@mwt@econtwitter.net cover
@mwt@econtwitter.net avatar

mwt

@mwt@econtwitter.net

Economic Theorist at US Federal Trade Commission | Econ PhD Northwestern 2023 | Owner of https://econtwitter.net | #research #policy #economics #econtwitter #math #mathematics #mastoadmin #fedi22

The views expressed in these toots are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Federal Trade Commission or any individual Commissioner.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

bibliolater , to histodons group
@bibliolater@qoto.org avatar

"Economists have reported results based on populations for every country in the world for the past two thousand years. The source, McEvedy and Jones’ Atlas of World Population History, includes many estimates that are little more than guesses and that do not reflect research since 1978."

Guinnane TW. We Do Not Know the Population of Every Country in the World for the Past Two Thousand Years. The Journal of Economic History. 2023;83(3):912-938. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050723000293 @histodon @histodons @historyofeconomics

mwt ,
@mwt@econtwitter.net avatar

@bibliolater @histodon @histodons @historyofeconomics I remember there was a funny story about this, but I don't remember the details.

mwt , to AcademicChatter group
@mwt@econtwitter.net avatar

Springer charges $39.95 for access to a public-domain review written by the government.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-023-09931-z

You can access it in the same place for free if you redirect through the DOJ's website: https://www.justice.gov/atr/public-documents/rio-annual-review-articles

Academic journals are crazy.

@academicchatter @economics

tveskov , to random Danish
@tveskov@mastodon.social avatar

Not good 🔴🔵

mwt ,
@mwt@econtwitter.net avatar

@futurebird @tveskov Fair. Anyone would like to have a free maid, but it's crazy to sacrifice one of the most important human relationships in your life to get one.

brian_gettler , to histodons group
@brian_gettler@mas.to avatar

Historical question! Does anyone know when institutions in the English-speaking world - corporations, government departments, etc - began opening bank accounts in their own names rather than entrusting funds to individual officeholders (who often mixed public and private funds in personal accounts)? I'm currently looking at 1830s-40s Canada where, if I'm understanding the admittedly sparse material correctly, this shift had not yet occurred. @histodons @econhist

mwt ,
@mwt@econtwitter.net avatar

@brian_gettler @histodons @econhist I don't know about mixed private/public accounts, but I heard that English people in the 1600s or so opened accounts with their local silver/gold smith to keep money in their vaults and payed for things with cheques that could be redeemed with that smith.

lowqualityfacts , to random
@lowqualityfacts@mstdn.social avatar

This blows my mind.
https://patreon.com/lowqualityfacts

mwt ,
@mwt@econtwitter.net avatar

@lowqualityfacts they're ancient decorative socks

SallyStrange , to random
@SallyStrange@eldritch.cafe avatar

"Debunking degrowth" or trying to, anyway

"In the degrowth literature, a caricature of the typical economist is presented as believing in unlimited economic growth, and that growth should be pursued regardless of its environmental impact. This is a straw man. It would be a naïve economist who did not recognise that constraints exist. And economists usually limit their projections to a few decades to come, rather than to the infinite future, in which they supposedly believe in unlimited exponential economic growth. Certainly, there are theoretical economic growth models which portray the possibility of exponential growth into the infinite future, but economists have had enough common sense not to assume stylised theoretical models are the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to public policy."

Then why, Mr. Tunny, is it so hard to find an economist who can tell us when the economy should stop growing?

https://www.cis.org.au/publication/debunking-degrowth/

mwt ,
@mwt@econtwitter.net avatar

@simon_brooke @SallyStrange it's because growth is about using resources more efficiently. The strawman argument is the presentation of growth as the opposite of what it actually is (using more resources instead of using less).

mwt ,
@mwt@econtwitter.net avatar

@violetmadder @pleaseclap @simon_brooke @SallyStrange you can't suddenly stop all emissions in one day. So, the question of how you slow them and how much those emissions will raise temperatures is a real question that requires a real answer.

Nordhaus' 4 degrees proposal involved major emissions reductions that no one followed. If the world followed his proposals, we would be in far better shape than we are now.

mwt ,
@mwt@econtwitter.net avatar

@violetmadder @pleaseclap @simon_brooke @SallyStrange the number is the first attempt at answering this question. It started a literature. He didn't win the Nobel because he answered the question. He won the Nobel because he asked an important question and innovated an approach to solve it. This is an entire literature now.

mwt ,
@mwt@econtwitter.net avatar

@violetmadder @pleaseclap @simon_brooke @SallyStrange the alternative to attempting to answer a question is to not attempt to answer the question. This is an important question. So, attempting to answer it is important.

The model assumes linear costs of climate change (e.g., a 2 degree increase causes twice the damage of a 1 degree increase). This is not correct, but improvements can be (and have been) built off the underlying framework.

Again, this is all radical compared to actual policy.

mwt ,
@mwt@econtwitter.net avatar

@violetmadder @pleaseclap @simon_brooke @SallyStrange (btw the target is 3.5°C and people like to round it up, but that's besides the point)

mwt ,
@mwt@econtwitter.net avatar

@violetmadder @pleaseclap @simon_brooke @SallyStrange you do have to estimate those tipping points in order to set your policies correctly. Otherwise, you're making extremely important choices at random.

I doubt that billions of people will die when average temperatures increase 3.5°. However, it's not relevant to whether Nordhaus deserved the Nobel prize because he didn't earn it for guessing a magic number.

mwt ,
@mwt@econtwitter.net avatar

@simon_brooke @petealexharris @violetmadder @pleaseclap @SallyStrange those are fair. Variance and crops are a big issue. I am more optimistic about our ability to change crop locations and crops themselves to reduce failures because these changes don't require cooperation. Growers are pretty responsive to incentives as well. Just look at what happened with corn in the US after the subsidies.

Though, it's true that with enough variance, nothing is possible.

mwt ,
@mwt@econtwitter.net avatar

@HeavenlyPossum @petealexharris @pleaseclap @SallyStrange @simon_brooke @violetmadder because it's profitable for farms to replace crops that won't grow with ones that will, buy new land that can be used for farming, and sell land that cannot. That doesn't require cooperation (though it can help).

This is unlike overfishing which requires cooperation because overfishing is profitable.

Obviously, there are limits to adaptation, and all of this is expensive and disruptive.

mwt ,
@mwt@econtwitter.net avatar

@SallyStrange @HeavenlyPossum @petealexharris @pleaseclap @simon_brooke @violetmadder what evidence is the claim that it would kill billions of people based on?

I replied to others in that thread who had definite points. I'm not dodging a question. I just can't address a ghost.

Anyway, I'm not that confident, but a billion is a lot of people. It's an extraordinary claim.

mwt ,
@mwt@econtwitter.net avatar

@HeavenlyPossum @simon_brooke @SallyStrange that isn't so much about growth at it is about consumption over long periods of time. You don't need growth to use x amount if copper each year and eventually run out of copper.

mwt ,
@mwt@econtwitter.net avatar

@SallyStrange @HeavenlyPossum @simon_brooke

> if "growth" can mean "a reduction in resource usage," then why are so many economists so gung ho to "debunk degrowth"?

Probably because it's called "degrowth"? I can't really pin down the ideology other than the general desire to use less resources -- which is mainstream. Growth is good, but it's totally fine to sacrifice growth in consumption to preserve resources for the future.

What do you support? Total emissions bans? Are there exceptions?

breadandcircuses , to random
@breadandcircuses@climatejustice.social avatar

Today my focus will again be on , because the more we all learn, the better each of us can answer questions from others who might not understand the concept of degrowth or who want to know more about it.

If our global society has any chance of turning in that direction, toward true sustainability (not counterfeit ‘Green Growth’) and toward much-needed social justice, it will take all of us working together, teaching, motivating, assisting. YOU have a part to play, a big part, and learning where we must go and can go is the first step.

Now, I harbor no illusions that this will be easy. The plutocrats in charge of everything will strongly resist any suggestion that they should stop chasing after more power, more money, and even greater inequality. The odds of achieving all this peacefully and pleasantly are stacked highly against us.

But we will never succeed if we don’t try.

And even if we fail to achieve global agreement on degrowth in time, which is likely, even if climate chaos accelerates and our complex modern industrial society breaks down — even then, the things we learn now about living more simply and sustainably, more in harmony with our environment, more cooperatively and communally with others, all this knowledge will be extremely valuable to those struggling to survive in the aftermath of collapse.

mwt ,
@mwt@econtwitter.net avatar

@FantasticalEconomics @Marrekoo @laubblaeser @breadandcircuses no, because (1) you're comparing people in general to a subset on a weird matric. You might as well claim

> The fact that working hours today are more than they were for those who were unemployed last week is sufficient to say work hours have increased.

And (2) the accounting of free time is not comparable. Try being a subsistence farmer with 600 year old tools and see how much "free time" you have to pursue your interests.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •