Charles C. Mann – 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus

Charles C. Mann – 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus

A difficult-to-put-down book about life in North and South America before Columbus. The author takes a bit of a gonzo journalism style, inserting himself into the story. This isn’t always very interesting, at least in his case. Mann is not a historian or a scientist, and it shows. This isn’t always a bad thing, but for a more rigorous treatment, readers will have to go elsewhere.

Mann also declines to tell a narrative history, chronological or otherwise. Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing. But if that’s what you’re looking for, you won’t find it here. Instead, Mann takes a thematic approach, with thorough investigations into smallpox, Pleistocene migration patterns, the domestication of maize, and more. I happen to enjoy this historiographical approach, though it leads to frequent Google searches to put names and events in their proper place. Other readers might not agree, so be warned.

One of the strengths of Mann’s journalistic approach is that he meets and interviews many of the historians, archaeologists, and scientists in the field, sharing their varying perspectives—and they don’t always agree with each other. Aside from Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel, this is the deepest dive I’ve yet taken into pre-Columbian American history. Despite the book’s flaws, Mann gives a quality introduction, and leaves the reader wanting more.

Advertisements

This Week in Ridiculous Regulations

Wednesday, the day before the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s 35th anniversary gala dinner, saw no new final regulations published in the Federal Register. This may be the first non-shutdown Federal Register issue with no new rules since this blog series began tracking such things in 2012 or so. Even so, the 2019 Federal Register is poised to break 30,000 pages this week. Meanwhile, agencies published new regulations ranging from Blazing Paddles to cotton warehouses.

On to the data:

  • Last week, 90 new final regulations were published in the Federal Register, after 43 the previous week.
  • That’s the equivalent of a new regulation every 1 hour and 52 minutes.
  • Federal agencies have issued 1,287 final regulations in 2019. At that pace, there will be 2,682 new final regulations. Last year’s total was 3,367 regulations.
  • Last week, agencies published 421 notices, for a total of 10,380 in 2019. At that pace, there will be 21,625 new notices this year. Last year’s total was 22,205.
  • Last week, 1,461 new pages were added to the Federal Register, after 1,164 pages the previous week.
  • The 2019 Federal Register totals 29,027 pages. It is on pace for 60,473 pages. The 2018 total was 68,082 pages. The all-time record adjusted page count (which subtracts skips, jumps, and blank pages) is 96,994, set in 2016.
  • Rules are called “economically significant” if they have costs of $100 million or more in a given year. One such rule has been published this year. Six such rules were published in 2018.
  • The running compliance cost tally for 2019’s economically significant regulations currently ranges from $139.1 million to $175.8 million. The 2018 total ranges from $220.1 million to $2.54 billion, depending on discount rates and other assumptions.
  • Agencies have published 33 final rules meeting the broader definition of “significant” so far this year. 2018’s total was 108 significant final rules.
  • So far in 2019, 229 new rules affect small businesses; 12 of them are classified as significant. 2018’s totals were 660 rules affecting small businesses, with 29 of them significant.

Highlights from last week’s new final regulations:

For more data, see Ten Thousand Commandments and follow @10KC and @RegoftheDay on Twitter.

Antitrust Basics: The Relevant Market Fallacy

This is the second entry in the “Antitrust Basics” series. See below for previous posts.

If a firm is charged with having market power, the question naturally arises: in which market? Does Facebook have a monopoly over social networking, especially now that it owns additional networks such as Instagram and WhatsApp? Or does Facebook compete with other uses of leisure time such as movies, television, books, sports, concerts, and countless other ways people can spend their time? Which is the more relevant market? The answer is subjective—a significant problem for a legal case with multi-billion dollar stakes.

Antitrust regulators often try to make their case appear stronger by using an unrealistically narrow definition of a company’s relevant market. I call this tactic the relevant market fallacy. The relevant market fallacy is one of the easiest mistakes to make in all of antitrust analysis. It is also one of the easiest to avoid. Thinking along the different parts of a spectrum illustrates why.

At one end of the spectrum, every individual product can be seen as its own relevant market. A sandwich at one restaurant is different from a similar sandwich sold at another restaurant next door, even if they are the same price. One restaurant might offer better service, better ambience, or some other nonprice characteristic that differentiates it from its competitor. In that sense, there are two different products operating in different markets appealing to different sets of consumer preferences.

At the other end of the spectrum, the only relevant market is as big as the entire global economy. That sandwich also competes against all other types of food in a global supply chain—and any non-food item a person might spend their money on instead. Whichever point on the spectrum an analyst decides is right for a given case is an arbitrary decision. It is largely a matter of semantics, and often analytically useless in determining consumer benefits.

As with most things in the real world, most relevant markets fall somewhere in between these two extremes. Amazon controls roughly half of online retail, but a much smaller fraction of total retail. Which is the proper relevant market? Amazon’s success with online retail has also caused traditional retailers such as Walmart and Target to massively change their business strategies to match consumer desires. The relevant market is not only debatable in size and scope, but it is constantly changing shape. And that change is happening far faster than the speed of litigation.

When satellite radio companies Sirius and XM merged, critics argued that the combined firm would have a monopoly on satellite radio, and the merger should have been blocked. Once again, they defined the relevant market too small. Satellite radio competes with terrestrial radio, streaming radio, on-demand music streaming, podcasts, audio books, and more.

As political candidates, pundits, and activists tout statistics for this or that company’s market dominance, keep in mind they are often committing the relevant market fallacy. It doesn’t take long to check, and it’s well worth the small effort.

For more, see Wayne Crews’ and my study, “The Case against Antitrust Law: Ten Areas Where Antitrust Policy Can Move on from the Smokestack Era.” Further resources are at antitrust.cei.org.

Previous posts in Ryan Young’s “Antitrust Basics” series:

Where Does Progress Come From?

According to economic historian Joel Mokyr, progress comes from technological change–which can’t happen without pro-technology and pro-change cultural values. Science is necessary but not sufficient; same with culture. It takes both. Societies with one but not the other have their merits, but ultimately fail to progress. New advances will either fail to stick, or will be repressed. While respect for tradition is a normal and good thing, most cultures throughout history have gone too far with it and become outright neophobic.

Cultural rejection of progress goes at least as far back as the Greek poet Hesiod, who lived between 800-700 B.C. He described history as a continuous process of decay. The initial Golden Age of the gods degrades down to a still-divine Silver Age, then a Bronze Age. This is followed by a Heroic Age (think mortal half-gods such as Perseus and Heracles). History finally reaches the dull, rusting Iron Age where people now live. This is a rather different worldview than one finds in Enlightenment thinking or, say, Wired magazine.

More recently, China showed a spark of valuing progress during the Song dynasty, which lasted from 960-1279 AD. But the succeeding Ming dynasty shut the experiment down by destroying trading ships devaluing innovation, raising up values such as security and tradition instead.

Joel Mokyr, on p. 248 of his 2016 book A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy, offers that a rebellious youthful streak can in fact be a good thing in the long run:

The idea of progress is logically equivalent to an implied disrespect of previous generations.

Herbert A. Simon – Administrative Behavior, 4th Edition: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organisations

Herbert A. Simon – Administrative Behavior, 4th Edition: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organisations

Realistic, subjective, and humble—probably a reflection of Simon’s time at the University of Chicago. Rather than the typical snake-oil management guru who pretends to know everything, Simon that there is no perfect structure for an organization. Every possibility has at least some drawbacks. Simon instead emphasizes the need to treat organizational structure as an ongoing process, rather than a finished product. Often personnel will dictate what structures work best, and personnel change over time. Technology has its own impacts, and Simon even in 1947 saw that computers would have significant effects on the workplace. Part of trial is error, and wise managers will accept this as part of the process. The trick is being humble enough to admit mistakes and being flexible enough to try different approaches with more promise.

Randall G. Holcombe – Political Capitalism: How Political Influence Is Made and Maintained

Randall G. Holcombe – Political Capitalism: How Political Influence Is Made and Maintained

Excellent, though probably a difficult read for a layman. Most people have a two-axis view of politics—most countries are some blend of capitalism and socialism. Holcombe argues that there is a distinct third system, which he calls political capitalism. It has characteristics of market capitalism, such as private property and usually democratic political institutions. But political capitalism also features heavy control by elites. Because votes count for very little in any decent-sized election and because voters typically have low information, it is naturally easier for elites to control public policies with relatively little public accountability.

An underappreciated key point, first made by Mancur Olson, is that small groups have lower transaction costs than larger groups. A small group is easier to form, and it is easier to monitor members so they don’t shirk on the rest of the group.

Another point is that principled legislators have almost no chance of being influential under political capitalism. If a politician is known for sticking to their principles, other legislators will not bother trying to win their vote on bills. If they support a bill, they’ll vote for it no matter what. If they oppose it, their support cannot be bought, so it’s not worth spending resources on.

That means principled legislators aren’t offered choice committee assignments, fundraising assistance, or get introduced to powerful social connections. Principled legislators are doomed to ineffectiveness.

It is well known that political office naturally attracts certain undesirable personality types. Holcombe demonstrates that institutional structures actually reward them, so there is a natural selection process to put the worst on top.

Holcombe also makes several valuable contributions to the theory of rent-seeking. I wish I had known about these when Fred Smith and I were working on our 2015 rent-seeking paper, which would have greatly benefited from his insights. I will definitely be citing this book in the future.

Peter Wallison – Judicial Fortitude: The Last Chance to Rein In the Administrative State

Peter Wallison – Judicial Fortitude: The Last Chance to Rein In the Administrative State

The main insight I took from this book is probably not the one Wallison intended, though it is one he makes several times. America’s founders did not foresee the rise of political parties, and this was their biggest mistake. They set up the federal government with checks and balances so that the different branches would compete against each other, not different parties. Having distinct federal and state levels of government provided an additional level of non-party competition.

This system does not work so well when powerful political parties exist. If one party controls both Congress and the presidency, those two branches do not compete with each other, they collude.

The first-past-the-post electoral system the founders established is also naturally conducive to a two-party system—and the two parties which usually oppose each other will cooperate to prevent rule changes that would allow additional competing parties.

This probably doesn’t matter so much; Europe’s experience with proportional representation has shown that most people coalesce around two polar ideologies, and most political parties represent various points on the spectrum between those two poles—meaning proportional representation doesn’t differ much from the U.S. system in terms of policy outcomes, muting its appeal. It merely has higher transaction costs for building coalitions, a separate issue well outside of Wallison’s subject matter. In the U.S. case, the dominant parties oppose proportional systems for their own organizations’ sake, rather than to promote conservative or progressive values.

The primary point Wallison does make is also compelling—judicial restraint and judicial activism are both ineffective safeguards against a regulatory state that lacks transparency and democratic accountability. A passive judiciary lets Congress and the executive make and enforce all sorts of crazy laws and regulations. This is a rather obvious problem. Legislation from the bench is also a problem; besides offending democratic sensibilities, repeal of judicial policy mistakes is extremely difficult.

Wallison instead prefers a judiciary with the fortitude to tell Congress what’s what when it passes unconstitutional legislation. More importantly, executive branch agencies issue thousands of regulations, guidance documents, and other regulatory “dark matter” outside of required legal processes. These policies lack transparency, democratic accountability, and in many cases are unconstitutional. The judiciary needs to gain the fortitude to strike such policies down when cases present the opportunity. Wallison also draws heavily on my colleague Wayne Crews’ research in developing this argument, which is a plus.