This is a fact that is not widely known or appreciated.
1/OK, let's take a little break from Coup Twitter, and think about an economic issue:
How can we build up the wealth of the middle class?
This is a fact that is not widely known or appreciated.
https://t.co/rcRHSHkTMd
Yes, these numbers don't include things like Social Security, just privately held wealth. They're not an attempt to capitalize every possible future income stream.
— Noahtogolpe \U0001f407 (@Noahpinion) January 10, 2021
Then the housing crash came, and all that changed. Suddenly the rich were still doing well but everyone else was seeing the end of their American Dream.
Because the American middle class has its wealth in houses -- specifically, in the houses they live in.
It's the rich who own stocks.
Well, the option we've apparently chosen so far is just to tell people "Suck it up. Start at the bottom, and save it all back."
Seems a bit inadequate, no?
Can we still use housing to generate broad middle-class wealth? Should we?
As long as people and companies keep moving to cities, the value of urban location (i.e. land) will appreciate.
Doing so presents some obvious problems. It invites NIMBYism -- homeowners leveraging local government to push up the prices of their homes, even at the expense of the economy.
For one thing, most people SUCK at stock investing, but most people kinda-sorta understand homeownership.
It's hard to completely revamp our wealth-building system. We may simply be locked in.
That's a tricky trick to pull off!
https://t.co/2GwiFm7rib
(end)
https://t.co/Ask8xPgBrg
https://t.co/FGppA1M8W6
More from Noahtogolpe 🐇
Today's @bopinion post is about how poor countries started catching up to rich ones.
It looks like decolonization just took a few decades to start
Basic econ theory says poor countries should grow faster than rich ones.
But for much of the Industrial Revolution, the opposite happened.
https://t.co/JjjVtWzz5c
Why? Probably because the first countries to discover industrial technologies used them to conquer the others!
But then colonial empires went away. And yet still, for the next 30 years or so, poor countries fell further behind rich ones.
https://t.co/hilDvv0IQV
Why??
Possible reasons:
1. Bad institutions (dictators, communism, autarkic trade regimes)
2. Civil wars
3. Lack of education
But then, starting in the 80s (for China) and the 90s (for India and Indonesia), some of the biggest poor countries got their acts together and started to catch up!
Global inequality began to fall.
It looks like decolonization just took a few decades to start
Basic econ theory says poor countries should grow faster than rich ones.
But for much of the Industrial Revolution, the opposite happened.
https://t.co/JjjVtWzz5c
Why? Probably because the first countries to discover industrial technologies used them to conquer the others!
But then colonial empires went away. And yet still, for the next 30 years or so, poor countries fell further behind rich ones.
https://t.co/hilDvv0IQV
Why??
Possible reasons:
1. Bad institutions (dictators, communism, autarkic trade regimes)
2. Civil wars
3. Lack of education
But then, starting in the 80s (for China) and the 90s (for India and Indonesia), some of the biggest poor countries got their acts together and started to catch up!
Global inequality began to fall.
To be honest, I think this is just the effect of Twitter.
If you're on Twitter all the time - as every political commentator now is - it's easy to think that whiny, big-talking Twitter slacktivists are "the Dems".
But what's happening out there on the ground?
This is another reason I think Twitter is so bad for society.
It convinces intellectuals and commentators that practically everyone who's on their side is an extremist.
Which makes them tolerate extremism out of a (false) feeling of necessity.
If you stay on Twitter too much (which we all do now), you start to think that the typical left-of-center person is some British wanker who quote-tweets "Imagine thinking this" to anyone who doesn't like the idea of "ending capitalism".
But he is not typical.
A majority of Americans are not on Twitter.
But *every* journalist, commentator, and intellectual *has* to be on Twitter.
So every journalist, commentator, and intellectual comes face to face with big-talking slacktivist faux-extremists day in and day out.
It's a problem!!
Online bubbles full of shouty faux-extremists are, in general, fine.
The difference is that every journalist, commentator, and intellectual is essentially forced to exist in THIS bubble, because their jobs require it.
Twitter is a dystopian technology.
(end)
If you're on Twitter all the time - as every political commentator now is - it's easy to think that whiny, big-talking Twitter slacktivists are "the Dems".
But what's happening out there on the ground?
— VeryHiddenGeniusHat (@Popehat) October 18, 2018
This is another reason I think Twitter is so bad for society.
It convinces intellectuals and commentators that practically everyone who's on their side is an extremist.
Which makes them tolerate extremism out of a (false) feeling of necessity.
If you stay on Twitter too much (which we all do now), you start to think that the typical left-of-center person is some British wanker who quote-tweets "Imagine thinking this" to anyone who doesn't like the idea of "ending capitalism".
But he is not typical.
A majority of Americans are not on Twitter.
But *every* journalist, commentator, and intellectual *has* to be on Twitter.
So every journalist, commentator, and intellectual comes face to face with big-talking slacktivist faux-extremists day in and day out.
It's a problem!!
Online bubbles full of shouty faux-extremists are, in general, fine.
The difference is that every journalist, commentator, and intellectual is essentially forced to exist in THIS bubble, because their jobs require it.
Twitter is a dystopian technology.
(end)
Yes, we have been more divided than we are now. Within living memory.
Labor disputes used to kill hundreds of people!
In 1932 Douglas MacArthur called in tanks on protesting veterans, injuring over a thousand people!
In 1967 there were 159 race riots in cities across
In 1921, rioters used airplanes to bomb black businesses in Tulsa, Oklahoma! Hundreds were killed in the riot!
At one point there were five bombings in America *every day*. https://t.co/VUnLr2IDyt
— Noah Smith (@Noahpinion) October 7, 2018
Deadly riots in literally hundreds of American cities. A rash of high-profile political assassinations. Soldiers shooting protesters on college campuses!
Labor disputes used to kill hundreds of people!
In 1932 Douglas MacArthur called in tanks on protesting veterans, injuring over a thousand people!
In 1967 there were 159 race riots in cities across
In 1921, rioters used airplanes to bomb black businesses in Tulsa, Oklahoma! Hundreds were killed in the riot!
Bloomberg Ideas conference now starting! I will be live-tweeting it. You can watch on our Facebook or Twitter pages (links below)!
Our first panel is about cryptocurrency! We have @matt_levine, @tylercowen, @eiaine, @nirkaissar, and Camilla
Ou: Crypto will be useful for the unbanked.
Cowen: Crypto has to compete against a bunch of other emerging payments technologies. Bitcoin is too inflexible.
Cowen: I'll bet on the payments companies over crypto.
Today and tomorrow we'll be having a Bloomberg Ideas event!
— Noah Smith (@Noahpinion) October 25, 2018
Today will be a panel on cryptocurrency.
Tomorrow will be panels on the economics of AI, and on regulation of big tech companies.
You can watch livestreams here:https://t.co/1dC0ELGvabhttps://t.co/Juz5Mp2EC1 pic.twitter.com/VfxOscNflo
Our first panel is about cryptocurrency! We have @matt_levine, @tylercowen, @eiaine, @nirkaissar, and Camilla
Ou: Crypto will be useful for the unbanked.
Cowen: Crypto has to compete against a bunch of other emerging payments technologies. Bitcoin is too inflexible.
Cowen: I'll bet on the payments companies over crypto.
More from Economy
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is analyzing damage due to COVID and projecting further severe consequences if current policies persist. They state “despite involving short term economic costs, lockdowns may lead to faster economic recovery by containing the virus”
1/
Note: This report doesn’t do a dynamic analysis that makes things much clearer, but it does a thoughtful statistical analysis based upon increasingly available data.
https://t.co/5Xmt8y7lCL
A few more quotes:
2/
“The analysis also finds that lockdowns are powerful instruments to reduce infections, especially when they are introduced early in a country’s epidemic and when they are sufficiently stringent.”
3/
“lockdowns become progressively more effective in reducing COVID-19 cases when they become sufficiently stringent. Mild lockdowns appear instead ineffective at curbing infections.”
4/
“The results suggest that to achieve a given reduction in infections, policymakers may want to opt for stringent lockdowns over a shorter period rather than prolonged mild lockdowns...
5/
1/
Note: This report doesn’t do a dynamic analysis that makes things much clearer, but it does a thoughtful statistical analysis based upon increasingly available data.
https://t.co/5Xmt8y7lCL
A few more quotes:
2/
“The analysis also finds that lockdowns are powerful instruments to reduce infections, especially when they are introduced early in a country’s epidemic and when they are sufficiently stringent.”
3/
“lockdowns become progressively more effective in reducing COVID-19 cases when they become sufficiently stringent. Mild lockdowns appear instead ineffective at curbing infections.”
4/
“The results suggest that to achieve a given reduction in infections, policymakers may want to opt for stringent lockdowns over a shorter period rather than prolonged mild lockdowns...
5/
