Category Archives: Economics

Policies to Promote Competition often Stifle it Instead

Here’s a letter I recently sent to The Wall Street Journal:

July 20, 2009

Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281

To the Editor:

Amy Schatz’s article “New FCC Chairman’s Agenda Includes Broader Internet Access, More Transparency” (Corporate News, July 20) is most revealing. Chairman Genachowski seems to believe that forcing companies to share proprietary networks with their competitors would not reduce the incentive to build and improve such networks.

Just as puzzling, AT&T’s exclusive deal to provide service for Apple’s iPhone has come under scrutiny on anti-competitive grounds. This exclusive arrangement has encouraged competitors to come up with new and better devices of their own; thirty attempts have already hit the market. Competition is alive and well.

Chairman Genachowski is right that the Internet has been “the most successful driver of economic growth” in recent years. Why, then, pursue an agenda that would discourage investment in wired and wireless networks?

Ryan Young
Fellow in Regulatory Studies
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Washington

Economic Hubris

The failure to predict the current economic crisis has lowered the public’s esteem of economists, as The Economist makes plain. The hit to our reputation is well-deserved.

This is not to sell economics short. The explanatory power of the economic way of thinking is incredible. Reading and understanding Bastiat’s “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen” will change the way you see the world.

Knowing what opportunity costs are, and that incentives matter, allows you to almost literally see the unseen. It is almost magical. It is the stuff of poetry.

The fact that cities of millions like Paris and New York are fed every day without fail – overfed, even – while producing almost no food themselves, and without anyone directing the process, can be explained with two words: spontaneous order.

Pretty cool. But economists, just like other mortals, cannot predict the booms and busts of the business cycle. That some have claimed this miraculous power is a sign that economists have fallen prey to hubris. Our shaming in the public eye is a direct result of overstepping our boundaries.

Turn your tv to CNBC or some other business channel. Some mystic parading as an economist will try to predict which way the stock market will move tomorrow, or which stocks are will beat the market. Nobody knows that. Nobody could possibly know that.

If a stock really is a good buy, then people will buy it, driving up its price until it is no longer a good buy. Anyone claiming they can beat the market long-term probably also has some snake oil to sell you. The fact that a few people have had inordinate success, like Warren Buffett, is an artifact of the laws of probability.

Think about it. We can’t predict if the stock market will go up or down. How can we presume to think we can understand longer-term, macro-level movements like business cycles? There are more theories than there are economists.

Still, some people have said that they understand. And they shall give unto us of their wisdom. Some of these people hold political office, or advise people who do. They are putting their theories to the test; they are finding no effect. No wonder people are thinking so ill of economists lately.

Our hubris deserves all the public scorn it gets and more. My deeply held fear is that this disdain will trickle down to from where it is deserved to where it is not deserved.

Subsidize Cheese to Stimulate?

$1,562,568 of stimulus money went to subsidize mozzarella cheese in Rep. Marcia Fudge’s district.

In Which the Case for Antitrust Action against Telecoms Weakens

New research from the American Consumer Institute, using FCC and OECD data, finds that U.S. telecoms are charging, on average, ten cents less per minute than their counterparts around the world. Evidence, it seems, of a healthy competitive process.

Tell me again why antitrust authorities are investigating telecoms?

Keynes Remains Popular with Politicians

“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation. People, when I say that, look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’ The answer is yes.”

-Vice President Joe Biden

Flying Is a Taxable Event

The potential specter of federal carry-on bag size restrictions has not deterred me from flying. But my jaw nearly hit the floor recently when I saw that I had paid more in taxes and fees than for actual airfare for an international flight.

Click here to see a list of 17 taxes we pay for flying. The September 11th Fee. International Departure Tax. International Arrival Tax. And those are just the direct taxes.

Indirect taxes are also legion. They’re harder to see. But they’re still there. And they, too, increase the price of flying. Airports have to pay an electricity tax to keep the lights on. Airlines have to pay a corporate tax on any profits. Pilots and crew have to pay income taxes. All these also affect the price of airfare. There is far more to taxation than meets the eye.

Doing Business in DC

DC Progress notes that Washington, DC has ranked 51st – dead last – in the annual Small Business Survival Index every year since the mid-1990s.

Part of the problem is that taxes and spending are both sky-high in DC. Per capita government spending exceeds that in any state, and is roughly double the national average. High corporate, income, and sales taxes have been very effective at driving away businesses to nearby Virginia and Maryland.

One of DC’s other problems is regulatory. The District is notorious for its thorough, exacting, and bureaucratic regulatory regime. Mayor Fenty and the City Council should ease the burden. It would save taxpayers money and encourage more businesses to locate in DC. The fixes that CEI’s Wayne Crews identifies for the federal government in his annual Ten Thousand Commandments also apply to DC and the states.

A Second Stimulus?

There has been some chatter recently that the economy needs another stimulus package. The Brookings Institution’s Martin N. Baily cautions against one — unless growth remains sharply negative through the end of the year. Then he’d like to see a stimulus in the form of tax rebate checks, such as President George W. Bush issued twice during his presidency.

One problem: any stimulus proposal is, by its very nature, less than a zero-sum proposition. Stimulus involves taking some money out of the economy, wasting some of it on bureaucracy, then putting it back in.

Rebate check-style stimulus is less harmful than the pork-laden American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. But the same logic still applies. There are transaction costs to sending out millions of checks.

And if the rebate increases the budget deficit, then tomorrow’s taxes will have to be raised to pay off today’s rebate.

Worse, one-time stimulus checks don’t change peoples’ spending behavior very much. This is because of what economists call the Permanent Income Hypothesis; people base their spending behavior on their expected long-term income, not on short-term windfalls. People tend to save their checks instead of spend them.

If you’re wondering why no stimulus package has ever had much discernible effect, those would be the reasons why.

Instead, I would urge a deregulatory stimulus.

Antitrust Irony

Two interesting stories in the news this morning.

Microsoft is having a tense antitrust discussion with the EU.

Meanwhile, Google is readying an operating system to directly compete with Windows.

Compare and contrast.

Antitrust Policy and Telecoms

When Christine Varney took over the Justice Department’s antitrust division, she promised an era of vigorous enforcement. She is beginning to deliver. Intel, Google, airlines, pharmaceutical companies, and now telecoms are all facing close scrutiny.

There are two issues in play for telecoms. One is firm size. AT&T and Verizon together account for 60% of cell phone subscriptions. But as attorney Donald Russell told The Wall Street Journal, “You don’t have any firm that’s in a dominant position.”

It’s hard to make a case that a company is abusing market power if it doesn’t really have any. And Verizon and AT&T are not exactly Standard Oil.

The other issue is networks making exclusive deals with equipment makers. If you want an iPhone, you have to use AT&T’s service. If you want a Blackberry Storm, you have to use Verizon. Smaller competitors allege that exclusive deals for coveted phones are shutting them out of the market. Antitrust enforcers tend to agree.

I don’t; the iPhone has spawned more than 30 competing devices. And the iPhone itself has dropped in price from $500 to as low as $99. Where’s the lack of competition?

Justice is only investigating telecoms so far. Consumers should hope that Justice’s fishing expedition doesn’t result in further actions. Antitrust policy hinders the competitive process far more than it helps it.