Words & Numbers

Only twice has the U.S. House of Representatives impeached a president, and never has the Senate voted to remove an impeached president from office. People tend to think of impeachment as a judicial tool that should be used rarely and only when a president has broken the law in some egregious way. But impeachment was designed as part of the checks-and-balances. It is a political tool. On this week’s episode of Words & Numbers, join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they discuss what impeachment is and how the political process might work better if impeachment were used more often. Come to FEEcon 2019! Show Notes: Artificial intelligence learns to spot cancer Employment changes over the past century Sanders says that teacher salaries should start at $60,000 Foolishness of the week MSNBC asks political candidate how MSNBC can do better for him Topic of the week: Impeachment How does impeachment work? Join the conversation Words & Numbers Backstage Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter  Let us know what you think at: wordsandnumberspodcast@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

If the federal government disappeared, would there still be a United States? Does every country fall on a spectrum between two extremes, capitalism and communism? Are there any good reasons to restrict voting rights? This week, James Harrigan and Antony Davies answer questions about the subjective theory of value, debts to society, guns vs. butter, and plenty more in this week’s jam-packed episode of Words & Numbers. Come to FEEcon 2019! Foolishness of the week Pennsylvania Mayors Pew Poll on Views About Gun Regulation Topic of the week: Listener questions Join the conversation: Words & Numbers Backstage Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Let us know what you think at: wordsandnumberspodcast@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Americans, as individuals, carry a lot of debt. But don’t panic! Not all debt is created equal, and not all debt is necessarily a bad thing. Some debt—like mortgages, vehicles, even some college degrees—can be good debt. There are also bad kinds of debt, too. But the thing about individual debt is that it’s the individual's responsibility and really only the business of the borrower and the lender. Once the government gets involved, though, things can get messy. Just how messy and in what ways? Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they sort through the bills in this week’s episode of Words & Numbers. Come to FEEcon 2019! Show Notes: Amazon hiring robots $6 trillion war Foolishness of the week: Limiting credit card interest rates Topic of the week: Good debt and bad debt: Household debt Join the conversation: Words & Numbers Backstage Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Let us know what you think at: wordsandnumberspodcast@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Lately, headlines seem to focus on big companies that pay no corporate taxes. However, most of those big companies are still paying payroll taxes. So, have these big companies actually paid their fair share? Americans have their own tax burdens as well. How do we measure a fair tax for all incomes? How do people define what “fair” means? Join James Harrigan and Antony Davies as they cover progressive/regressive taxes, sales taxes, sin taxes, and more on this week’s episode of Words & Numbers. Come to FEEcon 2019! Show Notes: New York may ban glass and steel buildings Scientists discover how to convert blood to Type O Foolishness of the week: Treasury: US may have to stop borrowing Topic of the week: Taxes Amazon 1 Amazon 2 Join the conversation: Words & Numbers Backstage Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Let us know what you think at wordsandnumberspodcast@gmail.com Thought Experiment: Should the government tax buyers or sellers? Consider the following three scenarios. In all three scenarios, a seller sets a price and a buyer decides, based on the price, how many units to buy. The number of units the seller sells varies depending on the price the seller charges: Units sold = 100 - Price per unit For simplicity (and no meaningful reduction in realism) suppose that it costs the seller $40 for each unit the seller sells. In the first scenario there is no tax. This is a baseline against which we can compare the scenarios in which there is a tax. In the second scenario, the government imposes a $6 per unit tax on the seller. For each unit the seller sells, the seller must pay (in addition to the $40 cost of selling the unit) $6 to the government. In the third scenario, the government imposes a $6 per unit tax on the buyer. For each unit the buyer sells, the buyer must pay the seller’s price to the seller plus an additional $6 to the government. In each scenario, you can see the price that maximizes the seller’s profit. This is the price the seller will charge in that scenario. You can check the work by choosing a different price. You’ll see that any price other than the one shown results in less profit. At the end of each scenario, you see the final result: how much the buyer pays per unit and how much the seller receives per unit. Compare those results across the three scenarios to see something remarkable. Scenario 1: No Sales Tax Profit is maximum when the seller charges $70 per unit. Units sold = 100 - 70 = 30 Sales = $70 x 30 units = $2,100 Cost of goods sold = $40 x 30 units = $1,200 Profit = $2,100 - $1,200 = $900 → Buyer pays $70 per unit → Seller receives $70 per unit Tax the Seller $6 per Unit Sold Profit is maximum when the seller charges $73 per unit. Units sold = 100 - 73 = 27 Sales = $73 x 27 = $1,971 Cost of goods sold = $40 x 27 + $6 x 27 = $1,242 Profit = $1,971 - $1,242 = $729 → Buyer pays $73 per unit → Seller receives $73 per unit less $6 per unit tax = $67 per unit → Compared to No Tax, buyer pays $3 per unit more and seller receives $3 per unit less Tax the Buyer $6 per Unit Purchased Profit is maximum when the seller charges $67 per unit. Units sold = 100 - 67 = 27 Sales = $67 x 27 = $1,809 Cost of goods sold = $40 x 27 = $1,080 Profit = $1,809 - $1,080 = $729 → Buyer pays $73 per unit ($67 per unit plus $6 per unit tax) → Seller receives $67 per unit → Compared to No Tax, buyer pays $3 per unit more and seller receives $3 per unit less Conclusion It doesn’t matter whether the government taxes the buyer or the seller, they end up sharing the tax burden in the same way. The government decides from whom the tax is collected. The market determines who actually pays the tax.     No Tax Tax the Seller Tax the Buyer Sale price $70 $73 $67 Price seller receives (net of tax) $70 $73 - $6 = $67 $67 Price buyer pays (including tax) $70 $73 $67 + $6 = $73     Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

There’s no such thing as a free lunch or, in this case, a free college education, despite the promises of certain presidential candidates. The federal government already guarantees student loans. But what would happen if we just forgave all that student debt? What would it take, politically speaking, and what would it cost? And what’s the value of a college education these days, anyway? Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they tackle the topic on this week’s episode of Words & Numbers. Win tickets to FEEcon 2019! Quick hits Chalk on tires violates Fourth Amendment Phone surveillance Foolishness of the week Williams College is afraid of free speech Tuition at Williams College Tuition at University of Massachusetts Topic of the week: Free stuff is too good to be true Free college too good to be true Constitutional concerns about a wealth tax Wealth tax Join the conversation Words & Numbers Backstage Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Let us know what you think at: wordsandnumberspodcast@gmail.com     Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Many college students seem baffled or even outraged by opinions that differ from their own. We hear phrases like safe spaces, trigger warnings, and virtue signaling. What’s going on? Has the same psychology that caused religious persecutions returned? Has it infected the majority of students and faculty across the country, or just a vocal few? Guest Donald Boudreaux joins hosts James Harrigan and Antony Davies to sift through the loudest arguments coming from our nation’s universities in this week’s episode of Words & Numbers.  Win tickets to FEEcon 2019! Show Notes:  Nuclear fusion Artificial intelligence Cancer cure Longevity gene Cure for bubble boy disease Brian Lamb retiring Foolishness of the week: San Francisco: Poop in the streets Washington DC: Homelessness Seattle is dying Topic of the week: Silencing Dissent Donald Boudreaux Donald Boudreaux on Brett Kavanaugh and GMU Join the conversation: Words & Numbers Backstage Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Antony Davies on Minds.com James R. Harrigan on Minds.com Let us know what you think  at: wordsandnumberspodcast@gmail.com   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Getting paid for your blood—do you have any concerns? Many people are opposed to donors receiving compensation for ethical reasons. Should people only donate blood for altruistic reasons? Should we worry about exploitation? How much of America’s total exports are blood products? Join Antony Davies, James Harrigan, and their guest Peter Jaworski, co-author of the book Markets Without Limits, as they discuss the morality underlying the supply and demand of blood plasma around the world. Win tickets to FEEcon 2019! Show Notes: Deficit up 15% in 2019 Deficit up 17% in 2018 Tourism and Chernobyl Foolishness of the week: Illinois to raise smoking age to 21 Florida town makes it illegal to grow vegetables State of Florida overrules Florida town Topic of the week: Blood plasma sales: Peter Jaworski Letter to Senate of Canada regarding the ban on blood plasma sales Canada needs blood plasma We should pay for blood plasma donations Bans on blood plasma sales 1 Bans on blood plasma sales 2 Don’t end NAFTA, Canada needs your bodily fluids Join the conversation: Words & Numbers Backstage Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Peter Jaworski on Twitter Antony Davies on Minds.com James R. Harrigan on Minds.com Let us know what you think at: wordsandnumberspodcast@gmail.com   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Wage gap myths, middle class success, and hate crime statistics are examined this week in order to dispel the calls for a new social contract. In a society where the majority makes the rules, how do minorities prosper? Is it because of a social contract, is it the result of people being rational, or is it just people being nice to each other? Listen to the conclusion of this two-part special as James Harrigan and Antony Davies use data to trace the prosperity of minority groups in America on this week’s episode of Words & Numbers. Win tickets to FEEcon 2019! Show Notes: 13 year old buys his mother a car  Cancer vaccine Foolishness of the week Illinois to raise smoking age to 21 Florida town makes it illegal to grow vegetables State of Florida overrules Florida town Topic of the week: Social Contract Nonsense (Part 2) Households by race and income (1967-2017) Income by gender (1960-2017) Hate crime statistics Join the conversation Words & Numbers Backstage Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Antony Davies on Minds.com James R. Harrigan on Minds.com Let us know what you think at wordsandnumberspodcast@gmail.com   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Have you ever signed a contract without reading the terms and conditions? According to Elizabeth Warren, part of the “social contract” is to pay your fair share. But wait, what is the “social contract” that politicians and talking heads keep bringing up? Is it the consent of the governed? Is it written down? Did anyone actually agree to it? Enjoy the first part of a two-part special as Antony Davies and James Harrigan dig up the historical origins of the social contract. Quick hits Tversky & Kahneman, Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions Robots in grocery stores FEEcon VIP Giveaway https://info.fee.org/wordsandnumbers Foolishness of the week Special Olympics 1 Special Olympics 2 Topic of the week: Social Contract Nonsense (Part 1) Locke’s Social Contract Join the conversation Words & Numbers Backstage Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Antony Davies on Minds.com James R. Harrigan on Minds.com Let us know what you think at wordsandnumberspodcast@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

  538 Electors. 270 votes. Winner-takes-all! Well, at least for now. Colorado recently became the twelfth state to join an effort to award the presidency to the candidate who wins the most individual votes. But should the popular vote replace the Electoral College? Originally intended as a safeguard for the separation of powers, has this election method failed Americans? Population vs. Geography. Urban vs. Rural. Democrats vs. Republicans; it’s a conversation that usually gets people all lathered up on both sides of the issue. Join James Harrigan and Antony Davies as they inform us about the reasoning behind the Electoral College and how it works. Show Notes: Adidas making sneakers out of waste plastic China stops taking the world’s trash No place for US recyclables Nuclear energy better than renewables Foolishness of the week Police shoot teachers Milgram experiment Topic of the week Electoral College Contract Clause Federalist 68 Join the conversation Words & Numbers Backstage Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Antony Davies on Minds.com James R. Harrigan on Minds.com Let us know what you think at: wordsandnumberspodcast@gmail.com   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices