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.
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.
Loved #4
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.
Why bother antagonise potential readers by referring unnecessarily to Matt Yglesias?
“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.