Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

The Simpsons on Immigration

A post from 2006 on immigration by Kash Mansori seems timely…

The Simpsons on Immigration

Kash | March 28, 2006 1:31 pm

Simpsons aficionados among you already know that the Simpsons addressed the issue of immigration back in 1996, in the episode “Much Apu About Nothing”. Here’s a summary of the beginning of the episode, thanks to Wikipedia (Btw, I never would have guessed that Wikipedia contains entries on individual Simpsons episodes…)

On an ordinary day, a bear strolls onto Evergreen Terrace. It is quickly subdued by the police, not before accidentally shooting and capturing Barney Gumble. Homer rants about these “constant bear attacks”, even though this is the very first bear Ned has seen in his forty years of living on that street. Homer then leads an angry mob and demands that Mayor Quimby do something about this. Soon, the Bear Patrol is created, a useless organization which even makes use of a B-2 Spirit. Homer then gets just as shocked [as] when he saw the bear when he discovers that taxes have been raised five dollars to maintain the Bear Patrol.

After that, the angry mob returns to the mayor’s office, yelling “Down with taxes! Down with taxes!” The mayor has to do something…

Quimby: Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?

Assistant: [Takes a moment to check his clipboard] Dumber, sir.

Quimby: They want the bear patrol but they won’t pay taxes for it. This is a situation that calls for real leadership. [Opens the door to his office to confront the angry mob.]

People, your taxes are high because of illegal immigrants!

Moe Szyslak: Immigants! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them.

Let’s not confuse fiction with reality, though. I certainly can’t believe that politicians in real life would ever raise the issue of immigration to cover up for their failures in other areas of policy, such as taxes, government spending, income inequality, education, health care…

Kash

Postscript: I’ve written in the dialogue from memory, so forgive me if it’s slightly off.

Comments (2) | |

Special elections

Five Thirty Eight‘s Harry Enten offers thoughts on current special elections for Congress:

So, keep an eye on the special elections over the weeks and months to come. Next Tuesday, voters in traditionally red Georgia 6 will cast their ballots. If Democrat Jon Ossoff wins, it would be yet another sign that Republicans are in trouble nationally. If Republicans there do better than expected, it could indicate that California 34 and Kansas 4 are outliers.

Comments (1) | |

High Cost of Our Finance Sectors

Via Truthout

Published on Mar 23, 2017
In the March 2017 Taxcast: the high price we’re paying for our finance sectors – we look at staggering statistics showing how the US finance sector is a net drag on their economy.

Featuring:

John Christensen and Alex Cobham of the Tax Justice Network, and Professor of Economics Gerald Epstein of the University of Masachusetts Amhurst. Produced and presented by Naomi Fowler for the Tax Justice Network.

Comments (0) | |

Noah Smith: “Why the 101 model doesn’t work for labor markets”

by Sandwichman

Noah Smith: “Why the 101 model doesn’t work for labor markets”

At Noahpinion:

A lot of people have trouble wrapping their heads around the idea that the basic “Econ 101″ model – the undifferentiated, single-market supply-and-demand model – doesn’t work for labor markets. To some people involved in debates over labor policy, the theory is almost axiomatic – the labor market must be describable in terms of a “labor supply curve” and a “labor demand curve”. If you tell them it can’t, it just sort of breaks their brain. How could there not be a labor demand curve? How could there not be a relationship between the price of something and how much of it people want to buy?

Funny thing is this is pretty similar to what Sandwichman is saying in Boundless Thirst for Surplus-Labor. The “lump of labor” is a partial equilibrium model and rebuttals to the “fallacy” also invariably rely on partial equilibrium models. They are both wrong.

Comments (3) | |

Italy And The Future Of The European Union

by Barkley Rosser   (Barkley Rosser is now a contributor to Angry Bear)

Italy And The Future Of The European Union

Given that Trumpfreak may guarantee relatively pro-EU politicians winning in France and Germany in the near term (France less certain than Germany), many are now looking at Italian elections next year as the next time when there may be a serious threat in a major EU nation of a leader being elected who may want to pull the nation out, following the UK example.  The most likely candidate for pulling off this feat would be Chiara Appendino, the current apparently fairly competent mayor of Turin, and the new rising star of the Fiver Star Party, with Rome’s Five Star mayor having gotten bogged down in corruption scandals, and long time party leader, Beppe Grillo, more likely to stay in the background.  Why might this come about, quite aside from the fact that the Five Star Party is now dead even with the ruling Democratic Party in polls after rising?

The obvious main explanation is that the Italian economy has simply been dead flat since around 2000, in contrast to the other large EU nations: Germany, France, UK, Poland, and Spain.  The latter certainly has had some worse experiences in the last decade and a half, notably a much higher unemployment rate.  But that has been coming down in more recent years as Spain has gotten it together and finally gotten growing, despite crises and debt issues.  Italy never had it as bad as Spain, and certainly never as bad as still declining Greece.  But its stagnation has begun to really sour, and those who claimed to fix it have fallen on their faces, with the EU itself increasingly putting unpleasant pressures on Italy that are drawing forth resentment.  The Five Star Movement may be semi-incoherent and contradictory in its populism, but it seems to be rising as the ruling PD (Partita Democratia) has increasingly floundered, and it has a strongly anti-EU position.

Tags: Comments (0) | |

Which Is More Important, China Or Syria?

by Barkley Rosser {originally published at Econospeak)

Which Is More Important, China Or Syria?

For the world as a whole and the US in particular, when it is put like that it is pretty obvious: China.  It has the world’s largest population, largest economy in PPP terms, a rising military, expanding interests around the world, including making territorial demands on several neighbors, not to mention being a nuclear superpower as well as cyberpower, and more.  Syria has a population of 22 million and an economy half the size of Puerto Rico’s.  It is not a major oil exporter.

However, last week it certainly looked like Syria was more important.  President Trump meets with President Xi at Mar-a-Lago, and almost nothing is reported about the meeting other than some vague remarks.  Important matters such as trade policy (the US has initiated an  anti-dumping suit against China in steel), South China Sea issues, North Korea nuclear testing issues (US has just sent a major naval group towards the place), issues over currency management (with Trump long charging China with currency manipulation, even though it is now widely accepted that while they did it in the past the Chinese are not doing so now), climate change (where China is becoming world leader on the international policy stage while Trump claims that global warming is a “Chinese hoax”).  They barely had a press conference, and what really went on in the meeting remains largely mysterious.

So, wow, much better to have the headlines and the commentaries taken up with the apparently one-shot firing of 59 Tomahawk missiles at a base in Syria, after apparently warning both the Russians and the Syrians we were going to do it, in response to a chemical attack in Syria that killed about 80 civilians, including some children.  This was certainly a bad attack, but it remains unclear if it was the Syrian military or some rebel groups, although probably it was the government, and if it was the government, it is unclear if it was done by some local commander on his own or with the explicit orders of President Assad, and if the latter, was it done with the foreknowledge of their allies, the Russians, and most especially President Putin.  The Russians and Iranians are claiming that the rebels did the chem weapons attacke and are denouncing the US attack.  But who really knows?  I sure as heck do not, and I  am not sure anybody in the US government knows either, especially given the 25 reasons that have since been given for this by various administration officials.

Comments (3) | |

Prime working age employment up, participation up (finally) – now how about wages?

by New Deal democrat

Prime working age employment up, participation up (finally) – now how about wages?

The March jobs report finishes the first quarter, which make it easier to update some labor participation trends, which, along with wages, has really lagged in this nearly 8 year old expansion.

In order to eliminate the issue of the huge Baby Boom generation retiring, and to a lesser extent college and graduate students, we have some good data on the prime age 25-54 demographic.

Historically, labor participation continues to decline after a recession ends, and picks up after the employment to population ratio does.  Put another way, people come off the sidelines and enter the workforces once the unemployment rate declines significantly.  Here’s the long term trend, comparing the YoY% change in each:

Now let’s zoom in on this expansion:

Comments (3) | |

Thank God it’s Boilerplate!: The Economist is lumping its labour

by Sandwichman

Thank God it’s Boilerplate!: It’s Thursday and The Economist is lumping its labour

The Economist and Jonathan Portes are at it again. “Lump of labor! Lump of labor!” The occasion? A proposal for a four-day workweek announced by the U.K. Green Party at their convention this week in Liverpool.

 The Economist pretended to find “two problems” with the Greens’ proposal:

The Greens’ proposals encounter two problems. First, the theory. They argue that the reduced hours worked by some could be redistributed to others in order to lower underemployment. They thus fall prey to the “lump of labour fallacy”, the notion that there is a fixed amount of work to be done which can be shared out in different ways to create fewer or more jobs. In fact, if people worked fewer hours, demand would drop, and so fewer working hours would be on offer.

Second, the cost. Increased productivity could cover some of the costs of paying a five-day wage for a four-day week, suggests Sarah Lyall of the New Economics Foundation, a think-tank. She points to a Glasgow marketing company that did just that, and experienced a 30% leap in productivity. But that is an astonishing increase to expect across the board.

First the theory: why does the idea of redistributing work require a “fixed amount of work to be done”? I can cut up a pie in many different ways. I can also cut two, three, many pies in different ways. In what sense does redistribution imply a constant amount? It doesn’t.

Comments (0) | |