The ethics of designer babies--humans with an enhanced genome--was a big topic last year; I imagine it will be again this year. And I imagine most of the arguments will, again, be against. This is a problem.
The pro-ban argument hinges on inequality: only the rich could afford giving their kids the genetic advantage. There would be haves and have-not. The gap between the rich and poor would widen.
To be clear: this widening does not come from the poor will be poorer. It would occur because the rich will be richer (or at least more secure in their wealth). And those gains will not come from corruption or favorable tax laws or money from a dead relative. Those gains will come from genetic enhancements. Intelligence is the clearest candidate but other traits such as work ethic, memory, and ambition could theoretically be boosted.
This is where the pro-ban argument falls apart. If there are more people who are smarter, without anyone being stupider, that's a better world. If there are more people who have great memories, without anyone being more forgetful, that's a better world. It means more and better inventors, doctors, entrepreneurs, and all the other occupations we associate with a better world. The designer babies will grow into designer adults who will be wealthy because they made the world a better place.
Designing your baby is no different than the many other things parents do to give their kid an advantage. Smart people tend to mate with other smart people because they don't want to risk having a stupid kid. No one argues that provides an unfair advantage, though the advantage is as fundamental as genetic engineering. Reading to your child gives them a huge advantage. As does raising them in a loving household.
When it's argued that we should do these things less, it's clear how backward a designer baby ban is. Last year, philosophy professor Adam Swift claimed parents shouldn't read to their kids because some kids have parents who don't read to them. It's an unfair advantage, he says. Same with loving your kids: a stable and caring household is an unfair advantage. But, obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a few minutes, the best response isn't to read to or love your kids less. It's that people should do these things more.
And that's the final nail in the coffin for the pro-banners. All technology starts out as only for the rich but falls in price as production improves. Costs came down for computers, for cars, for air conditioning, for cell phones. Why not for genetic engineering? Imagine a world where a cocktail of genetic improvement is as standard as an ultrasound. Where everyone is cancer-resistant, Einstein-smart, and lives to be 200. That's a strictly better world.
But it can't happen if it can't ever get started.
Showing posts with label Costs and Benefits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Costs and Benefits. Show all posts
Monday, January 18, 2016
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Keep the Olympics in Athens
Boston gave up on its bid to host the 2024 Olympics on Monday, a surprisingly wise move given the city was home to the most expensive highway project in the US: the way over budget Big Dig. Maybe the whole ordeal made Bostonians suspicious of megaprojects. And rightfully so.
Projects that cost a billion dollars or more--whether private or public--tend to take much longer and cost much more than initially estimated. It's not simply corruption. It's also just very hard to estimate these parameters.
Olympic preparation is a particular dumb megaproject. The building big, special-use stadiums is outrageously expensive. And that doesn't include the upgrades to transportation infrastructure, hotel space, and other projects. Brazil faced protests in 2014 over its spending and forced relocation efforts for hosting the World Cup and Rio's experiencing some of those same protests again over its Olympic hosting. It's no wonder economists agree that hosting the Olympics is a bad deal.
Maybe having a new host city every four years made sense in 1896, when the modern Olympics first began. There was no television. Radio was only invented the year before. But in the Information Age, a rotating host city is an anachronism.
Keeping the Olympics in Athens eliminates many of these cost problems. Yes, the infrastructure would have to be maintained but it will be far less costly than recreating it every four years. Countries would loss the ability to gain prestige from hosting the Olympics, but hopefully more cities will realize it's a bad deal and that prestige will morph into embarrassment.
Projects that cost a billion dollars or more--whether private or public--tend to take much longer and cost much more than initially estimated. It's not simply corruption. It's also just very hard to estimate these parameters.
Olympic preparation is a particular dumb megaproject. The building big, special-use stadiums is outrageously expensive. And that doesn't include the upgrades to transportation infrastructure, hotel space, and other projects. Brazil faced protests in 2014 over its spending and forced relocation efforts for hosting the World Cup and Rio's experiencing some of those same protests again over its Olympic hosting. It's no wonder economists agree that hosting the Olympics is a bad deal.
Maybe having a new host city every four years made sense in 1896, when the modern Olympics first began. There was no television. Radio was only invented the year before. But in the Information Age, a rotating host city is an anachronism.
Keeping the Olympics in Athens eliminates many of these cost problems. Yes, the infrastructure would have to be maintained but it will be far less costly than recreating it every four years. Countries would loss the ability to gain prestige from hosting the Olympics, but hopefully more cities will realize it's a bad deal and that prestige will morph into embarrassment.
Monday, April 29, 2013
It's All Costs and Benefits
The way economists approach consumer choice theory (why do people buy what they buy at the prices and quantities they do) is really simple. Economic Man (or Woman) goes to a store or website. "What is the most I am willing to pay for this?" thinks Economic Man. "What is the price?" he asks himself. If the value exceeds the price, he buys it. If it doesn't, he doesn't. Simple. Rational.
Nobel Laureate in Economics Daniel McFadden recently argued that economists need to rethink how economists approach consumer choice. Psychology, neurobiology, and other disciplines find a host of things which put our stable, simple world into chaos.
No doubt that people care for other things beyond what you see in our simple model, just like air resistances affects how fast a ball falls but it's so hard to incorporate that at the basic level, you assume it away in intro physics. It's a simplifying assumption. It doesn't require that we redo all of economics or change our fundamental approach.
And this is where these economists get it wrong because most stop there but they shouldn't. None of this demonstrates that people are actually irrational. Rationality is a very low bar in economics: do something when benefits exceed costs. That gets us very, very far. These studies that other disciplines tout are important, not because they undo what we know but because they add to what we know people care about. People derive inherent satisfaction from owning things or getting things for free, just as they value food, sex, and shelter.
Nothing really changes. I guarantee that if you change that $15 gift certificate to $20, $30, or $50, you'll see fewer people willing to indulge in their preference for "free" things. Demand slopes down.
This extends to all areas. Advertising works but it can never brainwash someone into buying something they don't want on some level. Advertising has limits and the fact that you don't buy everything you see advertised to you is a testament to that. I don't like tomatoes and I don't wear makeup. I know this about myself and no matter how many ads I see for either will not change my purchasing patterns. (I've seen thousands of ads for bras; I've never bought one.)
Ads work because they help us economize on other things we find valuable such as time and mental energy. On occasion, I find myself at the store wanting a general thing, like a cracker, but no strong preference on brand name. Then I remember a jingle or a funny commercial and so I buy Wheat Thins or Ritz. This is not irrational; I didn't have a strong preference and making a choice is costly both in time and mind. Costs exceed benefits to make up my own mind so I'll do what's easiest: I'll follow the ad.
That I am describing this everyday purchase in this way does not make me unusual. Quite the contrary, as an economist I'm trained to think like a typical strangers. Time is a real resource people care about. Thinking hurts. So we avoid it if it's cheap to do so. We are rational.
Nobel Laureate in Economics Daniel McFadden recently argued that economists need to rethink how economists approach consumer choice. Psychology, neurobiology, and other disciplines find a host of things which put our stable, simple world into chaos.
To take one example, the “people” in economic models have fixed preferences, which are taken as given. Yet a large body of research from cognitive psychology shows that preferences are in fact rather fluid. People value mundane things much more highly when they think of them as somehow “their own”: they insist on a much higher price for a coffee cup they think of as theirs, for instance, than for an identical one that isn’t. This “endowment effect” means that people hold on to shares well past the point where it makes sense to sell them.There are others as well: your loss of happiness is greater if you lose X than your gain of happiness if you acquire X. People prefer a free $10 gift card than to pay $1 for a $15 gift card. There is such as thing as too many choices. It's enough to make economists think people are irrational.
No doubt that people care for other things beyond what you see in our simple model, just like air resistances affects how fast a ball falls but it's so hard to incorporate that at the basic level, you assume it away in intro physics. It's a simplifying assumption. It doesn't require that we redo all of economics or change our fundamental approach.
And this is where these economists get it wrong because most stop there but they shouldn't. None of this demonstrates that people are actually irrational. Rationality is a very low bar in economics: do something when benefits exceed costs. That gets us very, very far. These studies that other disciplines tout are important, not because they undo what we know but because they add to what we know people care about. People derive inherent satisfaction from owning things or getting things for free, just as they value food, sex, and shelter.
Nothing really changes. I guarantee that if you change that $15 gift certificate to $20, $30, or $50, you'll see fewer people willing to indulge in their preference for "free" things. Demand slopes down.
This extends to all areas. Advertising works but it can never brainwash someone into buying something they don't want on some level. Advertising has limits and the fact that you don't buy everything you see advertised to you is a testament to that. I don't like tomatoes and I don't wear makeup. I know this about myself and no matter how many ads I see for either will not change my purchasing patterns. (I've seen thousands of ads for bras; I've never bought one.)
Ads work because they help us economize on other things we find valuable such as time and mental energy. On occasion, I find myself at the store wanting a general thing, like a cracker, but no strong preference on brand name. Then I remember a jingle or a funny commercial and so I buy Wheat Thins or Ritz. This is not irrational; I didn't have a strong preference and making a choice is costly both in time and mind. Costs exceed benefits to make up my own mind so I'll do what's easiest: I'll follow the ad.
That I am describing this everyday purchase in this way does not make me unusual. Quite the contrary, as an economist I'm trained to think like a typical strangers. Time is a real resource people care about. Thinking hurts. So we avoid it if it's cheap to do so. We are rational.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
The Scarce Resource of Political Capital
A couple of days ago I participated in a round table discussion on the state of the economy. It was organized by the office of Representative David McKinley and included local business leaders and political actors. Two of Bethany's best students were there as well, about 12 overall.
While the main purpose of the meeting was sequestration, the businessmen wanted to express concerns about the EPA, making sure the congressman was aware of the barriers it sets up. The EPA's smothering them and, by extension, job creation. I emphasized regime uncertainty: the only way we're going to get the investment needed to bring job growth back up is for Congress to strike some kind of deal. There's too much uncertainty in the market. Everyone agreed, but I don't think people really got it.
Everyone seemed to believe that McKinley could do both: help strike a budget deal and weaken the EPA (and do other things, too). But he can't. He only has so much political capital to spend and making these things happen requires getting a lot of people on board. McKinely's a Republican so reigning in the EPA will upset some Democrats which will make it harder to strike a deal. And since he's a member of the Tea Party Caucus, increasing taxes is politically tricky, too. A common Sophie's choice in politics: what the country wants or what the constituents want. (Oh wait, that's not a good analogy; they will side with their constituents almost every time.)
This is why I like pork. If you think of it solely as a project (e.g. a bridge to no where), then yes, it's wasteful. No one seemed to like pork at the round table discussion and I regret I didn't defend it because pork makes things easier. If EPA deregulation and politically stable is what you buy with political capital, pork is a way to earn it.
Pork is cheap. Giving every Representative a $5 million pet project would cost a little less than $2.2 billion dollars. If that gives us a budget deal, we get stability and economic growth: that's worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Yes, it might take more than $5 million to get cooperation from some, but others won't require any pork. It's a good deal.
Political capital's a scarce resource. Like the money Congress is fighting over, you can't have everything. But if you sleep with the pigs, you might get enough to make everyone satisfied.
While the main purpose of the meeting was sequestration, the businessmen wanted to express concerns about the EPA, making sure the congressman was aware of the barriers it sets up. The EPA's smothering them and, by extension, job creation. I emphasized regime uncertainty: the only way we're going to get the investment needed to bring job growth back up is for Congress to strike some kind of deal. There's too much uncertainty in the market. Everyone agreed, but I don't think people really got it.
Everyone seemed to believe that McKinley could do both: help strike a budget deal and weaken the EPA (and do other things, too). But he can't. He only has so much political capital to spend and making these things happen requires getting a lot of people on board. McKinely's a Republican so reigning in the EPA will upset some Democrats which will make it harder to strike a deal. And since he's a member of the Tea Party Caucus, increasing taxes is politically tricky, too. A common Sophie's choice in politics: what the country wants or what the constituents want. (Oh wait, that's not a good analogy; they will side with their constituents almost every time.)
This is why I like pork. If you think of it solely as a project (e.g. a bridge to no where), then yes, it's wasteful. No one seemed to like pork at the round table discussion and I regret I didn't defend it because pork makes things easier. If EPA deregulation and politically stable is what you buy with political capital, pork is a way to earn it.
Pork is cheap. Giving every Representative a $5 million pet project would cost a little less than $2.2 billion dollars. If that gives us a budget deal, we get stability and economic growth: that's worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Yes, it might take more than $5 million to get cooperation from some, but others won't require any pork. It's a good deal.
Political capital's a scarce resource. Like the money Congress is fighting over, you can't have everything. But if you sleep with the pigs, you might get enough to make everyone satisfied.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
I'm Not a Grinch; I Just Don't Like Negative Externalities
I don't remember how it came up, but I couldn't help myself. And when it started, I couldn't stop. Today I told my managerial class that I don't like Christmas. Or, more accurately, the Christmas season. They were surprised, and so of course I had to tell them why. But my hatred for the season really stems for a hatred of any negative externality people blissfully ignore, things people don't think are externalities.
A negative externality is when something imposes a cost onto others. We are familiar with examples: pollution, cigarette smoke, screaming/crying babies, traffic. Basically anything someone does which makes people who had nothing to do with the transaction worse off. I buy power from the power company, but neither of us pay the cost of the pollution which poisons the water downstream from the power plant.
We're all well aware of these problems and there are attempts to correct for them. But what I find endless annoying are those negative externalties which so many refuse to acknowledge. And that brings me to the Christmas season.
Christmas Season. For one month, everything becomes about Christmas. I must endure the decorations, the constant Christmas references in all media, the music on the radio, the Christmas theme in virtually every article, the extra traffic, and, most of all, the cheeriness of everyone who assumes you are as excited about the season as they are. Don't get me wrong: there are things I've found enjoyable. I like time with the family, I like my neighbor's Christmas cookies she bakes every year, I like the time off from work. But if we were to at least diversify the season for a month, I would welcome the change.
Sports. If you like sports, that's fine, but shut up about it. Don't be surprised when other people think slaying dragons is more interesting than watching football. Don't think me a fool because I don't know if the Raiders and the Cubs play the same game. Don't run around screaming and honking horns when the team you like wins. Or loses. (I really don't understand what motivates you.)
Dogs. Again, I don't hate dogs as much as the externalities they create. And really, I don't like how dog-lovers don't understand how inconsiderate they can be when they assume no one cares about these externalities. Dogs are not angels: they bark, they smell, their "kisses" are slobber. Dog poop, even when I see it to avoid it (which isn't always) stinks. Not to mention, they bite (and yes, they do bite; they of course don't bite you because you're the one who feeds them).
I am well aware that all of these things are better existing than not; the total annoyance they create is probably outweighed by the total joy they create. Benefits probably exceed costs, including the external, and in my book that's the thumbs up even if I'm not a fan.
But, for the love of all that is good and holy (religion: that's another one; not everyone's religious you know) stop assuming everyone's like you. I'm not excited that Christmas is coming, I don't want to pet your dog, and no, I didn't watch the #%$%^ game last night.
A negative externality is when something imposes a cost onto others. We are familiar with examples: pollution, cigarette smoke, screaming/crying babies, traffic. Basically anything someone does which makes people who had nothing to do with the transaction worse off. I buy power from the power company, but neither of us pay the cost of the pollution which poisons the water downstream from the power plant.
We're all well aware of these problems and there are attempts to correct for them. But what I find endless annoying are those negative externalties which so many refuse to acknowledge. And that brings me to the Christmas season.
Christmas Season. For one month, everything becomes about Christmas. I must endure the decorations, the constant Christmas references in all media, the music on the radio, the Christmas theme in virtually every article, the extra traffic, and, most of all, the cheeriness of everyone who assumes you are as excited about the season as they are. Don't get me wrong: there are things I've found enjoyable. I like time with the family, I like my neighbor's Christmas cookies she bakes every year, I like the time off from work. But if we were to at least diversify the season for a month, I would welcome the change.
Sports. If you like sports, that's fine, but shut up about it. Don't be surprised when other people think slaying dragons is more interesting than watching football. Don't think me a fool because I don't know if the Raiders and the Cubs play the same game. Don't run around screaming and honking horns when the team you like wins. Or loses. (I really don't understand what motivates you.)
Dogs. Again, I don't hate dogs as much as the externalities they create. And really, I don't like how dog-lovers don't understand how inconsiderate they can be when they assume no one cares about these externalities. Dogs are not angels: they bark, they smell, their "kisses" are slobber. Dog poop, even when I see it to avoid it (which isn't always) stinks. Not to mention, they bite (and yes, they do bite; they of course don't bite you because you're the one who feeds them).
I am well aware that all of these things are better existing than not; the total annoyance they create is probably outweighed by the total joy they create. Benefits probably exceed costs, including the external, and in my book that's the thumbs up even if I'm not a fan.
But, for the love of all that is good and holy (religion: that's another one; not everyone's religious you know) stop assuming everyone's like you. I'm not excited that Christmas is coming, I don't want to pet your dog, and no, I didn't watch the #%$%^ game last night.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Let People Sell Kidneys!
In 2011, 35,031 people were added to the wait list for a kidney transplant. Only 31,626 were taken off the list that year, growing the waiting list by over 3,000 people.
Of those removed, 16,195 were taken off because they got a new kidney. However, 4,959 were taken off because they died and an additional 2,506 were taken off because they became too sick to either survive the surgery or have a new kidney make the difference (it's not clear from the source which one, or both, is the case).
About half of the individuals who are waiting for a new kidney are between the ages of 50 and 64. Their median wait time (between 2003 and 2004, the most recent years available) is 1,627 days or 4.45 years.
Dialysis cost about $75,000 per patient per year. That's $3,375,000 per patient.
Even if the market price for a kidney was $100,000, that would save not only millions of dollars per patient but, by getting kidneys faster, save thousands of lives. Every. Single. Year.
Data on kidney wait list found here.
Of those removed, 16,195 were taken off because they got a new kidney. However, 4,959 were taken off because they died and an additional 2,506 were taken off because they became too sick to either survive the surgery or have a new kidney make the difference (it's not clear from the source which one, or both, is the case).
About half of the individuals who are waiting for a new kidney are between the ages of 50 and 64. Their median wait time (between 2003 and 2004, the most recent years available) is 1,627 days or 4.45 years.
Dialysis cost about $75,000 per patient per year. That's $3,375,000 per patient.
Even if the market price for a kidney was $100,000, that would save not only millions of dollars per patient but, by getting kidneys faster, save thousands of lives. Every. Single. Year.
Data on kidney wait list found here.
Friday, September 21, 2012
A World Without Greed
Suppose we lived in a world without gravity. How would we feel about that? (For now, ignore the fact that without gravity our atmosphere and oceans would dissipate, suffocating all life on earth.)
How we feel depends on what we're talking about. No one could fall to their death and flying around would be really easy. Launches to space could happen almost accidentally. But at the same time liquids would get in all sorts of electronics and ruin them. Hydroelectric dams won't work. Plumbing, irrigation, and natural gas lines would fail. Assemblies lines would be chaos. Drinking would be hard.
Our civilization is built with gravity in mind. This counts not just preventing the bad stuff that comes with gravity (we have rails to prevent falls) but leveraging its reliable existence into something that benefits us. The constant gravitational pull lets us generate enormous quantities of power very cheaply. We'd be fools to ignore it.
Why then are we so reluctant to build our world assuming greed is as consistent as gravity? Why do we often assume that we live in a world without greed, where teachers, politicians, labor unions, and even companies will not act in their best interest? It is particularly tragic because we could rely on that consistent force of nature (and if you've ever seen a plant turn its leaves to light, you've seen greed as a force of nature) to transform that force into something productive.
Instead of relying on benevolent governments to determine the best way to reduce pollution, tax pollution and give people the incentive to find the best solution.
Instead of relying on good feelings to ensure we have good teachers, let there be a marketplace for education so the good teachers are rewarded and the bad ones are punished.
Instead of forcing experience and credentials to ensure everything from doctors to hairdressers make a quality product at a low price, remove barriers of entry and allow consumer sovereignty and competition to encourage a better world.
Instead of capping liability damages and relying on a regulatory agency to make sure firms don't skimp on safety, let's instead make sure that the firm will swallow the full cost of its carelessness.
If you think it's hard to change laws, you are absolutely right. But it's as impossible to repeal greed as it is to repeal gravity. Best to learn to live with it.
How we feel depends on what we're talking about. No one could fall to their death and flying around would be really easy. Launches to space could happen almost accidentally. But at the same time liquids would get in all sorts of electronics and ruin them. Hydroelectric dams won't work. Plumbing, irrigation, and natural gas lines would fail. Assemblies lines would be chaos. Drinking would be hard.
Our civilization is built with gravity in mind. This counts not just preventing the bad stuff that comes with gravity (we have rails to prevent falls) but leveraging its reliable existence into something that benefits us. The constant gravitational pull lets us generate enormous quantities of power very cheaply. We'd be fools to ignore it.
Why then are we so reluctant to build our world assuming greed is as consistent as gravity? Why do we often assume that we live in a world without greed, where teachers, politicians, labor unions, and even companies will not act in their best interest? It is particularly tragic because we could rely on that consistent force of nature (and if you've ever seen a plant turn its leaves to light, you've seen greed as a force of nature) to transform that force into something productive.
Instead of relying on benevolent governments to determine the best way to reduce pollution, tax pollution and give people the incentive to find the best solution.
Instead of relying on good feelings to ensure we have good teachers, let there be a marketplace for education so the good teachers are rewarded and the bad ones are punished.
Instead of forcing experience and credentials to ensure everything from doctors to hairdressers make a quality product at a low price, remove barriers of entry and allow consumer sovereignty and competition to encourage a better world.
Instead of capping liability damages and relying on a regulatory agency to make sure firms don't skimp on safety, let's instead make sure that the firm will swallow the full cost of its carelessness.
If you think it's hard to change laws, you are absolutely right. But it's as impossible to repeal greed as it is to repeal gravity. Best to learn to live with it.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
In Praise of AP Credit
Prof. Michael Mendillo doesn't like that high school AP classes can count to general requirements for college.
OK so you stick to offhanded references, not in depth discussions. Big deal. Admittedly, mentioning something cutting edge is cool to do and it can get your students interested in the introductory topic or illustrate where the puzzles in your discipline remain. Disallowing AP credit for college would generate these additional benefits but they are small. They come at a cost of the student not taking a course that's completely new or paying tuition for the semester that can no longer be avoided.
I had a student in introductory econ who didn't have to take my class: he had AP credit. He took it anyway since he'll be taking future courses from me, but I can't help but think that it was largely a waste of his time.
Lost to these nonscience students is an exposure to cutting-edge science and the methods of science taught by professors active on a daily basis in their exploration of nature. In how many AP classes in high school does the physics instructor say, "At the last American Physical Society meeting, one of my students presented a paper on this very topic"? Or, in an astronomy class, "My upcoming observations using the Hubble Space Telescope will address this dark-energy issue"? Identical scenarios exist, of course, for science and engineering students who miss out on university-level introductions to the humanities and social sciences taught by active scholars in those areas.From what I remember of all of my introductory courses in college, there was very little "cutting edge" research discussed. And thank goodness for that! It's an introductory course. When I teaching introductory econ I rarely mention any new research and if I do, it is illustrative of some larger point (say an empirical paper on a price control). You don't want to overwhelm the students and, precisely because it's advanced, they probably won't understand it anyway. Imagine having a long discussion of the Higgs boson in Physics 101 when you're still trying to wrap your mind around Newton's Three Laws of Motion.
OK so you stick to offhanded references, not in depth discussions. Big deal. Admittedly, mentioning something cutting edge is cool to do and it can get your students interested in the introductory topic or illustrate where the puzzles in your discipline remain. Disallowing AP credit for college would generate these additional benefits but they are small. They come at a cost of the student not taking a course that's completely new or paying tuition for the semester that can no longer be avoided.
I had a student in introductory econ who didn't have to take my class: he had AP credit. He took it anyway since he'll be taking future courses from me, but I can't help but think that it was largely a waste of his time.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Prices Solve Problems
As I read Naomi Klein's Nation article about climate change, I am once again reminded how little she knows about economics. So little, it is almost not worth pointing why she's wrong. Almost.
We do not need to "shred" economic thought. We just need to make pollution more expensive. Right now, it's too cheap. Skeptics say it's not that much cheaper (if at all) than it should be. Believers say it's way too cheap. But regardless where you land, the answer is the same: adjust the price and you'll get the answer you want.
Klein makes suggestions--more public transportation, more planning, fewer coal-burning power plants, produce less pollution, make less stuff--which will all occur if we get the price of pollution right. (Of course planning will occur regardless if prices are right or not, regardless if it centralized or decentralized...the question is planning for what.)
Look: I don't know much about the science of climate change but I know that there's a consensus among people who know more than I that we're a big problem for the environment. The know more than I do: I respect that a lot.
So please respect this consensus from economists: The right prices solve problems.
The fact that the earth’s atmosphere cannot safely absorb the amount of carbon we are pumping into it is a symptom of a much larger crisis, one born of the central fiction on which our economic model is based: that nature is limitless, that we will always be able to find more of what we need, and that if something runs out it can be seamlessly replaced by another resource that we can endlessly extract.This is both completely wrong--scarce resources is what defines economics--and deceptively correct--we do assume we will adapt to greater scarcity. We assume this because when prices are allowed to function, we adapt. And we're adapting now. Let prices work, and we'll adapt more quickly.
We do not need to "shred" economic thought. We just need to make pollution more expensive. Right now, it's too cheap. Skeptics say it's not that much cheaper (if at all) than it should be. Believers say it's way too cheap. But regardless where you land, the answer is the same: adjust the price and you'll get the answer you want.
Klein makes suggestions--more public transportation, more planning, fewer coal-burning power plants, produce less pollution, make less stuff--which will all occur if we get the price of pollution right. (Of course planning will occur regardless if prices are right or not, regardless if it centralized or decentralized...the question is planning for what.)
Look: I don't know much about the science of climate change but I know that there's a consensus among people who know more than I that we're a big problem for the environment. The know more than I do: I respect that a lot.
So please respect this consensus from economists: The right prices solve problems.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Capitalist Environmentalism
People often think of companies as inherently anti-environment. This seems a bit strange, since companies would love to not pollute if it was the cheapest thing to do. After all, pollution means that you bought something and then threw it away. Cutting costs ties at least as much to environmentalism, not against it.
Consider server farms, which are black holes of energy consumption. About 1% of the world's energy goes to powering the computers and cooling them down. And half of that one percent goes to cooling. So companies like Facebook are moving their server farms to the Arctic Circle, where they can use the natural cool air to cut costs. Facebook is now building one in Lulea, Sweden.
HT: Tyler Cowen
Consider server farms, which are black holes of energy consumption. About 1% of the world's energy goes to powering the computers and cooling them down. And half of that one percent goes to cooling. So companies like Facebook are moving their server farms to the Arctic Circle, where they can use the natural cool air to cut costs. Facebook is now building one in Lulea, Sweden.
Lulea's dry, frigid weather "definitely is a big part" of the company's decision to build there, Facebook spokesman Michael Kirkland said. Using outside air to cool servers is "absolutely beneficial not just from an environmental perspective, but also from a cost perspective."Full story here.
Analysts agree. There are "overwhelming financial advantages" to building in the far north, according to Rakesh Kumar, an analyst with Gartner.
Utilizing free outside air can result in "tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions [of dollars], of savings per year" for each site, Kumar said.
HT: Tyler Cowen
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Where the Roads Are
A GAO report shows that for each dollar a state contributes in gasoline tax, that state gets more than a dollar in highway funding. That's pretty funny since the whole idea of the tax is a sort of user fee for the roads. Clearly, this Solyndra-style payment scheme isn't what it's cracked up to be.
Here's a chart showing how much each state gets in highway money for every dollar it sends.
Two territories stand out as getting more than $3 for every dollar they contribute. First is Alaska at $4.99 for each dollar (quite a bit more than $3, actually). What's the deal here? My guess is that there's even more space between all the spread out towns. They spend more money on roads than the average state; they have to in order to connect all its disperse pieces. Here the big winners are the rural areas.
The second is DC at an even higher $5.85(!) for each dollar they collect in taxes. My first guess is that it was the politicians making extra sure their roads are in good condition. But I've driven in DC and at that ratio, I'd expect roads which clear themselves of snow and traffic so light, you'd think you're in the country except for all the buildings. Neither are near the case.
No, what makes the most sense is that commuters fill their tanks up outside the city, where it's cheaper. Where Alaska has extra costs, DC has less revenue. Waaay less revenue. Here the big winners are the city folk who get to enjoy their roads 7 days a week even though they are being paid for by motorists who only come in during the weekdays and are gone by the evening.
So while the whole thing is muddled up and it's important not to read too much into this since all the money goes to a big federal pot anyway, it seems like the suburbs are consistently the biggest losers in this deal. They pay for rural areas which are road intensive and they pay for city streets which they use disproportionately less than the city dwellers.
Of course, the city dwellers tend not to have cars so maybe it just comes out in the wash.
HT: Yglesias
Here's a chart showing how much each state gets in highway money for every dollar it sends.
Two territories stand out as getting more than $3 for every dollar they contribute. First is Alaska at $4.99 for each dollar (quite a bit more than $3, actually). What's the deal here? My guess is that there's even more space between all the spread out towns. They spend more money on roads than the average state; they have to in order to connect all its disperse pieces. Here the big winners are the rural areas.
The second is DC at an even higher $5.85(!) for each dollar they collect in taxes. My first guess is that it was the politicians making extra sure their roads are in good condition. But I've driven in DC and at that ratio, I'd expect roads which clear themselves of snow and traffic so light, you'd think you're in the country except for all the buildings. Neither are near the case.
No, what makes the most sense is that commuters fill their tanks up outside the city, where it's cheaper. Where Alaska has extra costs, DC has less revenue. Waaay less revenue. Here the big winners are the city folk who get to enjoy their roads 7 days a week even though they are being paid for by motorists who only come in during the weekdays and are gone by the evening.
So while the whole thing is muddled up and it's important not to read too much into this since all the money goes to a big federal pot anyway, it seems like the suburbs are consistently the biggest losers in this deal. They pay for rural areas which are road intensive and they pay for city streets which they use disproportionately less than the city dwellers.
Of course, the city dwellers tend not to have cars so maybe it just comes out in the wash.
HT: Yglesias
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Robert Reich on the Learned Hand Rule
Reasonable precaution means spending as much on safety as the probability of a particular disaster occurring, multiplied by its likely harm to human beings and the environment if it does occur.That's Robert Reich today using the Learned Hand rule to slam corporations. Citing GE's questionable Mark 1 boiler reactor (the same used in TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi plant), Reich argues in favor of more regulation.
Profit-making corporations have every incentive to underestimate these probabilities and lowball the likely harms.I'm not really sure why he thinks regulators have the all the right incentives. After all, they're not getting paid very much compared to private sector workers so they should be pretty easy to bribe.
If companies are taking too many risks (and to be sure it would be the company which bought and used the reactor who's taking too many risks, not the company which sold it), then it sounds like they are not internalizing the costs of their recklessness. Maybe regulators are the way to go, maybe stronger negligence rules are. Maybe nothing is needed at all since nuclear accidents are incredibly rare and it took a major earthquake to create one. Just because the most recent natural disaster caused problems doesn't mean companies are under-estimating the probability of the problem.
Update The size of the earthquake was completely unprecedented. Hard to blame the Japanese power company for not predicting the future.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Stranger in a Strange Hobby
Robin Hanson wonders why people don't try new things:
This runs counter to the common intuition, that going with an insider makes it easier because you have a "guide." But if the guide's more associated with the surroundings than with you, you're still just an outsider but now find it socially awkward to escape.
It seems we see far larger costs than the time for a trial. My guess: we value our current identity, integrated as it is into our job, hobbies, friends, etc. We fear that if we try new joys, we will like them, and jump to practicing them, which will change us. We fear that by jumping to juicy joys, we won’t be us anymore.Relatedly, it's more of an issue of being a stranger. Trying a new thing means you're surrounded by a strange world, something that humans find very uncomfortable (which is why tourist traps are some of the most American parts of a foreign country). Having someone familiar with us, especially if they are close to us and share the strangeness, blurs that outsider feeling. For example, a couple of months ago I went to a baseball game with my girlfriend who shares my apprehension about sporting events. I would not have gone without her (and not just because we were attending an event hosted by her firm).
This runs counter to the common intuition, that going with an insider makes it easier because you have a "guide." But if the guide's more associated with the surroundings than with you, you're still just an outsider but now find it socially awkward to escape.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
[Insert Witticism Here]
Gene Weingarten at the Washington Post mourns the death of clever headlines.
I got a headline for you: Journalist Once Again Screws Up Basic Economics. Oh wait, that's not news.
The only really creative opportunity copy editors had was writing headlines, and they took it seriously. This gave the American press some brilliant and memorable moments...[but now] on the Web, headlines aren't designed to catch readers' eyes. They are designed for "search engine optimization," meaning that readers who are looking for information about something will find the story, giving the newspaper a coveted "eyeball."Here's a great time to do a little cost-benefit analysis. The cost of more online news sources is that consumers lose cute phrases as news outlets compete for attention. Meanwhile copy editors don't get to use their degree in English literature to write a few dozen of those phrases everyday. The benefit is that millions of people have an infinitely easier time find the information they want from sources all over the world. And if they still want a clever phrase with a picture, they can search for that, too. Do we even have to run the numbers?
I got a headline for you: Journalist Once Again Screws Up Basic Economics. Oh wait, that's not news.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Brad DeLong Channels His Inner Shopaholic
Addressing Tyler Cowen's take on the crisis, Brad DeLong writes
To DeLong's credit he acknowledges that the low interest rate means fiscal policy passes various cost-benefit tests. However many economists question the fundamental effectiveness of expansionary fiscal policy; indeed, this is exactly what Cowen was addressing. That then puts into question every cost-benefit test you can cite. I don't care how pretty the dress is. If it turns out to have a big hole in it, the sale doesn't matter. Not unless they pay you to take it. (And a negative interest rate is the only condition I'd like to see the government borrow at this point.)
So I don't see how Tyler then gets to:Just because something's cheap doesn't mean you should buy it.But even if that fiscal policy is a good idea...Where does the "but even" come from? I see no "but even" earlier in the market: the cost of borrowing for the government has fallen--the market value troday [sic] of future cash tax flow earmarked for debt repayment has gone way, way up--therefore we should dedicate more future cash flow to debt repayment by borrowing more. There is no "but even." Expansionary fiscal policy is a good idea,
To DeLong's credit he acknowledges that the low interest rate means fiscal policy passes various cost-benefit tests. However many economists question the fundamental effectiveness of expansionary fiscal policy; indeed, this is exactly what Cowen was addressing. That then puts into question every cost-benefit test you can cite. I don't care how pretty the dress is. If it turns out to have a big hole in it, the sale doesn't matter. Not unless they pay you to take it. (And a negative interest rate is the only condition I'd like to see the government borrow at this point.)
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Costs and Benefits of Virtual Federalism
Arnold Kling and Tyler Cowen argue for virtual federalism (VF) to solve the Middle East conflict. Arnold Kling explains
But the logistics of snow removal get absurd. Trucks would have to lift their plows when they pass an outsider's home, which keep banks of snow that your neighbors have to navigate around. If you live in a cul-de-sac and two guys on either side of the street at the mouth of the dead end get their snow removal from someone far away, and the snow is bad enough, those on the inside get snowed in even though the snow plows have already passed. And since any local government would focus on the areas with the highest concentration of customers (which will probably be the neighborhood nearest the snowplows), those on the inside of the cul-de-sac could wait for a while.
Okay, so you could say that a path's made to link trapped areas with everything else, but how do you handle fires? A fire in one house can spread to another depending on wind. If the fire department for the home on fire is located farther away than the department for the neighbors, you'd get fire fighters arriving to contain (but not put out) the fire while someone might be inside suffocating. It seems remarkably inefficient.
But it still could be optimal--I don't know how much waste fire departments would eliminate in response to competition nor do I know how much people will opt to go for the closer department simply because it's closer (which would mitigate the impact of the first issue). But I suspect that time-sensitive services will be less efficient than than services that are not time-sensitive.
You don't really care when your trash is picked up, as long as it is picked up sometime that day. But the local governments want their trash route to be all in the same general area to makes it cheaper to pick it up. So trash services will be pretty good: they will make recycling easy for you, they take a large variety of trash (furniture, e-waste, yard waste). They know you'd easily change to a farther away government (because you don't really care) and the costs of many people leaving is high relative to the benefit, so they will work hard to keep you.
Time-sensitive services like fire fighting, snow removal, and water pipe repair will get worse because governments know it will be more expensive for you to go to a farther away competitor. If the plows nicks your car, you might let it slide because you're not willing to switch allegiance to a distant competitor where you'd have to wait an extra hour or two while he takes care of people who are close by.
Competition is not immune to waste and I'm not sure if this system has less of it. But VF buys peace in Jerusalem, then I'm sure it's worth it. But for us? Seems cheaper just to move.
I would like to have a different sovereign, but without having to move. Under virtual federalism (as proposed in the widely-unread Unchecked and Unbalanced), we would unbundle the services that the County provides. I could then contract with another provider for trash collection, snow removal, fire protection, or other services.My initial thought is that this results in lots of important questions related to geographically-derived economies of scale. If several people have different sovereigns, then you've created a mix match of territory a government has to cover. With trash collection, this isn't a huge deal--workers just has to drive around everywhere, probably with an on board computer, and collect from customers. Kind of like UPS but in reverse.
But the logistics of snow removal get absurd. Trucks would have to lift their plows when they pass an outsider's home, which keep banks of snow that your neighbors have to navigate around. If you live in a cul-de-sac and two guys on either side of the street at the mouth of the dead end get their snow removal from someone far away, and the snow is bad enough, those on the inside get snowed in even though the snow plows have already passed. And since any local government would focus on the areas with the highest concentration of customers (which will probably be the neighborhood nearest the snowplows), those on the inside of the cul-de-sac could wait for a while.
Okay, so you could say that a path's made to link trapped areas with everything else, but how do you handle fires? A fire in one house can spread to another depending on wind. If the fire department for the home on fire is located farther away than the department for the neighbors, you'd get fire fighters arriving to contain (but not put out) the fire while someone might be inside suffocating. It seems remarkably inefficient.
But it still could be optimal--I don't know how much waste fire departments would eliminate in response to competition nor do I know how much people will opt to go for the closer department simply because it's closer (which would mitigate the impact of the first issue). But I suspect that time-sensitive services will be less efficient than than services that are not time-sensitive.
You don't really care when your trash is picked up, as long as it is picked up sometime that day. But the local governments want their trash route to be all in the same general area to makes it cheaper to pick it up. So trash services will be pretty good: they will make recycling easy for you, they take a large variety of trash (furniture, e-waste, yard waste). They know you'd easily change to a farther away government (because you don't really care) and the costs of many people leaving is high relative to the benefit, so they will work hard to keep you.
Time-sensitive services like fire fighting, snow removal, and water pipe repair will get worse because governments know it will be more expensive for you to go to a farther away competitor. If the plows nicks your car, you might let it slide because you're not willing to switch allegiance to a distant competitor where you'd have to wait an extra hour or two while he takes care of people who are close by.
Competition is not immune to waste and I'm not sure if this system has less of it. But VF buys peace in Jerusalem, then I'm sure it's worth it. But for us? Seems cheaper just to move.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Flying the Quiet Skies
Christopher Elliot has a nice piece on loud children on planes, suggesting planes ban parents who have proven to let their children scream. Elliot admits that after his first plane trip with his three kids, he realized he couldn't control them and grounded his family. That's a wonderful sentiment and I wished more families were as concerned about their externalized costs as Elliot is. But it's just not a practical solution. Suppose a family emergency necessitated speedy travel: would he still refuse to fly? I doubt it. Therefore, the optimal solution isn't a corner solution.
Instead, we could use a Coasean solution (well, Coase-like since transaction costs are too high for full bargaining and we're not focusing on the least cost avoider). Airlines would amend the agreement when you buy the ticket (which already includes clauses about when you can cancel the reservation, etc) to include a provision that if the stewardesses feel your child is too loud (perhaps in part based on customer complaints), they charge some additional price based on the length of the flight. To prevent the company from saying anything is too loud and to compensate those suffering from the screaming child, the airline then reallocates that money to those in the seats nearest the screaming child.
This system punishes those parents who don't control their child (generating the incentive for them to be better parents or avoiding flying altogether) while still allowing them to fly if they feel circumstances warrant it. The costs to the airline would be small since so much passenger information, including credit card numbers, is in their database anyway. But it's not zero, so there's an incentive to not report every little scream as a violation.
Instead, we could use a Coasean solution (well, Coase-like since transaction costs are too high for full bargaining and we're not focusing on the least cost avoider). Airlines would amend the agreement when you buy the ticket (which already includes clauses about when you can cancel the reservation, etc) to include a provision that if the stewardesses feel your child is too loud (perhaps in part based on customer complaints), they charge some additional price based on the length of the flight. To prevent the company from saying anything is too loud and to compensate those suffering from the screaming child, the airline then reallocates that money to those in the seats nearest the screaming child.
This system punishes those parents who don't control their child (generating the incentive for them to be better parents or avoiding flying altogether) while still allowing them to fly if they feel circumstances warrant it. The costs to the airline would be small since so much passenger information, including credit card numbers, is in their database anyway. But it's not zero, so there's an incentive to not report every little scream as a violation.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
The Myth of Magic Medicare
Insurance companies are greedy. Everything its CEOs work for is to make as much profit as possible. They are hesitant to do anything that increases their revenues, and anxious to adopt anything which decreases their costs. Until today, I didn't think anyone would disagree with this until tonight, when Congressman Anthony Weiner went on The Daily Show.
Congressman Weiner argues that Medicare should be expanded to all citizens, citing its very low administration costs (about 3% of its total payouts) as a way to save money. Insurance companies, by contrast, have about 12% overhead.
What magic has Medicare mastered to keep its overhead so low, magic that continues to allude our greedy insurance companies? It's not economies of scale. Medicare has about 45 million customers, while AIG covers 74 million. Even if you adjust for the fact that AIG covers people worldwide while Medicare only works within the US, such a massive difference in overhead is hard to explain with just economies of scale. After you measure your customers in the millions, those efficiency gains from volume tend to disappear. Otherwise we'd have far fewer insurance companies (I counted 31 health insurance companies in the US from this Wikipedia list with 27 confirmed as currently active). It's hard to think of another argument which could possibly justify this vast difference in overhead between the public and private sectors. I wonder how Rep. Weiner explains it; perhaps insurance companies don't care as much about profits as we thought. Or government is far more cut throat than anyone possibly imagined. Or maybe the folks at Medicare has some sort of genie/manager.
Now you could argue that Medicare doesn't have to worry about paying for advertisers nor state taxes. That's a lot better but 9 percentage points for TV commercials and taxes is hard to believe. There are two other explanations which justify this difference and neither of them help Weiner's argument.
First, Medicare covers only those over 65. Since the elderly, on average, need more medical assistance than the rest of us, the payouts in relation to administration costs drastically increase. It's not that Medicare has some secret which keeps overhead low; its payouts are just biased upward.
Second, Medicare spends very little money investigating the claims it accepts. And medical insurance fraud is a big problem. Just because you're spending less money, doesn't mean it's actually saving money.
Congressman Weiner argues that Medicare should be expanded to all citizens, citing its very low administration costs (about 3% of its total payouts) as a way to save money. Insurance companies, by contrast, have about 12% overhead.
What magic has Medicare mastered to keep its overhead so low, magic that continues to allude our greedy insurance companies? It's not economies of scale. Medicare has about 45 million customers, while AIG covers 74 million. Even if you adjust for the fact that AIG covers people worldwide while Medicare only works within the US, such a massive difference in overhead is hard to explain with just economies of scale. After you measure your customers in the millions, those efficiency gains from volume tend to disappear. Otherwise we'd have far fewer insurance companies (I counted 31 health insurance companies in the US from this Wikipedia list with 27 confirmed as currently active). It's hard to think of another argument which could possibly justify this vast difference in overhead between the public and private sectors. I wonder how Rep. Weiner explains it; perhaps insurance companies don't care as much about profits as we thought. Or government is far more cut throat than anyone possibly imagined. Or maybe the folks at Medicare has some sort of genie/manager.
Now you could argue that Medicare doesn't have to worry about paying for advertisers nor state taxes. That's a lot better but 9 percentage points for TV commercials and taxes is hard to believe. There are two other explanations which justify this difference and neither of them help Weiner's argument.
First, Medicare covers only those over 65. Since the elderly, on average, need more medical assistance than the rest of us, the payouts in relation to administration costs drastically increase. It's not that Medicare has some secret which keeps overhead low; its payouts are just biased upward.
Second, Medicare spends very little money investigating the claims it accepts. And medical insurance fraud is a big problem. Just because you're spending less money, doesn't mean it's actually saving money.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Another Reason to Buy a House
Megan McArdle points out some reasons to buy a home--such as avoiding costs to moving and having the freedom to customize your space--but she forget a key issue: avoiding horrible landlords. While buying a house comes with the risk of getting a lemon, landlords can be the same way. They can be behind on repairs, rude, or lax on the law (which can cause many problems for you later). In one place I lived, a surprise investigation revealed that one of the rooms was not legally occupied since it lacked the proper amount of window space. A huge headache followed, eventually resulting in the occupant leaving the house.
There's something to be said for removing another person from the upkeep equation. While you lose the chance of professional specialization, you also remove the possibility of negligence which often accompanies a new (or even experienced) landlord. Many of these problems go away when you own your own home (sure, the plumbing still needs fixed, but now you're depending on the plumber instead of depending on the landlord who's depending on the plumber).
There's something to be said for removing another person from the upkeep equation. While you lose the chance of professional specialization, you also remove the possibility of negligence which often accompanies a new (or even experienced) landlord. Many of these problems go away when you own your own home (sure, the plumbing still needs fixed, but now you're depending on the plumber instead of depending on the landlord who's depending on the plumber).
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Value of Life
Ask most people how much they value their life and they will inevitably say "an infinite amount." That's what my girlfriend told me the other day (generated from a conversation I've forgotten the origins of). "This cannot possibly be true," I said. "You take risks."
Mathematically, here's how it works. The expected cost of any activity under uncertainty is the likelihood of the event times the cost if the event occurred. A fifty percent chance of losing $200 means that the expected cost is $100. For any activity there is a probability you will die, or lose that life you value at an infinite amount. Thus, it's an infinite cost no matter what you multiply it by, no matter how risky the activity is. Since you have to do something to stay alive, you should always choose the least risky activity, no matter how much you might value the alternative because of the costs of that activity are infinite.
That people value their life only because they value what they can do with it doesn't change the math. In life, there are always options. You can watch TV or skydive: both are valuable to you and while the former might be more fun after 8 hours of TV a day, it is still too costly. But people still skydive.
They also show their finite value of their own life in other ways. People speed, jaywalk, ignore check engine lights, confront rude people (who might kill them out of anger), forget to check smoke detectors, travel to foreign countries, and eat unhealthy food. When we change our estimations of how dangerous (or safe) an activity is, we change our behavior. But if we valued our life infinitely, that shouldn't change anything (as the costs would come out the same regardless of the probability of death). Clearly, the costs to risking your life are lower than you might think.
Mathematically, here's how it works. The expected cost of any activity under uncertainty is the likelihood of the event times the cost if the event occurred. A fifty percent chance of losing $200 means that the expected cost is $100. For any activity there is a probability you will die, or lose that life you value at an infinite amount. Thus, it's an infinite cost no matter what you multiply it by, no matter how risky the activity is. Since you have to do something to stay alive, you should always choose the least risky activity, no matter how much you might value the alternative because of the costs of that activity are infinite.
That people value their life only because they value what they can do with it doesn't change the math. In life, there are always options. You can watch TV or skydive: both are valuable to you and while the former might be more fun after 8 hours of TV a day, it is still too costly. But people still skydive.
They also show their finite value of their own life in other ways. People speed, jaywalk, ignore check engine lights, confront rude people (who might kill them out of anger), forget to check smoke detectors, travel to foreign countries, and eat unhealthy food. When we change our estimations of how dangerous (or safe) an activity is, we change our behavior. But if we valued our life infinitely, that shouldn't change anything (as the costs would come out the same regardless of the probability of death). Clearly, the costs to risking your life are lower than you might think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Sunk Costs Cannot Be Retrieved.