Category Archives: Economics

Progressively Sloppy

A professor from the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh has an interesting column in his local paper’s site. In his own words, he favors “a progressive tax system that allows us to pool our resources to acquire goods and services we couldn’t afford otherwise.”

To reinforce his point, he pays $9,000 in property, income, and sales taxes, and puts a value of $58,700 on services he receives from the government.

All well and good, but there are holes in his argument:

Taxes are not the only way to pool resources. Regarding police protection, he says, “Of course you could get together with nine of your neighbors and cut [the cost] to $21,900. But wouldn’t that be pooling resources like with taxes?” Does he really think coercive taxation is the only way people will pool their resources? If this were so, we would not have private groups, firms, or associations of any kind. Since these things do in fact exist, there has to be a flaw in the professor’s reasoning. A big one, in this case.

He understates his expenses. He paid a lot more than just property, income and sales taxes. We have gas taxes, excise taxes, utility taxes, you name it. He also pays corporate taxes on everything he buys; companies pass on their costs to their customers. We consumers pay for every cent of corporate tax.

He overstates his benefits. He compares the local $4,100/year private school to the local public school (typically $9,000+/year), as though they generate the same quality of education.

Sloppy reasoning all around.

Happy 60th Birthday, P.J. O’Rourke!

A few of his pithier quotations:

“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”

“The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.”

“If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”

“Term limits aren’t enough. We need jail.”

Inflation? Huh?

I had two separate conversations yesterday on the nature of inflation… such is the state of my life. It’s one of those topics that’s actually pretty easy to understand, but economists have made incomprehensible. This failure is depressingly common.

Anyway – figured I’d share a way of explaining it that econodorks and non-econodorks alike always seem to respond to.

Money is a unit of measure, like an inch or a foot or a kilogram. Instead of distance or weight, money measures wealth. It is not itself wealth, but only a measure of it; wealth exists independently of money. What inflation does is change the value of the unit of measure, without changing the amount of wealth that actually exists.

I’m about six feet tall. Let’s say I want to be ten feet tall. I can’t actually grow taller, so I’d have to redefine feet and inches. By reducing the value of the foot, I can be ten feet tall without actually having to grow. Put another way, it would take more feet to describe the same amount of height.

As with height, so with money. Inflation means that more dollars are required to describe the same amount of wealth. When new money is printed faster than new wealth is created, each dollar describes less wealth, and the result is inflation.

There are other causes, obviously, but that’s by far the biggest one.

While we’re on the subject, Cato’s annual monetary conference is today. Worth checking out.

Pessimistic Bias

One of the claims Bryan Caplan makes in The Myth of the Rational Voter is that people overwhelmingly tend to think the economy is in worse shape than it actually is. He calls this pessimistic bias.

George Will’s Newsweek column puts some fresh numbers on pessimistic bias:

“Recent polls, taken just before the announcements that third-quarter growth was a robust 3.9 percent and that 166,000 jobs were created in October, showed that up to 46 percent of Americans think the economy is in a recession.”

This is a significant, systematic intellectual error on the part of the public. We need to fix it.

As I’ve said earlier, we could blame the media for this, with all of the dire warnings and misleading headlines out there, but that would be a mistake. They’re just giving the people what they want. We humans seem to have an innate psychological predisposition towards doom and gloom. The only way I can think of to counteract pessimistic bias is with facts.

Too bad no one listens.

EVERYBODY PANIC

CNN.com has a scary homepage story today entitled Stock Selloff Deepens.

The headline is misleading. One cannot sell something without a buyer. The headline could just as easily read read “Stock Buyup Deepens,” but that would also be misleading. It should simply note that trading volume is above average today. And despite a 415 point drop, the Dow is still over 12,000, not too far from its record high.

My hunch is that the story’s ominous tone is intentional, even though it is false. A scare-prone investor would be more likely to click on the story if it forecasts impending doom than if it said, “everything’s fine, nothing to see here.”

One could take an anti-corporate stance here. CNN, after all, is trumping up a non-story and scaring people for no reason other than to boost their traffic – and their ad revenues.

Such a stance is too shallow to be correct, though. Going a level deeper, the blame here lies on the human condition itself. As a survival mechanism, people pay attention to things they perceive to be threatening, and they tend to ignore non-threats.

Add to this Say’s Law, which in simplified form, says that where there is a demand, someone will supply it. CNN sees demand for doom-and-gloom, and caters to it. A company that did not do this would go out of business. Natural selection processes would ensure that mostly doom-and-gloom news is supplied, since there is less demand for sunshine and happiness.

The real world, which is neither all doom nor all sunshine, is given short shrift.

In other words, I’m afraid we’re doomed to lousy news coverage forever. And this is just one reason why I don’t watch cable news.

I’m sure this Human Nature + Say’s Law + Darwin framework could be applied to other areas, but I’ll save that for another time.

What Makes Someone Right or Wrong?

The Editor, New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036

To the Editor:

Much as I enjoy conservative-bashing, I was disappointed in Paul Krugman’s October 5 column, “Conservatives Are Such Jokers.” He almost reflexively assumes that people who disagree with him have checkered motives. He comes off as reluctant to argue policies on their merits, in this case the SCHIP children’s health insurance program.

Why so quick to question his opponents’ motives? SCHIP opponents have put forward arguments that are either right or wrong. Motives have nothing to do with whether those arguments are right or wrong.

SCHIP opponents don’t like the program because they don’t think it will improve childrens’ health outcomes. The disagreement is a question of means, not ends. Does anyone actually favor having sicker children?

While Mr. Krugman clearly favors expanding the SCHIP program, he doesn’t really say why. I invite him to make his case – on the merits.

Ryan Young
Arlington, VA

Superpowers

Editor, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

I read with astonishment your February 12 article “Doyle Wants Tax on Oil Companies: They’d be Pressed to Absorb Cost.” By thinking he can simply pass a law and forbid oil companies from incorporating their costs into the prices they charge, our governor apparently has the power to repeal certain laws of economics. I was not aware of Governor Doyle’s miraculous abilities before reading your article.

If our state’s government is truly this powerful, I propose that Governor Doyle and the state legislature take Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto’s advice and pass a law “mandating that auto makers manufacture perpetual-motion machines.”

Ryan Young

WaPo Letter

My letter ran today. You can read it here.

Thanks to Don Boudreaux, who also posted it at one of my favorite blogs, Cafe Hayek.

The Tyranny of Education Policy’s Status Quo

An old friend recently asked me my thoughts on privatizing education. Here’s a lightly edited version of what I wrote to him:

My only goal for education is that it be good. I don’t care if it is provided publicly or privately. I only care that is high quality.

Economic theory tells us that a competitive market tends to deliver a better product than a monopolistic market. Let’s see if this theory works in the real world.

The current system in the U.S. can reasonably classified as a monopoly – only the rich have the option of opting out and affording a private education if they so desire. The masses are given only one option for educating their children, no matter their wishes – a classic monopoly.

U.S. students also tend to score poorly on standardized tests compared to other developed nations. This tells us that the current, monopolistic model – the only option for most students – delivers a low-quality education.

Now let us look at countries that have the highest test scores. Their high achievement tells us that they have stumbled upon a system that works pretty well. It turns out that students in the Low Countries of Western Europe – Belgium and the Netherlands – do very well on standardized tests. Their success tells us that their students receive a high quality education. ABC News even aired a story recently about Belgium ’s educational achievements.

Not coincidentally, high-performing countries all have educational systems that are different from the one we use in the U.S. – none of them are monopolies. While the specifics vary from country to country, what they have in common is that they all have competitive elements.

Belgium has something very similar to a voucher system. Parents are not told where they will send their children to school, as they would be if they were Americans. Belgian parents make that choice for themselves. The government then pays the tuition if the parents cannot afford it. If a school provides a low quality education, parents do not send their children there, and that school is eventually closed. If the market gives parents a lousy choice like that, they learn to avoid it. In time, that lousy choice is eliminated.

Such a system is not perfect. For example, it can take several years for a bad school to be closed. It is, however, better than the American system. Here, bad schools almost never close. In fact, they are often rewarded with more money! This does not provide failing schools an incentive to improve – if they did get better, they wouldn’t get the extra money. Neither system is perfect, but the American model is clearly inferior.

Since I am not a fan of letting the ideal get in the way of the good, I favor a system that allows competition, even though I know the results will fall short of perfection. It is enough that competition would significantly improve on the status quo. I oppose monopolies to the marrow of my bones. This especially holds true for the American educational monopoly where some (the rich) can opt out, but the wishes of the poor are simply ignored.

There are many policy solutions. Vouchers have been tried, if on a small scale, in Milwaukee , Cleveland , and DC. Vouchers have their flaws, but have proven to be superior to the traditional American model. Educational tax credits are the preferred policy of many libertarians. Arizona and Florida are considering policies along those lines. No doubt there are other ideas out there I haven’t yet been exposed to.

All I want is a high quality educational system. Since the current monopoly is obviously failing, I favor a change in the direction of competition. Basic economic theory has been proven correct by real-world educational policies on multiple continents. This means that if one favors a high quality education for everyone, one must favor a competitive system. This would probably include a mix of private and public schools. Again, I don’t care if schools are public or private, only that they be good. There is more than one way to effect positive change, and I am open to any proposal that would break the current monopoly.

The Tax Code

According to CNN, the federal tax code stands at nearly 100,000 pages, “with a word length that is about 10 times the size of the standard English version of the Bible.”

Wow.

Surely we can do better than that. Both parties complain about the complexity of our tax code, so why not do something about it?

Turns out they are, just in the wrong direction. Reps. Dreier and Berman are proposing a targeted tax break for filmmakers, and President Bush is proposing a tax break for casinos in the Gulf region.

I’m all for lower taxes, but this is ridiculous. Instead of a cut for a few people here and a few there, why not do away with all exemptions and special treatment and just charge everyone the same rate?

Tax avoidance would be almost impossible. The entire tax code could fit on one page. Imagine that, being able to do your own taxes. Tax rates would almost certainly go down due to popular pressure since everyone would have to pay.

The only downside is that H&R Block would probably go out of business.

Well, that and it probably wouldn’t do a thing about the real problem, which is spending. I noted some of the difficulties with that yesterday.