It is tongue-in-cheek because there are a lot of people to the left of it, but kind of captures what people that think that economists are conservative get wrong
And, yes, there are of course some people above it, but it is academia so not a lot.
Since kids are mostly unvaccinated everywhere, the most likely interpretation here is that effectively unvaccinated adults are putting kids in hospitals nytimes.com/interactive/20…
Yes, base rates for kids are still low but they are growing (and driven by unvaccinated places).
Just your regular externalities in action.
And just browsing this map is shocking. What the hell Arthur County, NE. 16% vaccinated?! Just 40% among 65+?!
It could be coincidence - around the same time everyone was becoming eligible so the run up and the decline could be related to that. Maybe supply, but J&J was fairly small anyway.
But, the whole PR around it made zero sense.
#EconTwitter was up in arms when the suspension happened. Do we know epidemiology and medicine? No. But, the extent of risk was public knowledge and the whole thing made no freaking sense. Even if you were extremely risk averse, you should've warned young women and that's it
There are 170,000 gas stations in the US. Did we subsidize building them? Tax carbon and let the market figure out how many charging stations to build and where
UEFA consists of 55 national federations. To give an example I'm familiar with, the Polish one (PZPN) has 6679 registered clubs and 500,000 registered players (the country of 38m people). There is a pyramid of different levels of competitions - youth, amateurs, professionals /1
That's a lot of teams (my hometown of 300,000 people has 6, but there is a village of 350 people close by that has one & it competes in a league), a lot of money, a lot of vested interests and a lot of politics too. You have good (inclusivity), bad (corruption) and opaque. /2
What we are seeing is partly bargaining between the small number of teams at the top and the rest and partly an attempt to extract more consumer surplus (and maybe grow the market too), with UEFA and national federations insiders threatened in the middle /3
As promised: long and boring thread about income vs consumption tax. TL;DR they are not as different as you might think. Income taxation distorts saving and consumption taxes are harder to make progressive in the short term, but they are close cousins
Let’s start with (national) income identity:
Labor income (L)+Capital Income (K)+Transfers (G) -Taxes (T)=Consumption (C)+Saving (S)
where T should be thought of here as taxes other than consumption/income tax that we are about to introduce.
I’ll mostly ignore foreigners 2/29
What would be an income tax? It’d be a tax on the left hand side or it could also be a tax on L+K (not the same from distributional and political economy standpoint, but I’ll put it aside). I’ll mostly ignore T and G and think about L+K. 3/29
Time for my substantial comments about the @gabriel_zucman and Emmanuel Saez tax series. I'll run with numbers for top 0.01%, over 1962-2014. I'm still to fully digest top 400 and projections to 2018. So, first things first: the QJE and the paper show different patterns:
Just to make sure it is not missed: these are very different patterns. Between 1962 and 2014, the QJE series shows 3.3pp drop. The book one shows 18.7pp drop. Volatility differs to.
What makes them different? This (improved) animation illustrates and the thread goes over it more slowly: