1. Yes, but acting on the signal has implications for people’s incomes, too.
7. Yes, there are economic “free lunches,” going from a sub-optimal to an optimal policy. What probably do not exist are political free lunches, policy changes that are better and perceived as better for everyone; no losers.
That's not what a free lunch means. I'll explain more in my full post on number 7 but think of an individual. They choose the apple over the banana. They move from a sub-optimal to optimal outcome by definition. But it's not a free lunch.
In part I am joking, but more seriously, the No Free Lunch strictly speaking applies only to no departures from perfect competition, convex production and utility functions and no economies of scale.
I recommend the book "How Economics Can Save the World: Simple Ideas to Solve Our Biggest Problems" for any aspiring economist looking to influence government policy.
I don’t like the use of the word get in 2. On the supply side, if you raise the price of something, you get more of it. I think it would be more precisely written if you used people want or people buy rather than you get.
Loved #4
1. Yes, but acting on the signal has implications for people’s incomes, too.
7. Yes, there are economic “free lunches,” going from a sub-optimal to an optimal policy. What probably do not exist are political free lunches, policy changes that are better and perceived as better for everyone; no losers.
That's not what a free lunch means. I'll explain more in my full post on number 7 but think of an individual. They choose the apple over the banana. They move from a sub-optimal to optimal outcome by definition. But it's not a free lunch.
In part I am joking, but more seriously, the No Free Lunch strictly speaking applies only to no departures from perfect competition, convex production and utility functions and no economies of scale.
I recommend the book "How Economics Can Save the World: Simple Ideas to Solve Our Biggest Problems" for any aspiring economist looking to influence government policy.
I don’t like the use of the word get in 2. On the supply side, if you raise the price of something, you get more of it. I think it would be more precisely written if you used people want or people buy rather than you get.
Good catch
I think someone is impersonating you. See below.
Thanks! I’ve reported two accounted now.
“reality hasn’t stopped working the way economics describes.”
This is a true statement.
However, reality often/usually doesn’t work the way left-wing, or protectionist populist (on either wing), *economists* describe.
I would suggest #9: monopolies/oligopolies distort prices (and therefore signals), with all sorts of downstream repercussions.
Why bother antagonise potential readers by referring unnecessarily to Matt Yglesias?