Category Archives: Economics

Rick Moranis, Economist

Rick Moranis is an actor, comedian, and writer. Among other roles, he played Dark Helmet in Spaceballs, one of my favorite movies. Turns out he also knows a bit about the economic way of thinking. Here he is in today’s Wall Street Journal:

This morning, while I was grinding my blend of French, Colombian and Italian coffee beans, it occurred to me that I could be doing harm to the coffee shop and diner businesses in my neighborhood by making my own coffee at home. Might I have a responsibility and obligation to consume their product, either within their premises or brought right to my door by one of their speedy, undocumented-alien delivery men?

How much of this country’s economy am I personally destroying by my consumption preferences? I honestly never intended to do so much harm.

Read the whole thing.

The Humble Economist

I learned a lot from this long-form interview with George Mason economics professor Pete Boettke. One of my few regrets from my time at GMU is that I never took any of his classes. I try to make up for it by regularly reading Coordination Problem, where Boettke blogs with several other distinguished economists.

Here’s his response when the interviewer asks him why so many Austrian-influenced economists are libertarians. The correlation isn’t due to ideology:

What the position makes you have is not libertarianism, or anything like that, but humility. The economist is nothing more than a student of society, and any economist that tries to represent themselves as a saviour of society should be subject to ridicule.

A Bit of Economics Humor

Rhodes College economics professor (and sharp wit) Art Carden created a bunch of meme pictures to accompany a talk he gives about the nine basic principles of the economic way of thinking. This article briefly summarizes them. My two favorite pictures are below. Click here to see the rest.

Lazy Economists

Comedy gold. Best line: “If it doesn’t fit in your model, assume it away. Idiot.” Click here if the embedded video doesn’t work.

Regulation of the Day 204: How to Buy Liquor

UPDATE: Welcome, Reason Hit & Run readers! More Regulations of the Day are here.

Self-checkout lanes have been popping up in grocery stores across the country over the last several years. Some people worry that without the adult supervision of a cashier, underage kids might be able to illegally buy alcohol at these self-checkout lanes. California state Rep. Fiona Ma even introduced a bill that took effect on January 1 that prohibits Californians of any age from using self-checkout lanes to purchase alcoholic beverages.

Has this been a huge problem in the past? Two independent studies have been done to find out. A 2009 UCLA study, cited by Rep. Ma to support her bill, found that underagers failed in 80.5 percent of their attempts. A separate study done by researchers at San Diego State, found that young hooligans had a 90.6 percent failure rate.

So yes, kids can buy booze at self-checkout lanes. But it’s probably less successful than other methods. As Joe Eskenazi put it in SF Weekly’s blog, “The best way to get alcohol remains to rely on a fake ID, theft, or someone’s skeezy 23-year-old cousin.”

Of course, there is another factor in play here, and likely Rep. Ma’s real motivation. That factor is rent-seeking. Many grocery cashier jobs are unionized. The more people use self-checkout lanes, the less they use the cashiers. Unions don’t appreciate the competition, so they work with lawmakers like Rep. Ma to legislate their preferences over consumers’.

According to Maplight.org, labor interests donated $150,450 to Rep. Ma’s campaign fund in 2009-10. They are by far her largest contributors.

This is an example of what economist Bruce Yandle calls a Baptist-and-bootlegger problem. Back in the old days, many Baptist preachers favored Prohibition because they believed drinking was morally wrong. Bootleggers favored Prohibition, too. Black market profits are far higher than in legal markets. So the bootleggers would manipulate the Baptists into favoring a bad policy by using the language of morality.

Fast-forward to today. Almost nobody wants increased underage drinking. And unions don’t want competition. So the bootleggers make up a story about how automated checkout lanes are causing runaway underage drinking. Social conservatives jump on board, wanting to strike a blow for morality. The bill gets passed, the Baptists feel good, and the bootleggers financially benefit. So do legislators.

Consumers, of course, are left out of this coalition.

Regulatory Capture

Businesses, especially larger ones, aren’t afraid of regulation. They often welcome it. They can use rules to stifle competitors, or can pad their profits by forcing consumers to pay higher prices. There’s a reason so many businesses have a Washington office. They’re trying to influence regulations and regulators alike.

This is called regulatory capture, and George Washington University’s Susan Dudley gives some examples in the video below. Click here if the embedded video below doesn’t work.

Economic vs. Political Processes, or Why More Students Should Major in Economics

Gernot Wagner, in the Washington Post:

Markets, in fact, work all too well. They are an aggregator of wishes and desires, however misguided they may be.

This is actually a more accurate description of democracy — especially the misguided wishes bit. There is little, if anything aggregate about the market process. It is the process of individuals making exchanges with other individuals, each individually trying to meet their individual wants and individual needs.

The first thing I learned in undergrad macro is that all economics is micro. GDP and other indicators try to sum up the results of that process. But it all happens at the individual level.

Every customer at a grocery store gets an individually customized bundle of goods. Usually, no two are the same. But in a democracy, there are usually only two bundles of policy stances to choose from. And almost nobody agrees with the entire contents of one of the bundles. Nobody gets what they want. The successful politician picks his positions based on aggregate opinion, and ignores individual opinion.

But I quibble. The point of Wagner’s piece is to steer young people towards studying economics, and he makes a good case. He also offers some great advice, though it does contradict most of the policy prescriptions he puts forth:

Economists ought to be more humble in what we know and how we teach it.

Precisely. Humility is at the core of the economic way of thinking, and should form the basis of any humane political philosophy. It’s ok to admit that it’s impossible to consciously push an economy in a given direction without unintended consequences. And it’s not ok to tell other people you know what’s best for them.

(via Russ Roberts)

Profits and Losses

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

TO THE EDITOR:

Amar Bhidé argues that “governments should fully guarantee all bank deposits — and impose much tighter restrictions on risk-taking by banks.” (“Bring Back Boring Banks,” Jan. 4).

The lure of profit is why banks take on risk in the first place. But the specter of loss encourages them to be prudent about it. When governments remove losses from the equation, banks lose any incentive to keep their risk-taking in check. Someone else will pick up the tab if a plan doesn’t work, so why not take a chance? Hence the financial crisis.

Capitalism is a system of both profit and loss. Wishing losses away would have consequences quite different from Bhidé’s good intentions.

RYAN YOUNG
Washingon, Jan. 4, 2012
The writer is a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Capitalism and Morality

In less than two minutes, Tom Palmer explains why capitalism is more moral and just than illiberal economic systems. Click here if the embedded video below doesn’t work.

Economics and Christmas

Art Carden has an amusing article up at Forbes titled “Ruining Christmas: An Economist’s Guide.” Here’s a taste:

1. You Shouldn’t Have. No, Really. You Shouldn’t Have. The classic salvo in the literature on the economics of Christmas is Joel Waldfogel’s “The Deadweight Loss of Christmas,” which provides a bit of evidence that people would be happier if you gave them cash instead of an equally-expensive present. Yes, it’s the thought that counts, but how many of us have given (or gotten) gifts that have ended up in an end-of-year Goodwill donation or a Spring yard sale?

We learned this first-hand at a family holiday party that involved a white elephant gift exchange. Everyone went home happy, but one participant (an Alabama fan) opened a box of Auburn stuff, another (an Auburn fan) opened Alabama stuff, and one of the gifts I (an Alabama fan) opened was an LSU cap. Again, everything worked out in the end, but the initial distribution was incredibly inefficient.

Read the whole thing. Carden also wrote the equally amusing “How Economics Saved Christmas.” My review of Waldfogel’s book is here.