Influential Books

Over at EconLog, George Mason economics professor Bryan Caplan lists the 15 books that have been his biggest intellectual influences. It’s worth a look. For you libertarian ideologues out there, pay attention to what he says about Rothbard and Mises. I love them both, and clearly so does Caplan; he assigned a fair amount of Rothbard when I took his graduate public finance class. But they’re not without their faults.

My own list would look pretty different. But I have to say, it would share a lot of common themes.

Does March Madness Really Hurt the Economy?

An annual study claims that the NCAA’s basketball championship tournament makes workers less productive. The illicit temptations of filling out brackets and watching games instead of working will cost the economy about $1.8 billion this year.  Over at the Daily Caller, I show why that’s (mostly) a myth.

The Economics of Romance

Tim Harford, Financial Times columnist and author of the underrated The Undercover Economist, takes some questions about economics and relationships with the New York Times’ Freakonomics blog.

The first question made me laugh, and also reminded me of my economist self a bit too much for comfort. And the part about engagement rings was enlightening — especially since I bought one not too long ago.

(Hat tip to my fiancee, who thankfully said yes.)

I’m on Twitter

I finally joined the 21st century and signed up for Twitter. If you’re a Twitter user, you can follow me at @RegoftheDay.

Senate Passes $18,000,000,000 Spending Bill: Will it Create Jobs?

The Senate just passed an $18 billion spending bill. Since the House already passed it, the legislation is now headed to President Obama’s desk to await his signature and become law.

The hope is that the spending will create jobs. If you’re reading this blog, then you probably know enough about economics to know that isn’t what will actually happen. Remember: anything that Washington giveth, it must first taketh away from somewhere else. It’s a zero-sum game. All those new jobs that politicians will be touting for the cameras will have come at the expense of other jobs elsewhere. On net, they’re not creating a thing.

Take the payroll tax break for small businesses that’s in the bill. Yes, those small businesses benefit. Maybe the money they save will even be used to hire more workers. That’s easy enough to see. But that money had to come from somewhere. That is harder to see. Too hard for the Senate to see, at the very least.

The reason is this: the government is foregoing some payroll tax revenue. But since it isn’t cutting spending to match, it has to borrow more. And there’s only so much investment capital to go around. Because Washington is borrowing more, less is left over for private investment opportunities. At the very least, companies will have to offer investors higher interest rates to lure them away from government bonds.

That makes getting loans more expensive. And when something gets more expensive, there tends to be less of it. Because of today’s bill, about $18 billion less capital will be available for the private sector to create jobs.

The legislation the Senate passed today is no jobs bill, at least on net. It is a spending bill. It doesn’t create jobs, it only redirects them.

The Wisdom of George Stigler

George Stigler won a Nobel Prize for his work on the economics of regulation. He wrote extensively about regulatory capture, and in fact coined the term. He was one of only a few sane souls who stubbornly insisted that regulations be judged by their actual results, not their intended results. Good intentions, however noble, are not enough. Here’s an example of Stigler at his finest:

Regulation and competition are rhetorical friends and deadly enemies: over the doorway of every regulatory agency save two should be carved: “Competition Not Admitted.” The Federal Trade Commission’s doorway should announce , “Competition Admitted in Rear,” and that of the Antitrust Division, “Monopoly Only by Appointment.”

-George Stigler, “Can Regulatory Agencies Protect the Consumer?”, from The Citizen and the State: Essays on Regulation (1975), p. 183.

Regulation of the Day 127: Landscaping

Southern California is a dry place, prone to droughts. So Angelina and Quan Ha, of Orange, CA, ditched their water-hungry grass lawn about two years ago. They replaced it with “a drought-tolerant garden filled with lavender, rosemary and native wildflower seeds.” They claim the switch is saving them hundreds of dollars per year, not to mention hundreds of thousands of gallons of precious water.

The city of Orange promptly sued them, claiming their lawn violates local regulations. At least 40 percent of a yard must be covered with living plants. The city contends that the sparse shrubs and plants in the Ha family’s yard don’t meet the threshold.

“Compliance, that’s all we’ve ever wanted,” Senior Assistant City Attorney Wayne Winthers said. “They put up a nice fence, but it didn’t show anything about how they had complied with code, as far as the front yard goes.”

This is a fancy way of saying, “you will do what I tell you.” This is not a healthy attitude for any person to have.

The Has pled not guilty in court on March 2. If they lose, they are looking at up to six months of jail time and a $1,000 fine.

Fortunately, after a rash of bad publicity surrounding the court hearing, the city announced within hours that it was considering dropping the charges.

(Hat tip to Megan McLaughlin)

Hayek’s Uneasy Relationship with Conservatives

Bill Easterly does a good job of sticking up for Hayek.

Hayek could be quite different than Hayekians. That distinction needs to be made in this era of tea parties and the dominant liberal-vs.-conservative false dichotomy.

I think it’s great that some conservatives are boosting Hayek (I wish progressives would, too; they’d find a lot to like). It just appears they aren’t reading him very closely. Do bear that in mind before associating Hayek with conservatism.

Worth reading: Hayek’s essay, “Why I Am Not a Conservative.” Print it out. Read it closely. Mark up the margins with your notes and reactions. Agree or disagree, this essay rewards deep and careful thought. I’ve read it several times over the years, and every time I pick it up again I learn something new.

Regulation of the Day 126: Cheese-Rolling Races

One of Great Britain’s most light-hearted traditions is the cheese-rolling race. Every year on the May Bank Day holiday, wheels of cheese are rolled down Cooper’s Hill in Brockworth, Gloucester. Adventurous and/or foolhardy souls roll down the hill in hot pursuit; the one who gets a hold of the cheese before reaching the bottom of the hill wins. You can watch a video of last year’s race here. Winners get to keep the cheese as a prize.

Cheese-rolling races have been held at Cooper’s Hill since the 1800s. Until this year, that is. Health and safety regulators shut down this year’s event because it has become too popular. The Daily Mail reports:

More than 15,000 spectators turned out last year, which, at three times the site’s capacity, means it has ‘outgrown the location’.
Richard Jefferfies, one of the organi[z]ers, said: ‘‘We have had to cancel on the advice of the police and local authorities this year because of the issues of health and safety and other aspects.

‘As well as concerns about the safety of the crowd and the competitors, local landowners were also worried by the amount of damage done by people climbing over fences and that sort of thing.’

It is hoped the races will return next year.

How Do These People Avoid Cognitive Dissonance?

Supporters of the health care bill spend a lot of time attacking health insurance companies.

The health care bill, by the way, would legally require people to give a lot of money to those same insurance companies. A lot of money. It would be the largest corporate gift Washington has ever given out — as much as $1.5 trillion over ten years by one estimate.

Health insurers’ loudest detractors are actually their best friends, and they don’t even seem to realize it. Apparently, regulatory capture is not always a conscious process.