Category Archives: Economics

There Is Nothing Left to Cut

There are currently four living ex-presidents. All of them are wealthy. According to Politico, all of them are also accepting taxpayer largesse:

George W. Bush may have raked in $15 million from speeches alone in 2010, but he still expensed $1.3 million to taxpayers, including $80,000 in phone bills, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl reported in “Spinners and Winners.”And Bill Clinton also made it big on the speech circuit — bringing in $10 million — and billed more than $1 million in expenses to taxpayers. Jimmy Carter, meanwhile, received over half a million in expenses, including $15,000 for postage, and taxpayers also paid $830,000 for George H.W. Bush.

Entitlement reform is what it will ultimately take to balance the books, and should be one of Congress’ highest priorities. But wasteful spending such as George W. Bush’s phone bill should be reined in, too. Fortunately, a bill from Rep. Jason Chaffetz would end taxpayer giveaways to ex-presidents with incomes over $400,000 per year.

CEI Podcast for May 3, 2012: Paving the Way for Innovation and Job Creation


Have a listen here.

Unemployment remains stubbornly high, more than three years after the financial crisis hit. Congress has tried a number of measures, from fiscal stimulus to stricter financial regulations. None of them have worked. That’s because they get in the way of the key driver of economic growth – innovation. And as any entrepreneur will tell you, innovation requires investment. John Berlau, CEI’s Senior Fellow for Finance and Access to Capital, suggests a number of reforms to make innovation, investment, and job creation easier.

$15 Trillion for… What, Exactly?

In a new study, Cato’s Michael Tanner finds that “Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we be­gan more than 40 years ago.”

Poverty relief is one of the noblest and most important projects in any society. The only question is how to go about it. Right now, the federal government has 126 different welfare programs; Tanner is kind enough to list them all in a 5-page appendix. Their combined annual cost is $668 billion. That’s a lot of money – about $14,848 for every person in poverty.

The trouble is that the results have been disappointing. The poverty rate is currently 15.1 percent, the highest it’s been in a decade. If the chosen means aren’t achieving the end, then it’s time to choose some different means.

One solution is to make it easier to find a job. About one third of all occupations require a license. The people in charge of handing out licenses are typically members of the occupation, and have a vested interest in keeping potential competitors out. By removing licensing requirements from most occupations, more people can find jobs in fields ranging from interior decorating to hair-braiding to driving a taxi. More competition also means lower prices for consumers, so their dollars go further. That’s important for people who don’t have a lot of dollars.

The regulatory thicket also discourages people from starting their own businesses. Lightening paperwork burdens and compliance costs would make it easier for people to open stores, provide services, create jobs, and lift people out of poverty.

Education is important for getting a good-paying job. But good schools, especially good public schools, are mainly the province of the rich. Introducing some competition into the failed monopoly school system through tax credits or vouchers would do wonders for delivering a better education to the kids who need it most.

There is no single magic bullet to poverty relief. The ideas above are just a start, and a modest one at that. But $15 trillion later, it is clear that the War on Poverty has failed the poor. It’s time to look elsewhere for solutions that actually work.

Orange County Register on the Apple E-Book Case

The Orange County Register’s editorial board shares my skepticism of the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Apple. In an otherwise-excellent editorial, they also quote me:

“You could actually say that Apple is bringing more competition to the market, not less,” through its deals with the book publishers, Ryan Young told us. He’s a fellow in regulatory studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It gives Apple a foothold in the market, instead of there just being two e-book players, Amazon and Barnes & Noble. The cost of producing e-books is close to zero, just a few electrons. So what’s the correct way to price e-books? I don’t know. The Department of Justice doesn’t know. Apple, Amazon and Barnes & Noble don’t know, either. Nobody knows. Only the market can sort it out as consumers express their preferences.”

Antitrust is a blunt instrument for something that changes as fast as an economy. Especially when it’s wielded by people who suffer from Certainty with a capital C.

Tax Day Approacheth

Have you ever noticed that Tax Day is almost exactly antipodal with Election Day on the calendar? If that’s a coincidence, it’s a happy one for politicians. Complying with the 70,000-page tax code costs about $300 billion per year, and takes the equivalent of 3.8 million workers. By comparison, the income tax raises a little over $1.4 trillion per year. It’s an incredibly inefficient way to raise money.

In this video, our good friends over at the Cato Institute make the case for simplification. Maybe moving Tax Day and Election Day closer together would spur Congress to do something about it. Meanwhile, the U.S. is falling behind other countries that are adopting simpler systems every year, such as a flat tax or a fair tax.

Click here if the embedded video below doesn’t work.

IBD’s Take on the Apple E-Book Lawsuit

I am quoted in an otherwise-excellent writeup on the Apple e-book case in Investor’s Business Daily.

CEI Podcast for April 12, 2012: Apple, E-Books, and Antitrust


Have a listen here.

Yesterday the Justice Department sued Apple and five major publishers over their e-book pricing model, alleging price fixing. Associate Director of Technology Studies Ryan Radia thinks the lawsuit is a mistake, and should be dropped.

Justice Department Should Drop Apple Lawsuit

The Justice Department sued Apple and five major publishers this morning over their e-book pricing policies. Under their current contracts, a book’s publisher sets the price, and Apple gets 30 percent of the revenues. DoJ believes this is collusion. In a CEI press release, Wayne Crews and I explain why the lawsuit is a mistake, and should be dropped. Here’s Wayne:

“The complaint against Apple seems to be that collusion and smoke-filled rooms paved the way to a deal by which Apple gets a 30 percent cut of the publishers’ e-books sold for Apple devices, while other vendors are forbidden from selling below that pre-specified price. Such ordinary business deals, you see, involve a now-disparaged free market instrument called a ‘contract.’

“This arrangement appears to have been a normal response to Amazon’s deep discounts of e-books below physical book prices. DoJ’s solution is presumably to stop free enterprise, and allow Amazon to dominate e-books? Now, thanks to DoJ getting involved, competitors need not respond to to Apple and the publishers to better serve consumers and shareholders.”

And here’s my take:

“Given Amazon’s much larger share of the e-book market, Apple is hardly in a position to price its products uncompetitively. If consumers feel overcharged, they can easily give their business to Amazon or Barnes & Noble instead – possibly by using Apple’s own products!

“Five years ago, the e-book market didn’t even exist. Now it has a variety of competitors, each of whom are trying out new, different, and evolving business models. Consumers are much better positioned to reward good pricing models and punish bad ones than are Justice Department attorneys.

“This lawsuit is further evidence of how poorly smokestack-era antitrust policies fit our information age economy. E-book manufacturers and publishers are trying and discarding different business models at a fast rate as they figure out what works and what doesn’t. By the time the wheels of justice slowly creak to a verdict, Apple, Penguin, Simon & Schuster, and the other defendants will have long since moved on to some other pricing policy. The Justice Department should admit its mistake and drop the lawsuit.”

Wayne also has more to say in his latest Forbes column.

Sources of Economic Error

George Mason University economist Peter Boettke has a new working paper out that not only tells Economics in One Lesson author Henry Hazlitt’s life story, but goes into great detail about the ongoing tension between pure academics and public intellectuals. Here’s how Boettke describes Hazlitt’s view on why so many people favor bad economic policies. In a prescient anticipation of public choice theory, sometimes it’s on purpose:

[P]ersistent error haunts economic reasoning not only due to the intellectual shortcomings of men. The problem of the special pleading of interest groups in economic affairs means that the inherent intellectual limitations of man are multiplied a thousand times over in the discipline of economics as opposed to physics, mathematics or medicine. Interest groups rely on fallacies to agitate for policies that benefit them at the expense of others.

Peter Boettke, “The Public Intellectual as Economist: The Case of Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993),” p.22.

CEI Podcast for April 5, 2012: The Export-Import Bank


Have a listen here.

Every year, Washington spends more than $90 billion on corporate welfare – giving taxpayer dollars to private businesses. The Export-Import Bank is one of the most flagrant corporate welfare programs. A vote to reauthorize it recently failed both Houses of Congress, but will likely come up again soon. Vice President for Strategy Iain Murray thinks the Export-Import Bank should become an ex-bank.