Angry Bear

This is the result of the "Peltzman effect" or "risk compensation." If you make it so that failure does not sting so much, people take more risks. Bad for car safety, but great for business creation. We've long had a schizophrenic relationship with business creation in this country. We lionize it. We glorify it. However, we also require people who do not already have plenty of money / family backing to potentially put everything on the line for it. It's where our love of business crashes head first into our "dog eat dog, every man for himself, lift yourself up by your bootstraps, everything that happens to you is your own fault" ideology. We say "you can do anything if you try!", but then also tell you "but you cannot afford to risk it." If we combined the American culture of entrepreneurialism and free enterprise with Denmark's level of safety nets and free higher education, we could probably do a lot more amazing things than we are now. There are likely plenty of people who could make brilliant contributions (to business, technology, art, science, etc.), but are forced to take what they perceive to be the least risky path in their lives, and so never even attempt to get off the ground with their ideas. That's just sad. http://angrybearblog.com/2012/01/peltzman-effect-why-economic-growth-h…

I used to read this--don't recall why I stopped. It's a bit more politics/world-events slanted, but you can filter it for an economic focus. https://angrybearblog.com/category/usglobal-economics

remdesivir https://angrybearblog.com/2020/03/novel-coronavirus-and-better-unsafe-…

>So you're both [edit: all] saying that Congress is being paid (by who? UPS/Fedex?) to screw USPS over. Lobbyists who want it privatized so it can be milked. Just like social security or a myriad of other things. >Do you have any citations? http://angrybearblog.com/2015/03/epic-fail-for-the-postal-service-the-… >Why wasn't this mentioned in the article if it's such a well-known scheme? Because the Economist is a neoliberal rag. They're about as likely to say "maybe free market orthodoxy isn't all its cracked up to be" as they are to start running op eds by dreadlocked union leaders.

One guy in his pajamas caused a market crash? How many of these events will it take to cause a fundamental rethink of the financialization of our economy? Where are the supposed benefits to justify finance gobbling up more than a third of corporate profits [0]? When will we finally see a financial trading tax [1] that ends High frequency trading (HFT) for good? [0] http://angrybearblog.com/2012/01/where-has-all-money-gone-part-ii.html [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax#United_States_f…

Does anyone have an opinion on why Denmark has such a high household debt to income ratio [1]? At 300% plus debt to income, they're basically the most indebted households on earth. Debt per adult is 4th highest in the world [2]. The median wealth per adult is similar to the US, but they're carrying twice as much debt [3]. That would seem to be an extreme threat to future happiness. It seems very out of place with the culture. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-06/world-s-highest-hous… [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult [3] http://angrybearblog.com/2014/10/u-s-median-wealth-up-from-27th-to-25t…

This is the essence of the Peltzman Effect (http://www.angrybearblog.com/2012/01/peltzman-effect-why-economic-grow… and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation) "Risk compensation (also Peltzman effect, risk homeostasis) is an observed effect in ethology whereby people tend to adjust their behavior in response to perceived level of risk, behaving less cautiously where they feel more protected and more cautiously where they feel a higher level of risk. The theory emerged out of road safety research after it was observed that many interventions failed to achieve the expected level of benefits but has since found application in many other fields."

This is not a freedom index. This is a freedom from government index. Apparently it's cool if you're oppressed by your neighbor playing loud music all night or the company upstream dumping toxic waste into your water supply but we've stepped over the line if the government steps in and tries to actually price negative externalities like you know Hayek[1] and Friedman[2] endorsed. [1] http://businesspublicpolicy.com/?p=1186 [2] http://www.angrybearblog.com/2007/10/friedman-externalities-and-differ…

"tax revenue is 18% of GDP no matter what tax rates are" Not really. http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/11/hausers-law-is-extremely-misleadi… "it is corrupted by government regulation" It is corrupted by people. If we had no government it would still be corruptible. "These are basic economic principles." Like if I have a bigger gun than you, I get the rewards? Oh, you mean principles that we agree to in the form of government? Principles which are arbitrary and chosen by humans and vary from market to market! Yes, those "principles".

Here's an example of the kind of sloppiness which this judge, and with some luck, others like him across the country, is fighting against. "Countrywide goes Kafka" http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/07/countrywide-goes-kafka-first-pers…

With all due respect raising taxes that high is a straw man. I'd be all for raising taxes if it worked but it doesn't. Nation states are competitive entities and they compete for the world's resources. If the U.S. dramatically raises taxes on the rich then emerging countries like Hong Kong see an opportunity and lower their tax rates. Then you start to see capital flee the U.S. for overseas. That's why per capita tax receipts have stayed fairly consistent over time even though the tax rate has fluctuated: http://www.angrybearblog.com/2007/09/comparing-presidents-real-tax-rec… Don't get me wrong. We could and should raise taxes to the highest levels we can. But there's a threshold where it becomes cheaper for rich people to hide their money than it is for them to pay higher tax rates. When we cross that threshold we see tax revenue start to drop. So while I'm in favor of raising taxes I don't think we can raise taxes to the point where it would get us out of this mess.