Some miscellaneous random clips I snagged this week. Classic examples of the ongoing and pervasive real-world manifestations of what students learn in Public Choice Theory 101.
Might provide a little balance to those who obsess single-mindedly over “Market Failure.”
Officers were told to arrest people who were doing little more than standing on the street, but they were also encouraged to disregard actual victims of serious crimes who wanted to file reports. Arresting bystanders made it look like the department was efficient, while artificially reducing the amount of serious crime made the commander look good.
Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas officials filed thousands of false Medicaid claims worth more than $5 million, according to a federal whistleblower lawsuit.
The federal government sent the city of Detroit $11 million to, among other things, buy new clothes for job seekers. Instead of just giving out vouchers to use at private stores, the city’s Department of Human Services opened its own clothing boutique. You know where this is going. A program intended to help 400 people clothed only two, and spent $148,000 to do it.
After more than 100 crashes in 20 months, traffic engineers are rethinking the peculiar design of that twin-ring roundabout on Hillsborough Street in Raleigh. They know better than to blame all the drivers who keep banging into each other’s cars there, in front of the N.C. State University Bell Tower.
Mohair subsidy, which originated post WWII out of concern about the future availability of wool for military uniforms. Today, more than a half century later — when military uniforms are largely composed of synthetic material — the program still benefits goat herders in Texas, now under the friendly jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee. The subsidy was seemingly killed in the mid-90s and again in 2001, but it was resuscitated each time by the loving care of special interests. And while it was defunded again last year, the underlying authorizing legislation remains on the books, ready to revive the subsidy at any moment.
There are separate windows for Amtrak and commuter lines everywhere I’ve been. Given that many journeys include both commuter and inter-city segments, this seems crazy. If you can’t have integrated ticketing (and actually, I don’t see why you can’t), at least you should be able to have a single agent help you.
Note! Downloading videos is a violation of the YouTube terms of service. See below. Personal, temporary use is not an approved scenario. Based on this information, suggest you limit your caching to sites that are OK with this behavior, or do as I now do and leverage the ability of iTunes to cache locally — and legally — on your devices. (H/T to Brandon Wirtz — @BWOps)
Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content.
Prepping for my next trip on a plane, and hoped to download some lectures on YouTube to watch on my iPad while airborne. Normally I just do the old command + option + a Activity Window trick in Safari and it works like a charm. I get a FLV file (which I convert using an old copy of Quicktime Pro) and I’m good to go.
Problem is, it doesn’t work anymore. I suspect YouTube has “fixed” their site so the Safari download trick no longer does the job. Kind of like how Apple “fixed” Quicktime, so you can’t do any pro stuff anymore. (Someday I’ll do that “upgrades as downgrades” post…)
ANYWAY. After rejecting many programs that want me to pay $29.95, I downloaded a promising app called “iSkysoft Free Video Downloader” and sadly, it’s also broken. My guess is it relies on the same core process I was using before, and has not been updated.
Decided to go back to an old friend — DownloadHelper for Firefox. Worked like a charm. I’m totally back in business.
Man of good faith and reason can differ on what an appropriate rate of societal wealth appropriation and redistribution is — but the recent volleys back and forth on the Romney tax rate have me scratching my head over the approach taken by many in the collectivist camp.
Normally I’d say one’s level of outrage over a “15 percent” tax rate on earned interest is inversely proportional to one’s knowledge of finance and/or taxation. Same thinking applies toward the notion that wages and income on savings demand equal treatment by the IRS (risk anyone?). A basic level of sophistication brings an understanding that the effective cap gains rate is much higher than the nominal rate — and is far from “15 percent.”
Greg Mankiw addresses this well here, and Krugman is forced to admit defeat but he feels obliged to snarl during the process while rambling in an unrelated vein about employee wages. The comments are revelatory. Normally he is universally cheered on by his readers, but even they are left scratching their heads.
Mankiw left out one pedestrian yet IMHO noteworthy point. That is that one is taxed on nominal gains, not on real gains. When one factors in inflation and looks at returns on T-Bills over the decade of 2000 to 2010 the effective rate of taxation is more like 25%.
What strikes me is that Krugman and his team shout about the injustice of “15 percent!” from the treetops even when they know that number needs serious adjustment in order to be compared to wage rates. Between corporate taxation and inflation we can be talking about an effective rate that’s at least twice that number. Why don’t they just be honest and say “35% is not enough!”??. Isn’t there a persuasive case to be made via honest analysis? Maybe not.
I have to say this obsession with the number 15 reinforces in my mind, the thinking of Don Boudreaux:
“Krugman spends the bulk of his time today, when writing for the general public, assuring the general public that its economically untutored instincts are correct.”
I’ve had this queued up for some time, but Krugman’s recent assertions (and subsequent backpedaling) about capital gains taxation inspired me to take this live.
This is perfect. As Boudreaux tackles the question “Who is today’s Bastiat?” as proposed by David Henderson, he puts forth the best description I’ve heard yet of what Paul Krugman does, and why he has such a large audience who read and echo his writings:
“Krugman spends the bulk of his time today, when writing for the general public, assuring the general public that its economically untutored instincts are correct.”
This sentence also encapsulates why he is sooftencaughtcontradicting himself — the usual case is that his academic writings (which focus on “real” economics) collide with his populist Conscience of a Liberal columns.
More from Boudreaux:
“The general public, for example, naturally “sees” the beneficial effects of more government spending. While Bastiat specialized in showing the general public that what it sees is only part of the picture, Krugman – vocal advocate of “stimulus” spending that he famously is – specializes in assuring the general public that the part of the picture that it naturally sees is, in fact, the full (or at least the most important part) of the picture.
Another example: The general public naturally “sees” that a low-priced Chinese renminbi makes Chinese goods more attractive to American consumers and, hence, reduces the demand for some American-made outputs. Bastiat would have pointed out the unseen – the fact that many of these low-priced Chinese goods, used as inputs in America, allow some American producers to profitably expand their output; the fact that monies American consumers save because of lower-priced Chinese goods can be spent buying other goods and services, some of which are ‘made in America,’ that would otherwise be out of reach; the fact that that if Beijing truly is keeping the value of the renminbi too low the result will be inflation in China – which will eventually raise the prices Americans must pay for imports from China; and, most importantly, the fact that there’s very little difference from the perspective of Americans in China’s government subsidizing our consumption of Chinese-made goods and some natural source (say, a technological breakthrough) that lowers our cost of buying Chinese-made goods.”
“A brand proposition is a succinct expression of what your brand promises. This is an important anchoring point for brand awareness. The brand proposition should include target audience, the benefits of working with the brand and the criteria for attaining it. The aim is to clarify what the brand is offering, to whom, in what format – and how to attain it.”
It’s not just housing bubbles that are caused by good intentions and market intervention. Mungowitz reports on yet another prime example of Soviet-style meddling in the U.S. pharmaceutical market.
While the Food and Drug Administration monitors the safety and supply of the drugs, which are sold both as generics and under brand names like Ritalin and Adderall, the Drug Enforcement Administration sets manufacturing quotas that are designed to control supplies and thwart abuse. Every year, the D.E.A. accepts applications from manufacturers to make the drugs, analyzes how much was sold the previous year and then allots portions of the expected demand to various companies.
How each manufacturer divides its quota among its own A.D.H.D. medicines — preparing some as high-priced brands and others as cheaper generics — is left up to the company.
Gee, setting production quotas based on brainy insights of a handful of technocrats. Much better than letting supply and demand determine a market clearing price. After all, those unwashed masses have no idea what they really want, right?
Naturally, the response to the limited supplies and resulting high prices will be… wait for it…. demand for more intervention!
I’m adding a new category to this blog. It’s Iatrogenesis. This is the formal term for what’s better known as the situation where the cure becomes worse than the disease.
Given the recent SEC indictments, I couldn’t resist this passage from Krugman in July of 2008 (emphasis mine:)
“But here’s the thing: Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending a few years ago, an explosion that dwarfed the S.& L. fiasco. In fact, Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble.
Partly that’s because regulators, responding to accounting scandals at the companies, placed temporary restraints on both Fannie and Freddie that curtailed their lending just as housing prices were really taking off. Also, they didn’t do any subprime lending, because they can’t: the definition of a subprime loan is precisely a loan that doesn’t meet the requirement, imposed by law, that Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income.”
“So whatever bad incentives the implicit federal guarantee creates have been offset by the fact that Fannie and Freddie were and are tightly regulated with regard to the risks they can take. You could say that the Fannie-Freddie experience shows that regulation works.“
Two things going on here. Of lesser importance is Krugman being so galactically wrong about the role of Fannie and Freddie in the subprime mess. More important is the blind faith in institutions and the smart, well-intentioned people who create and run them.
Trusting regulations and rules to this degree is a classic case of Sowellian Unconstrained thinking and belief in engineered solutions with goals/intentions at their core. The Constrained view prefers systemic, evolved solutions based on incentives. Consider the thinking behind Fannie/Freddie (and a dozen other like-minded agencies):
“We need to help more people get houses, let’s get those rates down.”
Compare to:
“The interest rates on loans automatically adjust to match the risk of the loan.”
The former is based on good intentions and is a proven failure. The latter is based on the self-interest of individuals, and the more you rely on the latter, the better you do.
I believe history will show that monopolistic government-backed entities (like ratings agencies) are prone to behave irresponsibly — despite the feel-good motives and regulations that frame them. Incentives matter.
Here may be an entrepreneurial opportunity. Register at thousands of sites using a variety of non-intuitive unique email address that are used nowhere else. When you start getting emails about viagra sent to one of these addresses, flag the related site in a database as one to avoid. Build a browser plugin that accesses that database in order to help others from becoming victims to sloppy or malevolent list management.
FYI: Here are a few sites that I foolishly registered at and now get spam sent (viagra, penis enlargement, etc.) to the unique addresses I used. Seven sites, seven different addresses.
A fitting legacy. This troll of global proportions who threatened to turn Seoul’s presidential palace office into a “sea of fire,” will be be thought of in this hilarious context for all time. Many thanks to Parker, Stone and team for this lasting impression.
Had a chance to sit in on Steve Blank’sLean Launchpad class last week at the Haas School of Business. Came away very impressed with the real-world/pragmatic aspects to his curriculum, and the enthusiasm of everyone in the room.
Prior to attending the class I decided to read through Steve’s blog, and came across a post he wrote stressing the importance in all dealings of having a reality-based grasp of the price/value relationship. In this case Steve presents a scenario where a set of investors discounted the value of a new advisory board member and offered a price in stock that was too low, which caused them to lose a great opportunity.
It reminded me of how Bill Gates was able to capture overwhelming market share for Internet Explorer and almost entirely displace all competitors, significantly because he was able to see that the “correct” price for a browser was zero.
Here’s a textbook example of the scenario in reverse. My dad knew a test pilot who was offered a job testing a new exotic plane. He reviewed the situation, and determined at the risk level being offered, $100,000 was an appropriate market price, and put that price forth.
Regrettably for him, another pilot understood the market better and determined zero was the proper price. That other pilot’s name was Chuck Yeager, and the plane was the X-15.
I can’t remember the name of the pilot who asked for $100,000, and I guess that helps me make my point…
Harvard Professor Greg Mankiw wrote about the students who walked out of his introductory econ class because “the biased nature of Economics 10 contributes to and symbolizes the increasing economic inequality in America.”
He hit upon a few points that I’ve been meaning to post about. I’ve wanted to go into detail how those with a fundamentally unconstrained worldview will find most of the foundations of modern economic theory disconcerting.
The one to start off with is scarcity. They hit you with this one in your first Econ class.
From Wikipedia: Scarcity is the fundamental economic problem of having humans who have unlimited wants and needs in a world of limited resources. It states that society has insufficient productive resources to fulfill all human wants and needs. Alternatively, scarcity implies that not all of society’s goals can be pursued at the same time; trade-offs are made of one good against others. In an influential 1932 essay, Lionel Robbins defined economics as “the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.”
While we have been steadily moving (largely thanks to embracing market-based economies) toward making more and more resources available to more and more people, not everything is available to everyone yet. While the obese now outnumber the hungry worldwide, and hunger is no longer an issue in America, (the Department of Agriculture in 2006 stopped using the word “hunger” in its reports), there’s a lot left to provide. Example? Up to 20 percent of American households defined as “poor” still do not have air conditioning.
Now of course the simple answer is to just have the government buy them air conditioners, but what about the people missing microwaves, cars, personal computers, internet access, or a house to call their own? Dialysis? Can we do it all? Shouldn’t people be able to vacation in Cabo? Don’t people want to go to Cabo? Yes they do. Want? Humans have unlimited wants. If you run the numbers you quickly hit the wall. Wants are greater than resources. Even rich countries who specifically try to satisfy the wants of their people bump up against scarcity.
Can’t the rich just pay for it? Let’s pencil it out. Take all the money Bill Gates has (56 Billion) and divide it up among the population (7 Billion). Everyone will get 8 bucks. A very cheap air conditioner is $400.00. You’ll need to confiscate all the wealth of 13 Bill Gates just to buy everyone one little box for a house of 4. Power it? Do you even have AC power? How many Bill Gates do we need to bring power to your village? Crap, an air conditioner costs a couple hundred dollars a year to power! We’re going to need a lot more rich guys to make all the good stuff happen. We aren’t even close to Cabo yet.
You get the idea.
Even the most unconstrained thinker I know had to finally/reluctantly agree that scarcity was real after he gave it a little thought. If we have scarcity, then we know resources have to be allocated somehow. If we have allocations, and some “get” and some don’t, we’re faced with a challenge we can’t just wish away.
Economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. Get over it kids.
Next episode: The inconvenience of gains from trade…
I’ve had this queued up for some time, but Krugman’s recent assertions (and 
It’s not just housing bubbles that are caused by good intentions and market intervention. 
Harvard Professor Greg Mankiw