Category Archives: Economics

Money Is Not Wealth

Here’s a letter I sent recently to The New York Times:

Editor, The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

To the Editor:

Eric Zencey’s article “G.D.P. R.I.P” (August 10) correctly points out that GDP has limited usefulness in measuring well-being. But his case is muddled by confusing money with wealth. Money is a unit of measure, like a mile or a ton. But it is not itself wealth.

He writes, “If you get into a fender-bender and have your car fixed, G.D.P. goes up.” It actually stays the same. If I don’t get into the accident, I’ll just spend the repair money on something else. While the accident may have no effect on GDP, it does have an effect on wealth; I am inarguably poorer. Instead of a working car plus a new tv, I can enjoy only the car.

Zencey’s confusion is itself an example of why GDP does a poor job of measuring well-being.

RYAN YOUNG
Fellow in Regulatory Studies
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Washington, Aug. 10, 2009

Regulation of the Day 29: Protecting Us from Cheap Foreign Goods

Sometimes (but not always), when a foreign producer sells goods to U.S. consumers cheaply, the U.S. government takes action to put a stop to it. Trade economists call this antidumping policy. This usually means putting tariffs on cheap goods to raise their prices. These tariffs protect consumers because competitive pricing is anti-competitive.

And no, I don’t get that logic either.

Regardless, the International Trade Agency announced this week that it is updating its antidumping rules for the following foreign products:

Certain Pasta from Italy, Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway, Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico, Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan, Welded ASTM A–312 Stainless Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea, Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan, Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan, Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People’s Republic of China, Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico, and finally, Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India.

More to come, I’m sure.

Inconvenient Evidence Suppressed in EU-Intel Antitrust Case

The antitrust laws currently on the books are so vague, judges and regulators have essentially had to make up their own policies. In other words, they can pretty much do whatever they want.

Look what just happened in Europe. The EU’s ombudsman recently discovered that the EU’s antitrust regulators intentionally suppressed “potentially exculpatory” evidence in their case against Intel.

That case, remember, resulted in a €1,000,000,000 fine against Intel. Unfortunately, the ombudsman’s finding will not affect the case’s outcome. That’s a nice of way of saying the prosecutor lied and got away with it.

One more example of why antitrust regulations result in the rule of men, not the rule of law.

Reporting the Hidden Costs of Stimulus

CNNMoney.com ran a story today about some of the jobs saved or created by the stimulus package. “A civil engineer, Sara Kelley owes her job to President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package,” it begins. Five other short vignettes follow, each with a name and a face that we can see and identify with. All six are thankful to the stimulus for helping them get through these troubled times.

All of these people clearly benefited from the stimulus package. But where did their free money come from? To help these fortunate people, others had to be hurt. Where are the stories about them?

When will we see a story about a company that was unable to raise job-creating capital because government bonds necessitated by stimulus debt ate up precious investor dollars? When will we see a story about a job that was never created because the government decided to take that money and use it on Sara Kelley’s civil engineering job?

The media is great about reporting on what is seen – Sara Kelley and the others. The media is not so good at reporting on what is not seen – opportunities taken away by the stimulus; opportunities that never came to be because the money they required was instead spent on Joab Gonzalez’s youth training program.

This does present some difficulties. You can’t put a name and a face on a company that was never founded, or a worker who was never hired. Just try and write about something that never happened. It’s hard.

Maybe it is asking too much of our reporters to see the unseen. But we live in a complicated world, and not all of it is visible. To report on that world as it actually is requires an understanding of sometimes-difficult economic concepts such as opportunity costs.

Economic journalists who don’t know basic economics too often write stories that are at best incomplete, and at worst misleading. Reporting only on what is seen leads to the impression that fiscal stimulus is a free lunch; seeing the unseen reminds us that there is no such thing.

Microsoft, Yahoo, and Antitrust

Over at the Washington Examiner, I make the case for why trustbusters should lay off the Microsoft-Yahoo search engine partnership. My key point:

“If regulations are to be effective, they must be either clear or silent; antitrust statutes are neither. That alone is reason enough to urge trustbusters to back off the Microsoft-Yahoo partnership, and just let the competitors compete. Consumers should pick the winner, not politicians.”

The Antitrust Religion still Has Many Adherents

Here’s a letter I sent recently to the Financial Times:

July 29, 2009
Editor, Financial Times
1330 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019

From Mr Ryan Young.
Sir, Mario Monti’s call for harmonized and reinvigorated EU and U.S. antitrust policies (“Watchdogs of the world, unite!”, July 29) is misguided. Consumers are best served when competing firms concentrate on bettering themselves, rather than hobbling their rivals. Antitrust policy discourages the former, and encourages the latter. Why bother with the ongoing challenge of competing in the marketplace if one can merely go to Brussels or Washington?

The great irony of antitrust policy is that it reduces market competition whenever and wherever it is applied. Such is its very nature.

Ryan Young
Fellow in Regulatory Studies,
Competitive Enterprise Institute,
Washington, DC, US

In Which Greed Is Good

The great economist Joseph Schumpeter wrote that “[F]ree trade is the cement that holds together the idea of peace.”*

His logic is sound. To put it bluntly, killing the customer is bad for business. And money talks. Commerce gives people who may hate each other a powerful incentive to get along; greed can be a force for good.

*Thomas K. McCraw, Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), p. 110.

Policy Translated: Fiscal Stimulus

CEI is putting out a series of short videos called “Policy Translated.” Our policy wonks hold forth on an issue, and snarky subtitles translate what we’re saying into English. You can check out the channel here. Below is my contribution, where I explain why fiscal stimulus doesn’t work very well.

In case the embedded video doesn’t work, you can watch it by clicking here.

How to End the War over Antitrust

The government is at war with itself over antitrust policy, according to the New York Times.

On one side we have Christine Varney, who heads the Justice Department’s antitrust division. On the other we have the Department of Transportation (over both airlines and rail policy), financial regulators, legislators from both parties, and some of President Obama’s advisers (but not all of them).

The reason for the infighting is that antitrust policy, by its very nature, is vague and arbitrary. If the Sherman and Clayton Acts were followed to the letter, all prices, all mergers, and all business agreements would be illegal. Therefore they aren’t followed to the letter.

Regulators instead must use their discretion. Different people have different discretions; of course they will disagree on the proper boundaries of antitrust enforcement. Hence the government’s war with itself.

There are two ways around this: either enforce the laws as they are written, or repeal them. A quick look at the laws is enough to make the case for repeal.

Suppose you charge a higher price than your competitors. You are abusing your market power and can be prosecuted. If you charge the same price as your competitors, then that is evidence of collusion; also prosecutable. If you charge lower prices than your rivals, then that is predatory pricing, intended to drive your rivals out of business so you can then raise prices and make monopoly profits. Prosecutable. Literally, all prices are illegal. No one is innocent.

Same with mergers. There are three kinds: horizontal, vertical, and conglomerate. Horizontal mergers are between direct competitors. Fewer competitors implies less competition. Prosecutable. Vertical mergers are between firms with a supplier-customer relationship, and can lead to undue market power. Prosecutable. Conglomerate mergers unite unrelated, non-competing firms. By raising barriers to entry in multiple markets, they are prosecutable. All mergers fall under at least one of the three categories. All are technically illegal.

This is absurd, obviously. Companies have to charge prices. And even the most hawkish antitrust advocate knows that some mergers can actually increase efficiency and competitiveness. So the government doesn’t enforce antitrust statutes literally. Individuals pick and choose which companies to go after, and different people pick and choose differently.

If the executive branch is not going to consistently enforce antitrust laws — and they shouldn’t — they should be repealed.

Exploiting the Minimum Wage

The minimum wage is going up for the third year in a row, effective today. The new wage floor is $7.25 per hour.

Young people with little or no work experience may not be able to offer $7.25 per hour worth of productivity; no wonder so many of them are having trouble finding summer jobs. They have to be paid more than they are worth. Wage floors reduce the number of jobs.

Alex Tabarrok also explains why minimum wage laws are inherently anti-competitive. Some employers support wage floors, which is surprising at first glance.

But suppose a company has higher labor costs than its competitors. If they can’t cut their own costs to compete, why not just pass a law to increase their rivals’ costs? Tabbarok also observes, “This is why unions have typically been in favor of the minimum wage even when their own workers make much more than the minimum.”

Lost jobs and a less competitive economy, in other words. And minimum wage hikes still routinely poll at over 80% in favor. One of life’s mysteries, that.