One that should be obvious by now, relatedly: (4) The Settling it Once and For all Fallacy: the only way to stop us being forced to bang on about Europe forever is actually being in the EU. Everything else forces it to be #1 issue, all the time
Oh I almost forgot: (5) The WTO Contradiction. This is when you maintain that trading on WTO terms with the EU is just fine, and also that merely WTO terms with the likes of Indonesia or Paraguay is so awful we needed to tear up everything and leave the EU in order to get Deals
And here, (6), is a marvellous example of what is widely known as the Rees-Mogg Self Own: no deal Brexit is all the fault of the Irish and will also make us ONE TRILLION POUNDS
"Technology means faster communication & much more access to information. An interconnected/richer world doing more research means more competitors...while clearly good, they reduce the technological excludability of new ideas" 1/
(my abbreviations).
From this piece about the rise and fall of Industrial Laboratories, which were so effective in their time (Xerox PARC, etc) - yet are not found today. That insight may help explain the economics of it 2/ worksinprogress.co/issue/the-rise…
Also this thought: startups are not the whole answer, because the smaller the company, the larger the spillover problem (the biggest problem in underfunding R&D) 3/
As @ChrisGiles_ pointed out in our podcast, the rise coming in April may amount to 4% of disposable incomes -the sort of hit you only normally see in a recession
2. Voters can't help seeing energy prices as government business
3. The price cap has shielded households from the immediate impact of soaring gas prices. And these have soared FAR past the levels that DECC forecast they might reach in 2013-5 when planning energy policy. Forecasts of high and variable prices were jeered at back then by many 3/
I too like the idea that "security" is a key policy value that parties should be promoting (see Don Paskini tweet). But the problem is that the evidence is not all that good for insecurity to have risen as much as it feels 1/
There is a debate to be had: should we want higher growth but with more unsettling dynamism, or better security-for-all? I tend to favour growth, because it gives you the resources to handle the collateral damage of volatility. But ...2/
... there are strong rebuttals. One is to refute the premise. People can have security and flexibility/dynamism - likee Danish flexicurity system. Another: the stability of fewer jobs moves as @resfoundation explore is not the point. Other forms of insecurity *are* worse 3/
Challenge yourself by reading Oliver Lewis' praise for his now-departed boss Lord Frost conservativehome.com/platform/2021/… and you find a link to Frost's lecture from February. Frost makes a particular claim about trade 1/
Attacking the (multiple, almost unanimous) studies saying Brexit makes us poorer, Frost says this, and in particular questions whether the decline in trade will really hurt productivity so badly. 2/
(He calls it "unproven" decline in trade, but the OBR can pretty much refute him - see charts).
Anyway, I have long read that lower trade lowers productivity, and it stands to reason. Trade and comparative advantage, the essence of what the market does - who questions that ? 3/
Now suppose it is, in terms of hospitalisations, about as dangerous as Delta. That is - about 10 days after a case number, the daily hospitalisation number is 2% of that. You would expect two curves like this 2/
Now, just take out the lag and look at the ratio of day X's hospitalistions over that *same* day's cases, you get this (which is what we are appearing to see right now - 900 hospitalisations, 90,000 cases, a drop to 1%) 3/
Rereading Josh Lerner's 2009 book on failed attempts to help Entrepreneurship. On Venture Capital he notes that support is often subject to distortions, such as "pressure to 'spread the wealth': to ensure each region gets its fair share of venture subsidies..."
Just imagine 1/
Evaluating SBIR, he observes how congressmen successfully lobby for it to be in every state. The effectiveness drops drastically when the funds go to the places judged deserving rather than on merit ... 2/
Yes, the contrary force is the (wicked) "Matthew Effect" = "to every one who has will more be given" = or agglomeration.
Sometimes, it is successfully leaned against. Taiwan. Always Taiwan ...
3/