Sometimes, the fastest, most effective way to explain economics is to tell a story. One of the best-done examples is in Steven Landsburg’s book The Armchair Economist, where he tells David Friedman’s “Iowa Car Crop” story to get readers to think about trade (see pp. 197-99).
[T]here are two technologies for producing automobiles in America. One is to manufacture them in Detroit, and the other is to grow them in Iowa.
Okay… how does that work?
First you plant seeds, which are the raw material from which automobiles are constructed. You wait a few months until wheat appears. Then you harvest the wheat, load it onto ships, and sail the ships eastward into the Pacific Ocean. After a few months, the ships reappear with Toyotas on them.
Sounds almost magical. But it happens millions of times every day. The lesson is that trade is about specialization. A farmer doesn’t know how to build a car. But he can still have one by sticking to his specialty – growing wheat. He can trade his surplus to other people who do nothing but specialize in building cars.
This cuts both ways. Most factory workers don’t know a thing about farming. But by concentrating on building cars, they eat far better than if they grew their own wheat. The nature of trade is that everyone wins when they specialize. The only limit on specialization is the size of the market.
Restrictions on trade – tariffs, quotas, antidumping duties — shrink that market. And by shrinking the market, they limit specialization, which is the source of all prosperity. It’s good to grow cars in Iowa.
The lesson doesn’t apply to just wheat and cars. It applies to everything. Tom Palmer from the Atlas Economic Research Foundation makes that clear as day in this excellent video. If you want to learn the meaning of free trade in under three minutes, this is as good as it gets.
Cato’s Dan Mitchell gives a quick primer on the capital gains tax in the latest short video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.
President Obama wants to raise the rate from 15 percent to 20 percent. Dan gives six reasons why he should lower it to zero:
-Taxing saving and investment more means there will be less of it.
-Entrepreneurs will take fewer risks since higher capital gains taxes lower their return on investment. Why bother to innovate?
-America’s high capital gains tax rate makes us less competitive than other countries that have a lower tax rate – or no tax at all.
-IRS busybodies nosing around in our investment portfolios is hardly conducive to protecting privacy.
-Investment creates jobs. The capital gains tax lowers investment, and therefore job creation.
-A capital gains tax is inherently unfair. Tax laws should not penalize people based on how they earn, spend, or save their income. Taxes should be as neutral as possible.
Posted in Economics, Taxation
Tagged basic economics, capital gains tax, cato, cato institute, center for freddom and prosperity, dan mitchell, Economics, investment, savings, tax, tax cut, tax increase, Taxation
One of the problems with current immigration laws is that they raise the price of immigrating legally. Basic economics tells us that when something costs more, people consume less of it.
That’s why so many of America’s immigrants are turning to dangerous but cheap immigration black markets to enter the country. This is a problem with an obvious solution. In today’s American Spectator, Alex Nowrasteh and I make the case that lowering the cost of legal immigration through liberalization will reduce the amount of illegal immigration, and shrink cruel black markets.
Basic economics wins again.
Posted in Economics, Immigration, Publications, Uncategorized
Tagged basic economics, black markets, Economics, freedom, H-1B visas, h-2a visas, illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, illegal immigration, Immigration, immigration reform, liberalization, prohibition
Not at all, to be honest. For starters, the very notion of stimulus violates basic economics. Taking money out of the economy and then putting it back in has no net effect. But it gets worse. Much worse.
When that money is put back into the economy, it goes to the weirdest places — $3.4 million is going to Florida to build a tunnel under U.S. Highway 27, so turtles can cross safely. A fish hatchery in South Dakota is getting $20,000 for new light fixtures. $50,000 is being spent to resurface a tennis court in Bozeman, Montana.
And so on.
These boondoggles aren’t getting nearly enough press. To help fill the vacuum, the good folks at Citizens Against Government Waste have put up a new website, MyWastedTaxDollars.org. Click on over and check it out. The best feature is an interactive map that shows just how unwisely stimulus funds are being spent all over the country.
Stimulus is worse than a zero-sum game. It is actively harmful. It is government saying that it knows how to spend your money better than you do; stimulus is the ultimate act of hubris. Kudos to CAGW and MyWastedTaxDollars.org for providing hundreds of examples of why government hubris should be replaced with government humility.
Posted in Economics, Stimulus
Tagged basic economics, boondoggle, bozeman, bozeman montana, cagw, citizens against government waste, Economics, fl, florida, florida tag, government waste, hatchery, montana, mt, mywastedtaxdollars.org, opportunity costs, sd, south dakota, Stimulus, stimulus package, turtles, waste
Ever hear the old canard that war is good for the economy? Or that natural disasters create jobs? Those arguments illustrate one of the oldest fallacies in economics: Bastiat’s broken window fallacy. The video below, by Tom Palmer and his colleagues at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, explains why in two minutes and change. Worth watching.
As the House gets ready to pass the health care bill today, I’m reminded of one of the first lessons in economics I ever learned. Milton Friedman put it best:
There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.
The biggest problem with health care today is that patients only pay 12 percent of costs out of pocket. As far as each individual is concerned, it’s basically on sale for 88 percent off! No wonder we spend so much on health care.
Today’s bill consists almost entirely of spending other peoples’ money on other people. If it becomes law, that 12 percent figure will fall even further. This is no way to keep costs under control. However noble Congress’ intentions may be, its bill will not work as advertised. Human nature won’t allow it.
Posted in Economics, Health Care, Spending
Tagged basic economics, econ 101, Economics, economics 101, hcr, Health Care, health care bill, health care reform, milton friedman, obamacare, spending, spending other peoples' money