Economicomics

Regarding this:


I worry a little bit that enough research has been done about this:

Storm could irrigate the crops of all the suffering farmers in the midwest and California when the droughts of summer are destroying their crops.

I don't follow X-Men religiously anymore, and they sneak things like Spidey's organic webbing past me, so this may have changed, but historically (i.e., in the 80's-90's) it was explicitly established that Storm moves humidity around, but doesn't create it. If she irrigates the midwest, she does it by exacerbating the drought in California. In fact, she was essentially doing this as a local rain goddess when Prof. X recruited her.

My geeky trivium aside, I think it's weird when people complain about an amusing theoretical like this as being tired, overdone, or silly. Superheroes are cartoons -- superhero economics is a cartoon of economics. Most of us aren't economists, and thinking through simplified illustrations (including their shortcomings) makes key concepts clearer. Also, it's fun.

In comment to Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman has a nice description of how the bailout of bad mortgage securities would get paid for. In response, I commented:

In this description, is "the Public" predominantly the Chinese government and sovereign funds I keep hearing about, or is that hyperbolic xenophobia?

I've heard both that the bailout would be paid by the taxpayers (who would be "on the hook" for the assets, in case they have no value), and that the feds could actually make money by buying low and selling high.

Both of these seem to be ignoring that the bailout will be paid for with borrowed (or soon-to-be-borrowed) money, so even if the feds did sell off the toxic paper for more than they bought it for, the net effect might still increase the deficit.