Category Archives: Economics

Smart Process, Not Just Smart People

Don Boudreaux’s latest Pittsburgh Tribune-Review column is simply superb, echoing both Israel Kirzner and Deirdre McCloskey:

The undeniably smart Steve Jobs’ vision for an affordable smartphone was dazzlingly creative. But that vision would have amounted to zilch had not many other people been available to help make Jobs’ vision a reality. Some of these other people were also smart. Others were of only ordinary intelligence. And almost every one of them was a complete stranger to Jobs.

Yet somehow, they all cooperated with Jobs and with each other to create the iPhone.

What has not been around, unlike smart people, for tens of thousands of years is the smart process that encourages the globe-spanning cooperation that makes goods such as the smartphone possible.

As Don points out, this “smart process” is a market economy. This is the Kirznerian insight that a market is not a thing or a place. It is an ongoing, never-ending process. Or, as Kirzner described market competition, a discovery procedure. Don also alludes to Deirdre McCloskey’s insight that this smart process cannot work unless people let it. Public opinion has to value things like innovation and commerce, and not look down its nose at them. The more that people denigrate entrepreneurs, the fewer of them there will be — and that means no smart phones, no matter how many smart people there are.

Read the whole thing.

There Is Nothing Left to Cut

The federal government spent $3.7 million on ex-presidents last year. It’s fair to provide them some security when needed, but this is a bit much — especially since all four living ex-presidents are wealthy men.

Right in line with his spending habits in office, George W. Bush is the worst offender, hooking taxpayers for $1.3 million. Besides racking up an $85,000 phone bill, he also spent $400,000 on office space. Those two items alone almost equal Jimmy Carter’s entire $500,000 tab.

Lobbying Can Be a Great Investment

Health insurance companies spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying on the health care bill. In return for that investment, they convinced the government to require everyone in the country to buy their products, on pain of a fine. As it turns out, the law has done more than grow their customer base — the Washington Post reports today that those customers will soon be paying through the nose:

Some Americans could see their insurance bills double next year as the health care overhaul law expands coverage to millions of people.

The nation’s big health insurers say they expect premiums — or the cost for insurance coverage — to rise from 20 to 100 percent for millions of people due to changes that will occur when key provisions of the Affordable Care Act roll out in January 2014.

Rent-seeking can be a very lucrative investment. Imagine how many billions of dollars health insurer’s eight-figure million lobbying investment will yield in profit. With a rate of return like that, it’s a wonder that most businessmen are still honest.

A Balanced Budget Isn’t the Primary Goal

Over at the Daily Caller, Wayne Crews and I take a look at Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposed budget, the Path to Prosperity. While it would improve on the Bush-Obama status quo, there is room for improvement:

We’re for a balanced budget, and maybe even an amendment. But we’re more for the principle of limited government. The Ryan budget’s main deficit-reducing tactic is to increase federal spending by 3.4 percent per year instead of the currently projected 5 percent. Again, this is certainly an improvement. But after 12 years of breakneck Bush-Obama government growth, it is well past time for actual cuts, in which spending goes down.

Since the Ryan budget relies on economic growth to generate more tax revenue, we also suggest a few reforms that would help make that possible.

Read the whole thing here.

Should Agencies Be Self-Funded?

cftc-logo

In Monday’s Politico, the Systemic Risk Council’s Brooksley Born and William Donaldson argue the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) should be self-funded – that is, they should charge enough fees to the entities they regulate to cover their entire budgets.

Current fiscal uncertainty, headlined by the sequester, means these agencies’ missions are potentially at risk if they depend on uncertain Congressional appropriations. “It is both wrong and dangerous to impose funding cuts on these agencies,” they argue.

We will leave aside the fact sequestration means smaller spending increases and not actual cuts, where spending goes down. And I will leave it to my colleague John Berlau to analyze how effectively the SEC and CFTC were pursuing their missions before sequestration.

The point is self-funding is an interesting proposal – closer to the “user pays” principle than the current annual appropriations model. But ultimately, it is still a bad idea. The biggest reason is that it violates the separation of powers. If an agency is doing a poor job pursuing its mission, it needs to be held accountable; there is a reason Congress holds the power of the purse.

Given the amount of wealth in the investment sector, the SEC and CFTC are especially prone to regulatory capture. If those agencies are self-funded, it becomes much more difficult for Congress to discipline them for inevitable misbehavior. Similarly, if an agency engages in regulation without representation and issues regulations without authorizing legislation from Congress, it is much harder to take them to task. Self-funding removes a crucial disincentive to bad regulatory behavior. And as any economist, public choice or otherwise, will tell you, people respond to their incentives.

Born and Donaldson want the SEC and CFTC to become self-funding because the government’s fiscal troubles are putting the agencies at risk of being cut. I propose they treat the root problem of fiscal incontinence rather than its symptoms.

Both legislature and executive should look long and hard for places to cut back unnecessary or low-priority spending. Trillion-dollar budget deficits are simply unacceptable, especially when tax revenues are at record-setting levels. Not only has the Bush-Obama spending binge put future generations at risk, it is also putting some of the government’s highest-priority regulatory initiatives at risk, right now. And symptomatic relief won’t cut it.

There Is Nothing Left to Cut

The White House spends about $277,000 per year on staff calligraphers.

Costco CEO Favors Minimum Wage Hike

An overlooked argument in the minimum wage debate is that a high minimum wage gives big businesses an artificial competitive advantage over their smaller competitors. As I noted recently:

When states are considering hiking their minimum wages, big companies like Walmart routinely lobby in favor of the increases. They know that while they can afford the extra payroll, the mom-and-pop store down the road might not be able to. Advantage: Walmart.

As if on cue, the Huffington Post reports today that Costco CEO Craig Jelinek came out in favor of increasing the minimum wage to $10 per hour, even higher than President Obama’s proposed $9 per hour. The article notes that Costco has a reputation for paying its employees very well, and would be mostly unaffected by such an increase.

Who would be affected? Costco’s smaller competitors, who would have to raise prices and/or trim their workforces to make payroll. Advantage: Costco.

Given how popular minimum wage increases are with non-economists, Jelinek stands to reap some good PR for Costco from his announcement. And maybe he really believes that a minimum wage hike would be a net good for the working poor. But another plausible explanation is rent-seeking — using government regulations to gain artificial competitive advantages (and profits). And that’s something a struggling economy could do without.

Why James Buchanan Deserved His Nobel

Better-Than-Plowing-and-Other-Personal-Essays-Buchanan-James-M-9780226078168
Sometimes offhand comments are the most revealing of all about someone’s character. Many Nobel laureates are defined by their vanity at least as much as their accomplishments. Not Buchanan. In an aside near the end of an autobiographical essay — written, at least in part, so he could shoo away pesky journalists asking about his life story, telling them to read this instead — he remarks that he doesn’t even feel like a part of the discipline whose highest honor he had recently won:

I am not, and never have been, an economist in an narrowly defined meaning. My interests in understanding how the economic interaction process works have always been instrumental to the more inclusive purpose of understanding how we can learn to live one with another without engaging in Hobbesian war and without subjecting ourselves to the dictates of the state. The “wealth of nations,” as such, has never commanded my attention save as a valued by-product of an effectively free society.

-James Buchanan, Better than Plowing and Other Personal Essays, p. 17

Right in line with the subtitle of Buchanan’s favorite book of his, The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan. The Buchananite approach is so much more relevant to the real world than the discipline’s conventional approach of inapplicable, if pretty, mathematical gymnastics.

Sequester Symposium

My colleague John Berlau was kind enough to cite me in his contribution to a National Review symposium on the sequester. You can read his otherwise-excellent article here.

Hoover Didn’t Cut Spending

Most people, including Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson, believe that Herbert Hoover’s laissez-faire budget cuts worsened the Great Depression. I have a letter in today’s paper pointing out that that isn’t true:

Harold Meyerson’s Feb. 27 op-ed column, “The perils of austerity,” claimed that Herbert Hoover cut spending. Hoover actually increased nominal spending by 48 percent in just four years. When he took office, the federal budget was $3.1 billion. His last budget, fiscal 1933, was $4.6 billion. Since there was roughly 10 percent annual deflation during that time, Hoover doubled federal spending in real terms. Even inside the Beltway, that does not qualify as a cut, let alone austerity. Mr. Meyerson should look elsewhere for arguments against sequestration.

Ryan Young, Washington
The writer is a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

For more on how Hoover’s reputation is almost exactly opposite the policies he actually enacted, see Steve Horwitz’s excellent paper, “Herbert Hoover: Father of the New Deal.”