ECONOMICS & FINANCE 101

Assuntos relacionados ao seu dinheiro.
Como Aplicar Seu Dimdim
Devo comprar dólar?

Postby mends » 14 Jul 2007, 12:10

bom, o exemplo crássico de supply side, no que se refere a impostos, é o caso do Brasilzão-Bananão.

Estou saindo pro sítio, depois escrevo algo sobre curva de Lafer.

E outra coisa, que sempre falei por aqui: economia não é ciência, apesar de tentar usar algumas ferramentas matemáticas aqui e ali. Economia é praxeologia, é o estudo da ação humana.
"I used to be on an endless run.
Believe in miracles 'cause I'm one.
I have been blessed with the power to survive.
After all these years I'm still alive."

Joey Ramone, em uma das minhas músicas favoritas ("I Believe in Miracles")
User avatar
mends
Saidero MegaGoldMember
Saidero	MegaGoldMember
 
Posts: 5183
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 18:45
Location: por aí

Postby junior » 25 Jul 2007, 12:06

http://nymag.com/arts/books/reviews/34981/

Who Wants to Be a Cultural Billionaire?
Economist Tyler Cowen aims to help us live richer lives, and maybe get our kids to do their chores.

* By Hugo Lindgren


If you had to pick between dining out in Stockholm or Port-au-Prince, where would you go? Sweden being one of the richest countries on earth and Haiti being one of the poorest, the choice seems obvious. Bring on the reindeer meatballs!

Unwise, says Tyler Cowen, the author of Discover Your Inner Economist, and that’s not because he has anything against eating reindeer.

If the quality of food is the sole mission, Cowen argues, look for contrary indicators. “Iron bars on the windows,” he writes, “and barbed wire on the fences, however bad for the residents or your own safety, are both good signs for the food.” The magic ingredient, he elaborates, is extreme income inequality, which ensures a large reservoir of cheap labor to grow and prepare the food, as well as a sufficient number of rich people who, being rich, must eat well. Voilà, good food in armored establishments. So hold that reindeer; bring on the banane peze!

Not so long ago, economists not named Milton Friedman mostly kept to themselves, impressing each other with their inscrutable theories. Now they’re the pop stars of academia. Spurred on by Freakonomics, the 2005 best seller by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, economists realized that, if only they can learn to communicate normally, they have the tools to explain people’s lives to them. Like, why won’t my teenage daughter wash the dishes?

Among this new crowd of economists, Cowen, a 45-year-old professor at George Mason University just outside D.C., is a cult hero, insofar as he co-runs an influential blog called marginalrevolution.com. You don’t need to be an economist to enjoy it. There are only a handful of posts a day, but the range of ideas is awe-inspiring. Cowen weighs in on everything from “wage compression”—when bosses give raises at a rate below productivity gains—to household pets, arguing that “if you must support the life of either a cat or a dog, choose the undervalued cat.” (Dogs’ friendly disposition increases the odds of their being well-cared for by other people, while the natural diffidence of cats makes them more susceptible to neglect).

What is most pleasurable about Marginal Revolution, though, is the heavy dose of cultural opinion and advice dispensed by Cowen. He is a world-class polymath who whips through graphic novels and 816-page bricks like Africa: A Biography of the Continent, listens to everything from Bach to Brazilian techno, searches out exotic cuisines all over the world, and still finds time to travel to remotest Mexico to update his collection of amate painting. For him, deep immersion in culture defines the good life, and his readers get the vicarious benefits.

With Discover Your Inner Economist, Cowen attempts to put serious economics in the service of self-help. He starts by arguing against money as the prime shaper of human behavior. “The critical economic problem is scarcity,” he says. “Money is scarce, but in most things the scarcity of time, attention, and caring is more important.”

In a highly discursive style, Cowen rockets from topic to topic, covering everything from how to talk your spouse out of buying a warranty on a new purchase (sound economics is on your side, but the cost to marital harmony is likely to exceed the cost of the warranty; so in other words, don’t fight over peanuts) to the reason a Malaysian woman spent 32 days in a glass room filled with 6,000 scorpions (she was attempting to “signal” her status in the world).

Cowen ventures where few economists have gone before; like when he takes on Neil Strauss, who theorized in his best seller The Game that attractive women respond favorably to men who treat them with indifference. Blarney, says Cowen: “A pure ‘hard to get’ strategy fails to satisfy what signaling theorists call—forgive the nerdspeak—‘a separating equilibrium.’ In other words, it does not sort (or ‘separate’) the winners from the losers. ‘Hard to get’ is too easy for the losers to mimic.” The good news for Strauss, says Cowen, is that he’s probably not as big a loser as he pretends to be.

The best sections of the book concern tactics for maximizing one’s cultural consumption, or what amounts to imitating Cowen. He lists eight strategies for taking control of one’s reading, which include ruthless skipping around, following one character while ignoring others, and even going directly to the last chapter. Your eighth-grade English teacher would faint. But the principle here is valuing the scarcity of your own time, which people often fail to do. It works for movies, too—Cowen will go to the multiplex and watch parts of three or four movies, rather than just sit through one. Why wait for a highly predictable ending when a fabulous scene might be unfolding in the movie playing next door? Cowen also offers advice for how to defeat the boredom that, despite our best intentions to be culturally literate, overtakes many of us minutes after we enter an art museum. How do we deal with this “scarcity of attention”? Pretend to be an art thief, he suggests—in every gallery, pick one picture that we’d like to run off with. Sounds juvenile, admits Cowen, but it “forces us to keep thinking critically” rather than daydream about the snack bar.

Cowen’s book does run up against another kind of scarcity. There are not enough economic tricks that distill neatly into interesting advice. When he discusses the techniques for motivating your dentist, like giving them a bonus for cavities well filled, he ends with, “I don’t think I can control my dentist or receive the very best care. By giving up this quest for control, however, I might get care that is just a little better than average.” Is that our Inner Economist talking, or our Inner Beaten-Down Dude?

Whatever good it does for everybody else, Discover Your Inner Economist has already rewarded its author. At the beginning of the book, Cowen discusses the resistance of his stepdaughter, Yana, to washing the dishes. After he and his wife resorted to paying her, “she did them for about a week and then stopped,” he says. “I knew this could happen. I understood that there is such a thing as intrinsic motivation and that if you pay people, you might weaken that. What I didn’t really get was the control issue. That when you start paying people to do a thing, they often see it as control.” Here’s the happy ending: After Yana read the book, she started doing the dishes. For free.
"Cosmologists are often in error, but never in doubt." - Lev Landau
User avatar
junior
Grão-Mestre Saidero
Grão-Mestre Saidero
 
Posts: 887
Joined: 13 Feb 2004, 11:55
Location: Sei lá... Em algum lugar com conexão a internet! :-)

Postby mends » 25 Jul 2007, 14:03

Bom, à Curva de Lafer...

O nome se deve a um baguá chamado Arthur Lafer, e a premissa básica da curva é diferente da que se encontra no texto. O seu mano escreveu que:

aren’t there people out there in the world who believe that raising taxes actually decreases revenue past some certain not-very-high tax rate?


A premissa não é essa, e sim se você já tem uma taxa de impostos relativamente alta, BAIXAR IMPOSTOS aumentaria a receita, porque traria gente para o sistema, gente que pratica elisão (evasão é crime, criminosos não “voltam” para o sistema), e porque deixa mais dinheiro na mão da iniciativa privada, QUE INVESTE MELHOR. Logo, o governo fica com um pedaço menor de um bolo maior.

Isso é tanto mais verdade quanto maior a inflação, porque a inflação é imposto indireto. No limite, se você tiver um imposto marginal de 99%, ninguém vai investir pra ganhar 1 em cada 100!!!!

Então, em uma taxa ALTA, baixar aumenta a receita porque traz gente pra pagar e aumenta o investimento. Perceba que é um modelo que só explica um comportamento humano, não é uma “teoria”. Isso é que dá ler sobre economia em algo chamado “cosmic variance”...

Mas uma taxa ALTA é uma taxa BRASILEIRA. Cortar uma taxa AMERICANA e CIVILIZADA de 33 pra 31.5% não tem resultado nenhum. Aqui dá pra concordar com o cara. É “intelectualmente desonesto” aplicar a Curva de Lafer aos EUA? Hoje sim, porque o custo de capital tá muito barato, e neguinho investiria de qualquer jeito. Mas nem sempre é assim, e talvez esse cenário seja efeito dos cortes promovidos lá atrás.

Agora, se o cara nem entendeu a teoria, não deveria criticar, certo?
"I used to be on an endless run.
Believe in miracles 'cause I'm one.
I have been blessed with the power to survive.
After all these years I'm still alive."

Joey Ramone, em uma das minhas músicas favoritas ("I Believe in Miracles")
User avatar
mends
Saidero MegaGoldMember
Saidero	MegaGoldMember
 
Posts: 5183
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 18:45
Location: por aí

Postby mends » 25 Jul 2007, 14:11

sobre a comida:

The magic ingredient, he elaborates, is extreme income inequality, which ensures a large reservoir of cheap labor to grow and prepare the food, as well as a sufficient number of rich people who, being rich, must eat well. Voilà, good food in armored establishments. So hold that reindeer; bring on the banane peze!


Convido todos a comer uma refeição com os aborígenes de Gana, que gostam de ânus de gazela cru - conforme pode ser visto no programa NO RESERVATIONS, de Anthony Bourdain. Sem tanta nojeira, que tal irmos à Escócia, comer estômago de carneiro recheado com miúdos moídos, o prato nacional HAGS?? Miúdos, insetos e deep fries são comidas da pobreza, em todas as culturas do mundo. Comidas que surgiram quando a comida não era abundante.
"I used to be on an endless run.
Believe in miracles 'cause I'm one.
I have been blessed with the power to survive.
After all these years I'm still alive."

Joey Ramone, em uma das minhas músicas favoritas ("I Believe in Miracles")
User avatar
mends
Saidero MegaGoldMember
Saidero	MegaGoldMember
 
Posts: 5183
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 18:45
Location: por aí

Postby junior » 26 Jul 2007, 08:16

Danilo, não vá para Gana!!!!!!!!!! :o :o :o :o :o :o

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:





Perdão, mas não podia perder o levantamento...
"Cosmologists are often in error, but never in doubt." - Lev Landau
User avatar
junior
Grão-Mestre Saidero
Grão-Mestre Saidero
 
Posts: 887
Joined: 13 Feb 2004, 11:55
Location: Sei lá... Em algum lugar com conexão a internet! :-)

Postby mends » 26 Jul 2007, 15:22

falando em impostos...

The Corporate Tax Myth
By R. GLENN HUBBARD
July 26, 2007; Page A13

Today Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson will lead a discussion on the effects of the corporate tax on our economy. It will, in part, be a political discussion, as Democrats want to increase taxes on corporate capital while Republicans want to cut the corporate tax rate (a position championed by President George W. Bush).

But the more interesting part of the discussion may well come on two issues: Whether corporate taxes are an effective way to raise revenue for the government. And, importantly, who really pays the tax.

Economists have stressed for generations that corporate taxes distort the allocation of capital between the corporate and noncorporate sectors and that they also distort corporate investing and financing decisions. This distortion prevents the tax from "efficiently" raising revenue -- that is, the tax imposes a larger cost on the economy than it raises in revenue.

In the early 1990s, both the Treasury Department and the American Law Institute recommended removing one layer of our current double taxation of corporate equity capital, which is subject not only to the corporate tax but to investor-level taxes on dividends and capital gains. In 2003, President Bush's tax cuts reduced -- though they didn't eliminate -- this double taxation.

That the corporate tax is inefficient in these ways is not controversial among economists.

A traditionally less-settled question has been one of incidence: Who bears the corporate tax burden? Some may be tempted with a quick answer, "corporations." But that is clearly wrong. The Econ 101 admonition that people pay taxes -- in this case, suppliers of capital through lower returns, workers through lower wages, and/or consumers through higher prices -- remains true even when the tax is aimed at capital. And the category "owners of corporate capital" (that is, stockholders) is also too narrow. In his celebrated analysis of the corporate tax almost 50 years ago, Arnold Harberger showed, for a closed economy, that a separate tax on corporate capital would reduce returns to all owners of capital, making it a tax on saving (and, in a framework more general than Mr. Harberger's, on investment).

Recent research has cast an eye in a somewhat different direction, showing that the tax may be borne not entirely (or even principally) by owners of capital, but by workers. Globalization plays a role. In an open economy, with mobile capital, a source-based tax like the corporate tax will lead to a capital outflow, reducing investment and productivity and wages. Indeed, Mr. Harberger's updated research on the incidence of the corporate tax concluded that labor bears not just the brunt of the tax, but a burden that may be larger than the tax itself.

In other research assuming that the world-wide capital stock is fixed, William Randolph of the Congressional Budget Office finds that labor bears about 70% of the corporate tax. More generally, the burden on labor is higher to the extent that saving is responsive to after-tax returns and the country has a small effect on world prices of goods.

Most of this research has relied on theoretical models, albeit sometimes with parameters calibrated from actual experience. But direct empirical tests of the effects of openness, corporate taxes and their combination on workers' wages tell a similar story.

A recent paper by Kevin Hassett and Aparna Mathur of the American Enterprise Institute analyzes data across countries and over time, concluding that for countries that are part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a 1% increase in corporate tax rates results in a 0.8% decrease in manufacturing wage rates. (Economic intuition suggests significant negative effects of the corporate tax on manufacturing wages because of the complementarity of capital and labor for skilled workers.)

Wage effects of this size suggest labor bears much of the burden of the corporate tax. In fact, workers collectively would be better off if they voted for higher taxes on labor with corresponding cuts in the corporate tax.

Sound crazy? Well, while this economic research has been carried out in the U.S., tax action has occurred abroad. Not only has the U.S. corporate tax rate been high by the standards of the rest of the industrial world, but other countries continue to reduce their rates.

A recent survey and study by KPMG shows, for example, that competition for investment continues to drive down tax rates around the globe, with further cuts in the pipeline from China, Germany, Singapore and Britain, among others. The desire for these cuts comes in part from the significant responsiveness both of real investment and taxable income to corporate tax rates.

Among our European competitors, reductions in corporate tax rates are being financed by increases in consumption taxes, akin to the "vote" I described earlier. This is also similar to the fundamental tax reform advocated by many economists, where corporate taxes are replaced by consumption taxes.

How much offsetting revenue (or lower government spending) would we need to finance a cut in corporate taxes? The answer is not entirely clear. The old economists' maxim of "broaden the base, lower the rates" is sound advice, though economically wise base-broadening alone is not likely to finance a significant rate cut.

Recent research by Michael Devereux of the University of Warwick suggests, though, that the revenue-maximizing corporate tax rate in OECD countries is likely less than 30%. That is, higher corporate investment (and subsequent corporate profits and corporate tax revenue) and shifts in taxable income by multinational firms will substantially reduce the revenue "cost" of a corporate rate cut from the present 35% to, say, 30%.

Cutting the corporate tax rate would be positive for investment, productivity and economic growth. It would also reduce a tax burden now borne in large part (or even entirely) by labor, bolstering wages. And business responses to the tax cut will offset much of the "static" revenue cost.

I think Secretary Paulson is on to something.

Mr. Hubbard, dean of the Columbia Business School, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush.
"I used to be on an endless run.
Believe in miracles 'cause I'm one.
I have been blessed with the power to survive.
After all these years I'm still alive."

Joey Ramone, em uma das minhas músicas favoritas ("I Believe in Miracles")
User avatar
mends
Saidero MegaGoldMember
Saidero	MegaGoldMember
 
Posts: 5183
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 18:45
Location: por aí

Postby mends » 05 Aug 2007, 16:23

De como os vagabundos nos roubam
Ando meio sem tempo para posts originais - tentando criar um negócio, o que me toma muito do tempo livre - só me aproveitando do acesso que a rede nos dá para modestos updates via copy & paste.

Mas não podia deixar de mencionar a greve do metrô em São Paulo na semana passada.

Despautério. É a palavra que me vem à cabeça, menos por conta da dificuldade e de ficarmos reféns de vagabundos do que pela insanidade da principal reinvindicação: a participação no lucros do metrô.

Ora, qual o impacto de qualquer funcionário, por mais graduado que seja, na “perna” de receitas do metrô? Porque, claramente, com novas estações e maior acesso do púbico, foram as receitas que aumentaram.

O impacto de funcionários em uma empresa tão guiada - seja pelo mercado, como no caso das indústrias de commodities, por exemplo, seja em monopólios, com poder de fixação de preços - se dá na outra perna: a dos custos operacionais. E pago um pirulito para quem me mostrar que os custos diminuiram de forma tão clamorosa para que cada funcionário receba 2000 dólares de bônus.

Como se trata de monopólio estatal, mesmo que não se ande de metrô, paga-se por ele. MESMO QUE NÃO SE ANDE. Desconheço motivo mais justo para a privatização: paga pelo serviço quem o usa. Se a utilidade advinda do serviço é privada, alocável diretamente a um indivíduo, o serviço NÃO É PÚBLICO.

E, mesmo que a tese do serviço público fosse aceita, e tendo o metrô gerado lucros, ele não deveria ser todo reaplicado em mais serviços à população, ou uma diminuição, em dez centavos que seja, no preço da passagem? Sendo serviço público, como os esquerdistas gostam de dizer, não há que se preocupar com lucros. Tendo-os gerado, PORQUE CARGAS DÁGUA ELES SÃO DISTRIBUÍDOS ENTRE A “CASTA” DOS FUNCIONÁRIOS? Ou um serviço só é público quando o interesse é a manutenção de empregos obsoletos de vagabundos e incompetentes?
"I used to be on an endless run.
Believe in miracles 'cause I'm one.
I have been blessed with the power to survive.
After all these years I'm still alive."

Joey Ramone, em uma das minhas músicas favoritas ("I Believe in Miracles")
User avatar
mends
Saidero MegaGoldMember
Saidero	MegaGoldMember
 
Posts: 5183
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 18:45
Location: por aí

Freeconomist

Postby Danilo » 01 Dec 2008, 22:27

Economista britânico (sem-noção) tenta viver um ano sem dinheiro

Mark Boley, de 29 anos, faz parte de uma espécie de movimento conhecido na Grã-Bretanha como “Freeconomist” (economista livre, em tradução literal). Durante os próximos doze meses, ele pretende morar em um trailer emprestado em uma floresta nas proximidades da cidade de Bristol, no oeste da Inglaterra. O trailer é equipado com um painel solar e um fogão à lenha e o banheiro será um buraco no chão.

"Quero ver como é a vida sem ganhar dinheiro na civilização ocidental", diz Boley, que diz estar cansado do "destrutivo sistema capitalista" e acredita que pode fornecer seu conhecimento para conseguir o que precisar sem receber dinheiro em troca. Para garantir a alimentação, Boley vai depender da comida que conseguir encontrar ou plantar, além de doações.

"Tenho me preparado bastante nos últimos dois meses, mas o desafio vai ser em relação às coisas para as quais não posso planejar - um braço quebrado, exaustão ou, no pior dos casos, luto na família", disse o britânico. Boley já tentou fazer um outro experimento, de andar até a Índia sem gastar dinheiro, mas a tentativa terminou em Calais, na França, onde não conseguiu explicar o projeto no idioma do país e teve de voltar para Bristol.

(fonte: http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/reporte ... t_aw.shtml)
User avatar
Danilo
Saidero MegaGoldMember
Saidero	MegaGoldMember
 
Posts: 3230
Joined: 10 Sep 2003, 22:20
Location: São Paulo

Re: ECONOMICS & FINANCE 101

Postby mends » 02 Dec 2008, 16:39

hippies malditos!

acumularam gordura com a grana que papai investiu na sua formação, graças ao destrutivo sistema capitalista - fosse em outro, ele teria que ter origem "nobre", seja na aristocracia nobiliárquica, seja na partidária - e depois querem que vá tudo às favas...vai entender um cara com tanta m... na cabeça...
"I used to be on an endless run.
Believe in miracles 'cause I'm one.
I have been blessed with the power to survive.
After all these years I'm still alive."

Joey Ramone, em uma das minhas músicas favoritas ("I Believe in Miracles")
User avatar
mends
Saidero MegaGoldMember
Saidero	MegaGoldMember
 
Posts: 5183
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 18:45
Location: por aí

Previous

Return to Economia