Economics

"On Biden, Betrayal, Burdens, and Bunk"

Economics is 100% sure of this. (How can you argue with science??)

The reality here is that the corporations that he says are going to send bigger checks to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) after the tax hike aren’t the ones who actually shoulder this heavier tax burden.

The best explanation I’ve seen on this comes from a 2004 quote by economist Stephen Entin, who wrote, “The economic burden of a tax frequently does not rest with the person or business who has the statutory liability for paying the tax to the government.” That’s because taxes are ultimately only paid by people.


"The social sciences are useless. So why do we study them? Here’s a good reason"

By Columbia prof. Andrew Gelman. He gives the same answer as that given by my friend and former colleague, Steve Margolis: we're here to play defense.

The baseball analyst Bill James once said that the alternative to good statistics is not no statistics, it’s bad statistics. Similarly, the alternative to good social science is not no social science, it’s bad social science.


"Elizabeth Warren Is a Ridiculous, Power-Hungry Crackpot"

A truly excellent rant by Kevin Williamson. Over the top but righteous and funny as hell.

Do you know what another word for “loophole” is? Law. Loopholes aren’t manufactured at some overseas sweatshop loophole factory operated by Charles Koch’s evil cousin Skippy — they are manufactured right there in the august body that is the United States Senate Committee on Finance, of which Senator Elizabeth Warren is, insanely enough, an actual member. She may as well have a sign on her door reading “Loopholes ’R’ Us.” . . .

And, of course, “loopholes” aren’t really loopholes. “Loopholes” are what useless low-minded demagogues call intentionally designed features of the tax code when they are being used by somebody it is politically convenient to attack. 


"Back to the 60s."

John Cochrane quotes extensively from a post by an academic economist who happily proclaims "It really does seem that on the big macroeconomic questions, our [Liberal] side is winning." Cochrane is calm and respectful, but he slams the post's logic really hard.

This is a good and logical point. If you take it seriously, though, it should show the illogic of the whole edifice. I found this claim that the child tax credit will cut child poverty in half illuminatingly ludicrous, not enticing. Really, that's all it takes? Why not spend $4 billlion [sic] and eliminate child poverty forever? Why not spend $8 billion and eliminate adult poverty? It hilarious that after the "war on poverty" declared in 1965, people could actually say with a straight face that the only reason "child poverty" remains in America is that we didn't pass a little tax credit.