Disqus - Latest Comments for Slocum

Re: A Cold Compress for Status Fever

Slocum — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:50:52 -0000

"It would be lovely if we could all be the best at something without making other people feel like 'losers' on that dimension, but is this realistic? Something tells me that in order for a particular status dimension to carry any importance, there must be losers."

No, I don't think that there have to be losers. There are things I'm good at that people I know ask me to help them with. In almost none of these areas am I anywhere near 'the best', but often I am the best option available on a Thursday night for the price of a couple beers. And there's a bit of status involved in having these abilities even though, in a highly competitive environment, I wouldn't win a lot of blue ribbons. The people I help aren't diminished as 'losers' because these aren't areas they've focused on.

Similarly, Will's status is enhanced by being skillful enough to have flirted with careers in musical theater and art (just as the guy in the next office's status is enhanced by, say, having played minor league baseball for a couple years). Status doesn't have to derive from being 'world class' in one specialized area--status can also come from being a local expert and being pretty good a number of things.

Re: Again: Why Worry About Inequality?

Slocum — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 09:31:18 -0000

"In other words, the quality of food eaten by most people in this country has DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY over the past century. Can anyone explain that to me?"

Sure, I can explain it -- it's nonsense. My mother-in- law was a farm girl in the 20s and 30s. When spring rolled around they ate whatever was left in the cellar (last year's marginally edible apples, potatoes, rutabagas, etc, etc). The fresh produce may have been better for the very brief time it was in season, but most of the time, they simply had no fresh fruits and vegetables (and didn't eat much meat either). I remember reading my daughter the 'Little House' books in which, on Christmas, they had -- I'm not joking -- 'fried mush with codfish gravy'. As a special treat. And my mother in law piped up that they'd eaten that too when she was a little girl -- well into the 20th century. Yes, people certainly ate well back then:

http://www.bartbeck.com/page193.html

Re: Again: Why Worry About Inequality?

Slocum — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 09:35:03 -0000

"I think part of the problem is that nominal inequality is confused with material inequality—differences in material living conditions. But while nominal inequality is increasing, material inequality continues to decrease. As market competition pushes prices down, goods at the bottom of the price range more and more closely approximate goods at the top of the price range."

Yes -- exactly. It's frustrating that people half know this to be true intuitively, but don't quite realize it unless it's pointed out and, at the same time, it seems to play almost no part in the inequality debate. Very odd.

Re: Again: Why Worry About Inequality?

Slocum — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 18:13:29 -0000

"As for eating out of the root cellar, it’s true that most of the human race went through lean times and times of plenty every year. It’s what we’re used to, evolutionarily speaking, and it’s what we’re designed for. I suspect having less to eat every once in a while would make the obesity problem in this country disappear rather quickly."

Pick up a copy of this:

http://www.amazon.com/Gallery-Regrettable-Food-...

And see if you can make the case that we used to eat better, healthier foods. Not only did we eat worse, we were much less healthy. You might have run across this story, for example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/health/30age....

But

Re: Bounded vs. Unbounded

Slocum — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:15:06 -0000

Yes, I think you're right -- it is begging the question to claim that happiness does not keep rising with income while using a scale that guarantees it cannot possibly keep rising with income.

What would happen if, instead, you asked people to rate their happiness on a scale of 0 to 100 billion where:

0 = the most miserable person in the world
100 billion = the happiest person in the world

Re: Inequality; Lant Pritchett is Awesome; the Injustice of Labor Market Restrictions

Slocum — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:20:42 -0000

Hey, ho, restrictions on labor mobility have to go!

The problem is numbers -- immigrants would swamp and destroy the economies and social orders of the rich countries. And the continuing success of those wealthy countries is critical to the ultimate lifting out of poverty of those in the developing world. And by ultimate, I don't mean in the sense of 'in the long run we are all dead' since Japan, Korea, China and the smaller 'Asian tigers' have made stunning progress in periods of time shorter than a generation let alone a human lifespan.

I think industrialized countries could take many more immigrants than they do and that this would be a good thing, but unlimited mobility would be a disaster, I'm afraid.

Re: Moral Duties in Contexts of Partial Compliance

Slocum — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 22:55:28 -0000

"Maybe if there was a special “tax patriot” armband you got to wear around for paying extra taxes that allowed people to signal, and take public credit for, an otherwise invisible act — a Prius of taxation — we’d see more of it."

This already exists in several forms and people do contribute to government in this way. The best examples are the contributions people make to state universities -- for which people receive recognition of various kinds, including buildings and even entire schools named after them if the contributions are large enough:

http://www.bus.umich.edu/RossB-SchoolGift/

Re: How to Be Grotesquely Reductionist and Utilitarian about Human Love and Life

Slocum — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:57:49 -0000

"This isn’t rocket science; men with easy access to prostitution or to promiscuous women have little incentive to marry."

Nonsense. Even considering humans only as 'biological types', this is nonsense. The children of prostitutes, or even the children of promiscuous, single mothers are not notably successful in modern society, nor have they been historically. Men have a strong incentive to marry a high-quality woman and invest in both her and their children. And, BTW, the investment in families is driven by love -- loving spouses and children is something we're 'designed' to do, not something we do in spite of our biology.

But, of course, that does not necessarily mean monogamy -- in addition to the above, there is also a biological incentive for additional sex on the side. And that is the Eliot Spitzer pattern.

Re: Robert Frank Missing the Story on Schools and Positional Competition Again

Slocum — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:50:47 -0000

Except that this notion that 'good' public schools are in terribly short supply is just reality. The differences in test scores among the many suburban districts in a metropolitan area are not that great and the differences that do exist are better explained by the characteristics of the students than the schools (e.g. the wealthiest districts do better mostly because their students come from wealthier, more educated families).

This being the case, most people don't actually spend every last cent trying to get into the best possible district, but take into account a whole host of factors (amenities, house size, lot size, commuting distance, neighborhood, traffic, freeway access, shopping, etc, etc).

I know it seems tempting to turn Frank's argument into an argument for school choice, but we don't want to tacitly accept the pernicious idea that house-shoppers are all engaged in a knock-down, zero-sum status competition for slots in the 'best' districts they can possibly afford. That's just not the case.

Because we know what Frank's proposed solution to this zero-sum status competition 'problem' is -- confiscating a much larger fraction of incomes with the idea that we'll all be just as well off if we engage in the status competition arms race with fewer arms. Since the cash is confiscated from everybody equally, everybody will presumably end up at the same point in the hierarchy and, since (according to Frank) status is all anyone cares about, everybody will be just as happy or miserable as before.

Nonsense (but potentially dangerous nonsense).

Re: Robert Frank Missing the Story on Schools and Positional Competition Again

Slocum — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:20:40 -0000

A valid point. But people may not choose only on schools in the district but they certainly will avoid a district based on a bad school no matter how good the other amenities are. So the effect may not be as large as Frank suggests but it is there nonetheless.

But it's not just a question of a strong or weak effect. Avoiding a few bad districts and then choosing among the many remaining housing options based on other factors is absolutely not the zero-sum status competition that Frank envisions.

If that view is correct (as I think it is), then people are choosing districts for utilitarian reasons rather than for status, and they routinely pass up available opportunities to maximize their 'status scores' once they've avoided schools & districts that would actually be educationally harmful for their children.

Re: Robert Frank Missing the Story on Schools and Positional Competition Again

Slocum — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:15:59 -0000

Eric Barnhill: Slocum and suburban districts, your observation certainly doesn’t hold up in Westchester. Scarsdale, Kisco, Katonah, Tarrytown, Rye — great schools.

Right -- and if Kisco schools are slightly higher status than Katonah, do all parents who can afford to choose Kisco over Katonah? Or do they figure the schools are good enough in any of these towns and make their choice based on other criteria?

Personally, I find the suburban schools with their high test scores and absolute whiteness as much less attractive than the schools in Minneapolis and St. Paul which both have district wide school choice and many different magnet and charter schools to go along with a very diverse student body. But I think I’m a minority thinker on this part.

Which is another chink in Frank's great chain of school status -- different parents have different conceptions of what constitutes 'the best'.

The situation is similar here. The Ann Arbor district has the most funding in the area, and the highest scoring students, but it is also ethnically diverse with some fraction of underperforming minority students. Some of the surrounding districts (Saline, Dexter) have scores that are now quite close to Ann Arbor's, but they are very white and suburban with lots of sprawl developments. My wife and I had no interest at all in those districts and spent a lot of money to live in the middle of the city. But other families have no interest in living here and spent equally large amounts of money for McMansions out in the townships.

But we didn't choose our house only for the school situation. That it's in a quiet, green neighborhood near a park and within walking and biking distance of downtown, is close to work, and has bus service -- these were all factors in addition to the schools.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Slocum — Sat, 31 May 2008 09:05:41 -0000

"Freed to be full-on social liberals, many libertarians are left sensing a much deeper cultural affinity for the left than the right."

Yeah, I've always sensed a much deeper cultural affinity for the left. I'd rather live around lefties than cultural conservatives, and I do.

But...the left has given up on socialism, I think, only tactically and pragmatically, not philosophically. They think capitalism is, at best, a necessary evil (and would like to see the day that it's no longer necessary). They dislike free trade and hate corporations (well, except for Apple Computer, of course). They think free-enterprises has uniformly noxious effects on the media and politics, and culture.

They believe that wealthy people spend their money mostly on status and 'positional goods' and would, therefore, be just as happy if confiscatory tax levels forced them to compete for status at half their current incomes.

In short--Liberals make fine neighbors, but I sure wouldn't want to see them in control of our economic future.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Slocum — Sat, 31 May 2008 15:13:42 -0000

Liberals have been in control of our economic future in the past and they arguably did better then when conservatives/libertarians were in charge.

If you mean Bill Clinton, I'll agree his administration did a fine job with the economy (and I voted for him twice). But Bill was a dedicated free-trader who pushed through NAFTA with the support of most Republicans and over the objection of most Democrats. He also pushed through welfare reform with similar overwhelming support from Republicans and strong opposition from Democrats. Despite the economic success of the Clinton administration, the free-traders are gone (or at least gone from the leadership of the Democratic Party).

Free trade is a misnomer and in fact most developing country’s grew strong under a degree of protectionism as did our own country. Ricardo had three requirements for comparative advantage to be bilaterally advantageous none of which are observed in current trade arrangements loosely called free trade.
Hate corporations. Not the principle but the current practice that allows them basically to undermine democracy in favor of their cleptocratic tendencies.

I'm not going to argue with your take on free-trade and corporations -- I doubt it'd do much good. But I will point out that while you claim to support both in some ideal world, you oppose both in the real world. Since I don't expect the ideal conditions you require to be forthcoming, I'll count you as an opponent of free-trade and corporations. And I don't want a party sharing your views in charge of the economy.

Corporate media is the worst form of capitalism of all. It is at once full of conflict with regard to reporting story’s accurately or at all and with its corporate charter of making profits especially when the companies that own the media have larger holding in Entertainment (Disneyland/ABC) or Defense contract ( NBC and GE).
In almost no other area is a publicly run enterprise (CPB/NPR) far superior then a private one then in the media.

My view is that CPB/NPR is as biased and self-interested as any private media company (Fox included). NPR's donors and supporters are left-of-center and so is its viewpoint. In general, I don't want people running the show who think that government agencies are usually objective, fair, and selflessly dedicated to the benefit of the public and are, therefore, superior to private alternatives.

The idea that a market, an economy or a society is better left to its own then planned and regulated by intelligent beings is sheer hoccum with not an ounce of factual support.

Again, not going to argue with you here, but the bottom line is that, as a small-l libertarian, I really, really don't want believers in central planning running the show.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Slocum — Sat, 31 May 2008 21:14:34 -0000

As for your statement above, I’m not sure this research speaks to whether the government is more “objective”, but on the question of self interest, the cynical public choice perspective needs to be modified.

Perhaps, but it's going to take a lot more than a single study to be convincing.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Slocum — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:29:49 -0000

Left Libbers are primarily concerned about social issues and not so much the economic and the Right Libbers are primarily concerned with economic issues and not so much about the social.

I tend to worry more about economic issues than social issues for a couple of reasons. The first is that the effects of bad economic policies are universal -- new trade barriers, regulations, restrictions on corporations, and higher tax rates would effect everybody in the country. By contrast, there is little social conservatives can do to effect the socially liberal culture of Ann Arbor (where I live).

The second reason is that while there are prominent exceptions to that rule, those on the left in the U.S. will do little to promote the socially liberal positions I favor most strongly. If Democrats gain the presidency and both houses of Congress, they will certainly not end the ruinous war on drugs or the militarization of police forces.

Re: Failure: For Our Future

Slocum — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:57:21 -0000

"Tens of thousands of workers are NOT going to be thrown out of work if GM fails. The factories will be bought up by competitors and turned competitive without the sweetheart union deal, but with still very good salaries."

Well, Chapter 11 doesn't mean GM shutting down. So chances are most of the factories would keep building GM cars for GM. But if GM really did go into liquidation, I really doubt that any other automakers will be buying up GM factories or product lines. There's a lot of over-capacity in the industry, and the Japanese and European automakers have very intentionally avoided setting up production facilities in Michigan to stay away from the UAW. I suspect that no automakers are going to need any new plants at all for a few years, and when Toyota and Honda do find they could use another plant, there'll be plenty of open space and tax breaks to be had in Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, etc. Volkswagen recently went through the process of selecting a site for a North American plant. Did they reclaim one of the many shuttered existing auto plants? Of course they didn't -- they choose to build a new one in Chattanooga.

Re: Virtue and Trust: Insufficient but Necessary

Slocum — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:43:22 -0000

Very nice. A question -- how do norms interact with institution design? Does a form of broken windows theory apply? That is, are good institutions (from a public choice perspective) the equivalent of a policy of fixing broken windows and painting over graffiti immediately? Do good institutions with good incentives tend to produce and support good norms?

Or, on the other hand, do clearly defined punishment for transgressions tend to undermine norms by sending the message that cheating is rampant? I'm thinking, in particular, of the Italian laws that require buyers to ask for and retain receipts as a way of forcibly enlisting buyers in the fight against tax evasion via under-the-table sales. These laws do not seem to be turning Italians into Scandinavians -- but do they tend to make norms stronger, weaker, or have no effect?

Re: Wal-Mart Podcast

Slocum — Sat, 08 Oct 2005 05:00:23 -0000

"Our society has not yet given up on verbal modes of communicating ideas—just consider any classroom lecture. The professor tries to communicate ideas (sometimes intensely difficult ones) simply by talking about them. Of course the students have their textbooks, which complement the lectures (ideally)."

Well, I'm also not a fan of being lectured at - too often, the lecturer is convering things that I already know or understand. My attention drifts and I end up daydreaming and waiting for the time to be up rather than listening.

"So in response to those who say “I’d rather read an argument than hear it” I have a modest proposal: Why don’t we just all become deaf? Sure you’d like to talk to your friends and family"

I didn't say I'd rather read than have conversation, discussion, or debate. But a podcast (like a lecture) is none of the above. Podcasts and lectures are not interactive, they don't respond or adapt to what I already know (or what I find confusing), the pacing can't be adjusted.

For me, the issue is not so much spoken vs written, the issue is one of flexibility. In a conversation, the spoken word is better (I would rather talk on the telephone than type back and forth via instant messanger), but I would rather read an article than sit through a lecture (whether pre-recorded or live).

Re: Buying "American"

Slocum — Thu, 11 May 2006 11:40:02 -0000

When bashing the Big 3 management and the UAW, keep Caterpillar in mind. Caterpillar is strong, growing AND employs lots of UAW labor in the midwest, BUT Caterpillar's management has consistently refused to pay wages and make deals that they could afford in the short term but that would cripple the company in the long term, and they've taken long strikes to hold to that. The Big 3, on the other hand, have agreed not only to lavish pay scales but also to things like the 'job banks' that make it impossible to trim labor costs at all, and the result is that they find themselves at the edge of bankrupcy.

Re: What determines wages

Slocum — Fri, 26 May 2006 04:09:42 -0000

"Before Wal-Mart one low-wage worker earned $10 per hour."

But that's an incorrect assumption. Workers in local retail shops (clothing stores, hardware stores, etc) were (and are) paid less than at Walmart. The working conditions at independent mainstreet shops are more congenial, but the pay is lower not higher.

Re: What determines wages

Slocum — Fri, 26 May 2006 04:21:22 -0000

My complaint with this analysis is that neither the 'box' nor 'forehead' view is correct or complete. Training a lot of computer programmers in an area with no software industry doesn't necessarily create a software industry, it may create a pool of unemployed or underemployed programmers -- and a stream of emigrees to places that already have a software industry. The poorer state spending all the money to invest in the education of all those programmers only ends up subsidizing the state with the software industry (which benefits from all those educated immigrants whose education it did not have to pay for).

For the 'forehead' view to work at all, the place where those foreheads are located must be congenial to new business development, but even that is not sufficient to guarantee that education will lead to prosperity--there is still a lot of path dependency. It would be a foolish longshot, for example, for the people of Kansas to decide to invest in the education of film students with the idea that a local film industry would arise. A much more likely result would be educated young Kansas heading off to Hollywood.

Re: Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite (and Mr. Smith, and Ms. Jones, and Mr. Williams, and…..)

Slocum — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 03:45:42 -0000

On the other hand, Paul's non-monetary compensation has been enormous, and in that sense, the mere act of tuning in to watch the Beatles on Ed Sullivan *was* the payment (and a far more valuable form of payment than a dollar would have been).

If you asked people, "How much money would you require at age 64 to be willing to have lead the life of Paul McCartney?", I think you'd find many, many people surveyed would would answer that they'd be very eager to lead such a life even if they found themselves suddenly bankrupt at 64.

Re: More on Commerce in Kidneys

Slocum — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 03:39:14 -0000

"But physicians, nurses and pharmaceutical companies, along with many other folks and firms, routinely profit from other people's illnesses."

Not only that, they profit handsomely from kidney transplantation in particular. Why should the surgeon profit and the drug company that will sell the patient anti-rejection drugs for life, but not the donor?

Re: Half-Empty or Half-Full, Part I

Slocum — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 04:38:46 -0000

There's an interesting tension here. On the one hand, analyses like these (excellent as they are) get very much less publicity than the gloom and doom in the NY Times (news and op-ed).

But on the other hand, there are a lot of American around who are old enough to remember the 1970s and 80s and who realize how much nicer our cars are now and how much bigger our houses are, how much better and cheaper our home entertainment is, how much more able we are to travel by air, and so on. And even our much more expensive medicine is much better. (Would you rather pay today's prices for today's medicine than 1973 prices for 1973 medicine--assuming you'd just torn your ACL, or had a blockage in a heart artery?)

And, because people are aware of all this improvement in living standards, there's a natural skepticism with respect to all the gloom mongering and the claims that the average American was richest in 1973 and has gotten steadily poorer since. You could almost say that the question is, "Who are you going to believe, Paul Krugman or your lyin' eyes?"

Re: Half-Empty or Half-Full, Part I

Slocum — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:32:22 -0000

"I'm looking for people who know *well, today* a adult who makes $8 per hour and who thinks that person is better off than they would have been in 1967 or 79 or whatever."

I have a sibling in this category. He makes more like $12/hr, which is still well below the median. He owns his own house (a smaller ranch). He also has more than one computer, broadband internet, a digital camera, a large TV, and so on. He drives a late 90s luxury car that he bought used for a few thousand dollars (and that's a lot better than any 1970s car). Occasionally, he flies to Florida for a week's vacation. He has a non-union blue-collar job with basic health insurance. Does he live better than somebody in the equivalent job did in the 1970s? Yes, I'd say that he does.

Re: The Society of Real Economists

Slocum — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 04:00:40 -0000

"What principle allows me to say with confidence that x% losing their job is not worth the y% increase in wages enjoyed by the rest?"

I would say the logic is something like this, "It is beneath anyone's dignity to work for less than $X/hr. Yes, those whose skills are not worth that much may be unemployed (and unemployable), but then it is the responsibility of society to support them."

This 'a good job or the dole' model is essentially the current european model, and I assume that many of those who favor high minimum wages also like the european system.

I would say, on the other hand, that it is beneath anyone's dignity (and highly damaging) to spend a life on the dole, that every able-bodied person ought to work for the wages they are able to earn (and social support payments should supplement the income of poor families). And I'd further say that those who work for low wages are more likely to build the skills needed to earn better wages than are are those on the dole sitting at home watching TV.

Anyway, I think this is the fundamental disagreement between those favoring minimum wage increases and those who favor the EITC.

Re: Cheapness and Trade

Slocum — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 02:42:37 -0000

"If it were true that American imports indeed are mostly low-value, insignificant, contemptible knick-knacks, then this fact would imply that the American industries destroyed by foreign competition are those that compete with such foreign producers -- that is, American industries that produce baubles, trinkets, and T-shirts."

But that's not really their argument. They believe that either 1) Americans are buying cheap foreign crap instead of more expensive, more durable American goods, and/or 2) That Americans are tempted by low prices into buying cheap crap that they don't need at all, so the business is not being taken from American bauble-makers but rather from Americans making good, solid, useful things in different categories which people would've bought had they not been tempted to blow their money on crap.

So that's half the argument -- that imports are damaging to American consumers and producers alike. The consumers blow their money on disposable crap they don't need, and American companies go under. The other half of the argument is a variation on the opiate of the masses -- they're attempting to refute the idea that because working-class people have many things that were previously luxury goods (cell-phones, iPods, digital cameras, home-theater systems, etc) that therefore living standards have risen. But, in their view, all that stuff is, again, useless (or at least trivial) crap that is deluding people into thinking their circumstances are getting better (a variation on Robert Franks).

I think these are BS arguments, but that's my reading of them.

Re: Cheapness and Trade

Slocum — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:25:15 -0000

"American workers might just create, design and produce some wizbang little gizmo to blow Sony off its feet. Who's to say they wouldn't?"

In case you haven't noticed (and apparently you haven't) Sony isn't doing that great in competition with products from American companies -- products like the iPod, the XBox 360, and Dell and HP laptop computers. The PS3 may eventually beat out the XBox 360, but there's little hope for Sony being dominant in the MP3 player or laptop computer markets.

Re: Gains from Trade

Slocum — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 04:38:29 -0000

I have two comments about your essay. First, what is to prevent the Fishers from driving a much harder bargain? Why should they trade 4 fish for two containers of water? The Palmers start out with 2 fish and 2 water. After they start trading they end up with 4 fish and 2 water -- a very good deal. By why would the Fishers not demand an exchange of 3 fish for 2 water or even 2 1/2 fish for 2 water? After all, the Palmers would still be better off taking one of these inferior offers than going back to fishing and carrying water alone. (What would the Fishers do with even more fish if they drove a harder bargain? Well, they could quite fishing earlier every day and relax more).

So it seems true that even though the Fishers are better at everything than the Palmers, comparative advantage makes trading worthwhile for both. BUT, it seems that the absolute advantage of the Fishers puts them in a much stronger bargaining position -- a point which doesn't seem to be captured in the story. So you do what you do best, but if you aren't very good at what you do best, trade may make you only marginally better off than before.

The other comment is -- what is the effect of taxes/tarrifs? What happens to trade if it's the case that when you catch your own fish and carry your own water, you can keep it all, but when you trade fish for water, the 'king of the island' takes 1/3 of both?

Re: We Do Cooperate

Slocum — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 12:41:42 -0000

The problem with McKibben's argument is that with respect to global warming, 'community' and 'cooperation between neighbors' is not what is wanted even if, for the sake of argument, you believe like McKibben that global warming is a looming catastrophe that must be addressed by Kyoto-style agreements. What is needed, if you believe in Kyoto, is international agreements between governments and carbon trading markets which would induce millions of self-interested small changes in countless exchanges between buyers and sellers--just as in the case of Don Boudreaux's shirt. In fact, McKibben himself describes the decentralized, market-based effects of a possible carbon tax in the paragraph above the that Don cites.

For Kyoto-style policies to have any effect, they would do so via market-based cooperation just as Boudreaux describes, not some gauzy form of 'community cooperation'.

Re: Barriers to High-Skilled Competition?

Slocum — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 03:05:55 -0000

"Economists DO NOT support free trade in economist unless they suppot the elimination of rules that require employers to first try to hire qualified citizens. That is the precondition for setting up Wal_Mart universities that will undercut existing ones by paying half the wage and charging half the tuition (and getting foreign faculty who might be marginally less qualified)."

Well, first of all, there is no *trade* barrier to setting up Walmart universities right now, as in tomorrow. In virtually every field there are large numbers of qualified individuals who want, but cannot find, permanent faculty positions and subsist on temporary, low-paid work as adjuncts (or are forced to quit the field of education). Anyone wanting to set up a WalmartU and willing to offer these folks positions with job security and benefits could hire them for much less than the going rate for tenured faculty at major universities.

But whether or not such a university could be *accredited* and attract students is another question entirely. The restricted license society grants to accredited institutions to grant diplomas is the problem here, not an artificial shortage of PhDs (there really is no such shortage).

Beyond that, I would suggest the REAL problem is that in a world where the relevant knowledge is readily available to anyone for very low cost, the real problem is that students are forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars learning material in a large lecture room listening to a certified PhD (whether at a tradition university or a WalmartU) which information they could quite feasibly learn more effectively and efficiently on their own.

What is really needed is an alternate way to earn the equivalent of university degrees by demonstrating mastery of university-level material on standardized AP-style tests.

And with respect to law and medicine, the problems there are also not mainly barriers to foreign entry. In medicine, the restrictions on the number of 'slots' in medical schools needs to be eliminated and the scope of practice of nurses, nurse-practitioners, and physician-assistants needs to be expanded. In law, it should be possible (as Abraham Lincoln did) to study for and pass the bar and become a lawyer without attending law school at all:

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/law.htm

Reducing barriers to foreign competition without doing these things would have little effect, since the high pay in these professions is maintained by artificial barriers even to American citizens entering those fields.

Re: Minimum-Workforce Legislation

Slocum — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:16:25 -0000

Minimum-Workforce Legislation isn't all that far-fetched. Labor unions have, after, negotiated even more extreme requirements. The Big 3 auto companies have been required by contract to maintain a minimum workforce (with their jobs banks) regardless of their revenues and profits (or lack thereof). And we all know how that has worked out for both the Big 3 and their employees.

Re: A Simple Question

Slocum — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 04:46:00 -0000

As a matter of fact, I do know quite a few people who think it is morally preferable to patronize the corner bakery (or bookstore or clothing store) than to buy from a national chain or order by mail.

But I don't know how far they'd go to enforce this preference legally. Laws to require people to patronize their local outlets? No, probably not. But special tax breaks for shopping at locally owned businesses? Yes, they probably would go for that.

Re: Jousting on global warming

Slocum — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:25:31 -0000

"I'd also like to see an estimate of the risks involved in living with an emissions tax large enough to stop five degrees of warming."

Yes, the assumptions are always that the tradeoff is merely, say, 2% of GDP with no possibility of unexpected non-linear effects. For example, what would happen if the airline/leisure travel business shrunk to a small fraction of its current size, with a glut of used airplanes and orders to Boeing and Airbus drying up? This is not really far-fetched as high-altitude aircraft emissions are supposedly several times worse than an equivalent amount of CO2 and water vapor emitted at ground level.

I don't see any reason not to think the effects of manipulating global economy are any more inherently predictable than manipulating the global environment.

Re: How foreigners view the President

Slocum — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 03:25:33 -0000

But now that I know a little bit more about the Civil War and how many people died and what they thought they were dying for, my opinion comes closer to the Trib's.

Well, that seems an odd thing to say -- whatever one thinks about whether or not the Civil War was worth it, characterizing the Gettysburg Address as "silly, flat and dishwatery" is absurd.

Re: Clutch hitting

Slocum — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 04:48:33 -0000

Why is it, again, that we're supposed to believe that competition ensures that people will make optimal decisions?

I'm not sure anybody ever said anything about "ensuring" and "optimal". But sooner or later a Billy Beane comes along, out competes his old-fashioned rivals, and revolutionizes the way things are done.

Re: Clutch hitting

Slocum — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:42:06 -0000

Slocum, this is long after Billy Beane and even longer after the statistical case against clutch hitting was proved. But the people quoted in that article are still repeating -- and acting according to -- the same tired old mythologies.

True. Old fogies are often resistant to changing their beliefs based on 'evidence'. But the 'Moneyball' approach to management has nonetheless made a big difference in the way players are evaluated. Competition doesn't mean that nobody ever continues to hold on to false beliefs out of force of habit. And nor is statistics the only important thing in baseball. It is possible to be a successful manager while holding false, superstitious beliefs if other qualities (or sheer luck) make up for not using demonstrably better approaches to evaluating players. If the new approach is only marginally better, it may take a long time to propagate fully.

Re: What's the Relevance of Rodrik's Point?

Slocum — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:57:09 -0000

The logic of Rodrik’s argument, it seems to me, condemns far more than changes in the pattern of trade that crosses political boundaries.

I agree. And I think that's a much stronger counter-argument to Rodrik than Alex Tabarrok's argument that there's no possible ethical justification for worrying more about one's countrymen than about others.

Re: Free Trade, Unilaterally

Slocum — Thu, 10 May 2007 03:07:44 -0000

I'll be fully convinced by this argument when somebody explains to me why it would be (or would have been) a good thing to permit the EU to subsidize Airbus to a such extent that Boeing would exit the passenger jet business.

Re: Free Trade, Unilaterally

Slocum — Fri, 11 May 2007 04:11:29 -0000

All those Boeing Engineers will be freed up to work on other things; working on improvements to cars, producing small planes for private aviation etc.

I'm skeptical -- it's not as if there's currently a shortage in either of those areas or as if the highly specialized skills of passenger plane engineers transfer easily. Obviously the laid-off engineers would have to do *something*, and a few would do something more valuable than what they're doing now, but I think it's reasonable to assume that the vast majority would do something less valuable, both to themselves and to society, than they're doing now.

Of course, Boeing for years argued successfully for Ex-Im Bank subsidies to counter Airbus's subsidies.

Perhaps, but that's neither here nor there. My point is that there are certain industries (passenger aircraft, automobiles, for example) where existing companies have huge reserves of institutional knowledge and barriers to entry are very high. If we permitted it, it would not take long for foreign competitors to kill such companies with subsidies to their competitors. But the subsidies would last only as long as the competition. The EU wouldn't be using taxpayer funds to provide us with discount Airbuses after Boeing was out of the way.

Re: The use of knowledge

Slocum — Mon, 14 May 2007 10:06:44 -0000

"command and control economies inevitable must fail to deliver the goods because the appropriate information is not, and cannot be, given to any one mind."

And even if the information could be "given to any one mind", no one mind could make use of it. It's not just that the information is widely distributed, but also that the cognitive power to process it is also widely distributed. As is the power to convert the information and cognition into action.

Re: The Politics of Prohibition

Slocum — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 05:09:44 -0000

Is anybody running and publicizing the numbers for, say, legalizing pot? Pointing out how much tax revenue is now lost because marijuana is not now subject to sales and "sin" taxes? It has to be a pretty big number, doesn't it?

Re: His fault

Slocum — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 06:36:26 -0000

A pool of money? Why would we need a pool of money? I thought proponents of government health care argued that it would save huge sums of money -- that the U.S. spends a high-percentage of GDP on health care and European countries lower percentages, so when we made the transition, there would be a big 'government health care dividend'.

Is Bill now implying that health care is going to consume an even greater share of our GDP when the feds take over?

Re: Should Americans Worry That Foreigners Hold Lots of Dollar Assets?

Slocum — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 02:49:17 -0000

But Ms. Jones's 'market value' is not fixed quantity -- did Evil Businessman pay Ms. Jones a large salary for doing something that required little or no skill? And did he do it long enough that Ms. Jones didn't bother with upgrading her skills for decades while she was going grey? And did she find herself without a job at a point in her career where the retraining needed to realize her 'true' market potential would be difficult or impossible?

This isn't even hypothetical -- think unskilled unemployed ex-assembly line workers from Big 3 auto plants.

Now comparing whole economies to single workers is problematic anyway, but there are problems with the analogy. And to an extent, my objections apply to economies as well as individuals--some productive capabilities, once lost, are very difficult to recreate. It would be relatively easy to recreate a domestic textile industry if it became cost-competitive to produce textiles here again. But it would be extremely difficult to recreate a Caterpillar or Boeing.

Re: Should Americans Worry That Foreigners Hold Lots of Dollar Assets?

Slocum — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:23:09 -0000

Why do you think it would be difficult? It recently took Kubota less than one year to build a tractor implement plant in Gainesville, GA.

Yes, well obviously it's not difficult for an existing company to build another plant. But it's difficult to recreate a company like Caterpillar or Boeing once they've disappeared (or, say, exited the commercial airliner industry). The barriers to entry in some markets can be prohibitively high.

Re: I Goofed, You Pay

Slocum — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 04:44:10 -0000

But I don't buy into the premise that blue-staters can excuse themselves from the federal pot by diverting their money to their home states first.

Well, that's one way to look at it. Another is -- why should I have to pay federal taxes on 'income' I never saw because my state government snatched it before it got to me?

Re: Competition, everywhere

Slocum — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:44:04 -0000

The problem with the private school competition hypothesis is that you're not taking into account the way funding works. In most cases, a public school district's funding doesn't depend directly on the number of students, so if a student leaves for private school, that's actually a good thing because the dollars are the same but there's one less mouth to feed.

Once Michigan went to statewide, per-pupil funding, only then did public school districts get interested in competing with private schools and charter schools -- and even with each other, since many districts in Michigan are 'open enrollment' and compete for students (and per pupil state funding) from neighboring districts.

Re: The vanishing middle class

Slocum — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:19:03 -0000

I haven't seen anyone claiming that the inflation-adjusted median wage is changing much, so stagnation is a given. Neverthless the standard of living of wage-earners appears to be improving.

But if the standard of living of median wage-earners is improving then the method of calculating inflation-adjustment for wages is failing to factor in those elements that are responsible for the improvement in living standards.

It's contradictory to say that median wages are stagnant but the median wage earner is better off. If the median wage buys more and better stuff now, and the median earner lives better now, then wages are NOT stagnant -- the measurement method is faulty.

Re: Capitalism Day

Slocum — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:54:27 -0000

"Peace and free trade."

Amen.

Re: Better

Slocum — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:45:52 -0000

The world is obviously discriminating against men, to the tune of about 5 years on average. This proves the system is inherently sexist. I demand my government fix this unfair system.

Well, there is something the government could do -- adjust the retirement age, with men allowed to retire earlier. Right now, the men get, on average, say 45 working years to 8 retirement years, while women get 45:13. Ergo, men should get to collect full SS benefits at 63 rather than 67 to get the same ratio of working years to retirement years as women do.

Of course, during their working lives, men also spend far more years actually in the workforce, so they should actually get to retire even earlier than that (or, alternately, women should have to work longer).

Re: Silly Proposal

Slocum — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:35:44 -0000

I strongly agree with Blackadder that this is relatively better than how Congress currently handles this.

I agree also. I'd much rather see the government set up prizes (which will cost nothing if no progress is made) rather than doling out billions in subsidies to dubious projects (corn ethanol!). Which funding takes on a life of its own even if the projects are useless (or, as in the case of corn ethanol, actually harmful).

In Don's ideal libertarian world, the government would stay out of it entirely. But we don't live in that world. Given that the government has to do *something* or at least be seen as doing something, offering prizes for technological advances seems like a much better approach than the status quo.

Re: Leisure Time Is Valuable

Slocum — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:27:02 -0000

A lot of people say something like "I'm paid $XX per hour. I'm not going to cut my own grass when I can pay somebody a lot less than $XX to do it."

But $XX is the wrong figure -- what you really need to think about is $XX after being taxed at your highest marginal rate. My own marginal rate is nearly 50% (Federal + State + FICA), so I figure if the worker only makes half my hourly rate, it's still worth it to do the work myself. Not to mention the satisfaction of being able to do valuable work for myself without government taking a cut.

That's why, BTW, a lot of Europeans are do-it-yourselfers (high marginal tax rate combined with ample leisure time).

Re: Leisure Time Is Valuable

Slocum — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:22:15 -0000

"Europeans are do-it-yourselfers" uh?

Quite the opposite I would say.

"According to the Commission, the current proposal should encourage economic growth and shift more work from the do-it-yourself and black economy areas to the formal economy. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7492834.stm

I can't say I know a huge number of Europeans, but among the ones I know, working on the house during some of their many weeks of vacation seems common enough.

Re: Ordinary Americans Growing Wealthier Over the Long-Run

Slocum — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 04:48:10 -0000

Most of the growth reflects increased income earned by women, and much of this growth is illusory...

The increase in female labor force participation is nowhere near large enough to account for a 44-62% increase:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2001/dec/wk3/art02.htm

This is especially the case because male labor force participation has declined by 4% during that time. It really can't be the case that household incomes have risen mostly because the average household has more members working. In fact, the average household must have fewer workers because of shrinkage in the size of households.

Or did you mean that working women earn more now than in 1976? I'm sure that's true, but how on earth is that an 'illusory' gain?

Re: The free market at work

Slocum — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:18:42 -0000

You know, I've explained the tobacco settlement boondoggle to a few left of center friends, and they just *can't* grasp it. They understand the facts -- and they don't dispute them. But it doesn't change what they think because it doesn't change what they feel -- that even though the big tobacco companies have profited, the poor smokers are paying through the nose, the trial lawyers pocketed billions, and the states blew their tobacco settlement windfalls like pennies from heaven -- somehow, despite all that, it was still 'the right thing to do'. Because it was a 'good first step'. Even though it made things worse. Or because it 'punished Big Tobacco'. Even though it didn't. But it feels like it did. And somehow that's what really matters. It's the damnedest thing.

So the question is, "What kind of argument -- if any -- can be persuasive to people who see the world that way?". Because I don't think George Will's column works for them. It works for us -- but what good is that really?

Re: What's wrong with the country

Slocum — Mon, 04 May 2009 07:44:44 -0000

Words fail me. Except to note that when Congress spends time doing stupid things it shouldn't be doing, it is not doing even stupider things it shouldn't be doing.

So we got that going for us...

The most obvious thing that's wrong with college football is that the NCAA restrains its members from paying players, maintaining the illusion that they are student-athletes and enriching the universities.

This is no endorsement of congressional meddling or the NCAA, but I really don't think that college athletes are being unfairly cheated out of potential riches to anything like the extent people imagine. College football and basketball teams are, effectively, minor league teams run by universities. Are minor league teams that are not affiliated with universities lucrative enterprises that pay their players high wages? No -- minor league teams are shoestring operations that draw small crowds charge low ticket prices and pay low wages.

Why can universities fill 100,000 seat football stadiums at NFL-level ticket prices? Because of the athletic prowess of the 19-year-olds on the field? Or because of fan affiliation with their alma mater (or at least with their home-state university)? Seems clear that it's the latter.

Consider that there's no obstacle to a new football or basketball minor league starting up and outbidding universities for players. Nor is there any reason why a group of elite football schools might not leave the NCAA and start paying players (and outbidding NCAA schools). But neither has happened (nor seems likely to). If minor league teams of the best 18-22 year old basketball and football players are a lucrative opportunity -- why not?

Re: Roads and Public Goods

Slocum — Mon, 04 May 2009 08:12:58 -0000

First, people began moving to the suburbs long before the interstate highways were built.

Not only that, they started moving to the suburbs many decades before Americans even had cars, hence the term 'streetcar suburb':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb

And note that such suburbs even predated street cars:

"Although electric streetcars were not introduced until 1887, suburbs did exist earlier based on animal-drawn cars, but the distance they could be from a city core (where most jobs were located) was more limited."

Lastly, there's little doubt that Americans are willing to pay the cost of highway-building -- in the form of fuel taxes (some portion of which are, in fact, not spent on highways, but are redirected to subsidize mass-transit and bike paths).

Re: What's wrong with the country

Slocum — Mon, 04 May 2009 16:43:11 -0000

"The system exploits most of the players, who in hope of a mega-payday, accept compensation that is much less than they would receive in a more competitive market."

Actually, I think the system rewards rather than exploits most of the players the majority of whom have no hope of ever turning pro and would be paid less than the value of a college education as minor-leaguers.

The vast majority of college football and basketball players receive more for their athletic talents from universities than they could from any other organization (which is obviously also true of all the athletes in non-revenue sports). It's really only the relative few who might command sizable signing bonuses out of high-school that are disadvantaged under the current system.

But note, too, that more and more baseball players are skipping the minor-league route (with signing bonus and salary) in favor of the 'unpaid' college route. Why? Maybe because a college degree plus 4 years of being a big man on campus sounds a hell of a lot more attractive than years of riding the bus from one podunk minor-league town to the next?

Putting myself in that position, how big would the signing bonus have to be for me to choose minor-league life and no degree over college life (as a big time athlete)? Pretty big. Especially because a lot of the athletes who don't go pro seem to achieve a lot of local name recognition make valuable contacts in the alumni network that pay off later.

Re: Economizing on Resource Use, Including the Use of Labor, Is Key to Prosperity

Slocum — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:22:59 -0000

That is a wonderful quote. But at the same time, it is a little depressing to realize that the common understanding does not seem to have improved much over the dozen generations since then.