196 responses to “Sandbox – 25jun15”

1. 

   Don Bessee

   25 June 2015

   Scratch, sniff, sniff, ahhhh clean kitty litter. So the other big SCOTUS decision today on housing is going to have long term implications that are being lost in the 0/scotus care decision. So now my friends they are free to force section 8 housing into middle, upper-middle and upper cost neighborhoods. This with literally no consideration of the financial impacts on the home owners. IF this is implemented like the language in 0’s housing suits it will amount to a taking from everyone in the neighborhood and those in closer proximity to a greater extent without compensation. Realtor says- Sure its a beauty for 1.5m on the golf course but there is a section 8, 20 unit across the street with no off street parking. Hey, I gotta disclose, its the law.

   LikeLike

2. 

   Scott Obermuller

   25 June 2015

   Ah, yes – the ‘disparate impact’ rule. I’d like to know why this doesn’t apply to Govt Motors. They sell some cars that most of the ‘African American Community’ can’t afford. This is obvious racism. Why aren’t a certain % of Cadillacs set aside in order to have the Cadillac buyers reflect a proper amount of ‘diversity’?
   You think I’m kidding? I just applied the exact logic that is now in force with other stuff we buy.
   Let the crickets sing!

   LikeLike

3. 

   George Rebane

   25 June 2015

   Regarding the notion of ‘externalities’ as they relate to Gross National Income. Externalities are cited (usually by the Left) as something that is formalized beyond debate in accounting circles. In my readings on the topic I have not found that to be true. I would like to have someone give me a citation that resolves the matter so I can expand my GDP defining flowchart (shown above) to include GNI, and unambiguously communicate the relationship showing how the code and regulatory compliance costs figure into the whole equation. Until you write the equation, and/or draw the computational flow, you have only bullshit to back your arguments about how compliance costs with absorbed externalities are accounted. Can anyone help?

   LikeLike

4. 

   Todd Juvinall

   25 June 2015

   GeorgeR, I think the people who say they know all about economics and are proven correct are non existent. All the numbers and all the forecasts are really a crock. Too many variables, just like “global warming” computer models. The government is in every single thing that is produced in our economy. From the mining to the growing to all the things needed to do anything. That cost is huge. It must be at least half. I get a kick out of the economists who, when something happens say, “economists were surpriesed…” They never get it right!
   One need only look at the “airbag” fiasco. Billions will be spent in all this and the cause? Eight people were allegedly killed when an airbag inflated for some reason. The cost benefit means nothing as long as the liberal can make someone else pay the bills and they can feel good about themselves. The Steve Frisch copy/paste fest here was a good indicator that he knows diddly squat about economics.

   LikeLike

5. 

   Steven Frisch

   26 June 2015

   I love the conservatarian cartoon of GDP above. Must be nice to be able to just make shit up and pretend it is real based on your own view of the world.
   I provided the definition of GNI George, and noted the real cost of regulation is included in the overall measurement of all economic activity in the economy, because if regulation has a real cost in hiring lawyers, increased construction cost, complying, or correcting issues identified, etc. it is captured. Perceived costs are as you said etherial externalities.
   I never cited externalities nor stated they should be included, I responded to someone else citing externalities (the ‘cost’ of regulation) and stated that if they are counted, all externalities had to be counted.
   Seriously Don, the court decision simply upheld an existing fair housing law that has been in place for 45 years. If there are no brown people living across the street from your friggin golf course already they probably won’t be there in multi-family housing any time soon.

   LikeLike

6. 

   Ben Emery

   26 June 2015

   Lets get this out of the way first.
   Print $ = money from nothing
   Here is a blog post on negative externalities presented in a way you might appreciate.
   http://www.env-econ.net/negative-externality.html

   LikeLike

7. 

   fish

   26 June 2015

   Lets get this out of the way first.
   Print $ = money from nothing
   …and getting that out there first does or explains….. what?

   LikeLike

8. 

   fish

   26 June 2015

   Posted by: Steven Frisch | 25 June 2015 at 07:45 PM
   Can you point me to that post Fish since clearly you are following it…and I mean the whole post not an edited version.
   From the 19 June 2015 – Caudaphobia – The Tragedy of the Tails thread
   

   Posted by: Gregory | 20 June 2015 at 01:17 PM
   Of course I would not ‘trash the world’s economy’ I would grow it..exponentially.
   Posted by: steve frisch | 20 June 2015 at 02:15 PM

   LikeLike

9. 

   Todd Juvinall

   26 June 2015

   Fish as you can see Steveie is just a blowhard and if he cannot find it to copy/paste from Wiki he is clueless. He never intended to explain how he would grow the econmy exponentially. In truth, his business model sucks dollars from the economy and robs the “commons” of taxes in a number of different ways.
   Lastly, he has no people of color in his employ apparently yet comes here to tell us all how “racist” we are. He is just the Truckee Troll. What a hoot!

   LikeLike

10. 

    Steven Frisch

    26 June 2015

    Posted by: fish | 26 June 2015 at 04:28 AM
    Ah, I see what you are referring to Fish. I would probably walk that back slightly and not use the word ‘exponentially’ if I were not caught up in the passion of countering Greg’s claim that I supported, “trash[ing] the world’s economy.”
    But I am on record here strongly supporting capitalism (which i think my friend Ben would back me up on) and for a combination of heavy investment in infrastructure, education (including STEM which George supports and would likely back me up on if not HOW we support eduction), investment in research and development of new products and services, trade liberalization (with stronger environmental and labor standards), regulatory reform including sunsetting regulations and benchmarking them against desired outcomes, and a regulated market economy which would create amore stable platform for economic growth. You may disagree with some of those things, but I sincerely believe that they would grow the economy and spread benefit to a broader range of stakeholders.

    LikeLike

11. 

    Steven Frisch

    26 June 2015

    Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 26 June 2015 at 06:13 AM
    Todd, only an idiot like you would consider sourcing information a bad thing.

    LikeLike

12. 

    Todd Juvinall

    26 June 2015

    Steve Frisch, you are too funny. Copy/paste king of the blogs. No mind of his own. And you call me names. What a hoot!

    LikeLike

13. 

    fish

    26 June 2015

    Posted by: Steven Frisch | 26 June 2015 at 06:25 AM
    Darn the luck….I thought we were going to hear about something more substantial.

    LikeLike

14. 

    fish

    26 June 2015

    Can’t buy historical games about the Civil war from the App store anymore….
    Guess I’ll have to salve my racist soul with this!
    http://www.amazon.com/hitler-Funny-Hashtag-Ceramic-Coffee/dp/B00TDBCI8Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435326965&sr=8-1&keywords=%23hitler+coffee+cup

    LikeLike

15. 

    Steven Frisch

    26 June 2015

    Posted by: fish | 26 June 2015 at 06:30 AM
    Yeah well I am just conforming to the culture of the blog where substance is never rewarded with thought and trite comment is heralded as wisdom.

    LikeLike

16. 

    fish

    26 June 2015

    Posted by: Steven Frisch | 26 June 2015 at 06:44 AM
    ….and you do it magnificently.

    LikeLike

17. 

    George Rebane

    26 June 2015

    SteveF 340am – are you disputing the correctness of my GDP “cartoon”?

    LikeLike

18. 

    fish

    26 June 2015

    Damn….without the mob you progressives would truly be neutered!
    A cop can shoot a guy under the sketchiest of circumstances and the state will protect him/her with every ounce of determination it can muster.
    But commit a real crime…..a thoughtcrime like this arch fiend did and you’re in a soupline.
    http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2015/06/25/charleston-officer-fired-after-posting-confederate-flag-photo-on-facebook/

    LikeLike

19. 

    Steven Frisch

    26 June 2015

    Posted by: George Rebane | 26 June 2015 at 06:50 AM
    No I am disputing the contention that no ones given you a rationale for how regulatory compliance fits into GDP. Costs associated with compliance are economic activities, thus they are in GDP. Perceived costs or lost opportunity are not economic activities thus they are not in GDP. They are externalities.

    LikeLike

20. 

    Todd Juvinall

    26 June 2015

    Here I’ll help Steve Frisch, I went and did a Frisch copy/paste on the word externalities. His favorite copy/paste location Wiki.
    “In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.”
    Now Stevie, use your noggin and tell us where that definition fits into GDP, GNI, BOLO etc., so all us dummies can hold you in awe. I know you can do it, your mouse is itching.

    LikeLike

21. 

    Todd Juvinall

    26 June 2015

    Fish 6:57 AM link
    Yes, America can and does lose its way when all the usual suspects from the left jump on board the bandwagon of “outrage”. Let no one get in the way or you will be run over. The sale of pitchforks to the liberals is at an all time high. Hillary has the biggest one to ward of the little people she so dissed while First Lady of Arkansas during the celebration of the Confederate Flag day there. You just can’t make this stuff up.

    LikeLike

22. 

    Steven Frisch

    26 June 2015

    Todd if you could read for comprehension you would see I have already answered your question.

    LikeLike

23. 

    Steven Frisch

    26 June 2015

    Oh man, I am going to love sitting back and watching the heads explode here over the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage.

    LikeLike

24. 

    fish

    26 June 2015

    Posted by: Steven Frisch | 26 June 2015 at 07:25 AM
    Why? Gay marriage generally isn’t a topic that sets this blog aflame.
    Is there something you want to tell us Steve?

    LikeLike

25. 

    Steven Frisch

    26 June 2015

    Let’s not forget where all this talk of GINI. GDP, externalities and inaccuracy started….it started with Greg’s wild asses guess that “…the Feds spend half the national income….” which is clearly full of crap.

    LikeLike

26. 

    fish

    26 June 2015

    Posted by: Steven Frisch | 26 June 2015 at 07:32 AM
    Sorry….forgot you’re the only one permitted hyperbole!
    Our bad!

    LikeLike

27. 

    fish

    26 June 2015

    Now this is funny…… today John Roberts takes an interest in the law.
    JOHN ROBERTS DISSENT ON GAY RULING:
    ‘Celebrate availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate Constitution. It had nothing to do with it’…
    What is this Constitution of which you speak?

    LikeLike

28. 

    Todd Juvinall

    26 June 2015

    People want to marry pets, other same sex people, a log, hey have at it. Whatever makes you happy. Steve Frisch, do you have something you wish to tell us?

    LikeLike

29. 

    Todd Juvinall

    26 June 2015

    Oh besides, the rumors that Kennedy may be a well, you know, wink wink, had nothing to do with the decision. LOL!

    LikeLike

30. 

    Steven Frisch

    26 June 2015

    Yes Fish and Todd, your grade schools are calling, they want their investment in your future back.

    LikeLike

31. 

    fish

    26 June 2015

    Posted by: Steven Frisch | 26 June 2015 at 07:56 AM
    ????
    (Usually your snark is of better quality than this……you were up late last night though…..I’ll chalk it up to fatigue.)

    LikeLike

32. 

    Jon

    26 June 2015

    Great piece in the Times today. Love the possible Fox News motto.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/opinion/a-refuge-for-racists.html

    LikeLike

33. 

    Jon

    26 June 2015

    Todd, much more likely it would be Alito with the wink, wink, wink.

    LikeLike

34. 

    George Rebane

    26 June 2015

    SteveF 701am – I do have a different definition of externalities – “In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.” So to me and others of my ilk externalities are actually known dollar amounts that an agent experiences in his cash accounting. You have a different, more ephemeral definition – “Perceived costs or lost opportunity are not economic activities thus they are not in GDP. They are externalities.” But I hope that we can now benefit from knowing each other’s ‘externalities’ when we use the term.
    But my real question is extracting regulatory compliance costs from GDP in a recognizable way that can be used to expand the above diagram. Such costs are directly measurable and thus suffered by agents/companies in a dollar and cents manner. They show up on two of a businesses main financial control reports – cashflow, sources & uses of cash. Their actual (out of pocket) dollar sums have been tallied by various organizations. When I was a manufacturer, it was easy for my CFO to do that accounting and report to me the number. It is that component in computing GNI that I haven’t seen, and am looking for someone to point me to the equation. (I’m still on the prowl for it myself.)

    LikeLike

35. 

    fish

    26 June 2015

    <i.Posted by: Jon | 26 June 2015 at 08:15 AM
    What’s that sound……very faint……faint…….
    Ah Tim Egan……blowing his dog whistle…….good thing you and Steve can hear his frequency.

    LikeLike

36. 

    Todd Juvinall

    26 June 2015

    Steve Frisch 7:56 AM, is that the best you can come up with? Jeeze. Anyway, my education and hard work made it possible to put millions of free enterprise money through the system. The system gained hundreds of thousands in taxes from my efforts. I employed many people and from all walks of life and numerous racial and ethnic backgrounds.
    You on the other hand according to you, bankrupted a business, got liened by local, state and federal tax agencies, took $250,000 of the employee withheld payroll taxes and spent it somewhere, and supposedly paid it off a few years ago. I think the system has been shortchanged by you not me. You are a tax taker Frisch, a leach on the systym and I know you are proud of it. What a hoot!

    LikeLike

37. 

    Todd Juvinall

    26 June 2015

    Jon, Alito is totally hetro. There have been rumors of Kennedy from the days of his college years in Sacramento.

    LikeLike

38. 

    Steven Frisch

    26 June 2015

    First, we are not defining the term differently, I agree with the definition you posted; my comment was specific to how you were using ‘externality’ and the predisposition here to count negative externalities but not count positive externalities. (we can just use air quality as a proxy).
    Second, only on and I have actually posted to source material counting externalities from OMB and Reason (I suspect neither agreeing on the others figures). I guess if you wanted to include them in GNI you would go through the reason report, count up all the direct costs, and deduct them from the domestic economic activities component of GNI.

    LikeLike

39. 

    Steven Frisch

    26 June 2015

    Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 26 June 2015 at 08:26 AM
    Seriously Todd, you are 12.

    LikeLike

40. 

    Barry Pruett

    26 June 2015

    Going to Pelline’s blog for political commentary is like going to Riebe’s for sushi. Pointless.

    LikeLike

41. 

    Steven Frisch

    26 June 2015

    Posted by: Jeff Pelline | 26 June 2015 at 08:40 AM
    Now that you mention it I known many more civilized 12 year olds.

    LikeLike

42. 

    Scott Obermuller

    26 June 2015

    I’m surprised jon is still posting here after making a total ass of himself in his posts under the SCOTUS post by George.
    from jon at 8:50 from the ‘The Really Supreme’ posts:
    “Thanks Scott. But I know you would be willing to sacrifice that clean air if your net tax rate went up and cost you a few bucks. I know your MO. No worries, Idaho is going to be great for you. Very low minority and immigrant population as well.”
    jon has yet to provide any proof to back up that idiot claim about clean air and I have already given the reasons I’m moving to Idaho and those reasons have nothing to do with the racial make-up of the population. But then I was curious about the difference (if any) and did a quick Wiki check.
    It turns out Canyon County ID, is 83.1% white and Nevada County CA is 93.4%!
    Can’t reply to the ‘low immigration population’ snark, since everyone is either an immigrant or descended from immigrants – I’m guessing he means illegal immigrants and I have no numbers on that. If there is less illegality in Idaho, does jon have a problem with that?

    LikeLike

43. 

    fish

    26 June 2015

    Posted by: Barry Pruett | 26 June 2015 at 08:53 AM
    Barry I’m shocked….it’s a veritable intellectual roundtable going on over there among the various voices in jeffys head….and the occasional guest star.

    LikeLike

44. 

    George Rebane

    26 June 2015

    StevenF 832am – not sure what positive externalities I have omitted from the accounting. If I understand your air quality proxy (for things like roads provided by government), then the amount of its cost/benefit as an externality would already be accounted for in the various taxes, tariffs, fees, … paid by individuals and businesses to enable government to provide. In short, accounting wise it is a wash. Do you agree?

    LikeLike

45. 

    Todd Juvinall

    26 June 2015

    Steve Frisch, what did I write about you above that was untrue?

    LikeLike

46. 

    Todd Juvinall

    26 June 2015

    BarryP, you went to the Pelline blog? Shameful, LOL. But Frisch and all of Pelline’s sock puppets at least are giving each other kudo’s. You just can’t make this stuff up.

    LikeLike

47. 

    Todd Juvinall

    26 June 2015

    Externalities are not part of the total. It is like the left a few years ago telling us all that the YEW tree could not be harvested since it cured breast cancer or something like that. So how do you put a amount of that? You can’t.
    Government in our country is supposedly created and maintained by the consent of the governed, that’s us. We are the government. Frisch and Elizabeth Warren don’t know what they are talking about regarding “you didn’t build that”. All that was built was done woth the dollars from the consent of the governed.

    LikeLike

48. 

    Ben Emery

    26 June 2015

    Ouch! You guys are having a tough week. But maybe you are celebrating the liberty and freedom same sex couples now will be able to enjoy.
    Fish,
    Print $ = money from nothing is significant since Print $ is what feeds the rest of Georges figure. We are borrowing money made from nothing to feed an economy and fund government debt.

    LikeLike

49. 

    Ben Emery

    26 June 2015

    George,
    You will have to go to the link for the graph.
    http://www.env-econ.net/negative-externality.html
    ECON 101: Negative Externality
    Negative_externality_4 Consider the standard demand and supply diagram with pollution (click on the thumbnail to the right for a bigger image). An unregulated market leads to equilibrium price and quantity determined at the intersection of the supply, or marginal private cost (MPC), curve and the demand curve: P1, Q1.
    Consumers and producers enjoy the gains from this equilibrium. The consumer surplus is the difference between willingness to pay (height of the demand curve) and price: area a + b + c + d. You enjoy consumer surplus every time you buy something and get a “good deal.”
    The producer surplus is the difference between the revenue earned on each unit (P1) and its marginal cost of production: area f + g + h (note that f includes the tiny triangle below P1 and above the MSC curve). Producer surplus is equivalent to profit without the fixed cost (e.g., monthly lease payments that don’t change with output).
    Unfortunately, production of Q generates some harmful side (i.e., external) effects such as fewer healthy days, fewer recreation opportunities, etc: marginal external cost = MEC. If these costs are constant then the full costs to society of production of Q is the marginal social cost curve: MSC = MPC + MEC. The external costs of Q1 are equal to area c + d + e + f + g + h. (Nothing in the conclusions changes if the MEC is increasing in Q0.
    Environmental regulation is designed to get firms to “internalize the externality” by considering the external costs of production. If firms face a constant pollution tax on each unit of output so that they face production costs equivalent to the MSC curve then the new market equilibrium will be P2, Q2. The regulated product market will have a higher price and lower quantity.
    At the new equilibrium, consumer surplus is area a and producer surplus is h. Government revenue is area b + c + f. The deadweight loss (DWL) of the tax is d + g (poof!). However, the avoided external cost is equal to d + e + g. Therefore, the net benefit of the environmental regulation is d + e + g – d – g = e > 0 (MEC – DWL). A benefit-cost analysis would indicate that the pollution tax is an efficient policy.
    Now imagine that the environmental policy is command and control (and assume that abatement costs of command and control are the minimum abatement costs): firms are required to use a clean technology. In this case the producer surplus becomes area b and area c + f + h is simply the higher production costs associated with pollution abatement: the increased capital and labor devoted to pollution reduction.
    Jobs are lost as output decreases from Q1 to Q2 but jobs are gained with activities associated with pollution control. If the pollution control activities are more labor intensive than production of the good, then jobs might be created as a result of environmental regulation. Yet, these jobs represent an additional cost of production and the benefit-cost analysis conclusion is as before. Counting abatement costs c + f + h as beneficial jobs without recognizing the offsetting loss of producer surplus (i.e., profit) to the polluting firm is to confuse costs and benefits.

    LikeLike

50. 

    Gregory

    26 June 2015

    “Ah, I see what you are referring to Fish. I would probably walk that back slightly and not use the word ‘exponentially’ if I were not caught up in the passion of countering Greg’s claim that I supported, “trash[ing] the world’s economy.” – Frisch, 6:25AM
    What you keep calling for, a worldwide shift away from fossil fuels driven by political mandates, not economics, would trash the world’s economy.
    “Of course I would not ‘trash the world’s economy’ I would grow it..exponentially.” -Frisch
    Must be nice to be able to just make shit up and pretend it is real based on your own view of the world.

    LikeLike