• Left as Center@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    So .6 generated make a multiplier of 1.6 for the economy. (1 initial + .6 generated). Which is pretty much the norm in a standard economy.

    And your source which is reliable (links to proper studies) gives a multiplier of 2.6 which is totally off from the multiplier of 7 mentioned in OP link.

    Edit: thank for your link, I’d have ballparked 2 rather than 2.6.

    • dubak@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      .6 is a multiplier. It’s a loss of 40 cent per Euro.

      There are numerous studies assessing the return on investment, but I wouldn’t say that some are more correct. They are working with different assumptions regarding the environmental costs, which can lead to huge differences in the cofficient estimates. Currently, the goal is to convince EU commission to include the environmental costs in their economic models. The precise math isn’t that important, it’s the step towards better models that matters. The study by Trinomics is part of this effort and shouldnt be discarded, even though it comes from industry and though it claims large multipliers.

      • Left as Center@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        1.2-1.7, for Europe based on observation (IMF), which consistent with theory.

        0.6ow values are when you give money to people who hoard it (e.g. tax cuts).

        Just means that the EU uses a shit factor for deciding policies based on money going mostly to tax cuts or something else with policymaking.

        The precise math isn’t that important,

        I disagree, giving the public wrong estimates of what is going on is too much of a sports for the media .