New Orleans Goes Third World

Earlier this month 20/20 ran a "Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics." This segment stood out:

Students of my class (or those familiar with Hernando de Soto's Mystery of Capital) should see the parallels. He discovered that the reason developing countries have trouble growing is because of a stifling bureaucracy preventing people from establishing legitimate businesses and securing property.

Favorite Quote on the Bailout

I've read a lot about the bailout, but by far my favorite quote is this from Ron Hart:

Is there better irony than an imprudent Washington "investing" about a trillion dollars of debt funded tax money into the banking system and telling them how to run a business?

The same federal government confiscated the Mustang Ranch bordello in Nevada in the 90s and then promptly ran it into bankruptcy. If the feds cannot make a profit in a monopoly business of selling sex and booze, my guess is the complexities of banking will totally perplex them—especially when they have to follow the convoluted regulations they themselves impose.

HT Reason

The Speculators That Can't Be

History's a fickle mistress. It can teach us a great deal about ourselves and what to expect, but it can also delude us. Exceptions (which are always more memorable than the mundane) distort our view of how the world works. Writer David Liss referenced a speculator friend of Alexander Hamilton (the first United States Secretary of the Treasury) who used his inside knowledge to make quick profits. His actions nearly caused a financial catastrophe in the fledgling union. In light of the current crisis, Liss ponders when we will learn our lesson?

Liss paints speculators as wild-eyed children. They have no concept of the future, a strange attribute for people who make a living estimating what will come to pass. Speculators cannot survive as an occupation the way Liss described them. Not only would our current volatility be the norm, Warren Buffet would be broke.

A Debate Worth Watching

Was There Too Much Sex And Profanity In The HBO Presidential Debate?
HT: Mike Mills

Reality Check from Iowa

A friend of mine insists that because of the recent economic turmoil and unpopular bailout, Democrats do not have a chance at maintaining control over Congress this election cycle. Like me, he prefers a divided government over a united one (and since Obama is the likely winner, this lose of control would be an optimistic note). But politics is one of those areas where people indulge in their irrational hopes.

The Iowa Electronic Markets encourage people to stop, think, and rationally weigh the data. It's basically a betting system. You buy an "asset" for a candidate. If the candidate wins, you get a dollar. If he doesn't you get nothing. People bid against one another for these assets and a value emerges. We can use this value to predict outcomes (and very successfully, too).

Consider the market for the presidential campaign, focusing on the winner take all option (based on who gets the most popular votes).

The blue line represents assets that Obama will get the most votes and the red line represents McCain will. Obama runs at about 85 cents. In others, he has an 85% chance of getting the most votes (though because of electoral math, this is not the same thing as saying he will win).

There's no graph for Congress or either of its chambers yet but here are the current bids (all as the average bid for Democratics gaining seats):

Congress: 0.953
House: 0.921
Senate: 0.949

The markets are not perfect (maybe participants have a systematically different knowledge base) but this is the strongest evidence I've seen of what we'll see on election night. And it looks like the Democratic Party across the board.

The Futility of Equality

In Russ Roberts' conversation with William Bernstein about inequality last week, Bernstein argued that largely different salaries harm the less wealthy people. In the pursuit of status, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, placers stress out about their lives. This stress harms their health and shortens their life span. Thus we should engage in redistribution.

It's a clever argument, but I challenge its conclusions (again...see my previous challenge here). I assume Bernstein searches for something less than full equality (where everyone makes the exact same amount) since that would be prohibitively expensive. The alternative is partial distribution, where a few are poorer and several are wealthier.

Redistributing from the wealthy to the poor still creates that ranking system, only with a smaller variance. Instead of being much wealthier, those "on top" of the status ladder are only slightly wealthier. But according to the status theory, that shouldn't matter. A runner up is still a runner up, whether by a little or a lot. They will be just as stressed out, just as prone to an early death. But society will be less opulent because of the incentive distortions. Bernstein's world is strictly worse.

Keep Your Fallacies Straight

Russ Roberts discussed the bailout on Reason.tv, arguing it'll encourage more risk taking in the future. A commentator, Trumpit, accused Prof. Roberts of circular logic:

You state that the bailout will encourage more imprudent risktaking in the future leading to lower standard of living for the next generation. LOL. That's was the cause/reason for the bailout. I took an upper division math class and on the 1st exam the professor drew a big circle to make fun of my circular proof.

Let's take a moment to remember what circular logic is. Also known as begging the question, it occurs when "its conclusion is among its premises...assuming what it's trying to prove." The argument of the bailout goes like this:

1. The Congressional bailout implies imprudent risk taking is cheaper.
2. The financial sector seeks cheapness.
Thus
3. The financial sector will engage in more imprudent risk taking.

It would be circular if the argument was this:

1. The Congressional bailout implies imprudent risk taking is cheaper.
2. The bailout occurred.
Thus
3. Imprudent risk taking is cheaper.

It's not that circular logic is nonsense, it just doesn't say anything interesting.

Coase and Inequality

This week Russ Roberts interviews William Bernstein on inequality. Bernstein argues that income inequality has ill effects on poorer people's health--they have a lower quality of life because they know they are on "low" end, they're more likely to stress out, etc. Thus, he says, we should engage in income redistribution.

I find the big weakness to the inequality argument is its policy recommendation. I can see how a few people making lots of money makes others upset/jealous (we hear about it all the time in politics, suggesting people like to hear about how evil wealthy people are). I can also see that such anger leads to stress and leads to unfortunate health effects. In other words, I can see how one person's increasing wealth can externalize a cost onto another.

Since transaction costs are high, let's set aside the Coase Theorem. Instead, who's the least cost avoider? (Remove the wealth or remove the sadness and either way we have no problem so what's cheaper to remove?) If we ask the rich to make less money, we would lose those the benefits that the person would contribute to society. If we ask the poor to take a breath and let it slide, we likely lose much less for what we get. In other words the conclusion should not be redistribution but people dealing with it on their own terms. Bernstein should be telling people to pick up yoga, not pick pockets.

Definitions Are Not Clothes; Stop Trying To Change Them

This week's Economist quotes Nicolas Sarkozy in their report on Europe's schadenfreude concerning America's economic woes. "The idea that markets are always right was a mad idea."

A doubly bizarre claim. Sarkozy ignores that American financial markets are hardly laissez-faire as he forgets that no one claims markets are always right. It's really easy to denounce a system when you redefine it to suit your ends. It's doubly easy when you then try to redefine reality, too.

Balance Be Not for Kagame

During class conversation today, I felt it necessary to describe the compensating wage differential (stressful/tedious jobs are paid well and relaxing/rewarding jobs are paid poorly). I then promptly forgot why I brought it up.

I now remember. I described Paul Kagame's (Rwanda's president) desire to turn his country into a sort of Switzerland of Africa, notably a sophisticated banking center. We agreed this was a long shot but it's longer than most think. It reminded me that so many developing countries (and developed countries) wish to jump into the high end sectors. Medical plazas, software companies, financial services--industries that are prestigious and clean. Societies, and thus governments, put so much value on these services, we shouldn't be surprised that they are over supplied (part of the reason the financial sectors have been taking a beating lately).

Thus the wage differential. If a job is cool, lots of people will want to do it, depressing the wages it offers. If a sector is hip, so many will jump into it and shrink its returns. I wish we'd stop treating development (and growth) as if the whole world could get a job as ice cream taste-testers.

Strangest Sentence I've Heard Today

A friend of mine from college told me the following over AIM:

i certainly don't think communism can work on any kind of national scale, but socialized assistance programs, like medicine, education, welfare, and social security, ensure that even the poorest people have access to liveable standard of care - of course, the state has to dedicate itself to making that standard liveable

What is communism on a national scale other than a systematic interference with everyone in a country? You have to admire an intellect that can be so inconsistent and not go crazy.

The Elusive Quest for Price Gouging

Anti-price gouging laws are notoriously vague, a fact Florida reminds us of this week. It issued subpoenas to four gas station companies on the basis of price gouging, or according to Florida state law, "an unjustified increase in price" during a state emergency.

What's "justifiable" in this context is not something laws can determine. If a firm increases its price, that consumers determine if it's reasonable by virtue of their actions (and their continued patronage). If an increase is truly arbitrary, then competitors will keep prices lower to get all the business. This argument doesn't work if there's no competition (and no chance for it) but because Florida issued subpoenas to four companies we don't have that problem here.

Markets are not made up of faceless CEOs and wild-eyed Wall Streeters. Markets are more ephemeral than that. They are composed of the interactions of countless millions, each competing with some to appease others. Markets are ecologies, not dictatorships.

Keep Your Favorites To Yourself

The lack of media coverage over the Paralympics induced NPR to comment why they received so little attention compared to the Olympics. One caller blamed corporations, not the lack of demand. Corporations set the agenda and since they don't sponsor these games, they don't show them even though we want to see them.

If this was true, if we really are empty vessels to be filled, then why don't companies sponsor the Paralympics and then cover it? We'd watch something we want to watch and they'd get more airtime for sponsors. This doesn't happen because what matters most is viewership. This is why if a basketball game runs over, it cuts into sitcoms after it. This is why most shows get canceled after the first season. This is why we have any sort of entertainment at all and not corporations force-feeding us an endless stream of ads.

This caller likely replaced their preferences for the desires of everyone else. Just because your preference isn't popular doesn't mean it's because of some secret cabal is holding you and your brethren back. Maybe you just like unpopular stuff.

Wisdom of the Crowds

RT gives Disaster Movie 0% with 53 critics reporting.

Of Human Design

Mike recently directed me to a blog by a mutual vegetarian friend from college, Adam. The language is harsh: eating meat is oppression and so forth. What lovely serendipity that we covered prehistory in my development class today.

The roots of human civilization lie in what Jared Diamond calls "farmer power," or the development of food stuffs so other people can specialize in non-farming professions (soldiers, inventors, traders, etc). Critical to this was the domestication of animals for purposes of food and labor (the aforementioned oppression). Over generations brain power and survival techniques (such as good eyesight) were severely diminished. In other words, they are not natural in any normal sense of the word. Indeed they are less natural than a wooden table, since at least the wood retains original DNA. Domesticated animals are a new species.

Adam posted a few videos from Waking Life, an independent philosophical film. One character argues "the gap between, say, Plato or Nietzsche and the average human is greater than the gap between that chimpanzee and the average human," a rather strange claim given history. The average human purposefully domesticated plant and animal species, something no other animal has done. That's an astonishingly large leap from a chimpanzee.

A great departure from their wild ancestors, modern farm animals are basically bags of meat with scarcely a glimmer of intellect. They were bred to be property, and non-sentient at that (save for the most encompassing definition of sentient). Even by their cousin's standards they are stupid. Of all the oppressions of the world, meat-eating hardly seems like a worthy one to fight.

Markets in Everything: Cancer Sniffing Dogs

The Economist recently had a story of how doctors have smelled patients breath as a way to test for sickness. It's inprecise and can't detect everything, so Carolyn Willis outsourced the smelling of sickness to dogs.

One of the first practitioners of the field of olfactory diagnosis, Carolyn Willis of Amersham Hospital in Britain, decided to contract the job out to dogs. They, she reckoned, have the necessary nasal apparatus to sniff out illness, and there was already some anecdotal evidence that they could, indeed, smell people with cancer. It worked. For the past four years her sniffer dogs have been diagnosing bladder cancer. She is now training them to detect prostate cancer and skin cancer as well.

Numbers Are Like Fire: Don't Play With Them

I question the potency of the argument put forth by Obama's chief economist (Laura D'Angelo Tyson) on the Colbert Report last night that the economy performs better under a Democratic president than a Republican one. While glancing at the data suggests such a correlation might be there (my analysis program is currently on the fritz so an eyeballing had to do), too many complications render the explanatory power weak.

Variance Within Presidents A party maintains control of the presidency for a minimum span of four years (even if the sitting president resigns of leaves office, his VP maintains the party "dynasty") though several do so for eight, sometimes more. But GDP growth fluctuates a great deal within such a span of time, sometimes going negative. Since our dependent variable doesn't change nearly as much as growth rates do, we lose a lot of our explanatory power.

Policy Variance The Democratic and Republican parties of today aren't constant. This limits our scale of analysis to a much smaller time frame (I went back to the 1930s) and even then there were changes. Also the politics that defined most the difference between the parties were Cold War issues, not economic ones.

Measurement Issues I used real GDP growth to analyze the relationship; Tyson no doubt used similar data. But this data is flawed because it treats government spending as growth, even when that spending is simply a transfer payment (such as Social Security). I'm currently looking for non-government numbers.

Lag Issues Colbert joked about this but there really are lags in policies, sometimes reaching ten years. Since the presidency oscillated between parties for a while, lagging the variables could result in the opposite conclusion.

Causation Issues Perhaps people are more willing to vote for a Democratic president when times are good. Since more government spending has been a staple of Democrats since FDR (Republicans play a similar game, of course, but to a lesser extent), the public might simply be buying a normal good. Wealthier people are more willing to buy feel-good government programs.

The Theory This is likely the biggest problem with the story. What's the explanation for why a Democratic presidency would fair better for the economy than a Republican one? The one I hear the most is that they help the "little guy", but it's not clear how paying someone because they are poor will incentivize them to be wealthier. Moral hazard issues abound. Their preference to cutting taxes for the non-rich helps, but it's usually paired with a tax increase for the wealthy. Unless you believe the richest tend to only buy and invest in each other, this story doesn't get you far. Income mobility remains quite high in the US, repeating the incentive issues that crop up in "helping the poor."

Cogs In the Machine

Economists are often scoffed at our "dismal" view of the world, that people respond to incentives first and foremost. There are no saviors, no heroes, no Santa Claus. There is no romance to politics except for what we wish was there. Politicians respond based on the choices they have, a constant as universal as gravity. Mr. Obama is not immune to such failings nor does Mr. McCain's "insider" status make him a shadow of Mr. Bush. While they have wishes and goals their actions will always be different than their speeches, a reality long recognized but rarely applied.

There are no good guys and bad guys. There are only people responding to incentives. Mr. Obama wants everyone to believe he'll be an engine of change, a Santa Claus figure that will make everything alright, and he'll surely offer token alterations to convince the populace of exactly that. But we have this world because that's the one that rewards decision makers. The fundamentals won't change because no desire to risk losing office. Only changing the rules of the game will change how the government work and Mr. Obama mentions nothing of such alterations. Believe the stereotype of the two-faced politician because there is nothing new in this election cycle.

How to not vote and show you care

The Onion has a good video on how to not vote and still make it look like you did, in case you want to follow Tullock and not vote but don't want others to know.

Fallacies of Fallacy

Naming a fallacy is very powerful. It signals that not only is something logically incorrect, but so many get it wrong it's worth naming. But like so many powerful things, it's misused. I found this list of "7 Economic Fallacies" written by Tejvan Richard Pettinger, a teacher at Cherwell College, Oxford. Of the seven, three are not fallacies.

Tax Cuts make people work harder.

When you work you are really swapping one valuable resource (time) for another (money). Cutting taxes (which is the equivalent of a pay raise) could mean the person spends more time to get much more money. It could also mean they spend less time to get the same amount of money. It depends on their preferences. As Pettinger implies by his explanation this is an empirical question, not a fallacy.

A Current Account deficit [also known as the trade deficit] doesn’t matter.

That happens to be true. Many of his explanations for why the trade deficit is a problem happen to have logical fallacies, though. Concerns of an "unbalanced economy" are inconsistent with a lack of concern about trade flows between cities; concerns of capital flows ignore that the current account is the mirror image of the capital flow, by definition; concerns that a current account deficit means more foreign liabilities ignores that the trade deficit is not debt (when two people trade, no debt is created). That Pettinger acknowledges "some economists" don't think the trade deficit matters demonstrates that this is not a fallacy.

Tax Cuts will boost the Economy.

The reasoning behind this supposed fallacy is that of increasing consumption, a straw man since in the strict mathematical sense this won't change anything. (Government spends less and consumption plus investment increases by an equal amount.) The logic behind the argument is in how the funds are spent. Money in the hands of private citizen is more likely to be used more efficiently than money in the hands of political agents (for the normal incentive reasons). Thus tax cuts could easily better efficiency and thus the economy. Granted, Pettinger is correct that borrowing in response to a tax cut does little (it only shifts the spending burden to later generations while crowding out the investments today) but the other way to balance of the budget, cutting spending, won't have such adverse effects.

Popular opinions of economics are filled with blatant nonsense. There are so many, we don't need to the lower the bar and paint differing opinions as something so flawed as a fallacy.