This article has an interesting thesis: the false belief that prices have an allocative function but merely a redistributive one explains most of the economic BS heard over the past decades.
One implication of the false belief above is that taxes and minimal wages don't affect the price of labor and thus employment. Under such false belief, of course taxes and minimal wages are a no brainer! 🤦♂️
Another implication of the false belief above is that, if a state wants to make a good cheaper, it can just cap its price with a law. Because the false belief implies that prices don't affect supply, doing that has no externality other than capping company profits: good! 🤦♂️
The Italian article linked above provides more examples, but the thesis is simple: neglecting the allocative function of prices (i.e., their influence on supply and demand) is enough to explain most economic BS of the past decades.
And, perhaps, of future ones.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Controls are so lax, *and expected to be so lax*, that any punishment of such behavior will be a trolley problem of punishing some “genuinely unaware of managed trades” or inciting trading by controllers.
The less clarity and focus on Core Values, the more trolley problems later
Almost all “enforcement trolley problems” are downstream a lack of clarity in boundaries and/or low frequency of a violation to be caught
We want frequent controls to ensure the likelihood that large violations are malicious, thus more moral to prosecute.
Instead, allowing the risk of large violations by “genuinely honest but distracted” people (or who interpreted a grey area differently) makes it harder morally to prosecute violations: a vicious circle (less prosecution → less common knowledge of rules → more violations).
A very common example: a top manager asks all supervisors to communicate change X to their teams. Supervisors know they can’t do X or can’t communicate X as desired (because of some valid reason the top manager might not be aware of) but silently sit in the meeting until the end
Interestingly, the above will be seen as a trust violation by the managers (“you didn’t do what you promised”) but probably not by the supervisors (“you asked me something I couldn’t do [because of a lack of resources / problem Y / etc]”).
WHY IT'S WRONG TO MAKE ANALOGIES WITH ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE RE: COVID, AND WHY VACCINES DON'T CREATE VARIANTS
The principle:
- antibiotics & vaccine select for variants but don't create them; what creates them is transmission
This matters because…
(short thread)
2/ Antibiotics are used after symptoms, where millions of viruses are already in the body, and some can *already have mutated* to escape the antibiotic (and thus get selected), whereas vaccines are already there before the virus that got in can reproduce
3/ Also, drugs are more specific in the enzymes or proteins that they can attack, whereas vaccines lead to many times of antibodies, casting a wider net.
2/ I want policemen who abuse their powers to be fired, and reasonings such as the above get into the way of that, seeming to imply that laws define humanity – a very dangerous premise.
But humanity isn’t determined by rules; it’s what happens regardless of the rules.
3/ Reasonings such as the above are divisive, focusing on partisanship & putting values eg humanity on the sidelines.
I hate the usual advice of sandwiching feedback (say something good, then something bad, then something good). It created a generation of people who think they are good at giving feedback just because they're sandwiching it – with terrible results
Here is some better advice
1/N
First of all, avoid sandwiching.
If people know about it, the moment they hear you say something good, they'll roll their eyes, think "here comes the bad part", and disconnect.
This is bad:
- it prevents listening
- they don't trust the "good part,” thus not getting motivated
Second advice: BE SPECIFIC.
Generic feedback, such as "your presentation was boring", gets taken personally thus ignored.
Instead, specific feedback, such as "there was too much text in your presentation", has more chances of being listened to.