Search This Blog

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Inheritance and estates

Inherit the Wind; There's Little Else Left - New York Times:
In 2004 median inheritances — half were bigger and half were smaller — amounted to about $29,000 in today's money, according to a Federal Reserve analysis of the Survey of Consumer Finances. That is enough for the heirs to buy a new Pontiac Coupe. But for almost all, it is hardly life-changing money.
And that is the median of actual inheritances. It doesn't include the many deaths without any inheritances. MSN Money found that
 "Only 20% of families, or one in five, report ever receiving an inheritance, according to Havens analysis of Federal Reserve figures. Most of those who did get money in recent years, say Gokhale and Kotlikoff, got less than $25,000, with just 1.6% receiving more than $100,000."
Back to the NYT article:
Paul Schervish and John Havens of Boston College's Center for Wealth and Philanthropy predict that by midcentury, $25 trillion will be passed from the old to their offspring.
But the typical American is seeing little of this wealth. Mr. Schervish and Mr. Havens found that most money would go to a few lucky heirs: 7 percent of the estates would account for half the aggregate bequests.
...Another study, based on the University of Michigan's Health and Retirement Study, also shows the disparities. Michael D. Hurd and James P. Smith of the RAND Corporation estimated that half of the children of parents born from 1931 to 1947 — that is, parents who are about 60 to 75 years old — would inherit less than $19,000, while the top 5 percent would receive at least $237,000.

...[Men] can expect to live an additional 17 years [after retirement], and [women], another 20 years....
Mr. Hurd and Mr. Smith of RAND calculated that the average person between 60 and 70 would spend 58 percent of his or her wealth before dying.
Even though many senior citizens want to keep their homes until they die, many sell, mostly to cover health-related expenses. According to another study by Mr. Hurd, 44 percent of people who owned a house at age 70 will have sold it by age 85.

Monday, November 30, 2009

Why Do You Believe What You Do? | Talking Points Memo

Why Do You Believe What You Do? | Talking Points Memo: "Do our beliefs form the basis of our partisan and ideological affiliations? Or is it vice versa?

There's been a lot of recent evidence not only that Republicans disproportionately disbelieve the evidence for man-made global warming but that their skepticism is growing. I think that trend is fairly classed under the general heading of Republican/conservative hostility to science. But the other point interests me no less.

There are pro-life Democrats. And there are a substantial number of voters who are Democrats to a substantial degree because the party is the bulwark of pro-choice political power in the country. But I've never thought that this explains the strong partisan division on this question in the country as a whole. For many Dems, I suspect they're pro-choice in some measure just because it's part of the Democratic or progressive package -- not as a conscious decision but through a process of group association and osmosis.

Now lest I be misunderstood, I'm definitely not saying the pro-choice stance is unimportant or poorly thought out. I think the same applies on this issue on Republican side in the other direction and on numerous other issues as well -- in social policy, tax policy, foreign policy and a lot else. How obvious is the connection between your beliefs on tax policy and foreign policy?

Another way of looking at this is that in our politics and society, group association seems to give certain beliefs or policy positions a mutual 'stickiness' even if they do not seem to be connected together in any logical or consistent way, or any way that would make sense out of the context of our culture and society. (There is a lengthy technical literature on these questions in the history of science, sociology of knowledge, etc.)"

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Liberty versus Efficiency

Some bizzare consequences of cost-benefit analysis and economic efficiency:

Liberty versus Efficiency: "Robin endorses an endless list of bizarre moral claims. For example, he recently told me that “the main problem” with the Holocaust was that there weren’t enough Nazis! After all, if there had been six trillion Nazis willing to pay $1 each to make the Holocaust happen, and a mere six million Jews willing to pay $100,000 each to prevent it, the Holocaust would have generated $5.4 trillion worth of consumers surplus.

Let’s consider another example. Suppose the only people in the world are Hannibal the millionaire, a slave trader, and 10,000 penniless orphan slaves. The slave trader has no direct use for his slaves, but likes money; Hannibal, on the other hand, is a ravenous cannibal. According to Robin, the “optimal outcome” is for Hannibal to get all 10,000 orphans and eat them.

If you’ve ever taken a class in moral philosophy, you’ve probably heard weird examples like these before."

Subsidyscope.com — Transportation: Analysis Finds Shifting Trends in Highway Funding: User Fees Make Up Decreasing Share

Subsidyscope.com — Transportation: Analysis Finds Shifting Trends in Highway Funding: User Fees Make Up Decreasing Share: "The way America's roads are funded is changing. Revenues that predominantly come from users of roads (“user fees”), including fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees and tolls, pay for a decreasing share of road costs. Taxes and fees not directly related to highway use (“non-user fees”) are making up the difference.

Using Federal Highway Administration statistics, Subsidyscope has calculated that in 2007, 51 percent of the nation's $193 billion set aside for highway construction and maintenance was generated through user fees—down from 10 years earlier when user fees made up 61 percent of total spending on roads. The rest came from other sources, including revenue generated by income, sales and property taxes, as well as bond issues.


Source: Highway Statistics, forms HF-10 and HF-210, Federal Highway Administration.

Going back further, the trend is more pronounced. Forty years ago, user fees amounted to 71 percent of revenues spent on roads. Today, user fee revenue as a share of total highway-related funds is at an all-time low since the Interstate Highway System was created in 1957. A complete data set of highway revenue by source is available for download. In 2007, non-user revenues contributed $70 billion to the highway system. By comparison, this contribution totaled $26 billion in 1967 (in 2007 dollars).

Not all user fees collected are made available for highway purposes. Of the 18.4 cent per gallon federal tax on gasoline, 2.86 cents are allocated specifically for mass transit projects. Another 0.1 cent per gallon is used to pay for environmental cleanup resulting from leaking fuel storage tanks. From 1990 to 1997, the federal government also set aside a portion of taxes on gasoline, diesel and other fuels to reduce budget deficits.

However, even if those funds were fully devoted to highways, total user fee revenue accounted for only 65 percent of all funds set aside for highways in 2007"

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Matthew Yglesias » Spending Trends in Afghanistan

Matthew Yglesias » Spending Trends in Afghanistan:
Something that I think gets underplayed in coverage of the Afghanistan debate is the extent to which our commitment to Afghanistan has already escalated substantially in the recent past. In his recent report for the Carnegie Endowment, Gilles Dorronsoro cites this data from Amy Belasco’s classic September 2009 Congressional Research Service page-turner “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11″ (PDF):
Afghanistan

One point here is that we now seem to be looking at the consequences of a penny-wise, pound-foolish approach to Afghanistan. Maybe if we’d just been spending $30-$40 billion a year from the get-go the situation never would have deteriorated to the point where we’re looking at appropriations of $170 billion and rising. Another point is that it’s a little bit odd that the big escalation debate is happening now, since any further increases in expenditures will probably be smaller than the increase that already happened back when nobody was paying attention.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Size-Maximizing Bureaucrats

Matthew Yglesias » Special Ops Commanders Want Large Deployment to Afghanistan:

The military decided that it would like more money, resources and power for overseas wars.

One thing I think this highlights is the limits of conducting this kind of debate more-or-less entirely within the four walls of the military. After all, why wouldn’t the special ops guys want to see as much resources as possible put into Afghanistan? At the end of the day to get a real debate going about the wisdom of going big you need someone in the room who represents a competing claim on the resources at hand. Does it make sense to sustain tens of thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan at a cost of tens of billions of dollars a year in order to protect America from a group with “several hundred to several thousand members” and no heavy weapons? Well, I think that depends on what alternative uses of the resources are available. If the meeting also includes someone who needs to worry about the budget deficit, or about health care, or about child nutrition, or preventing bridges from collapsing then maybe this doesn’t look like such a great deal.

Matthew Yglesias » Parliamentary Procedure Counterfactuals

Matthew Yglesias » Parliamentary Procedure Counterfactuals: "Precisely because sophisticated observers understand that these “desire” promises aren’t really promises, interest-groups and voters who have strong feelings about these things don’t need to act on those feelings during a campaign. Consequently, candidates can make unrealistic promises to interest-groups or ideologues without fully facing the wrath of the other side. Ultimately, I think this not only breeds worse policy, but it breeds an unnecessarily childish political debate. If we knew in advance that election-winners would be basically able to implement their agendas, then it would be more necessary for party leaders to campaign on agendas that they think are compatible with electoral victory and governing success. One thing you see in Britain is that opposition parties with a realistic chance of winning tend to put forward relatively modest platforms full of explicit commitments to not change certain aspects of the policy status quo. Precisely because you can have wild swings in policy, leaders who want to win can’t just kinda sorta promise their base that they’ll get everything they want"

Deficit Financing of Wars

Matthew Yglesias "By far the fastest way to end the war in Afghanistan would be to ask General McChrystal’s staff to produce a plan to make it deficit neutral and find sixty votes in the senate for his financing plan."

Tax Subsidies Are Subsidies

Matthew Yglesias:
Kevin Drum observes that “most people simply refuse to view tax breaks as the equivalent of federal subsidies.” It’s true and quite perverse. Ultimately the long-run level of taxation is determined by the level of federal spending, so simply creating some new tax deduction or tax credit doesn’t do anything to reduce the overall tax burden. Rather, it represents a shift of the tax burden and the creation of a new subsidy.

But people don’t look at it this way. If you said “we should create a federal program to give gold bars to people who own homes, and people with higher incomes or more expensive houses will get more gold” everyone would regard that as completely insane. Instead we have a tax deduction.

It’s not, however, just that these tax subsidies are real subsidies but that they also tend to be a really bad way of subsidizing things. If you want to subsidize something with a formal spending program, then you can target the spending at the truly needy or else hand it out to everyone. But with a tax deduction, you’re actually providing a larger subsidy to richer people while doing little or nothing for those facing economic hardship.

public goods

DeLong:

Felix Salmon: Sky News is using YouTube to host their entire “News Corp will block Google” interview with Murdoch...

I keep on thinking that there is something powerful and important to be written about Google's success and the elective affinity between non-rival commodities and advertising. In order to charge people who buy things money, you have to make the commodity excludable. As long as the commodity is rival--as long as only one person can use it at a time--setting up technological or legal barriers that also make it excludable adds significantly to its value. You can be secure in your enjoyment in a way that you could not possibly be if the commodity were rival and yet non-excludable.

A bicycle with a lock is thus much more valuable than a bicycle without.

But once commodities become non-rival, making them excludable by legal or technological processes reduces their use value--as I am reminded every time something goes wrong with the FT's automatic authentication system and it claims that I do not have a subscription.

Thus advertising is bound to be a second-best way of obtaining a revenue stream for rival commodities, and similarly likely to be a first-best way of obtaining a revenue stream for non-rival commodities.

The coming of a decent micropayments infrastructure may change this--iTunes, for example. But my father reminds me that dividing the number of songs purchased on iTunes by the number of iPods produces a number like 30

Friday, November 6, 2009

Matthew Yglesias » America’s Largest Retailer

Matthew Yglesias

Ezra Klein notes that in terms of number of outlets it’s the United States Postal Service:

Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-Mass.), chairman of the subcommittee on the federal workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia, noted that Postmaster General Jack Potter, who wasn’t at the hearing, likes to point out that the agency has more retail outlets than McDonald’s, Starbucks and Wal-Mart combined.

One approach you could take to the Postal Service’s problems, of course, would be to privatize it. Repeal their legislative monopoly on delivery of “ordinary” mail, repeal their legislative universal service obligation, and sell the thing to private investors. As run by the government, the USPS loses money, but I bet it would have significant value on the market. And the USPS’ massive real estate portfolio would be one of the key reasons. The politics of the situation make it basically impossible to manage these holdings in an economically rational way—nobody wants to see their local post office closed or relocated to someplace less convenient even if that’s what makes the most sense to do. And you see something similar with the controversy over halting Saturday delivery. Right now congress wants to make the USPS financially self-supporting, but doesn’t want to let USPS be managed the way an entity that’s actually financially self-supporting would be managed. Which is fine if you think that daily delivery of paper mail is a critical public service—critical public services shouldn’t be managed as profit-maximizing entities—but in 2009 does the delivery of paper mail really count as a critical public service?

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Reconstruction for the USA

Ryan Avent notes that one year of defense spending could build a nationwide network of high speed rail. More realistically, we could build it in 10 years by diverting 10% of defense spending.

Matthew Yglesias: "Something worth noting is that for a hegemonic power suffering from slow-but-steady (but very slow) relative decline, wasting money on national security expenditures actually erodes our hegemony. Meaningful U.S.-Chinese security competition is a generation or two away. By that time, money that was spent in 2009 on fighter planes or nuclear submarines or transportation infrastructure in Afghanistan isn’t going to be doing us any good. By contrast, spending money on preschool in 2009 does improve the U.S.-Chinese balance of power in 2049—investment in early childhood education pays enormous dividends, but it takes a long time to turn tiny babies into productive adults. And transportation is just the same. The construction of heavy rail mass transit in Boston, New York, Chicago, and Washington was extremely expensive but has paid consistent dividends for decades and if properly maintained will continue to do so forever.

I can’t vouch for the authenticity of the quote, but someone told me he heard a Chinese official tell him “over the past decade you’ve spent $1 trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan, we’ve spent $1 trillion building the future of China.” I don’t really think we should view that contrast in a paranoid light, but if you do want to take a paranoid view of the American national security situation it makes a lot more sense to worry about that than to worry that someone in a cave might build a bomb."

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Kevin Drum | Mother Jones

The High Cost of Technology

Ezra Klein quotes Kaiser Permanente CEO George Halvorson on the cost of healthcare:

The point is that CT scans in this country cost a multiple of what everyone else pays. It costs a few hundred dollars in Europe and over $15,000 here. You can't find a place in Europe than costs $15,000. You can't find a place here that costs less than $15,000. Anyone who is looking at the cost of care and is not looking at the unit cost of care is missing the point. ... To have a health care debate in this country that isn't aware of the price differential is not an informed debate.

Hmmm. This doesn't sound quite right. CT scan prices vary depending on the procedure, but in general they seem to range from around one thousand to a few thousand dollars. $15,000 seems like a stretch.

Still, CT scans and MRIs do cost a lot more here than overseas — upwards of 5x as much in some cases. Why is this? I sort of understand why doctors are paid more here and why prescription drugs cost more. But a CT machine is a CT machine. Siemens sells them for the same price in the U.S. as in Europe, don't they? So what accounts for the fantastic cost difference? And why don't insurance companies bargain the price down? This really does seem to be a little more mysterious than high physician salaries and high drug costs."

Internet Speeds and Costs Around the World, Shown Visually - Broadband - Gizmodo

Internet Speeds and Costs Around the World, Shown Visually - Broadband - Gizmodo: "This awesome infographic shows the internet costs and speeds around the world for the top 20 nations in the ITIF Broadband Rankings. Unsurprisingly, we don't compare too well.


Number one is, predictably, Japan, where the average broadband speed is 60mbps and they pay $0.27 per 1mbps. We, in comparison, average 4.8mbps and pay $3.33 per 1mbps, putting us at #15."

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Getting ahead of ourselves | Inside Story

Getting ahead of ourselves | Inside Story:
"the most interesting of the report’s findings. According to the authors, the evidence suggests that “increasing the social mix within schools may increase performance of disadvantaged students with neutral or in some cases with positive effects on overall performance. Thus, policies aimed at encouraging such mix in neighbourhoods may, therefore, play a role in mitigating inequalities.” This means that policies to encourage students from a range of backgrounds to attend the same schools (the opposite of much government education policy in Australia over the past decade) will not only improve the performance of the least able students without lowering average performance, but could increase the overall performance of a classroom or a school."

Friday, October 23, 2009

The FY 2010 Defense Authorization

Cato @ Liberty:
Yesterday Congress passed the $680 billion FY 2010Defense Authorization Bill, which authorizes the largest such budget since the end of World War II. ...

The defense bill represents only part of our military spending. The appropriations bill moving through Congress governing veterans affairs, military construction and other agencies totals $133 billion, while the massive Department of Homeland Security budget weighs in at $42.8 billion. This comprises the visible balance of what Americans spend on our national security, loosely defined. Then there is the approximately $16 billion tucked away in the Energy Department’s budget, money dedicated to the care and maintenance of the country’s huge nuclear arsenal.

All told, every man, woman and child in the United States will spend more than $2,700 on these programs and agencies next year. By way of comparison, the average Japanese spends less than $330; the average German about $520; China’s per capita spending is less than $100.

The massive imbalance between what Americans spend on our military, and what others spend, flows directly from our foreign policy. Several decades ago, Washington opted to be the world’s policeman, and has ever since discouraged other countries from spending more on their own defense.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Why it's important to treat all Sept. 11 victims alike. - By Emily Bazelon - Slate Magazine

Emily Bazelon - Slate Magazine:
Nobody argued when Congress offered to set up a fund for the families of the Sept. 11 victims who would agree not to sue in exchange for compensation. Even the Association of Trial Lawyers of America—an entity that rarely cheers for anything that deflects big lawsuits—announced that its members would give free advice to the families who applied to the fund.

But only six months after setting up shop, the fund is stuck. Fewer than 10 of the 3,000-plus eligible families have signed up. Most of the rest are concerned the fund won't treat them fairly and think that they might be better off relying on the courts and tort law to compensate them for their losses. The problem with the fund as it's conceived is that it treats damage awards too much like a court would. The best way for the fund to gain the families' trust—and with it some momentum—is to act less, rather than more, like a court.

The fund currently proposes to give families different awards based on the projected earnings and life expectancy of each victim. This future-earnings principle is the standard basis for calculating damage awards in tort suits, but here it's a wrong turn. The impulse behind this fund wasn't really to compensate the Sept. 11 families for their economic loss—it was to ease, in some way, the massive suffering caused by a national attack. In the currency of suffering, there's no way to compare one family to another. So the fund should give each the same award. Obviously there's no perfect way to decide who's entitled to what here—just as there's no way to justify a federal fund for the Sept. 11 families, when the families of the Oklahoma City and 1993 World Trade Center bombing victims (not to mention Pearl Harbor) got nothing. But if you set aside the goal of universal fairness and assume it's OK for Congress to help the families hurt by this particular attack, then equal awards are a little more just and a little more practical than anything else the fund can do.

As it stands, the Sept. 11 families who sign up are hit with a 30-page application filled with actuarial tables. There's a table for a victim who died leaving a spouse and one child, for example, and another one for a victim with two kids and no spouse. Across the top of the tables are arrayed numbers from $10,000 to $225,000 representing the victim's annual earnings. Along the side are ages from 25 to 65. Using set formulas, the tables work up variables like projected pay raises and tax rates. To arrive at a first estimate for an award, you look at the table that matches the composition of your family after the tragedy and locate the box that corresponds to the age and salary of the person you lost. If you have a child and lost a 45-year-old wife, the government will pay you $828,974 tax-free if she made $30,000 a year. If she made $150,000, you'll get $2,145,697.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Socialized Medicine

Matthew Yglesias: "My understanding is that the post-Soviet collapse had more to do with lifestyle factors (vodka got cheaper) than problems in the health care system. But the point, broadly speaking, would be that the dread U.S.S.R. actually did a perfectly decent job of providing the sort of goods—health care, basic education, subways, nuclear missiles, vast prison camps, satellite launch vehicles—that in most democracies are provided by the state. It did a bad job of providing things like appealing clothing, consumer electronics, popular entertainments, cars, etc. that are generally provided by the private sector."
File:Russia life exp female 1960-2000.jpg

Monday, October 5, 2009

America, Heal Thyself

Shannon Brownlee: "the United States has the most expensive health care system in the world. We spend nearly twice as much per person as do other developed countries for health outcomes that are no better and in some cases much worse. Moreover, the citizens of most other countries, including Canada and the U.K., who are routinely reviled by opponents of 'socialized' medicine, express greater satisfaction with their health care systems than we do with ours.

All of which adds up to an obvious conclusion to author T. R. Reid: we have a lot to learn from these foreigners. 'We can bring about fundamental change [in our system] by borrowing ideas from foreign models of health care,' he writes. Part analysis, part amusing travelogue, The Healing of America represents an admirable mission, as Reid travels the globe in an effort to understand why our care is so much more expensive—and less effective—compared to that of other countries. Along the way, he takes his bum shoulder, the result of an injury sustained while serving in the military in the 1970s, to a series of doctors and healers in far-flung cities, to illustrate how different caregivers approach the treatment of joint stiffness and pain. Reid may be right that there are lessons to be learned from other systems that could inform the debate we’re now having about the quality and cost of our own health care, but they are not the lessons that are put forth in this book.

In trying to explain the root causes of our astronomically expensive system, Reid falls back on two widely held but inadequate assumptions about what’s driving American health care spending. The first is the price we pay for each medical service compared with prices for the same service in other countries. At each stop in his tour of foreign health care systems, Reid hammers this point home. We learn that an MRI of the head costs $105 in Japan versus anywhere from $1,000 to $1,400 in the U.S. A visit to the orthopedist to look at his shoulder in France costs $34, versus three to four times that in the United States.

Reid is right that we pay more for many individual treatments than do citizens of other countries. But in his relentless litany of price differentials he fails to convey the simple but vital point that costs in medicine, as in any industry, are a function of both price and volume. What also distinguishes us from other countries is the amount of health care we consume, especially of the most expensive kinds of care. We undergo three times more MRI scans than the OECD average. Our doctors prescribe more brand-name
drugs and fewer generics. We undergo more elective surgeries than citizens of France, Switzerland, and Germany. We run to the specialist at the drop of a hat, partly because we have more specialists and fewer primary care physicians. That specialist is often quick to recommend an expensive procedure or surgery when physical therapy, painkillers, or some other, less invasive form of treatment will work just as well or better. Reid’s own story about his aching shoulder illustrates this point. His American doctor immediately recommended a complete shoulder replacement, while every other doctor he saw in other countries suggested he try less draconian remedies first.

Reid’s second explanation for high American health care costs is the mammoth overhead built into our private health insurance market. '[I]nsurance firms … soak up a significant share of the premium dollar to cover the costs of marketing, underwriting, and administration, as well as their profit,' he writes. 'Economists agree that this is about the most expensive possible way to pay for a nation’s health care.'"

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Education in Sweden

yglesias:
The world standard for measuring educational achievement is the OECD’s PISA scores...
1-better-pisa-scores 1

Nordic countries are often said to be highly homogeneous, which is true of Finland, but Sweden has more immigrants than the United States though of course much less poverty and inequality.

The most noteworthy aspect of Swedish education is a fairly robust school choice system. This is often described in the Anglophone press as involving “vouchers” in that any Swedish parent is entitled to take his or her children out of the state-run schools and put into another school, with the new school assigned the same level of per-pupil funding as a municipal school would have gotten. But these schools are more like what we call “charter schools”—they can’t have exclusive admissions policies and they can’t charge tuition above the value of the per pupil allotment.

The big difference is that many Swedish charters are run by for-profit firms. We’ve had some experiments with that in the U.S. and it hasn’t worked very well. Nobody’s really found a great way of making consistent profits running K-12 schools in America.

childpoverty

It’s not really clear to me, however, if Swedish schools are actually performing at a higher level than ours. If our child poverty level were where Sweden’s is, our kids’ test scores would be way higher. By contrast, in the Netherlands the child poverty rate is much higher than in Sweden—though of course much lower than in the United States—and the test scores are substantially better.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Economics and Politics - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

Economics and Politics - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com:
Think of the benefits to the private sector from pollution. Yes, benefits — in the sense that it’s cheaper to pollute than not to, or that it’s easier to produce goods if you don’t worry about whatever emissions result as a byproduct. So we can think of drawing a curve representing the private marginal benefit of emissions, as in this figure:

DESCRIPTION

In the absence of government action, the private sector will increase emissions up to the point where there is no further marginal benefit. That is, emissions will rise to whatever level is implied by profit-maximization, paying no attention to the effects on the environment.

A cap-and-trade system puts a limit on overall emissions, so that emitters have to pay a price for emitting. This price will, as shown in the figure above, equal the marginal benefit of the last unit of emissions allowed.

Now, the cost to the economy of this limit is the benefit the private sector would have gotten by emitting more than is allowed under the cap. It’s shown in the figure as the red triangle labeled “deadweight loss”. CBO puts these losses under Waxman-Markey at 0.2-0.7 percent of GDP in 2020, 1.1 to 3.4 percent in 2050. These costs have to be set against the environmental benefits.

In addition to this overall economic cost, there’s a distributional effect. The creation of cap and trade means that emission permits command a market price, and the value of these permits — the blue rectangle — goes to someone. Under Waxman-Markey, some of it (a growing fraction over time) would be captured by the government through auctions, and used to cut or avoid increases in other taxes — in effect, recycled to consumers. The rest would be passed on to industry — but because the biggest recipients would be regulated utilities, much of this would also be passed on to consumers.

OK, now let’s send in Beck and Feldstein.

Beck got his number from someone who learned about a guesstimate of what the auction value of permits might be (way higher than current estimates, by the way), divided by the number of households, and proclaimed this the cost of the bill. In effect, he looked at a guess about the size of the blue rectangle, which does not represent an economic cost, and called that the cost to the economy.

In a way, though, what Martin Feldstein did was worse. He took the CBO’s estimate of “compliance costs”, which was $1600 per household in an early report (it’s now down to $900, but who’s counting?), and implied that this was the economic cost of the legislation. But “compliance costs” are basically the sum of the blue rectangle and the red triangle; the true economic costs are just the triangle, and are much smaller.

Another way to say this is that under the Feldstein method, any time you try to correct an externality, which necessarily means changing relative prices, all of the negative effects of the price change will be counted as a cost — but none of the positive effects will be counted as a benefit.

Bad stuff. And what you should bear in mind is that all I’m doing here is conventional neoclassical economics, quite literally basic textbook material. What does it say when the people who claim to believe in this stuff throw it out the window as soon as it leads to policy conclusions they don’t like?

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Special-Interest Secret - WSJ.com

Special-Interest Secret - WSJ.com:
Behind every policy that does more harm than good, there's a special interest that favors it anyway. The steel tariff was bad for consumers, steel-using industries and foreign steel producers, but the steel lobby still pushed for it. Farm subsidies are bad for both taxpayers and unsubsidized farmers, but in 2002 the American farm lobby got a 70% increase in government support.

...When special interests talk, politicians listen and the rest of us suffer. But why do politicians listen? Social scientists' favorite explanation is that special interests pay close attention to their pet issues and the rest of us do not. So when politicians decide where to stand, the safer path is to satisfy knowledgeable insiders at the expense of the oblivious public.

This explanation is appealing, but it neglects one glaring fact. "Special-interest" legislation is popular.

Keeping foreign products out is popular. Since 1976, the Worldviews survey has always found that Americans who "sympathize more with those who want to eliminate tariffs" are seriously outnumbered by "those who think such tariffs are necessary." Handouts for farmers are popular. A 2004 PIPA-Knowledge Networks Poll found that 58% agree that "government needs to subsidize farming to make sure there will always be a good supply of food." In 2006, the Pew Research Center found that over 80% of Americans want to raise the minimum wage. It is safe to assume, then, that few people want to abolish it. These results are not isolated. It is hard to find any "special interest" policies that most Americans oppose.

...Why would the majority favor policies that hurt the majority? There is a good reason. The majority favors these policies because the average person underestimates the social benefits of the free market, especially for international and labor markets. In a phrase, the public suffers from anti-market bias.

Economists have spent centuries explaining how markets channel greedy intentions into socially desirable results; how trade is mutually beneficial both within and between countries; how using price controls to redistribute income inflicts a lot of collateral damage. These are the lessons of every economics textbook. Contrary to the stereotype that they can't agree, economists across the political spectrum, from Paul Krugman to Greg Mankiw, see eye to eye on these basic lessons.

Unfortunately, most people resist even the most basic lessons of economics. As every introductory teacher of the subject knows, students are not blank slates. On the first day of class, they arrive with strong -- and usually misguided -- beliefs about economics. Convincing students to rethink their anti-market views is no easy task.

The principles of economics are intellectually compelling; but emotionally, they fall flat. It feels better to believe that greedy intentions imply bad consequences, that foreigners destroy our prosperity and that price controls are a harmless way to transfer income. Given these economic prejudices, we should expect policies like steel tariffs, farm subsidies and the minimum wage to be popular.

...In a monarchy, no one likes to blame the king for bad decisions. So instead of blaming the king himself, critics point their fingers at his wicked, incompetent and corrupt advisers. While this is a good way to keep your head, it is hard to take seriously. Kings often make bad decisions; and in any case, if his advisers are hurting the country, isn't it the king's fault for listening to them?

In a democracy, similarly, no one likes to blame the majority for bad decisions. So instead of blaming the majority, critics point their fingers at special interests. But this too is hard to take seriously. The majority often makes bad decisions; and in any case, if special interests are hurting the country, isn't it the majority's fault for listening to them?

We often ponder special-interest politics in order to solve a mystery: 'Why aren't policies better?' Realizing how many bad policies are here by popular demand turns this question upside down. The real mystery is not why policies aren't better. The real mystery of politics is why policies aren't a lot worse.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Peking Over Our Shoulder | The New Republic

Peking Over Our Shoulder | The New Republic: "And yet, there was budget director Peter Orszag rushing to a lunch with Chinese bureaucrats on a Monday in late July. To his surprise, when Orszag arrived at the site of the annual U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED), the Chinese didn't dwell on the Wall Street meltdown or the global recession. The bureaucrats at his table mostly wanted to know about health care reform, which Orszag has helped shepherd. 'They were intrigued by the most recent legislative developments,' Orszag says. 'It was like, 'You're fresh from the field, what can you tell us?' '

As it happens, health care is much on the minds of the Chinese these days. Over the last few years, as China has become the world's largest purchaser of Treasury bonds, the government has grown increasingly sophisticated in its understanding of U.S. budget deficits. The issue has become all the more pressing in recent months, as the financial crisis and recession pushed the deficit to record levels. With nearly half of their $2 trillion in foreign currency reserves invested in U.S. bonds alone, the Chinese are understandably concerned about our creditworthiness. And this concern has brought them ineluctably to the issue of health care. 'At some point, if you refuse to contain health care costs, you'll go bankrupt,' says Andy Xie, a prominent Shanghai-based economist, formerly of Morgan Stanley. 'It's widely known among [Chinese] policymakers.' Xie himself wrote a much-read piece on the subject in 2007 for Caijing magazine--kind of the Chinese version of Fortune.

And so, whereas previous U.S.-China dialogues, which former Bush Treasury secretary Hank Paulson officially launched in 2006, consisted largely of discussions of international issues like trade, currency, and cross-border investment, this year's included conversations about domestic topics like health care and budget discipline. Indeed, the joint announcement that capped two days of talks in Washington actually included a U.S. commitment to 'reform its health care system with the aim of controlling rising health care costs for businesses and government . . . [and] reducing the federal budget deficit relative to GDP to a sustainable level by 2013.'

The language marks a shift in Sino-American relations that extends far beyond these formal meetings. For decades, while the United States has prodded China on any number of internal issues, the reverse has rarely been true, except for the vaguest exhortations. The notion that we might take advice from a developing country--even one as large and rapidly industrializing as China--would have been a blow to our self-image, at least if it weren't so laughable. Within a few short years, though, Washington has come face to face with a daunting new reality: Not only are the Chinese raising questions about our domestic policies, but we suddenly have to listen. 'The U.S. had all the answers once upon a time,' says a senior administration official. 'But China's not the apprentice anymore.'
...the Chinese had their own experience with large deficits in the 1980s--driven, in part, by health care costs and other generous benefits under the country's "iron rice bowl" system. The country financed the deficits by printing money, which created inflation and debased its currency. Against this backdrop, the ever-pragmatic Chinese have a hard time believing that Americans, faced with over $9 trillion in deficits this coming decade, might not avail themselves of the same option, devastating China's dollar stockpile in the process. The Chinese leadership shares these concerns--perhaps understandably so. Not only is the United States minting truckloads of debt each day, but, in recent months, the Fed has essentially printed money to buy up substantial chunks of it. "In the meetings I've had, they tend to ask me about ... the Fed's ability to buy Treasuries," says Steve Orlins, a former State Department official and investment banker who now heads the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations. "The Chinese looked at that [and said], ‘There are two buyers: us and the Fed. That's a little scary.'" Chinese officials can be forgiven for worrying, in weaker moments, that the U.S. government is simply playing them for fools--hawking Treasuries whose value we intend to erode by spurring inflation."

Ezra Klein - Kent Conrad and the 'Annie Hall' Theory of Health-Care Reform

Ezra Klein - Kent Conrad and the 'Annie Hall' Theory of Health-Care Reform: "Kent Conrad is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and one of the chamber's loudest, and most powerful, deficit hawks. On Tuesday, for instance, he directed the Congressional Budget Office to score the impact of health-care reform over a 20-year time frame, rather than the traditional 10 years. This is a tougher fiscal test than any bill has had to pass in memory.

You could see this as a good thing. Reformers sometimes argue that health-care reform's true impact on the cost curve will be seen over the long term. If CBO's scores reflected that, Conrad's demand could be a boon to reform. But Conrad doesn't appear to believe the scores will reflect that. He called the CBO's scoring of the bill's cost controls 'stingy,' and predicted that 'the savings will be greater than CBO is showing.'
...

One explanation is that Conrad is a stickler for deficit reduction, even at the cost of health-care reform. After all, the CBO's acid test might be overly difficult, but perhaps a high bar is warranted for a reform of this magnitude. 'We've got to have somebody that we give this responsibility to and that we follow,' Conrad explained. That would be more credible if not for two data points.

The first came earlier this year when Conrad modified Obama's first budget. Obama had eliminated a couple of Bush-era gimmicks that made the deficit appear smaller than it really was. Bush, for instance, shortened the budget window from 10 years to five, so the total deficit sounded smaller. Obama's budget returned it to the traditional 10. And then Conrad changed it back. The Politico reported that Conrad made this decision 'because of the uncertainty of long-range forecasts.' Others thought he did it to hide the size of the deficit. In any case, 10 years, as the alert reader will notice, is less than 20 years. If 10 years was too long a time period for certainty, then it is difficult to see how 20 years could possibly be acceptable.

The second came in 2003, when Conrad voted for the Medicare Modernization Act, better known as
Medicare Part D. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill would increase the federal deficit by $421 billion and reduce federal revenue by another $174 billion. The total cost to the deficit, then, neared $600 billion. Conrad not only accepted the CBO's 10-year time frame, but he voted for the bill."

Health costs hurt incomes in Bush years | Marketplace From American Public Media

Health costs hurt incomes in Bush years | Marketplace From American Public Media: "The more plausible culprit is the surge in health care costs. Over the years from 2000 to 2007, the price employers paid for labor rose handsomely: on average, 25 percent. Yet for the typical worker, none of that extra cost translated into higher wages.

Between 2000 and 2007, the cost of the average health insurance policy for a family of four doubled, from about $6,000 to over $12,000. That took a big bite out of the gains available for wage increases. More than a bite: the health-care system gulped down every morsel, and forced employers to raise co-pays and deductibles for good measure."

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Barack Obama Does Something Really Stupid: Tire Tariffs

Barack Obama Does Something Really Stupid: Tire Tariffs: "Barack Obama does something stupid. So does Harold Meyerson, who writes an op-ed on the tire tariff that clouds the issues."

Monday, August 31, 2009

Cost Benefit Analysis and Utility

Cost Benefit Analysis:
"Formal benefit cost analysis counts everyone’s gains and losses equally. But common sense and the principle of diminishing marginal utility agree that a dollar’s worth of gain is more valuable to someone with few dollars than it is with someone with many. Obviously, taking $1 each from 900,000 poor people to give $1 million to a hedge-fund billionaire doesn’t reflect a social gain, but a formal benefit-cost analysis will show that it does: after all, the net benefit is $100,000. Thus gains and losses should be adjusted by (at least) dividing each gain or loss by the income or wealth of the person bearing it, so that a $20 gain to a family with an income of $20,000 weighs as a heavily as a $10,000 gain to a family with an income of $1 million."

Friday, August 28, 2009

Canadian Medicare

Yglesias: "Canadian Medicare is pretty similar to American Medicare, but our Medicare is for old people and there’s is for everyone. So if you like Medicare, you’d also like Medicare. And if you hate Canadian-style socialism, you ought to favor dismantling Medicare."

Greg Mankiw's Blog: The Least Surprising Correlation of All Time

Greg Mankiw's Blog: The Least Surprising Correlation of All Time:
This graph is a good example of omitted variable bias, a statistical issue discussed in Chapter 2 of my favorite textbook. The key omitted variable here is parents' IQ. Smart parents make more money and pass those good genes on to their offspring.


Suppose we were to graph average SAT scores by the number of bathrooms a student has in his or her family home. That curve would also likely slope upward. (After all, people with more money buy larger homes with more bathrooms.) But it would be a mistake to conclude that installing an extra toilet raises yours kids' SAT scores.

It would be interesting to see the above graph reproduced for adopted children only. I bet that the curve would be a lot flatter."

If You Are So Rich, Why Aren't You Smart?

...The individual heritability of IQ is about 0.5: take an individual with a IQ 6 points above average and their children will be expected to have an IQ 3 points above average....

The rule of thumb, I think, is that half of the income-test score correlation is due to the correlation of your test scores with your parents' IQ; and half of the income-test score correlation is coing purely from the advantages provided by that component of wealth uncorrelated with your parents' (genetic and environmental!) IQ.

...The masters at explaining this, of course, are (Googles) Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, "The Inheritance of Inequality" http://www.umass.edu/preferen/gintis/intergen.pdf...


UPDATE: Conor Clarke reminds me of Christiane Capron and Michael Duyme (1989), "Assessment of Effects of Socio-Economic Status on IQ: A Full Cross-Fostering Study," Nature http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v340/n6234/pdf/340552a0.pdf: "changes in IQ resulting from changes in postnatal environment are of similar magnitude and exhibit the same general trend independently of the SES of the adopted children's biological paretnts."

Low income hinders college attendance

The worst scoring students from high SES families complete college as frequently as the best students from low SES families. Only 29% of high-achieving kids belonging to the lowest SES quartile obtained a bachelor's degree, compared to 74% of high-achieving kids in the top SES quartile. This success rate for high-aptitude poor students (29%) is less than the success rate for students with the lowest aptitude from the top SES families.


Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Felix Salmon » Blog Archive » Just because you’re rich doesn’t mean you’re smart | Blogs |

Felix Salmon » Blog Archive » Just because you’re rich doesn’t mean you’re smart | Blogs |: "Wealth Corollary of the Efficient Market Hypothesis... says that if you’ve made lots of money, you must be pretty smart. I think there’s a pretty good case to be made that the EMH(WC) is responsible for ... many of the obsequious interviews with rich individuals frequently featured in the financial media.The problem is that it’s far too easy for people to simply assume, on the grounds of wealth alone, that therefore there must also be some degree of financial sophistication. The annals of finance are full of people taking advantage of the financially-illiterate..."

Salmon talks about Anne Leibowitz who lost millions. Her credit was so bad, her applications for an American Express credit card had been repeatedly denied at the time when American Express offered to pay her big bucks to become their spokesperson in a new ad campaign.

Yglesias responds:

To me the interesting thing goes beyond hedge fund rules and obsequious interviews in financial media, to a much more general phenomenon of the enormous general social, cultural, and intellectual prestige accorded to rich people. In this vein, Leibowitz is not a good example, since obviously she’s a rich person second and a famous photographer first and her work can be judged on its own photo-centric terms.

But in general it seems to me that we pay extraordinarily little attention to the giant role played by luck and happenstance in determining who becomes a super-successful businessman. Bill Gates, for example, clearly knows something about software and something about business. But there are lots of people who fit that bill. There’s only one Gates because it’s in the nature of things that only one firm gets to write the operating system that, thanks to strong network effects, becomes dominant and lets you start reaping monopoly profits. Nothing wrong with it, that’s life. But in general, as a society we tend to treat successful businessmen as if they were omniscient central planners who’d gotten rich through their powers of clairvoyance. In fact, the whole point of having businessmen instead of central planners is that nobody’s that omniscient—we let some flowers bloom and some chips fall and life moves on. But there’s no particular reason to believe that the ex post winners have enormous insights. If you hang around a casino, on any given night someone’s going to make money playing roulette, but that doesn’t mean you should ask him about his roulette strategy and it certainly doesn’t mean you should ask his opinion about public policy issues far outside his area of focus.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Harvard University - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs - An Economic View of the Environment » Blog Archive » The Wonderful Politics of Cap-and-Trade: A Closer Look at

Thoma: ...the recent discussion between Brad DeLong and Greg Mankiw on the effects of giving away rather than auctioning carbon permits under a cap and trade system (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here). Mankiw begins with the premise that:
Rather than auctioning the carbon allowances, the bill that recently passed the House would give most of them away to powerful special interests.

But is it correct to classify the program as "giving most of them away to powerful special interests"? Here's Harvard's Robert Stavins who knows a thing or two about this topic. He notes that "it is remarkable (and unfortunate) how misleading so much of the coverage has been of the issues and the numbers surrounding the proposed allowance allocation." He also says that "we should be honest that the legislation, for all its flaws, is by no means the 'massive corporate give-away' that it has been labeled. On the contrary, 80% of the value of allowances accrue to consumers and public purposes":



Harvard University - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs - An Economic View of the Environment » Blog Archive » The Wonderful Politics of Cap-and-Trade: A Closer Look at: "The headline of this post is not meant to be ironic. Despite all the hand-wringing in the press and the blogosphere about a political “give-away” of allowances for the cap-and-trade system in the Waxman-Markey bill voted out of committee last week, the politics of cap-and-trade systems are truly quite wonderful, which is why these systems have been used, and used successfully."

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Why markets can’t cure healthcare - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

Why markets can’t cure healthcare - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com: "Judging both from comments on this blog and from some of my mail, a significant number of Americans believe that the answer to our health care problems — indeed, the only answer — is to rely on the free market. Quite a few seem to believe that this view reflects the lessons of economic theory.

Not so."

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Is the threat of speculation a reason to shun cap and trade? - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

Is the threat of speculation a reason to shun cap and trade? - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com: "But there’s also, it seems, growing opposition to cap-and-trade from people who should be on the side of progress — but whose reaction is basically “Eek! Markets!Wall Street! Speculation! Bad!”

We don’t need this.

So let me talk a bit about why this reaction is 99% wrong, and bad for the planet."

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Socialized Rationing of Burmese Language Education

Matthew Yglesias » Home Page: "If you’re a parent in Montgomery County Maryland, you pay taxes to the county and you get to send your kids to very good public schools. But even though the schools are good, they won’t just do anything you want. Your kid can learn Spanish at government expense, but the taxpayers won’t foot the bill for your kid to learn Burmese. But you don’t normally hear anyone say that the presence of a “public option” for elementary and secondary education involves “rationing” of foreign language instruction. If people have the means and want to arrange private lessons for their children of various kinds nobody is stopping them."

Monday, July 13, 2009

Economist's View

Economist's View: "Setting aside the particulars of the California case and whether or not the IOUs are actually functioning as money - that's debatable - very, very generally, the federal government has a budget constraint just like everyone else, well sort of like everyone else anyway -- most of us can't levy taxes or print money. Federal government finances must satisfy

G - T = ΔM + ΔB,

where Δ means 'change in,' G is government spending, T is taxes, M is the money supply, and B is bonds. The left-hand side is the deficit, and the right-hand is how it is financed. Thus, when G is greater than T so that there is a deficit in a given budget period, it must be financed by printing new money (ΔM) or issuing new bonds (ΔB)."

Economic View - The Invisible Hand, Trumped by Darwin? - NYTimes.com

Economic View - The Invisible Hand, Trumped by Darwin? - NYTimes.com: "IF asked to identify the intellectual founder of their discipline, most economists today would probably cite Adam Smith. But that will change. Economists’ forecasts generally aren’t worth much, but I’ll offer one that even my youngest colleagues won’t survive to refute: If we posed the same question 100 years from now, most economists would instead cite Charles Darwin."

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Matthew Yglesias » Home Page

Matthew Yglesias » Home Page: "One issue with a lot of health care commentary (Michael Kinsley’s correctly maligned column for example) is that the concept of “cost” is somewhat ambiguous in a lot of these contexts. For example, on one way of looking at things, an initiative that raises $90 billion in tax revenue, reduces private health expenditures by $100 billion, and then provides equivalent services for $90 billion is very expensive. It costs ninety billion dollars! From another way of looking at it, though, it’s an initiative that saves $10 billion.

That’s the question of whether we’re talking about cost to the government, or cost in some more general sense.

Another issue has to do with value. If we cut $1 billion worth of regular pediatric care for poor children, that will “save money.” But that’s not the same as cutting $1 billion worth of unnecessary treatments for senior citizens out of Medicare. The latter would be a genuine saving; the former would just be denying useful services to people.

Pure fiscal cost to the government is an important thing to keep our eye on. Among other things, we need tax revenues to be adequate to cover the pure fiscal cost. At the same time, I think it’s a little perverse to view it as the main thing to worry about."

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Matthew Yglesias » Home Page

Matthew Yglesias » Home Page: "

Here’s some historical data on female life expectancy in Russia:

russia_life_exp_female_1960-2000-1
...the dread U.S.S.R. actually did a perfectly decent job of providing the sort of goods—health care, basic education, subways, nuclear missiles, vast prison camps, satellite launch vehicles—that in most democracies are provided by the state. It did a bad job of providing things like appealing clothing, consumer electronics, popular entertainments, cars, etc. that are generally provided by the private sector. In Cuba everyone’s dirt poor and generally leave crappy lives with few goods, but the literacy rate is high and the state of public health is excellent considering the poor overall economic situation. And even in the United States, about half of health care is financed by the state—a free market approach to senior citizens would be a disaster."

Matthew Yglesias » Home Page

Matthew Yglesias » Home Page: "Via Ezra Klein, a RAND study of the impact of price changes on body-mass index indicates a modest impact. The implications for a soda tax? Ezra says “whether or not soda taxes are a good idea for raising revenue, they’re not likely to do a tremendous amount to change the national waistline.”

I’m not too saddened by the result, because as I’ve been saying the right way to think of public health taxes is as a revenue measure:"

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Corporations and Campaign Finance

Why do corporations exist? Are they good or bad or both? What is their economic purpose?
See the Economist review of the movie, "The Corporation". It is available on campus computers here or you can search through the library proxy server.

Given what corporations are good at, should they be able to give unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns?

The Wonk Room:

Nineteen years ago, in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Court upheld a ban on independent political expenditures–so-called “soft money” contributions–by corporate donors. As the Court explained in Austin, “the unique state-conferred corporate structure that facilitates the amassing of large treasuries warrants the limit on independent expenditures.” Corporations are designed to amass massive amounts of money, and they can use their enormous wealth to drown out individual voices, all while spending only a fraction of their treasuries.

Should the Court toss out Austin, it could be the end of any meaningful restrictions on campaign finance. In most states, all that is necessary to form a new corporation is to file the right paperwork in the appropriate government office. Moreover, nothing prevents one corporation from owning another corporation. Without Austin, even a cap on overall contributions becomes meaningless, because corporate donors can simply create a series of shell-corporations for the purpose of evading such caps.

Admittedly, Austin dealt only with independent expenditures, not direct corporate donations to candidates and their campaigns, but the Roberts Court’s apparent willingness to take on Austin directly is its boldest assault on campaign finance reform yet.


Trivia: Wikipedia says that Harvard College is the oldest corporation in the western hemisphere:
Harvard College ... (also known as the Harvard Corporation), ... Founded in 1636, ... was incorporated by the Great and General Court of Massachusetts in 1650. Significantly, Massachusetts itself was a corporate colony at that time – owned and operated by the Massachusetts Bay Company (until it lost its charter in 1684) - so Harvard College is a corporation created by a corporation.

Matthew Yglesias » Home Page

Matthew Yglesias » Home Page: "Via Noam Scheiber, if you’re interested in looking up the salary of your favorite White House staffer, just download this list here (PDF). It seems that Rahm and the various folks carrying an “assistant to the president” title make $172,200 while the most-junior staff clock in at $35,000.

I will say that one thing I like about Washington is that relative to other major American metro areas, DC is relatively egalitarian in economic terms. The $172,200 that the top White House staff make is good money but it’s hardly enough to put you in the stratosphere of the American economic elite. And yet, these are some of the most important and successful men and women in Washington. Go to New York or LA or Chicago and the biggest of the big shots will be making 10 or 20 times that.

UPDATE: Actually, "10 or 20 times that" is a huge lowball; they're making much more than that."

Economics and Politics - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

Why would a rabid free-trade supporter like Krugman support tarrifs based upon carbon emissions? Is it like VAT? What would happen if domestic oil and gas were subject to pricey carbon caps, but imports were not?
Economics and Politics - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com: "The truth is that there’s perfectly sound economics behind border adjustments related to cap-and-trade. The way to think about it is in terms of a well-established theory — the theory of non-economic objectives in trade policy — that owes its origins to Jagdish Bhagwati, who certainly can’t be accused of being a protectionist. The essential idea is that if you have a non-economic objective, such as self-sufficiency in food production, you should choose policy instruments to align incentives with that objective; in normal circumstances this leads to consumer or producer intervention, rarely to tariffs.

But in this case the non-economic objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, never mind their source. If you only impose restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from domestic sources, you give consumers no incentive to avoid purchasing products that cause emissions in other countries; as a result, you have an inefficient outcome even from a world point of view. So border adjustments here are entirely legitimate in terms of basic economics."

Economics and Politics - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

Economics and Politics - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com: "Ezra Klein wonders why we still have multiple agriculture committees when we hardly have any farmers, and proposed their abolition. But I’d propose the opposite solution: more committees to represent comparably-sized segments of the population.

We should, in particular, have several Congressional committees, plus a Cabinet-level department, representing Americans who play World of Warcraft, who outnumber American farmers."

Friday, June 5, 2009

Matthew Yglesias » Home Page

Matthew Yglesias » Home Page: "one additional potential bonus of Plumer’s ideas is that the public also seems to have no concept whatsoever of how tax incidence works. Thus it’s possible that if you could reformulate the basic gas tax concept as not a tax on gasoline that consumers pay at the pump, but a tax on oil paid by evil oil companies, that you could get further with it politically even though the actual impact would not really be different."

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Parental Leave


Matthew Yglesias » Home Page: "the general lack of paid parental leave in the United States. In most developed countries some form of paid leave is mandatory.

This is basically a recognition on the part of everyone from Japan to Norway to Canada that having a child isn’t just a random consumption choice that we should leave entirely up to the free market. Parents have a special social role to play, and it’s important to all of us to put them in a position to play it well."

Economist's View: "An Umbrella that Melts in the Rain"

Economist's View: "An Umbrella that Melts in the Rain": Health insurance is like 'An Umbrella that Melts in the Rain' for many people.

Bankruptcy

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

CQ Politics | Gas Taxes Fall Short Again, Strapping Highway Trust Fund

CQ Politics | Gas Taxes Fall Short Again, Strapping Highway Trust Fund: "The federal Highway Trust Fund will run out of cash this summer, marking the second year in a row that gasoline tax revenues have failed to meet prior projections and federal spending commitments. ...Congress approved an $8 billion transfer of general tax revenues in September to shore up the Highway Trust Fund, which ran low because revenues from gasoline and diesel fuel have slowed as motor vehicles become more fuel-efficient and Americans drive less because of the economic recession."

According to The WonkRoom:
Currently, 81 percent of the fund’s money is dedicated to highways, while 19 goes toward mass transit.

Monday, June 1, 2009

Matthew Yglesias » Home Page


: "Via Felix Salmon, a helpful dataset that allows me to put together this chart, showing car ownership rates in a few wealthy, sparsely populated countries:"

Friday, May 29, 2009

Parking Shortages vs. Coke

Most cities require that new businesses provide a certain amount of free parking for both customers and employees. Residential developers are also required to create a minimum amount of parking for new homes. This is not a free market approach which is probably preferable.
Yglesias: "if I proposed dealing with the ensuring shortages by saying that anyone who wants to build a new building needs to also provide millions of dollars worth of Diet Coke to people in the neighborhood, people would look at me as if I were insane. Creating the Diet Coke shortages is not a favor to anyone—neither fans nor haters of Diet Coke benefit—and the regulatory mandate is an absurd subsidy to Diet Coke drinkers with no conceivable policy justification."

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

gas taxes and roads

no road pays for itself in gas taxes and fees. For example, in Houston, the 15 miles of SH 99 from I-10 to US 290 will cost $1 billion to build and maintain over its lifetime, while only generating $162 million in gas taxes. That gives a tax gap ratio of .16, which means that the real gas tax rate people would need to pay on this segment of road to completely pay for it would be $2.22 per gallon.

This is just one example, but there is not one road in Texas that pays for itself based on the tax system of today. Some roads pay for about half their true cost, but most roads we have analyzed pay for considerably less.

To conclude, in the SH 99 example, since the traffic volume for that road doesn't generate enough fuel tax revenue to pay for it, revenues from other parts of the state must be used to build and maintain this corridor segment. The same is true across the state, meaning that, as revealed by the tax gap analysis, overall revenues are not sufficient to meet the state’s transportation needs.

Friday, May 8, 2009

defense spending globally

Matthew Yglesias » Home Page: "Cato’s Will Wilkinson and Joseph Heath from the University of Toronto agree that America’s massive defense spending is, in effect, subsidizing the national defense of other countries and both agree that it’s perverse that American conservatives like this. As they say, the right would be none-too-keen on the idea of the United States paying for Italians’ health care, so why should they like paying for Italians’ defense?"

If the US cut defense spending, would Italy or Canada increase their defense spending?
Which is worse, spending tax dollars on a bridge to nowhere or spending money on extra nuclear weapons that are not needed for deterrence?

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Homework: United States federal budget - Wikipedia


Why does this the above chart show an increasing trend?
              What are four reasons?
What does the government mostly spend money on?
Find two different graphics (pie charts are good) that show what percent of government spending goes to what ends. What percent of government expenditures go towards the military and what percent goes towards foreign aid?

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Sachs vs Easterly

Sachs argues for more taxation and social programs and Easterly argues against them.

Is greater immigration a reason the US has fewer social programs than Europe?

Monday, May 4, 2009

Class Mobility Myth Has Impact On Policies

Is the European welfare state the product of a mythology of a rigid class structure?

Ezra Klein : [Russell] Shorto... [thinks that in] the Netherlands.... [T]here's "a cultural tendency not to stand out or excel...the very antithesis of the American ideal of upward mobility." But... Americans are in the odd position of fervently believing in upward mobility while not actually having very much of it. Eruopeans, conversely, don't really believe in economic mobility but have plenty of it.... Brookings... examined the relative mobility in other Nordic countries. And the United States doesn't come out that well.... The United States believes itself to be uncommonly meritocratic. But compared to European countries who don't believe themselves very meritocratic, it actually exhibits less income mobility....

If you believe that your country is extremely mobile, you're likely to believe the results of the economic competition are relatively fair. As such, you won't want to slap the rich with particularly high tax rates and you won't be terribly concerned about spreading economic opportunity. After all, anyone can make it! On the other hand, if you don't believe your country is terribly mobile, then you're less likely to believe economic outcomes are fair. And if you don't believe the outcomes are fair, you're likely to tax the winners relatively heavily and plow those profits into things like universal health care and free college. Policies, in other words, that spread opportunity more widely and thus make your society more mobile. Put like that, it sort of makes sense. If you believe your society is already economically mobile, you don't spend a lot of time trying to solve the problem of insufficient economic mobility. if you don't believe that, then you implement policies meant to increase mobility. What's odd is that the public perceptions in Europe and America don't seem to be changing much in response to actual outcomes.

Is Socialism vs. Capitalism a False Dichotomy?

Going Dutch, by Russel Shorto, NY Times Magazine:
... For 18 months now I’ve been playing the part of the American in Holland, alternately settling into or bristling against the European way of life. ... For the first few months I was haunted by a number: 52... For it represents the rate at which the income I earn ... is to be taxed. To be plain: more than half of my modest haul ... was to be swallowed by the Dutch welfare state. ... I am politically left of center in most ways, but from the time 52 entered my brain, I felt a chorus of voices rise up within my soul, none of which I knew I had internalized, each a ghostly simulacrum of a right-wing, supply-side icon: Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp...
And yet as the months rolled along, I found the defiant anger softening... I have found myself not only giving the Dutch system a personal test drive but also wondering whether some form of it could be adopted by my country. ...
I spent my initial months in Amsterdam under the impression that I was living in a quasi-socialistic system, built upon ideas that originated in the brains of Marx and Engels. This was one of the puzzling features of the Netherlands. It is and has long been a highly capitalistic country ... and yet it has what I had been led to believe was a vast, socialistic welfare state. How can these polar-opposite value systems coexist? ...
The Dam is ... a reminder ... of its ceaseless battle with water. And that battle turns out to be the key to understanding the Netherlands’ blend of free market and social welfare. The Low Countries never developed a fully feudal system of aristocratic landowners and serfs. Rather, sailors, merchants and farmers bought shares in trading ships and in cooperatives to protect the land from the sea, a development that led to the creation of one of the world’s first stock markets and helped fuel the Dutch golden age. Today the country remains among the most free-market-oriented in Europe.
At the same time, water also played a part in the development of the welfare system. ... Everyone had to deal with water. ... But in most cases your land lies in the middle of the country, so where are you going to pump it? To someone else’s land. And then they have to do the same thing, and their neighbor does, too. So what you see in the records are these extraordinarily complicated deals. All of this had to be done together.” ...
There is another historical base to the Dutch social-welfare system, which curiously has been overlooked by American conservatives... It is rooted in religion. “These were deeply religious people, who had a real commitment to looking after the poor,” Mak said... “They built orphanages and hospitals. The churches had a system of relief, which eventually was taken over by the state. So Americans should get over ‘socialism.’ This system developed not after Karl Marx, but after Martin Luther and Francis of Assisi.” ...
The Dutch are free-marketers, but they also have a keen sense of fairness. As Hoogervorst noted, “The average Dutch person finds it completely unacceptable that people with more money would get better health care.” ...
Decent housing is another area where the Dutch are in broad agreement. ... Social housing differs from much of the public housing in the United States in that the government does not own or manage the properties. Rather, each is owned by an independent real estate cooperative. The system is not-for-profit, but it pays for itself. ...
This points up something that seems to be overlooked when Americans dismiss European-style social-welfare systems: they are not necessarily state-run or state-financed. Rather, these societies have chosen to combine the various entities that play a role in social well-being — individuals, corporations, government, nongovernmental entities like unions and churches — in different ways, in an effort to balance individual freedom and overall social security.
So here is a little epiphany I had... Maybe we Americans have set up a false dichotomy...: the old left-wing idea of vast and direct government control of social welfare, and the right-wing determination to dismantle any advances toward it, privatize the system and leave people to their own devices. In Europe, meanwhile, the postwar cradle-to-grave idea of a welfare state gave way in the past few decades to some quite sophisticated mixing of public and private. ...

How Different Are the Dutch and Americans?

Russell Shorto via kevin drum:
One downside of a collectivist society, of which the Dutch themselves complain, is that people tend to become slaves to consensus and conformity. .... “If you tell a Dutch person you’re going to raise his taxes by 500 euros and that it will go to help the poor, he’ll say O.K.,” he said. “But if you say he’s going to get a 500-euro tax cut, with the idea that he will give it to the poor, he won’t do it. The Dutch don’t do such things on their own. They believe they should be handled by the system. To an American, that’s a lack of individual initiative.”
 Of course we could say the same thing about Americans.  If you ask an American if we should raise our taxes by $50 to help our soldiers fight the war in Iraq, he'll say 'sure', but if you say he is going to get a $50 tax cut, he won't give it all to our soldiers.  Why is there so little individual initiative in supporting our troops?  And given that the American government gives so much less to the poor, why do individual Americans not give much more? 

Top US Marginal Tax Rate Graphing Assignment

Go to Wikipedia's Income tax in the United States page and create a graph for the top income tax rate table in Excel. It should look something like this graph. We will vote on which is the best and we will publish it on Wikipedia.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Emmanuel Saez on Taxes and Elasticity

Matthew Yglesias » Emmanuel Saez on Taxes and Elasticity:
See Saez's paper:
“The Elasticity of Taxable Income with Respect to Marginal Tax Rates: A Critical Review”
"First, they report that there’s little support for the idea that increases in marginal tax rates harm the economy but reducing people’s incentives to work. Studies, in other words, show low levels of labor supply elasticity with respect to marginal tax rates. But they observe that other forms of economic distortion are possible. And you can get a comprehensive look at them by looking at the comprehensive elasticity of taxable income.

In the US context, there seems to be a fair amount of such elasticity. And the elasticity is concentrated among taxpayers who itemize their deductions, and especially among high-income taxpayers. ...if you’re trying to raise some extra revenue from wealthy taxpayers it’s probably better to do that by curbing deductions than by raising rates. ...there seems to be a fair chance that growth could be boosted significantly by a broad tax reform that eliminates loopholes and lowers rates."

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Median Federal Tax Rate Chart -Bartlet


The Washington Monthly: "TAXES, IN CONTEXT.... Last week, Bruce Bartlett, a former Treasury Department economist in the Bush administration, wrote an interesting column comparing U.S. tax rates with countries around the world. Bartlett, a conservative, found that the United States 'is a relatively low-tax country no matter how you slice the data.' In 2006, total taxation (federal, state and local) amounted to 28% of the GDP. Of the 30 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, only four had a lower tax ratio than the U.S.

But, conservatives said, who cares what kind of taxes are imposed by other industrialized democracies? Since when do we care? So, this week, Bartlett went with a different approach, comparing the current U.S. tax structure with recent generations.
bartlett.JPG

The exercise is straightforward enough. Bartlett identified the 'effective federal income tax rate -- taxes paid as a share of income -- for a family with the median income. The median is the exact middle of the income distribution -- half of families are above and half are below. It's as close as we can get, statistically, to the typical American family.'

He found that the median family, in the most recent year available, "paid 5.91% of its income to the federal government in the form of income taxes." In 1981, the median family paid double, and current rates are "well below the rate that prevailed from the 1950s through the 1990s."

What's more, the 2009 numbers are almost certainly lower than 2007, thanks to Obama's middle-class tax cut."

Income Gaps Hit Record Levels In 2006, New Data Show — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


Income Gaps Hit Record Levels In 2006, New Data Show — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "Taken together with prior research, the new data suggest greater income concentration at the top than at any time since 1929. [2] The data precede the current recession, which is likely to reduce the income of the wealthiest Americans substantially, given the decline in the stock market, and thereby shrink somewhat the income gap between rich and poor households. But there was a similar development when the dot.com bubble burst a few years ago — income at the top of the income scale fell sharply — and it turned out to be just a speed bump. Incomes at the top more than made up the lost ground from 2004 to 2006.

Friday, April 17, 2009

Economist Debate: Should the rich pay higher taxes?

Professor Thomas Piketty Professor of Economics at the Paris School of Economics (PSE)

Let me give three reasons why I believe the rich should pay higher taxes. For the sake of concreteness, let us say that we are talking about introducing an 80% marginal tax rate on all annual incomes in excess of €1m, leaving the rest of the tax system unchanged.

Mr Chris Edwards Director of Tax Policy Studies, Cato Institute

Should the rich pay higher taxes? Definitely not. Governments do not need any more money, and they misallocate much of what they already take from us. Furthermore, taxation imposes large deadweight losses on the economy, which makes us all poorer.


Closing statements