The economics thread

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

Where do you sit on economic theory?

Complete free market (anarcho-capitalism)
0
No votes
Free market with minimal government intervention (neo-liberalism, Liberal Party)
3
50%
Free market with government intervention to correct market errors and flaws (Keynesian, Labor Party)
3
50%
Complete government control (socialism, communism)
0
No votes
Other
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 6

User avatar
-TW-
Mal Meninga
Posts: 30556
Joined: July 2, 2007, 11:41 am

Re: The economics thread

Post by -TW- » June 2, 2014, 2:23 pm

Canberra Milk wrote:Christopher Pyne came out and said that deregulation of uni fees will increase competition, thereby driving prices down. Surely he's having a laugh:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6938840772
Wouldn't the aim of that to go back to free market supply and demand, rather than set fees.

Therefore theoretically it should be cheaper to go to somewhere like uc rather than Sydney uni based simply on supply and demand..

So yes some will be less.. But the top unis will cost a lot more

User avatar
Toviii
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10404
Joined: March 10, 2012, 8:11 am
Favourite Player: Rapana

Re: The economics thread

Post by Toviii » June 2, 2014, 5:28 pm

Green eyed Mick wrote:@ Toviii.

I take it you don't agree with the $7 Co-Payment. What is your position on the signifcantly more expensive co-payments specialists charge?

I was recently out of pocket nearly $200 to have a thankfully benign but troubling mole removed. That was after having to schedule 2 appointments with my GP. The first to tell me the mole should be removed and the other for my doctor to decide he wasn't sure and I should see a specialist. I was billed ($20 Co payment) for each appointment.

If I was a more cynical person I would suggest the current fee structure many medical professionals have in place, even before the $7 co payment does a fantastic job of further burdening the public hospital system and discouraging people from seeking timely treatment.
Yeh, it's not ideal. Obviously with the amount that some specialists charge, and the waiting time that it takes to see others, it can delay a person's diagnosis and management of conditions that are outside the scope of your typical general practitioner. I think one of the best things governments can do for health is making primary care as accessible as possible (bulk-billing is an important part of that, as is ensuring that communities have a doctor-population ratio that matches their needs). The stronger the primary care, the less downstream impact that is placed on hospitals, and specialists to an extent as well (particularly those who deal with patients who are suffering chronic disease complications).
'I've got 17 blokes in that dressing room that are hurting'

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24636
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The economics thread

Post by Manbush » June 2, 2014, 6:14 pm

Part of the Medicare problem is some providers are ripping off the system. Medicare is cracking down and investigating more than they used to at least(a doc got busted last year claiming 500patients daily which was impossible).

Dr Zaius should be able to confirmm one way or another about minimum appointment times, I know with eye tests we can't claim the full amount for an appointment if its under 15minutes but you go to a doctor and some chase you out ASAP now looking for a quick fix rather than more thorough check.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Toviii
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10404
Joined: March 10, 2012, 8:11 am
Favourite Player: Rapana

Re: The economics thread

Post by Toviii » June 2, 2014, 8:59 pm

Manbush wrote:Part of the Medicare problem is some providers are ripping off the system. Medicare is cracking down and investigating more than they used to at least(a doc got busted last year claiming 500patients daily which was impossible).

Dr Zaius should be able to confirmm one way or another about minimum appointment times, I know with eye tests we can't claim the full amount for an appointment if its under 15minutes but you go to a doctor and some chase you out ASAP now looking for a quick fix rather than more thorough check.
Pretty sure the minimum is ten minutes from the GP clinics I've been placed at. Zaius can correct me if I'm wrong.
'I've got 17 blokes in that dressing room that are hurting'

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44079
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The economics thread

Post by The Rickman » June 2, 2014, 9:07 pm

No he can't.

Bloke has fair dinkum no idea.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24636
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The economics thread

Post by Manbush » June 2, 2014, 11:26 pm

Toviii wrote:
Manbush wrote:Part of the Medicare problem is some providers are ripping off the system. Medicare is cracking down and investigating more than they used to at least(a doc got busted last year claiming 500patients daily which was impossible).

Dr Zaius should be able to confirmm one way or another about minimum appointment times, I know with eye tests we can't claim the full amount for an appointment if its under 15minutes but you go to a doctor and some chase you out ASAP now looking for a quick fix rather than more thorough check.
Pretty sure the minimum is ten minutes from the GP clinics I've been placed at. Zaius can correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't think I've had one for about 15yrs that lasted that long. I rarely go to the doctors but they never last more than 5 minutes, if I have a couple of issues they'll only listen to one and make me book a another appointment which I never do at $85 a pop (rebate about $30) It's what I get for going to one in the CBD I guess but I should really query the bill next time.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44079
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The economics thread

Post by The Rickman » June 3, 2014, 7:28 am

Hang on a minute, you can't fool me... this is just the Politics thread!!!
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The economics thread

Post by T_R » June 3, 2014, 8:25 am

This has absolutely nothing to do with Economics, but if you say 'Nickman' with a Japanese accent 'Nickuman' it means 'Meat Dumpling'.

I have no idea why I find that so funny.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24636
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The economics thread

Post by Manbush » June 3, 2014, 8:50 am

Cause you've seen him is my guess
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44079
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The economics thread

Post by The Rickman » June 3, 2014, 9:51 am

Manbush wrote:Cause you've seen him is my guess
Bet you I'm fitter than you these days, fatty.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Canberra Milk
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10757
Joined: January 6, 2005, 8:44 pm
Favourite Player: Leipana

Re: The economics thread

Post by Canberra Milk » June 3, 2014, 10:53 am

This is true, economics and politics are so intertwined these days they're almost synonymous. In that it's hard or impossible to talk about one without referring to the other.

Eg the $7 co-payment is more towards a user-pays system, which is more towards the free market. That is, the relationship is more direct between the patient and doctor, with less government mediation.

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24636
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The economics thread

Post by Manbush » June 3, 2014, 10:58 am

The Nickman wrote:
Manbush wrote:Cause you've seen him is my guess
Bet you I'm fitter than you these days, fatty.
Guessing you're right, I haven't popped anymore buttons past few weeks though :lol:
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Canberra Milk
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10757
Joined: January 6, 2005, 8:44 pm
Favourite Player: Leipana

Re: The economics thread

Post by Canberra Milk » June 3, 2014, 10:59 am

Stuat wrote: On Keynes. Keynsian economics isn't really right or left. If you look at governments from the left and right, all of them out in place Keynsian economic policies when the GFC hit. As was oft quoted at the time "we are all Keynsians now". Many of those policies weren't big enough, but they undoubtedly helped reduce the pain of the GFC across the world. It's instructive that many of the countries that have taken longest to recover were the ones that pulled economic stimulus first or put in less stimulus to begin with. Keynsian economics is really just a small subset of economics that only deals with crashes. Its aim to simply to redress a market failure in those times. It was used to good effect by Howard/Costello in the Asian financial crisis, it was used to good effect by Rudd/Swan during the GFC.
What would you say is the economic basis for leftist politics then? I guess as someone else said, Labor is pretty much free market these days as well, private sector etc.

Stuat
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6860
Joined: July 9, 2005, 9:41 am

Re: The economics thread

Post by Stuat » June 3, 2014, 12:41 pm

Canberra Milk wrote:
Stuat wrote: On Keynes. Keynsian economics isn't really right or left. If you look at governments from the left and right, all of them out in place Keynsian economic policies when the GFC hit. As was oft quoted at the time "we are all Keynsians now". Many of those policies weren't big enough, but they undoubtedly helped reduce the pain of the GFC across the world. It's instructive that many of the countries that have taken longest to recover were the ones that pulled economic stimulus first or put in less stimulus to begin with. Keynsian economics is really just a small subset of economics that only deals with crashes. Its aim to simply to redress a market failure in those times. It was used to good effect by Howard/Costello in the Asian financial crisis, it was used to good effect by Rudd/Swan during the GFC.
What would you say is the economic basis for leftist politics then? I guess as someone else said, Labor is pretty much free market these days as well, private sector etc.
It depends if you are taking politics or academic economics. The GFC showed, that politically, both the left and right embraced Keynes wholeheartedly across the globe. It was really only the libertarians on the right pushing Heyak etc. Same goes for neo-liberalism, it has been embraced on the left and right, which is why you see left wing parties pushing carbon pricing and free market solutions to social problems.

The difference politically comes down to values not economics. The economic tools on both sides are similar. So you get the right wanting price signals on healthcare but not on CO2, the left wanting a price signal on CO2 and not on healthcare. The difference there is values, rather than economics per se, they are both using similar economic tools to try and achieve what they want to achieve.

In terms of Australian politics, Hawke/Keating were probably our most "pure" neo-liberals. To an extent they destroyed the "old" differences between both parties in terms of economic fundamentals. The major differences now are value based IMO. Economics of course comes into it, but the left is going to argue about the value of a social safety net, universal healthcare, equality etc, the right the value of lower taxes, business friendly policies, moving to a more user pays social system etc. Which is mainly values rather than economic tools, the tools they are using will be similar- they just value different things.

Of course in academia, the old rivalries are still vibrant, but I don't think those are front and centre in terms of politics, at least in Australia anyway.

You are also seeing interesting dynamics pop up in the states, with the "outsider" right agreeing with a hell of a lot of stuff from the "outsider" left. Stuff like cutting the size of banks to avoid moral hazard, reinstating the Glass-Seigall act, ending corporate welfare, opposing free trade agreements designed by big corporations, increased protections of freedoms after the NSA stuff etc. Those are issues that parts of the left and right in America pretty much wholeheartedly agree on, despite their values being diametrically opposed (while the centre of both the left and right agrees that those aren't things they want).

A lot of that's stems from a feeling that the political system mainly serves "insiders" and not regular people. The same dynamic and populism is also behind the rise in popularity of outsiders like Palmer in Australian politics. The feeling that both the majors "suck" and nobody speaks for "me" and that at least Palmer isn't "one of them".

So politically there is a load of interesting stuff going on. A lot of that ties into economic debates, like the one raging about equality etc sparked by occupy wall st and now Picketty, but I think at the moment anyway a lot of that is being driven by forces such as alienation from politics and populism.

User avatar
-TW-
Mal Meninga
Posts: 30556
Joined: July 2, 2007, 11:41 am

Re: The economics thread

Post by -TW- » June 3, 2014, 11:59 pm

Canberra Milk wrote:This is true, economics and politics are so intertwined these days they're almost synonymous. In that it's hard or impossible to talk about one without referring to the other.

Eg the $7 co-payment is more towards a user-pays system, which is more towards the free market. That is, the relationship is more direct between the patient and doctor, with less government mediation.
So you can argue also that's a tariff aimed at driving down demand (little old ladies wanting a chat), rather than a revenue gauge?

There's a strain on the health system which this should reduce some of.. but at the end of the day with an ageing population it will make minimal difference as if you are in need of treatment, you will pay it.

User avatar
Canberra Milk
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10757
Joined: January 6, 2005, 8:44 pm
Favourite Player: Leipana

Re: The economics thread

Post by Canberra Milk » June 6, 2014, 11:17 pm

Interesting article by "Dr Doom" Steve Keen:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/art ... -diversity

It refers to a professor Pietrenero who refutes the principle of comparative advantage, apparently having numerical data to show that it only applies to companies, not countries, and that countries actually suffer economically from being too specialised.

The more telling implication is that previous economic theory, despite being taught as fact, is not gospel as many would have you believe.

User avatar
Seiffert82
Mal Meninga
Posts: 21875
Joined: March 17, 2007, 12:24 pm
Favourite Player: Bay56

Re: The economics thread

Post by Seiffert82 » June 9, 2014, 10:07 am

Ricardian trade theory is sound, but like any other basic economic model it is hamstrung by its assumptions, particularly when it comes to manufactured goods. Comparative advantage theory assumes things like goods being perfect substitutes (a fundamentally terrible assumption unless you're talking about raw materials), zero trade costs/barriers and it doesn't really address the question of absolute and effectual demand, political drivers or economies of scale/scope.

But I agree that none of those basic theories should be taught as gospel unless it is given some sort of context. I think the irony of the truth behind these theories is that they are generally exploited by policy makers to engineer trade barriers and industry protection measures to exploit and leverage such advantages - which basically screws the underlying assumption of using trade to optimise overall utility for everybody.

Post Reply