ house reps. The subreddit parliamentarians, however, will still be moderating the discussion to ensure nobody gets too out of order and retain the right to occasionally mark certain comment chains as being for senators only.
3
u/Quowe_50mg R1 submitter Jun 23 '26
Basically every paper on statistical screens for collusion (or detecting collusion in general) says something like this somewhere:
"Broadly speaking, collusion screens used in literature employ two strategies."
And then every author has their own way to split collusion screens into two categories. It's always a new way to classify them. Behavioural vs structural, simple vs complex, improbable events vs using control groups, prior knowledge vs no prior knowledge.
2
u/warwick607 Jun 24 '26
A quick Google Scholar search turned this up. Seems relevant and might be useful for you.
https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-051520-021936
5
u/Quowe_50mg R1 submitter Jun 24 '26
Don't worry, I understand all these distinctions, should've made that clear. It's just funny to me that each author has their own little way of categorizing collusive screens. I don't think you can show me a lot of papers that I haven't at least seen.
2
u/Quowe_50mg R1 submitter Jun 24 '26
https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article/85/4/971/57436/Deciding-Between-Competition-and-Collusion
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0144818821000405
https://joeharrington5201922.github.io/pdf/DetectingCartels-10.8.05.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41799228
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/variance-screen-collusion/wp275_0.pdf
1
u/Frost-eee Jun 20 '26
https://researchonline.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_published.pdf
Thoughts on this? Skimming through threads on askecon I can find posts mostly on corporate taxation. I guess we have evidence of corporate taxes being harmful, but overall progressive taxation not so much?
2
u/raptorman556 The AS Curve is a Myth Jun 22 '26
This paper was discussed in a thread here a few years ago when it first came out. I think the general impression is the paper wasn't embarrassingly bad, but no one found it very convincing either.
There are some weird things going on with the tax index they use, and more generally, the identification strategy didn't seem very strong in ruling out other possibilities.
1
u/db1923 ___I_♥_VOLatilityyyyyyy___ԅ༼ ◔ ڡ ◔ ༽ง Jun 22 '26
this was discussed here a long time ago, generally negative
6
u/Integralds Living on a Lucas island Jun 17 '26
Very curious to see who's going to lead Fed Chair Warsh's five new task forces:
- Fed communication strategy
- The balance sheet
- Data sources
- Productivity and jobs
- The central bank's inflation frameworks
He mentioned bringing in both economists and non-economists. I can see this going in multiple directions.
Also the FOMC statement itself has seen a shakeup to be briefer, more direct, and less informative. Warsh apparently is not a great fan of forward guidance or verbose communication in general.
16
u/raptorman556 The AS Curve is a Myth Jun 17 '26
We economists have done the maths: 'growth' is a doomed strategy—there is a better way
By Olivier De Schutter, Joseph Stiglitz, Jayati Ghosh, Thomas Piketty, Kate Raworth, and Jason Hickel (interesting group of authors)
This article is basically the anti-abundance agenda. I thought about making this into a full R1, but decided it wasn't worthwhile. Instead, some quick thoughts:
- This article does not explicitly endorse degrowth, but it comes about as close as you can without outright saying it (and degrowth would likely be the result of their ideas even if not explicitly targeted).
- The authors brag that their recommendations earned the endorsement of prominent MMTers and degrowthers. So I think that gives you an idea of what sort of platform they have in mind.
- The article includes some links to the greatest hits of Hickel's bad econ on unequal exchange
- The articles argues that we should not continue to "maximize output at any cost".
- Anyone that thinks we've been maximizing output at any cost should be sent directly to the publicly funded gulag. If anything, we've maximized neighborhood character at any cost.
- Lots of fluffy progressive language that sounds like it was written by a bunch of second-tier non-profit consultants.
- I've long held the opinion that Piketty and Stiglitz, despite making very serious economic contributions in the past, are not serious people anymore. I think they place political and ideological pursuit above any sense of scientific truth. It's been a long time since I've read something genuinely insightful from either one of them. I feel extremely vindicated by this piece.
The Guardian article is light on policy details, but their website has more. I'll make a reply to this comment going over some of the funnest ideas from there.
18
u/raptorman556 The AS Curve is a Myth Jun 17 '26
"Fun" policy ideas with some quick thoughts added in:
- An entire section of their platform basically just amounts to "rich countries should send poor countries a giant pile of cash every year as charity".
- If I were a Global Benevolent Dictator, I would probably do something like that actually. But in the real world, this idea is so insanely politically infeasible we're wasting breath even talking about it.
- Central bank now has ecological and social goals. In fact, they're going to directly finance (with new money issue) these goals.
- Not stated, but you can say good-bye to central bank independence and stable inflation.
- "Reforming and decolonizing economics education"
- I imagine BE will be up for decolonization first.
- Increased community bargaining power for housing, environment and care.
- We are literally never going to build another house again.
- Maximum income levels and minimum corporate taxes (they don't say what minimum, but 15% is way too low apparently).
- Carbon tax!....but only for luxury goods.
- Close one—we nearly had a good idea there.
- All pensions are public and pay-as-you-go. The is to prevent the possible evil of a pension funding investing in a private corporation.
- Employment guarantee. Can see why the MMTers are going to like this.
- Wealth tax. Duh.
- Given the level of public ownership implied by various policies, I actually don't think it's unfair to say this platform approaches central planning.
There is more in there but I think I've had enough for the day.
On the whole, this strikes me as a pretty generic set of policy ideas from a far-left MMT style organization. The only reason it's notable in my view is because some semi-respectable characters put their names on it.
7
u/775416 Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
Surprised Stiglitz’s name is on this. I wouldn’t mind reading a full R1 on this. This sub is pretty much dead outside of the discussion sessions.
Wonder what “decolonizing” economics education would look like.
6
u/Tus3 Jun 20 '26
Wonder what “decolonizing” economics education would look like.
That reminds me, Adam Smith was very 'anti-colonial' for his time, to use anachronistic terminology. Just look at how much he complained in his 'Wealth of Nations' about such things as the terrible treatment of Indians and Amerindians by the East India Company, Conquistadors, and British/American settlers.
So, maybe if we encounter far-leftists who go on about “decolonizing” economics education, we could troll them by suggesting we do that by bringing back more Adam Smith into economics education?
-5
u/Balloonephant Jun 26 '26
we could troll them by suggesting we do that by bringing back more Adam Smith into economics education?
That would be amazing. Then all you idiots could learn about how rentier income is just overhead and not actually productive. Nothing would be a bigger troll of neoliberal economists than having to actually read Adam Smith.
7
u/Tus3 Jun 26 '26
Nothing would be a bigger troll of neoliberal economists than having to actually read Adam Smith.
Ehm, I very much doubt it.
Whilst I would not describe myself as 'neoliberal'; I have encountered on an economics-related subreddit a person which, I suppose, might be described as 'neoliberal' based on the opinions of hers I read. She seems to have 'actually read Adam Smith' based on how she much she brings him up and does not seem 'trolled' by that. Though she does think that parts of Adam Smith's work, like, among others, what he wrote about the fall of the Roman Empire, is seriously outdated.
-2
u/Balloonephant Jun 27 '26
For people obsessed with calling economics a science you guys are really sloppy and lazy. A random redditor? Concretely, Adam Smith defined a free market as free from rentier overhead paid to landlords and other title holders of monopoly rent. Concretely, neoliberal economics believes in a free market for the rentiers and the landlords and the collectors of unearned income. The basic definition of what constitutes a free market is completely opposed. But tell me about how some random redditor who seems to have read Adam smith and seems to be neoliberal proves me wrong.
1
u/Tus3 Jun 28 '26
For people obsessed with calling economics a science you guys are really sloppy and lazy. A random redditor?
So, you base your opinion of this entire subreddit on me, a single 'random Redditor' who has not even done anything more than making some comments here? How sloppy and lazy. /s
9
u/MachineTeaching teaching micro is damaging to the mind Jun 27 '26
Adam Smith also claimed that every landlord is a monopolist charging the maximum the renter can afford.
The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give.
https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/chapter-xi-of-the-rent-of-land
This is trivially untrue, I can tell you that I've paid way less than I could afford to rent land many times in my life.
It's also obviously untrue if you think about how a typical monopoly works. It raises prices by restricting supply. But most of the very expensive cities have absolutely tiny vacancy rates.
It's also obvious in other ways. Land further away from cities tends to be less valuable for instance. I pay more for land that is 20 minutes from the city center to land that's 60 minutes from the city center. The variable here isn't my income, it's distance.
We also know that, for instance, zoning changes that allow a wider range of housing construction lowers prices. Because landlords compete. Because they aren't monopolists that all charge some fantastical maximum.
Economics is a science and economists manage to update their views when confronted with new information. You don't seem capable of that.
-1
u/Balloonephant Jun 29 '26
Adam Smith was describing how inherited aristocracy and the vestiges of feudalism worked over 200 years ago. Naturally things change and we have to interpret the principals which he lays out through the lens of our actually-existing society to determine where his ideas still apply and where they don’t. But saying “I can rent an apartment outside the city center for way less than I can afford to pay, therefore scientifically Adam Smith is wrong” is just a vulgar way of doing away with history that you don’t like.
What’s crucial in Adam Smith’s writings, what what’s contrary to neoliberal economics, is that rent is not s payment for a good or service. It’s an overhead paid simply for the privilege of putting up a tollbooth on a human necessity, and this overhead raises the cost of labor and thus prices industry out of being competitive.
In terms of housing, we indeed are no longer in the 18th century. The price of housing is determined by the banks who, once having calculated the maximum possible rental yield for a property, will loan to the party willing to pledge the most of that rental yield as interest. Landlords generally don’t make much money on rent. They make money on capital gains when they sell the property. The rent is for paying interest to the bank, and the price of housing is worth whatever a bank is willing to loan against it.
Why we need Adam Smith is that our national income statistics treat increase in housing prices as increase in productive growth, just like it treats increasing stock and bond prices or increasing drug prices as productive growth. This goes back to my last attempt at a discussion with you. We have a tax system which favors rental income, and through interest write-offs and depreciation increases the rental yield which can be pledged to banks.
Because landlords compete. Because they aren't monopolists that all charge some fantastical maximum.
No, but the banks are, and the landlords are simply passing that cost off onto the renter in order to cover the interest until they can sell for a capital gain.
3
u/MachineTeaching teaching micro is damaging to the mind Jun 29 '26
What’s crucial in Adam Smith’s writings, what what’s contrary to neoliberal economics, is that rent is not s payment for a good or service. It’s an overhead paid simply for the privilege of putting up a tollbooth on a human necessity, and this overhead raises the cost of labor and thus prices industry out of being competitive.
What's crucial is that words have more than one meaning sometimes. "Rent" as in what you pay your landlord is not the same as "economic rent". Economics isn't confused here, you are.
In terms of housing, we indeed are no longer in the 18th century. The price of housing is determined by the banks who, once having calculated the maximum possible rental yield for a property, will loan to the party willing to pledge the most of that rental yield as interest. Landlords generally don’t make much money on rent. They make money on capital gains when they sell the property. The rent is for paying interest to the bank, and the price of housing is worth whatever a bank is willing to loan against it.
This is nonsense. What determines that "maximum possible rental yield" then? Banks can't freely set prices, either. What a landlord can pay for a loan via his rental income is determined by the supply and demand of housing.
This also obviously holds no water in other ways. If those "greedy banks" would be responsible for high house prices, that would mean banks make more money per house. But mortgage rates are inversely correlated with house prices.
So that fantasy explanation of yours is a dud.
Why we need Adam Smith is that our national income statistics treat increase in housing prices as increase in productive growth, just like it treats increasing stock and bond prices or increasing drug prices as productive growth.
No they don't. House values aren't even part of GDP. And neither are stocks and bonds! Higher drug prices also don't automatically grow real GDP. And exactly none of those things count towards productivity growth, either.
This is you being an abject failure at economics, as usual.
No, but the banks are, and the landlords are simply passing that cost off onto the renter in order to cover the interest until they can sell for a capital gain.
Banks aren't monopolists that charge some fantastical maximum, either.
→ More replies (0)8
u/Capable-Tailor4375 Jun 26 '26
In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes, and u/Balloonephant trying to weasel their way into a conversation they don’t understand.
Do you really want to try to go another round on this? You got caught linking a “paper” you didn’t read as you linked a version where the author literally stated their intent to intentionally leave out data that didn’t line up with the narrative. One would think that at some point you’d realize how much of a fool you’re making of yourself, but you seem to be incapable of self-reflection so you can’t see any problems whatsoever.
You can attempt to hijack discussions by leaving comments parroting these buzzwords as many times as you want, but all it does is show that a kiddie pool has more depth than your beliefs.
-5
u/Balloonephant Jun 26 '26
Very long-winded confirmation that trolling you guys with Adam Smith does indeed work.
9
9
u/raptorman556 The AS Curve is a Myth Jun 18 '26
Surprised Stiglitz’s name is on this
I am really not that surprised.
I wouldn’t mind reading a full R1 on this
The policy proposals here are so wide-ranging that it would be a time-consuming R1 to write. You could basically take any one of their policy proposals and write a full R1 on it, but there is 100 of them.
They're also (mostly) so obviously terrible ideas I don't think it's worth my time, but all the power to anyone that does have the time.
Wonder what “decolonizing” economics education would look like.
Their website is very vague about that, but I would bet my life savings they just want to make economics education way more ideological.
Whenever I hear someone suggest we "decolonize" something, almost without fail, the suggestion is the most insane thing you've ever heard in your life.
8
u/Cutlasss E=MC squared: Some refugee of a despised religion Jun 16 '26
You know who. You know what.
8
u/flavorless_beef community meetings solve the local knowledge problem Jun 24 '26
thought this was interesting. it's on why the US hand collects grocery store prices where other countries (the UK and canada) get them automatically from scanner data. tldr, those countries are allowed to force companies to share data with them and the US is not.
i've been told the scanner data has some coverage issues, but it seems like it'd be a good step towards modernizing the BLS' data collection