Sigh

Downtown developers have complained that COTA passengers waiting for transfers near Broad and High streets, and buses lining the curbs make the area less attractive for retail stores and their customers...

Transit-dependent riders who are going through Downtown, for whatever reason, don’t shop… Large numbers of people waiting for a transfer can be intimidating for someone walking down the sidewalk.

Translation: People who buy things want to be protected from knowing about and interacting with people who are too poor to buy things.

From Sociological Images.

Even Goldman-Sachs

Even Goldman-Sachs will admit that unemployment insurance is good for the economy.

A Labor Department report shows that for every $1 spent on unemployment insurance, $2 are spent in the economy. If you don’t believe the Labor Department, maybe you’ll believe Goldman Sachs analyst Alec Phillips, who estimates that if unemployment benefits are allowed to expire, the American economy would slow by a half a percent.

From Robert Reich

Quick Keynsian Quote

From Marinner Eccles, chairman of the Fed, to Franklin D. Roosevelt, March 6, 1935 (quoted by Robert Reich):

Given the “totally inadequate” amount of money the administration is prepared to spend to jump-start the economy, there’s no reason “to expect any substantial improvement. If we spend some every year, but not sufficient to give the required stimulus to private expenditures, we can build up a large debt and still not be out of the Depression.”

Relatedly, from the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, we consider whether or not Obama is a Keynsian:

BMI and PPM

From bakadesuyo:

Compared with a normal population distribution of BMI, a population with 40% obese requires 19% more food energy for its total energy expenditure. Greenhouse gas emissions from food production and car travel due to increases in adiposity in a population of 1 billion are estimated to be between 0.4 Giga tonnes (GT) and 1.0 GT of carbon dioxide equivalents per year.

A reminder that reality is complex

From Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.

TV advertising induces consumer debt?

From Bakadesuyo:

We examine whether advertising increases household debt by studying the initial expansion of television in the 1950's. Exploiting the idiosyncratic spread of television across markets, we use micro data from the Survey of Consumer Finances to test whether households with early access to television saw steeper debt increases than households with delayed access. Results indicate that exposure to television advertising increases the tendency to borrow for household goods and the tendency to carry debt. Television access is associated with higher debt levels for durable goods, but not with the total amount of non-mortgage debt. We provide suggestive evidence that increased labor supply may drive our results. The role of media in household debt may be greater than suggested by existing research.

De-Mankiw

I like Greg Mankiw because, among conservatives, he's reasonable. The problem, however, with providing reasoning for opinions is that one can now argue against them.

From his recent NYT Op-Ed:

Suppose that some editor offered me $1,000 to write an article. If there were no taxes of any kind, this $1,000 of income would translate into $1,000 in extra saving. If I invested it in the stock of a company that earned, say, 8 percent a year on its capital, then 30 years from now, when I pass on, my children would inherit about $10,000. That is simply the miracle of compounding.

This is all correct, but his premise illustrates the first problem. The reason why we're not concerned about the wealthy (as he puts it, "almost completely sated") getting a big tax cut is because they can afford to save it. Saving is good, but it's not an economic stimulus. Give the same size of tax cut to someone who is in far greater need, and the person will spend it soon, and in aggregate, generate jobs.

After summarizing all the taxes that would impact this previous situation, his conclusion:

HERE’S the bottom line: Without any taxes, accepting that editor’s assignment would have yielded my children an extra $10,000. With taxes, it yields only $1,000. In effect, once the entire tax system is taken into account, my family’s marginal tax rate is about 90 percent. Is it any wonder that I turn down most of the money-making opportunities I am offered?

This is all also correct. But again: is this a problem? You are "almost completely sated." If you turn down the offer to write an article, then someone else gets that same offer. If all the people who are almost completely sated (as well as the completely sated ones) find the offer equally unimpressive, the person accepting the offer to write the article will almost certainly be in a position to spend it sooner and stimulate the economy, as well as advance his or her own career.

Perhaps you wish that your favorite singer would have a concert near where you live. Or, someday, you may need treatment from a highly trained surgeon, or your child may need braces from the local orthodontist. Like me, these individuals respond to incentives. (Indeed, some studies report that high-income taxpayers are particularly responsive to taxes.) As they face higher tax rates, their services will be in shorter supply.

This too is correct, but has an implied fear tactic. The subtext is, "tax your doctor too much and you won't get any health care!" There are, however, plenty of capable people who want to do these jobs, who are just waiting for others to step out of the way.