Long rant: So earlier today, I got into a spat over the $15 minimum wage with @JamesSurowiecki and @noamscheiber. Because this disagreement over whether there is a mechanical relationship between raising wages and less jobs is incredibly consequential, I wanted to say more.

More from Economy

$\uc2e0\ub150\uc758\uc0ac\ub098\uc774$

Little history of QFS

Let’s put all this Woo Woo stuff aside and find out what the QFS has been doing over the last two years or so. It has been very busy.

Those involved in using this computer have learned how to “connect” into the archaic Central Bank computer(s) system. Through the SWIFT transfer protocol used by the Central Banks (CB),/2

the QFS has obtained account information from every Tier 1 bank account in every bank in the world that is linked to the SWIFT transfer system./3

It has also obtained info for 2nd tier and 3rd tier banks that don’t have their own SWIFT transfer codes and use Tier 1 banks to service their customer’s transfer requests. Tier 2 &3 banks have accounts in Tier 1 banks that are used to transfer money./4

With this information, the QFS was integrated into the SWIFT transfer system and programmed it to where each transfer is channeled through the QFS to record transfer data. The data is then inserted back into the SWIFT system to complete the transfer to the intended bank account.5

JST Investments
@JstInvestments

A product which provides a fixed income which is better than FD & an upside like equity.

Should you invest in Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)?
A Thread 🧵👇

1/ REITs are a vehicle to invest in income-producing real estate properties managed by professionals.

2/ In India, we have REITs primarily focused on commercial real estate properties having 7-9% rental yields.

In listed REITs, Most of the completed properties are pre-leased to big companies.

Why no residential? As yields of 1-3% make them unattractive to investors.

3/ How do you get the benefit of such yield?

REITs have to distribute at least 90% of their taxable income to their shareholders.

Both listed REITs trade at 6-7% dividend yield (which is also tax-free)

4/ Moreover, 80% of their total value must come from completed & income-generating properties + it must avoid speculative land acquisitions.

What about debt then? There's a restriction there too.
Not more than 49% of the total equity.

Ricardo Reis
@R2Rsquared

** MMT is the new supply-side economics
Forty years ago, some economists started from an uncontroversial (but important) result: a lower tax rate raises the tax base, so revenues won't fall as much. But then they ran with it, predicting tax rate cuts could raise revenues.

1/13

The 80s supply-siders went to the limit and came up with a motto: lower taxes will lower deficits as a norm, not an exception. Many economists shouted this was backwards. It was an implausible limit case. Textbooks called them "charlatans and cranks" or "silly".
2/13

In 80s debates, supply-siders would often fall back to "you don't understand me", repeating "Laffer curve!" endlessly, or stating vacuous accounting identities about how the government collect taxes. Their extreme prediction was repeatedly proven wrong by theory and data.
3/13

But they had popular hero figures (Laffer, Moore), and an eager political audience that would use any argument to cut taxes. Eventually, they inspired new good research, and helped in swinging the pendulum of policy debates to include some valid supply considerations.
4/13

Yet, supply-side economic ideas also contributed to a massive rise in US public debt in the last 40 years. Right-wing governments became as prone to have large public deficits as left-wing governments, in the pursuit of cuts in taxes.
5/13

Giorgos Kallis
@g_kallis

Interesting thread, but I don't think ecosocialists or degrowthers are arguing that if German socialists had come to power the world would be green by now. Socialism is not automatically green. Eco-socialism is what it says - a green version of socialism - to be tested /1

You get the impression from the eco-socialists and degrowthers that humanity wouldn\u2019t face the threat of climate change or biodiversity loss if it weren\u2019t for capitalism (or rather, if it weren\u2019t for capitalist modernity).

But I see no evidence to suggest this is the case.
— Leigh Phillips (@Leigh_Phillips) February 2, 2021

The historical counterfactual also in not totally convincing. So let's assume Germany and Europe went socialist. The world economy would have evolved exactly the same way it did? 🤔 I doubt it, this is too deterministic. Examples: /2

We do not know if the transition from coal to oil would have taken place when it took place, the way it did. From Timothy Mitchell we know that oil was a fix for capitalism to bypass the labour strikes of coal workers. One would think that socialists would treat workers better /3

We also do not know if socialist governments would strong arm the Middle East the way capitalists did, starting wars to secure cheap oil, and setting up puppet governments. One would want to think that Rosa Luxembourg would not go down that path..../4

We also do not know if they would have continued colonial unequal exchange, extracting raw materials as cheap as possible from the rest of the world. Without cheap oil and cheap materials, it is anyone's guess if GDP and CO2 would be where it is now. /5

Jason Furman
@jasonfurman

The argument for deficits & debt raising interest rates in the US is not increased credit risk, it is that interest rates are a function of economic fundamentals, flows & policy. Deficits/debt change those.

I can't tell if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with @jc_econ.

There is no relationship b/w deficits & interest rates in the US & many other advanced economies. Centuries of dynamic institution building underpin our reserve currency status that allows rates to be a function of economic fundamentals, flows & policy not credit risk 1/3
— Dr. Julia Coronado (@jc_econ) January 26, 2021

Increasing government spending or reducing taxes increases demand (or reduces saving). This raises the price of loanable funds or the interest rate.

In a dynamic context, more demand means a stronger economy, the central bank raises interest rates sooner, and long rates rise.

(As an aside, we are not close to the United States needing to worry about credit risk and the risks are more overstated than understated in most other advanced economies too. But credit risk is not always & everywhere irrelevant, just look at the UK in 1976 or Canada in 1994.)

Interest rates have fallen over the last 20 yrs while debt has risen. This does not necessarily mean that debt rising causes interest rates to fall. It could also mean that other things have happened at he same time that pushed down interest rates more than debt pushed them up.

The suspects for these "other things" include slower productivity growth, slower popln growth, higher inequality, less investment, etc. All of which either increase the supply of saving or reduce the demand for investment, reducing the equilibrium interest rate.