Category Archives: Economics

The Poor Benefit Most

Deirdre McCloskey’s Great Fact is the leaps and bounds that human well-being has made over the last 200 years. The improvement is a factor of at least 16 in monetary terms, and as much as 100-fold when accounting for the improved quality of goods. Think of the difference between a CD and an iPod. Not 16 or 100 percent; 16 or 100-fold. That’s huge.

The improvement is so huge that she believes the Great Fact is the most important event in human history since the Agricultural Revolution asserted itself around 10,000 years ago. And the best news about the Great Fact should bring cheer to anyone who holds a place in their heart for the poor:

In statistics and in substance the very poorest have benefitted the most. Robert Fogel, a careful student of such matters, notes that “the average real income of the bottom fifth of the [American] population has multiplied by some twentyfold since 1890, several times more than the gain realized by the rest of the population.” The bottom 10 percent have moved from undernutrition to overnutrition, and from crowded slum housing to uncrowded slum housing, and from broken-down buses to broken-down automobiles.

Deirdre McCloskey, Bourgeouis Dignity, p. 72.

There’s still a ways to go, obviously. So let’s keep it going. But anyone who denies the significance of the massive gains already made contributes nothing towards the noble cause of eradicating global poverty, and in fact poisons the project.

A Second Measure of Progress

More good news from Matt Ridley:

In twentieth century oil has been the chief cause of anxiety. In 1914, the United States Bureau of Mines predicted that American oil reserves would last ten years. In 1939 the Department of the Interior said American oil would last thirteen years. Twelve years later it said the oil would last another thirteen years President Jimmy Carter announced in the 1970s that: “We could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade. In 1970, there were 550 billion barrels of oil reserves in the ground and between 1970 and 1990 the world used 6000 billion barrels of oil. So reserves should have been overdrawn by fifty billion barrels by 1990… Shale gas finds have recently doubled America’s gas resources to nearly three centuries’ worth.

Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist, pp. 237-38.

One Measure of Progress

This quote from friend-of-CEI Matt Ridley is too good not to share. Something to be thankful for on Thanksgiving:

Ask how much artificial light you can earn with an hour of work at the average wage. The amount has increased from 24 lumen-hours in 1750 BC (sesame oil lamp) to 186 in 1800 (tallow candle) to 4,400 in 1880 (kerosene lamp) to 531,000 in 1950 (incandescent light bulb) to 8.4 million lumen-hours today (compact fluorescent bulb). Put it another way, an hour of work today earns you 300 days’ worth of reading light; an hour of work in 1800 earned you ten minutes of reading light.

Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist, p. 20.

Should Matt Kemp Have Won the MVP?

Ryan Braun won the NL MVP even thought Matt Kemp put up better numbers. Over at The American Spectator, I explain why Braun was the more valuable player. The economist’s habit of thinking at the margin shows why:

Kemp clearly had a better 2011. But at the margin, Braun was far more valuable. Without Kemp, the Dodgers would have won 72 games. With him, they won 82. That’s not a big difference at the margin. It’s nice to finish above .500, but there’s no real difference between a 72-win season and an 82-win season. You miss the playoffs either way.

Braun took the Brewers from 88 wins to 96 wins. There is a world of difference between 88 wins and 96 wins. It’s the difference between missing the playoffs and winning the division. Every single win that Braun created was absolutely crucial to the Brewers playing in the postseason instead of watching it from home.

So even though Braun created fewer wins, each of them was extremely valuable. That’s why he’s the MVP.

Read the whole thing here.

What Decline and Fall?

Roger Cohen’s column in today’s New York Times is titled “Decline and Fall.” Channeling Gibbon, he compares America in 2011 to Rome in 475 A.D., says “the West is shot,” commits the broken window fallacy, and generally paints a picture of doom and gloom.

Classical references aside, Cohen seems to be innocent of historical knowledge. The graph below shows real GDP since 1929 (source). The wee little dip at the end is the cause of Cohen’s histrionics.

Yes, economic growth is weak. Far, far too many people are out of work. And it will probably be a few years before boom times return. But context, please.

Why Is Immigration Illegal Anyway?

Art Carden and Ben Powell ask that fundamental question, and answer it brilliantly:

American immigration restrictions have a long history, but they have never been a good idea. Economist Thomas Leonard documents how even some Progressive Era economists supported immigration restrictions and minimum wages because they wanted to shut members of what they called “low-wage races” out of the American labor market…

Fears that immigrants will wreck our economy are probably the biggest reason substantial barriers to legal immigration remain on the books. But immigrants don’t take our jobs, lower our wages or depress the American economy.

Virtually all economists who study immigration find that it provides a small but positive impact on the economy. It should be obvious that immigrants don’t steal jobs from the native-born. Since 1950, the labor force has more than doubled but long-run unemployment is essentially unchanged. As we’ve added more workers, we’ve added more jobs.

Read the whole thing here.

Spontaneous Order in Action

The Daily Show‘s Samantha Bee recently visited Zuccotti Park for a story. Click here to watch the segment. She was surprised by how quickly social norms and structures spontaneously evolved among the Occupiers. Or, as she put it to one startled interviewee:

“You’ve been here for eight weeks and you already have a ghetto?”

CEI Podcast for November 17, 2011: Conflict Guitars

Have a listen here.

Conflict minerals are goods that come from sources that use the revenues to fund civil wars and other atrocities. CEI Founder and President Fred Smith talks about why restricting conflict mineral trade can mean more violence, not less. He also discusses why the Gibson guitar company was unjustly raided by the federal government for importing wood that may or may not have been illegally harvested by its suppliers.

My Job Creation Proposal

Over at The American Spectator, I break down the debate over regulation’s impact on the job market and propose one regulation that could create countless jobs:

As everyone knows, winter is coming. And many of the nation’s least-employed states will see a lot of snow this year. Already, giant snowplows are beginning to traverse the highways and byways of Michigan, Ohio, and other states going through hard times. With these plows, one man can do the work of a hundred.

I say we ban snowplows and hand out some shovels.

Think about it for a minute. In Michigan alone, nearly 520,000 people are looking for a job and can’t find one. Tens of thousands of miles of roads zig and zag across the state. If this winter lives up to lofty Midwestern standards, it’s possible that every last one of those 520,000 could work at least part time clearing the way for their fellow citizens. And all because of regulation!

I do enjoy economic humor. Read the whole thing here.

Debating Return-Free Taxes: Rep. Jim Cooper Responds

Last week, I made the case against return-free taxes in an op-ed in The Hill. Under such a system, the IRS would prepare your taxes for you.

Rep. Jim Cooper, a Democrat from Tennessee, is the sponsor of a bill that would institute a return-free program. He responded to my criticisms in a letter to the editor that ran yesterday. He explains his position, and for some reason also throws an ad hominem my way. I’ve met Rep. Cooper and have worked with him and his staff on several occasions. We disagree on this issue, but overall I have a positive opinion of him. He is more philosophical and better-read than the average Congressman, but he doesn’t seem to quite understand my position. Rep. Cooper argues:

Arguments that a Simple Return is a regressive tax on the poor assume the government will take advantage of those who file basic returns by consistently erring in its own interest and hoping filers don’t notice. There are no facts to support this claim.

Actually, there are. I share one of them in my article:

That is exactly the case in the U.K., which uses a return-free system. The government has a 15 percent error rate, overwhelmingly in the government’s favor. In 2009, British taxpayers were overcharged the equivalent of $370 million. Those lucky enough to underpay still didn’t get a good deal. They are held liable for the government’s mistakes. Today, 1.4 million people are on the hook for an average of $2,200 each — a month’s pay for many people.

Here is Rep. Cooper’s closing flourish:

A powerful lobbying interest made up of accounting, advisory, and software firms wants to defeat this bill. Those companies are cashing in on taxpayers’ $2 billion annual misery. No wonder they don’t want a simpler system.

I can’t speak for powerful lobbying interests since I’m neither powerful nor a lobbyist. Nor do I have a personal stake in the bill. But even if I did, that would have nothing to do with whether the arguments I make are right or wrong. That depends on their actual merits. That Rep. Cooper dodges those merits means that he must believe his own arguments are weak. Why else the need to go personal?

There is also the fact that I do, in fact, favor a simpler tax system. Here’s the closing line from my article:

There are much better ways to reduce the 26-hour burden Americans face every year. The obvious solution is to simplify the 70,000-page tax code.

It’s possible to have even a progressive, multi-tiered income tax that takes up only a few pages. Real tax reform would eliminate almost all deductions, tax breaks, and other special favors. They encourage endless rent-seeking, and waste millions of man-hours that could be spent doing something productive instead.

A return-free system would do precisely nothing to simplify the tax code. It would merely keep that complexity out of sight, and out of mind. That makes reform harder, not easier. Rep. Cooper is proposing to treat a symptom. I encourage him to go after the root problem instead.