ameetgaitonde

Tariffs are incredibly regressive, add in the likely job losses and wage losses, and poorer people are going to be the biggest losers.

What makes you think the United States has lost hard economic assets? Also, have you considered that there are different types of innovations, that are affected by the structure of an economy and its research institutions?

The US has dominated radical innovations, China has excelled in incremental innovations. We're potentially throwing away our advantage in the former by decimating our research capacity (something conspicuously absent in your concept of what drives innovation), and there is no clear plan to take the necessary steps to rebuild our capacity in the latter.

He's just describing Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.

Can you please explain it, because I'm very curious what you believe is the truth.

A tax on personal unrealized capital gains will not take away any money from the company. It's privately-held, and has no effect on a company's balance sheet.

I really don't like how the OP phrased this one, because it's about more than knowing the value of your car.

This paper was published in 1970, but it demonstrated how markets can fail, as well as a method of correcting that failure. Imagine the following scenario:

There's a used car market of private sellers that is comprised of a mixture of peaches (good) and lemons (bad). To keep it simple, let's assume we're just talking about one model of car.

Additionally, there's no way to identify which car is a lemon, but it's known that they're worth much less than a peach because of the much higher cost of maintenance.

If you have a market where the above conditions exist (only seller knows if car is lemon/peach, and a mixture of lemons/peaches), you'd potentially end up with a market failure.

This is because sellers of peaches can't get the price they want for their car, whereas sellers of lemons can profit over the expected value of theirs.

The problem with assuming that lemons would be removed from the market is that any buyer of a lemon would want to sell it once they've realized what they purchased, putting it back on the market. This effect compounds to where a greater percentage of cars being sold on the market are lemons, further depressing the price and removing peaches from the market.

Akerlof's solution to fix the market was to introduce warranties. Owners of peaches would be willing to offer warranties, because they trusted the quality of the cars they were selling. Eventually, buyers would see the lack of a warranty as the indication of a car being a lemon, forcing the sellers of lemons to either offer a warranty or lower their asking price below the market price of the vehicle.

His work applied to the function of other markets, like insurance (older people are the costliest for health insurance companies) and employment markets (Certain classes of people have difficulty finding a job despite similar skills), as well as the institutions that have formed (Medicare, professional licensing) to improve the functioning of these markets.

Sorry, I didn't read carefully. Thanks for correcting me.

Edit: I was wrong, he's doing exactly what I thought he wasn't. See Hannibalhorn's comment below for more details.

I'm glad he supports Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV), but I think he's going about this the wrong way.

Right now, he's creating a new third-party within an electoral system that effectively defaults to two existing and dominant parties. Those two parties currently control every federal and state legislature and/or election committee that has the power to alter how elections are run.

Working against them, in a system that is extremely hostile to third-parties, makes it very hard to effect change because you are almost always guaranteed to be a loser, and be viewed as an opponent.

If his interests are truly about implementing RCV nationwide, a better course of action would be to endorse and campaign for the Democratic and Republican candidates that are willing to commit to implementing RCV.

In any state where you can get a filibuster-proof majority of those candidates elected, you would have a much better chance of changing the electoral system.

Simply put, lobbying for RCV would be more effective than introducing a third-party within our current electoral system.

I like to wander around art museums, and on one visit, I shared a gallery with what seemed like a private tour group.

One woman was conducting the tour for three people, when they stopped at one of these all-white paintings.

She was describing the potential meaning behind the work, and noted that sometimes the artist expresses textures, or covers some background work.

It's hard to describe, but I felt this sort of absurdist joy when I watched all four of them lean in very closely for half a minute, only to discover absolutely nothing unique about the work in its texture or color.

Maybe sometimes art isn't made for the observer, but the observer's observer.

Jackson Palmer is Australian