Bastiat’s Bastions

The L.A. Times reports some of the problems with the new homeowner $8000 tax credit in this story.  Besides fresh ground for tax cheats to exploit, this tax credit may not be worth getting.

In my introductory economics class, we just finished looking at how taxes get passed forward to buyers in higher prices or back to the sellers in reduced prices received.  What we saw in class was that if the buyers faced few alternatives, while the sellers had many, most of the tax gets paid for by the buyer in the form of a higher price.  If the sellers have few alternatives, but the buyers have many, the sellers pay most of the tax in terms of a lower received price, while the buyers pay only a little more than the original price. 

Of course, if the government subsidizes buyers in a market instead of taxing them, the same thing happens, but in reverse.  Subsidies are only negative taxes, so a subsidy to buyers in a market just raises the amount the buyers are willing to pay to the sellers.  Consider the $8000 tax credit to home buyers.  This tax credit merely raises the amount buyers will pay to sellers.  And since the buyers have many alternatives while the sellers, often facing foreclosures, have few alternatives but to sell, have few alternatives but to sell, the price the buyers pay ends up rising almost by the amount of the tax credit.  Few new homes are being built in response to the tax credits.  So mostly, the tax credit for buyers boosts the prices received by those facing losing their homes in a foreclosure, where only the bank receives the money. 

So those considering buying a home before the December 1st deadline because of the tax credit should probably think twice.  Most of the tax credit will go to the sellers. 

But even if some of it goes to the buyers, shouldn’t it be worth the buyer’s effort?  The answer is maybe, but  maybe not.  One provision of the tax credit is that the buyer has to live in the home at least three years, or the buyer must repay half of the tax credit, or $4000.  If the buyer faces the possibility of losing her home, facing repayment of $4000, while having to pay $7000 more for a house and getting an $8000 tax credit may not be that good of a deal.   

-MC

Some months ago I was asked to find someone who could determine the feasibility of a device reinvented by a local fisherman.   The machine was an alternator driven by a bicycle that charged a car battery bicycle.  An electric motor hooked up to the battery turned the wheel of the bicycle.

The claim was that the device produced electricity.  Of course, it produced a charge, but used more energy than it produced—a perpetual motion machine.  Such machines have been invented and reinvented for hundreds of years.  And well-meaning garage inventors reinvent perpetual motion devices with every up-tick in energy prices.   But physics triumphs and we know that the law of conservation of energy and matter still rules.  Only part of the energy from the battery gets converted to work, with the rest being converted into friction and heat.  Energy is not created out of nothing.

In trying to reinvent the health care delivery system, Senator Baucus seems to have invented a perpetual financing device , but one that will only push up prices and inhibit real innovation.  What Senator Baucus wants to do is to tax the very providers of health devices, such as heart stents, artificial hips, and diagnostic machines in order to help pay for the new health care system that the federal government is reinventing.

There is a slight problem with all of this.  Taxes collected from businesses are only partly paid by the producers, with the rest of the tax paid by the buyers in the form of higher prices.  The easier sellers can move to something not taxed to sell, the more the tax gets passed along to buyers.  The more these taxed items are covered by insurance, by other people paying the bill, the more the tax gets passed along to the buyers.  If buyers have many non-taxed alternatives and find it easier to switch to them than the sellers can switch to non-taxed goods to sell, then less of the tax gets passed to buyers and the sellers will have to pay more of the tax.  Of course, if sellers find switching easier than buyers, the taxed gets passed on to the buyers.  In other words, the side of the market that can avoid the tax the easiest by switching what they have been doing will be the side that contributes less to paying the tax.

With medical devices, it is very likely that the sellers find it easier to go from making wheel chairs to making non-taxed items than wheel chair users can switch to some non-taxed item.  Still, to the extent that the tax is borne by sellers, it reduces profits in these industries and reduces innovation as well.

What looks like will happen with this financing plan is that the tax will be passed along to buyers including Medicaire and insurance, who will raise taxes and raise premiums to pay for the higher priced devices which will lead to higher prices for the medical devices, higher premiums and higher taxes.  Of course, after a while, the increasing out-of-pocket expenses reduce purchases along the way.

This financing scheme looks as if it were designed by the same guy who hooked up a car battery to an electric motor, a bicycle and an alternator.  The problem is that both of these end up coming to halt and are unsustainable schemes.  Genius at work?  Not!

-MC

Many on the conservative side have had many negative things to say about the “Cap and Trade” system.  It should be pointed out that “cap and trade” itself, is not  the source of their ire.  Rather, many conservatives do not like limitations being placed on CO₂ emissions in the US. 

What is this “Cap and Trade” system that is being implemented in the new climate change bill?  Cap and Trade is merely an approach to regulating emissions, and it is one that efficiently reduces those emissions.  It contrasts with two other approaches: one that is called the “command and control” approach to regulation and the other is an approach that taxes emissions, such as the proposed “carbon tax” to regulate greenhouse gases a decade ago.  Before looking look at these regulatory systems, let’s look at the ideal environmental regulatory outcome.

At first glance, it would seem that no pollution would be the best regulatory outcome.  Think of what this would mean when we consider CO₂ as a pollutant.  We inhale oxygen, but if CO₂ is a pollutant and we want no pollution, then, we better hold that breath.  But we cannot.  Stopping all pollution is just too costly. Anything we do to reduce our pollution will cost us something. But, of course, pollution itself is costly, either health costs, or aesthetic costs, or costs in losses of biodiversity. The ideal, then, is really to keep the total costs of pollution and the costs of reducing that pollution to a minimum. 

Generally, each extra ton of emissions of CO₂ causes the added costs of pollution to increase.  Also, if we look to reducing CO₂ emissions, we can find some inexpensive ways to cut emissions, and after we cut emissions in those ways, to cut emissions further, we would have to employ costlier and costlier means.  To keep these total costs to a minimum, the added costs from cutting a ton of CO₂ emissions have to equal the added costs of the damage done by another ton of CO₂ emissions.  If the added costs are higher from the damage done from another ton of CO₂ than from cutting emissions, we could lower total costs by cutting emissions.  On the other hand, if the added costs of cutting emissions by a ton are higher than from the damage done from another ton, total costs could be lowered if we go ahead and pollute that ton.  The “right amount” of pollution, then, is the amount where another ton would cause costs of cutting pollution by the same amount as the costs of the damage done by another ton of pollution.

Of the three methods of pollution control to understand, the easiest to understand is the “command and control” system.  Here, the regulatory commission sets requirements for each source of pollution, monitors them for compliance, and then sets fines and punishments for those who fail to comply with the regulatory requirements.  Here, possible polluters just do what they are told or face extremely high fines or other punishments.  The “command and control” name for this regulatory type comes from the management form used in the military.  Historically, most of regulation of the EPA has been of this “command and control” type.  The best way of thinking about this approach is to recall the lines from Tennyson’s “Charge of the Light Brigade:”

Theirs not to make reply

 Theirs not the reason why

    Theirs but to do or die.

 This command and control system of regulation does not do a very good job of keeping costs of regulation down, nor does it do a good job of balancing the costs of damage with the costs of reducing emissions.  The regulatory authority just does not have information on all of the costs.  This information is mostly diffused throughout the society—various electric power generating companies have a good idea of what their costs of cutting emissions are like, so a lot of people have bits and pieces of this information, and no one knows it all. 

One of the earliest regulatory suggestions for reducing the costs of pollution control was made by A.C. Pigou in 1920 in his book, The Economics of Welfare (with the word “welfare” meaning “wellbeing”).  Pigou suggested that a tax could be levied on certain activities, such as pollution, that would give people an incentive to reduce those activities.  Economists in the 1960s and 1970s saw that such a tax would get polluters to reduce pollution in a least-cost way.  Any producer who could reduce emissions at a cost below the tax would do so, while those who could only cut their emissions at a higher cost would not.  Suppose the tax on emissions is $100 per ton.  All pollution reduction that costs more than $100 per ton will not take place, but pollution reduction that costs less than $100 per ton will take place.  Lower cost cleanup activities replace higher cost cleanup and costs cannot get any lower.

A little later on, economists came up with a slightly different approach.  The environmental regulatory authority would first decide how much emissions would be allowed, create “pollution rights” which would be tradable.  Polluters who could reduce pollution very cheaply could then reduce their emissions and sell their rights to those who could only cut their emissions at a very high cost.  If the price of a pollution permit were higher than the cost of cutting emissions, the producer could then reduce their emissions and sell off their permit.  If the emission permit sold for a price below the cost of cutting pollution, the emitter would buy up permits.  If you think that such a scheme is unworkable, think again.  We have been using tradable permits of this sort to control SO₂ emissions that cause acid rain since the 1990s, and these permits trade on the Chicago Board of Exchange, along with various commodities.

The Pigou tax on pollution, which we saw a decade ago called a carbon tax, gives polluters a constant price to respond to, and the total amount of emissions could be higher or lower and can change over time.  If the costs of cleaning up go up, we end up with higher levels of emissions.  On the other hand, the tradable permits system produces a constant level of emissions but with a price of pollution that varies.  Both of these methods minimizes the costs of cutting pollution because both produces a price for cleaning up so that those with costs of cutting a ton of emissions above that price do not cut their pollution and those with costs of cutting a ton of emissions below that price do cut emissions.  Only the low-cost emission cutters reduce their pollution while high-cost emission cutters do not, and face either taxes or having to pay for pollution permits. 

For global pollutants, such as greenhouse gases, there could be international trade in CO₂ permits.  This is the general idea behind “cap and trade.”  For this to work well, however, there would have to be a global monitoring agency that could monitor each source of CO₂  emissions and would be ready to punish those polluters who do so without a permit.  This is the part of “cap and trade” that faces the biggest difficulties.  Remember that real regulation is not done by Soloman-like regulators who are infinitely fair, but by actual people, like international soccer referees, so that various human biases rather than fairness would show through in international environmental regulation.  The problem of political bias and lack of information in regulation is seen in this warning from Pigou himself (Some Aspects of the Welfare State,” Diogenes 7:1-11 (1954), p. 10.):

It must be confessed, however, that we seldom know enough to decide in what fields and to what extent the State, on account of them could usefully interfere with individual freedom of choice. Moreover, even though economist were able to provide a perfect blueprint for beneficial State action, politicians are not philosopher kings and a blueprint might quickly yield place on their desks to the propaganda of competing pressure groups. “Fancy” finance, like a fancy franchise, whatever its theoretical attractions, has, at all events in a democracy, dim practical prospects.

“Cap and Trade,” itself is a good idea.  It is a market-based approach to efficiently reduce the amount of emission of CO₂.  The real difficulties are first, setting the right amount of emissions to allow and second, monitoring and regulating by a global authority, giving up sovereignty to regulators who are likely to want to tilt the playing field away from favoring Americans.  Before going down the road of regulating CO₂ through any approach, we should be very sure of what human reductions in CO₂ will actually accomplish and whether there are alternatives that might work better, such as re-forestation of large areas of the planet.

-MC

There are many words used to describe people who have some strong difficulty that might put them at a disadvantage to others. Yet, I am constantly reminded by a major finding in my discipline, economics, in one of its core concepts called “comparative advantage.” The idea is that any person who can interact with others has a place in the society where they can be productive and can engage in trade that is both beneficial to them and to other members of the society. Even someone who is especially good at everything is in need of trading with others: being able to do all things does not mean that a person can do all things, since we all face only 24 hours in a day and cannot possibly do all things.

Now, I should point out that having a place to produce goods or services that others will demand does not mean that all of us are especially good at any one thing, nor does it mean that all of us can provide others with goods or services of sufficient value that we can support ourselves without help of others. It does mean we all have a place and something we can do to help provide something to others of value. I often mention in classes that there are two paths to comparative advantage: one is to be relatively good at that one thing, and the other is to be relatively bad at everything else.

Still, there are some people who face certain substantial difficulties in life that it is amazing that they excel and even lead their fields in what they have chosen to do. Here are some personal recollections of three people I have come across at one time or another who were so astounding to me that the difficulty in their life was, for a time, invisible to me. Perhaps, I am just not that observant.

Walter Oi

Walter Oi is one of those economists whose articles were required readings in economic theory classes in graduate school. The most important of his theoretical works was an article titled “A Disneyland dilemma: Two-part pricing for a Mickey Mouse Monopoly.” The subject of that paper is something that I teach to my MBA students in managerial economics.
More socially importantly though, his paper in the American Economic Review in 1967, “The Economic Cost of the Draft,”  and his related book, The Costs and Implications of an All-Volunteer Force, were instrumental in bringing an end to the military draft in the nation, showing that the draft was a more costly way to raise a military force than was an all-volunteer force of the same size.

In graduate school at Virginia Tech (better known as VPI back then), on Wednesday evenings and Friday afternoons, we had seminars that all graduate students were expected to attend. These seminars almost always had guest lecturers. One Wednesday night I arrived right after Professor Oi had been introduced. I do not recall the subject of that evening’s lecture. Professor Oi, though of Japanese descent, spoke perfectly clear English, as he had grown up in California (and was one of those Japanese Americans sent to a concentration camp during WWII). While his English was perfectly clear, when he furiously wrote equation after equation on the blackboard I had trouble reading his handwriting on the board, even though my own handwriting is difficult to make out (one reason I am a fan of Powerpoint). I could make out a few lower-case deltas and alphas in the equations and could read some of it, but with great difficulty.

While after about 30 years I do not recall exactly what Professor Oi’s lecture was about, I do recall that it was brilliant, as his work usually was. At the end of his lecture, the moderator thanked him for coming and giving his talk, and Dr. Oi received the usual round of appreciative applause. As he was leaving, I discovered the reason for Dr. Oi’s illegible blackboard handwriting when a German Shepard came around from the other room to Dr. Oi’s side. It was his seeing-eye dog. As it turns out, Oi, who received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1961could not read ordinary text at all when he began college.

Incidentally, Oi also once served as the Vice-Chair of the President’s Commission on Employment of People with Disabilities. For more on Oi, this Wikipedia entry is rather accurate.

Vernon Smith

Several years after I finished my degree at Virginia Tech, I was at a meeting of the Public Choice Society (devoted to using economic methods and theories to study political, sociological and other non-market activities), which met jointly with the Economic Science Association (devoted to experimental methods) in Tucson. At that time, Vernon Smith, who is credited for beginning the study of experimental economics was at the University of Arizona in Tucson, as was Gordon Tullock, one of my Virginia Tech professors, who was one of the most influential originators of public choice economics. About 10 or so years later, Smith, along with the psychologist, Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel in economics in 1999. While there in Tucson, Vernon Smith, invited me and several other young professors out with him and his graduate students, to a Western bar, which had a country and western band.

Smith was friendly and courteous, but a barroom was obviously not home for him. Some years later, Smith began to talk about his Asberger’s Syndrome, which is a type of Autism. As a result, Smith, unlike many of us, seems to function just fine for long periods of time isolated from others. Actually, Smith’s autism may have worked well for him, allowing him to become a very prolific writer, even for someone who is such an original thinker. (For more on Smith, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_Smith.)

Evelyn Glennies

Some years later, sometimes in the 1990s, I attended the meetings of the Atlantic Economic Society to present one of my papers. One of the more enjoyable aspects of the Atlantic meetings is that they often arrange for attendees to go to some very nice cultural event and at reduced rates. I went to hear the Philadelphia Symphony at one meeting, but I especially recall hearing the National Symphony at the Kennedy Center in Washington at another.

While I still recall the grandeur of the Kennedy Center, mostly I recall the performance. The audience was told that the performance was being recorded for later broadcast on National Public Radio or for Public Television. There were just two pieces on the program, with the second being a rare percussion concerto. The percussion concerto called for the soloist, Dame Evelyn Glennies, to play almost 30 different percussion instruments that were arranged around the stage. Dame Glennies must have been in her mid thirties at the time, and this very beautiful and talented woman came to the stage in a flowing, gauzy white dress that made her appear as a forest faery as she flitted from instrument to instrument about the stage the way a humming bird flies from blossom to blossom. What was out of place, though, in this most formal of musical performances for a soloist with the National Symphony at the Kennedy Center, was that she was barefooted. I thought perhaps this was to make as little noise as possible as she went from drum to marimba to water tympani across the stage. She finished the evening with a brilliant encore with just her and a snare drum on the stage.

The next morning, I had a 7:30 flight out of Reagan National Airport. This flight was one of the few I have been on where they showed an in-flight interview program. Imagine my surprise to see an interview with the very performer featured at the performance the evening before, Evelyn Glennies. I was even more surprised when the interviewer asked Dame Glennies how long she had been completely deaf. Yes, this Scottish musician, and the only solo symphonic percussionist in the world at the time (she still may be for all I know), was completely deaf. Anyone who has ever performed with a musical ensemble, a band, a choir, an orchestra, a trio or quartet, knows that being able to hear the others you are performing with is essential for proper balancing, blending and timing. Then I understood the reason for her bare feet at this performance. Bare feet enabled her to “listen” to the rest of the orchestra through her feet from the stage floor.

You can hear Dame Glennies talk about listening as a deaf person and, more importantly, as a deaf musician at the TED conference. Listening to her over and over (and “listening with my whole body”), I still cannot detect any signs of deafness.

Extraordinary people and the rest of us

Some people are just extraordinary and would be extraordinary almost no matter what difficulty faced them, making their adversities seemingly disappear before their brilliance. Most of us are not so gifted. Each of us does, however, have something to offer, something to make the world better for others, some comparative advantage, even if it is just that one thing we can do. We should all understand and appreciate others for what they do for us, from the musician that thrills us, to the shortstop who amazes us, to the doctor who saves the life of a child, and on to the person who takes away our garbage or cleans restrooms. Everyone has something of value to contribute, and they should be valued and appreciated for making our lives better.

The question posed at the beginning was “what was the right word for those with disabilities?” Under various circumstances, any of those words may be appropriate, but remember that most of us have some area where we fall short, for some of us it is noticeable and for others, our disabilities are as invisible as Professor Oi’s and Dame Glennies’ disabilities were to me. I am constantly reminded of the words of the great American humorist, Will Rogers, who noted “everybody’s ignorant, only on different subjects.” We all fall short somewhere, even the brilliant and the beautiful. The word I tend to prefer is “human.”

-MC

As we should all know by now, there is an outbreak of swine flu spreading around the world. While this strain of flu has proved rather deadly in Mexico, it has not yet been so fatal in its U.S. cases. While most of the response in the U.S. and the rest of the world has been cautious, some voices have been on the panic end of the scale. Vice President Joe Biden, always ready to open his mouth wide enough to fit his foot, told the press that he advises his family to avoid air travel, and any other mass transportation mode, such as trains and buses (see the USA Today’s “Today in the Sky” air travel blog by Ben Mutzabaugh).

The problem is that many people will take Biden’s advice. But shouldn’t that reduce the spread of swine flu? Maybe. But there is something else that people need to keep in mind that may not occur to them. By thinking that air travel is now more costly, in terms of one’s health and the risk of getting the flu, this increase in the non-monetary cost flying will reduce the amount of miles traveled by plane and will surely increase the miles traveled by automobile if there is a significant positive cross-elasticity of demand between air and auto travel. Shane Sanders, Assistant Professor of Economics at Nicholls, had a paper published recently in the Journal of Economic Education that should help us think about value of Biden’s advice.

In his paper with Dennis Weisman and Dong Li, Sanders discusses the substantial cross-price elasticity of airline and automobile travel, which suggests that higher prices for airline travel induces people to substitute auto for air transportation. Of course, health fears, as they raise the perceived cost of air travel, should also induce substitution into auto travel.

The problem is that auto transportation is not as safe as air travel, and it is not even close. According to the Department of Transportation’s statistics (shown and cited in the Sanders, Weisman and Li paper), for every 100 million air passenger miles traveled, there are .3 fatalities, while for every 100 million auto passenger miles traveled, there are .97 fatalities, so passenger mile for passenger mile traveled , auto transportation is over 32 times as deadly.

So, without realizing the relative safety of air and auto transportation, when people hear that Vice President Biden is suggesting to his own family that they avoid air travel, some people will switch from air travel where the chance of a fatality is very small, even after factoring in the very minute chance of getting swine flu, and passing it on to family members. In this case, the number of fatalities, including swine flu, is likely to increase.

-MC

As I discuss in my Health Economics class, hospitals are, in most places, the largest employers of nurses.  With the nursing profession still dominated by women, often as second earners in their household, nurses tend to be less mobile than many other professionals.  In addition, in many communities there are few hospitals within commuting distance, giving those hospitals in commutable distance what economists term as a “monopsonistic” position in wage determination.

A monopoly is a market type characterized by having only one seller or by a very dominant seller. A market that is monopsonistic, or simply a “monopsony,” on the other hand, is a type with just one buyer.  The “mon” (from Ancient Greek “monos”) part of the word means “single,” while the “opsony”  (from Ancient Greek “opsnia”) part means “purchase,” so “monopsony” means a single-purchaser market.

When a market has a single buyer, that buyer has an extraordinary amount of bargaining power and can strongly influence the market price.  To get more nurses, better pay and/or better benefits must be promised or the hospital will be unable to attract more people to be nurses at their hospital.  That is, the supply curve of nurses is upward sloping, so if a hospital wants more nurses, they would have to increase nurses’ pay, new and incumbent nurses alike, or incumbent nurses may just quit to be rehired later at the higher pay.  Or they may just make things difficult for the hospital administration that pays new nurses more than loyal workers.

Let’s look at a simple numerical example.  Suppose that a hospital could attract and maintain a workforce of 500 nurses by paying them each $50,000 a year, for a labor cost of $25 million a year.  Now suppose in order to increase this workforce up to 600, pay would have to go up to $60,000 a year to attract the next 100 nurses, often from greater distances.  In this case, labor costs increase from $25 million to $36 million, or 44% more in labor costs for a 20% larger force.  This is because both the additional 100 nurses had to be paid more, but so did the 500 incumbent nurses.

How can the higher pay be limited to just those new nurses without paying more to the existing nurses?  This is where nursing contractors come in.  The contractors work for someone else and usually commute great distances.    The pay is higher for the contract nurses and the hospital’s nurses do not revolt.  In this case, the labor costs are the $25 million for the hospital’s 500 nurses and another $6 million for the contract nurses, pushing costs up to only $31 million instead of $36 million, or by 24%, not much more than the increase in nurses.

This past Saturday I, along with some colleagues and a student of mine from Nicholls, attended the Louisiana Political Science Association meeting at the Grambling State campus.  The meeting was helpful and very cordial, even though many of us strongly disagreed with one another.

There was a panel of undergraduate papers with two papers from Centenary students (my student and I presented a joint paper with Dr. Sanders in another session).  There was another panel of graduate student papers.  Both of these undergraduate papers were very interesting.  Allison Saylor an undergraduate student at Centenary had a nicely done paper titled ““The Bush Administration, Private Military Contractors, and the War on Terrorism,” in which she examined the substantial growth in the use of military contractors in the war in Iraq.  She posed a very useful question, “why would the war in Iraq require so many more contractors than we saw in previous wars?” (Quote marks are used here for my interpretation of her paper rather than a quote from her.)

During the discussion period after her presentation, I think the presenters, discussant, session chair and the audience arrived at a reason for this large expansion of contractors.  The last protracted war that the U.S. was involved in was Vietnam, and soldiers could be drafted then.  Any “desired” expansion (by the Administration) was met by increases in the number drafted. To expand under a voluntary force, we need to either attract more soldiers by increasing their benefits or by outsourcing non-combat roles to civilians.

The latter solution, outsourcing to private contractors, is likely to be less costly for two reasons.  Many of the non-combat requirements of a military force are things that many private sector companies are already doing and things where they have particular expertise, such as warehousing and goods distribution, food services, accounting services and construction.  Soldiers are no better at doing these activities and are probably worse than trained civilians at these sorts of  activities.  While this was also true during earlier wars, these activities in those days could be manned with soldiers who were drafted and forced to work below their opportunity cost or their voluntary wage rate.

The other reason for outsourcing certain tasks often performed by soldiers is exactly analogous to the nursing monopsony story told above.  The market for warriors is a monopsony market with the Department of Defense just about the only buyer in the market.

How can the higher pay be limited to just those new soldiers without paying more to the existing soldiers?  The contractors fill certain non-combat roles, while the military personnel perform the combat roles.    The pay is higher for the contractors, and the combat troops do not revolt.

While it might have been the case that certain contractors got sweetheart deals, no-bid contracts or cost-plus contracts, it is likely that troop increases with a voluntary force may have to increase pay to all rather substantially to get only a few more warriors.

I should point out that the return to the draft is not a solution to this high incremental cost of troop expansion, because the real opportunity cost of a draft is that some people are forced to do military jobs, often giving up positions where they are far more valuable to the country than as soldiers.  This social cost of the draft is hidden from presidents, congressmen, taxpayers and voters and they often do not consider such costs in their decisions.

Finally,it is almost ironic that those who kill and those who heal face the same sort of labor market issues, and those who hire them face similar incentives to price or wage discriminate.

-MC

We are told by politicians that the way to reduce health care costs is by getting more people covered with health care insurance and getting more preventative care. Maybe. Maybe not.  When we look at the numbers, we have to conclude that the problem is that demand is shifting up faster than supply.  The only thing that will bring health care prices down is if we are able to get supply to increase faster than demand.

Recently, the White House hosted a Health Care Summit. C-SPAN had some good coverage on it that you see at their website. The links to the events are:

Summit Opening Remarks, Breakout Session, Obama and Kennedy: Closing Remarks on Healthcare Summit, BilyTauzin Interview on Pharmaceuticals.

Most of the discussion centered on health care coverage–insurance. I would suggest that the problem that most Americans face is not whether or not they are covered, but the high cost of coverage.  Premiums are very expensive. A lot of the productivity gains of the American worker in the last 20 years has been paid to the employee, not in wages, but in the employer’s share of health care premiums.

I plotted some health care data and came up with an interesting picture. I based this picture on two date sources: 1) National Health Expenditures 1960-2007 from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/nationalhealthexpenddata/ downloaded 3/10/2009) which provides estimates of the total expenditures in the US on health care and 2) the Consumer Price Index (CPI) subindex on health care (just like there is one on energy and another on food) which comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I got a relative price of healthcare by dividing the Health Care CPI by the complete CPI (all goods and services). This tells us which is going up faster, general prices or health care prics and if HC is becoming more scarce (more in demand relative to what is going on with supply).

I divided the expenditure data by the Health Care CPI to get a quantity measure and then divided through by the population, to look at the quantity in per capita terms (more people means more buyers, but more suppliers too). Price and quantity combinations observed in the diagram below do not show a supply curve or a demand curve, but rather show where supply and demand intersect–the “equilibrium” values.

On the diagram above, the price is the Medical Care component of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) divided by the general (all goods and services) CPI, and multiplied by 100. 1983 is used as the base year (1983=100 for both all prices). The Quantity axis measures Health Care Expenditures per capita (Expenditures divided by the population) for that year and then divided by the Medical Care CPI, which gives us a measure of quantity for that year. Then, this quantity figure is “standardized” by 1983’s quantity (all years quantities divided by 1983’s quantity. The above should not be thought of as a demand or a supply curve, but showing the path of equilibrium prices and quantities for the years from 1960 (point furthest to the left) to 2007 (point furthest to the right). Think about how supply and demand must be shifting to give such numbers.

By the way, the 1960 point is at the lower left and the 2007 point is at the upper right. For things to look like this though, the demand must be growing or shifting out to the right faster than supply is increasing. And why has this occurred? Expanding health insurance coverage. The more someone else is paying our bills, the more we spend and the less attention we pay to our costs. Ever notice all those scooter store ads on TV, ads you never saw before Medicare started paying for scooter chairs? And all the ads say buy this and let Medicare pay for it (”If we approve it and Medicare turns you down, you get to keep the chair”), not a cent out of your pocket.

So, health care is way too expensive, because we have pushed up demand with all of our health insurance–and the politicians’ answer is more of the same, more HC insurance, more 3rd party payment, less individual responsibility. The folks at the Health Care Summit routinely avoid talking about doing anything on the supply side of the market–getting more doctors, more nurses more hospitals, more pharmaceuticals for the same prices (shifting supply out). Here are the questions we should be asking: How do we get the FDA to speed up its approval process? How do we get the med schools and nursing schools to open up their doors a bit wider? These are the things we need to get affordable health care, as universal health care increases demand without doing anything about supply.

-MC

James Glassman has this really insightful article on economic stimulus in the March issue (now online) of Commentary magazine (at commentarymagazine.com).  Readers of Bastiat’s Bastions will note that Mr. Glassman is also a fan of Bastiat and references the same story “What is seen and what is unseen,” that we have mentioned here repeatedly, starting with the first post here in January of 2006.

-MC

Economists look at a lot of numbers measuring economic activity. Good economists always remember what the numbers mean and what is ultimately important, what the ends are for people and what are merely means.

Right now, we are in the midst of a recession—a recession that looks to be quite serious. We see thousands of people losing their jobs, and when people lose their jobs, they lose their sources of income, lose their control over resources and stop being financially self sufficient, becoming someone for others to take care of. This is cause for despair for some, and true mental depression for others. Recently it was reported on the news that a man in California killed his wife, his five children and himself after becoming distraught over losing his job. That is depression.

To deal with this recession or depression or whatever term you chose to describe the downturn we are facing, the Democratic Congress has devised an “economic stimulus” plan that will push the currently large deficit up by more than 800 billion dollars. Surely, 800 billion dollars will put many people to work. The real question though, is “what will we buy when we auction away 800 billion dollars plus interest of our future?

The question of what we will be buying seems to be of little interest to President Obama and his party as he urges all haste in passing the stimulus package. Here is why such a question must be asked: It is not jobs that people really need, rather, it is the ability to buy things that is crucial. If the new jobs are not producing goods and services that people want with this stimulus package, we are just giving people money to buy but with no extra goods being produced, and all we will have done is increased the competition or the bidding war for the same old goods, driving prices for those goods ever higher.

In this story from CNN by Peter Valdes-Dapena, there are two proposals specifically designed to help out the ailing auto industry. One proposal is being pushed by Sen. Diane Feinstein, D.-Calif to not only help the auto makers, but also help the environment, or at least those are her stated intentions. The plan is to give buyers of new and more environmentally friendly vehicles a governmentally financed rebate if the dealer certifies that the buyer traded in their old gas guzzler and that their old car would be scrapped instead of being resold. To keep the dealers honest, the car’s VIN number would be tracked to make sure it did not show up in the used car market.

While there may be environmental benefits to Feinstein’s plan, the economic benefits are doubtful. Feinstein’s plan would cause cars to be destroyed so as not to compete with new cars and bring their resale value down. Think about what is really going on. Cars that still work, that still have value, would be scrapped, destroyed. Cars that could still drive some family around would no longer exist.

This reminds me of the programs of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) that failed get us out of the Great Depression. Recessions usually last about 2 years. The period from 1929 to 1941 became the Great Depression because over and over, the reactions of both Hoover and FDR to the recession, and the inaction of the Federal Reserve System, made matters worse, making the recession deeper and longer than it would have been otherwise.

One such program of FDR that he hoped would help the farmers, one that my Dad saw first hand, was one designed to boost the price of beef to help the farmers. FDR’s Department of Agriculture paid farmers for their cattle, dug large holes in fields around the country to herd the cattle into, shot the cattle and buried them in mass cow graves. While Americans were going hungry, our government destroyed food. Instead of helping to feed Americans, our government destroyed food.

The truth is destroying resources never helps our economy. In the inaugural post of Bastiat’s Bastions, Norbert Michel and I discussed why there was no silver economic lining to the destruction of New Orleans, that Katrina provided no benefit to New Orleans. Had the storm not destroyed the city, all of the resources devoted to rebuilding New Orleans and coastal Mississippi could have gone to building something else or producing something else, something that we could have had in addition to having the city. In Bastiat’s story, a boy broke a window with a stray ball (see our inaugural post again for the links to Bastiat’s story), and many people thought that the breaking of the window was a good thing, because it would increase work for other people. Bastiat, however, points out that had the window not been destroyed, the owner of the window would have still had a window, and would have bought other things had he not had to buy a new window.

Destroying one thing to only replace it means we have nothing that we would not have had. Think about this. Often when people are unemployed, they take the opportunity to finish that degree that they had started years ago or somehow prepare themselves for another occupation. Without the job that they had, their “opportunity costs” of completing the degree has fallen. So, when these individuals take jobs to merely replace something that other people already had and would have still had, if not for the destruction of their cattle by FDR or their old cars by Diane Feinstein, some people would have still had their cars and other people could have prepared for better jobs instead of wasting their time replacing cars that have been destroyed.

Keep in mind, there is no shortage of jobs, there is work to be done all around us. There are yards to be cut, houses to be painted, and people everywhere need help. People are not so much looking for jobs as looking for a way to get goods and services for their families. If we are employing people doing things that people don’t want to pay for with their own dollars, such as building new ATV trails, people will be just be receiving incomes to buy things that are not being produced.

Instead of stimulus, what we see in this package is pure waste. We may as well keep auto workers at their jobs by having the government buy up new cars, putting them on barges and dumping them off of the coast beyond the outer continental shelf. The image that comes to mind is of people being put to work by this stimulus package digging holes while other government workers come behind them to fill the holes back up.

What is the real point of this so-called stimulus package, then? Just as I was critical of Bush and the Republican Congress for wasteful spending on homeland security grants, we see even more pork in this present bill. In other words, the spending bills now being proposed to “stimulate” the economy will do more to stimulate the votes of special interest groups than to stimulate the economy.

My point, then, is that if we give a trillion dollars to people to make things that no one cares much about, we end up wasting the time and talents of our workers. And, like the person in the V8 commercial, when we realize what could have been, we will bang our heads with our hands for squandering funds on things no one wanted.

As is usual, our elected officials in Washington stand at the ready to “do something” about any problem even if doing something means making the problem worse. They are less concerned about the problem than the opportunity that it affords to spend money on their supporters. With the stimulus package, Congress is playing pork-barrel politics, which means the politicians are just using taxpayer funds and IOUs to buy their way to reelection.

-MC

I’m confused…

First, read the article, a comment from the democratic governor of New York. In the article, the Governor opines that he is favor of a tax on sugary beverages (think Coke and Pepsi). His argument is feeding Coke to kids makes them more likely to be obese. And this obesity leads to bad health outcomes on down the line. Thus, the tax on soda is called an “obesity” tax, perhaps by journalists and policy wonks that want to make it sound sexier. And just to be clear, I don’t thing the Governor is making a fiscal argument, but it is in the conversation.

In reading this article, I first thought I might have just something of a mild economic epiphany. But then as I kept writing, I’m only more confused. Perhaps you all can help me out?

First, some background on the economic arguments for taxation. There are (at least) two economic arguments for taxation.

The first is to raise revenue to fund legitimate governmental projects. Economists generally believe that the best goods to tax for this purpose are goods with inelastic demand curves (or inelastic supply curves). The idea is that with an inelastic demand curve, the tax can be absorbed with a relatively small change in quantity consumed and produced, resulting in the largest amount of tax revenue with the least amount of distortion or dead weight loss. This argument would explain why we might consider putting relatively high taxes on gasoline, liquor, and cigarettes. These goods tend to be inelastically demanded because there are few substitutes for these products.

Interestingly enough, its seems the demand for soda is not inelastic — actually quite elastic — anyone with a D or better in Econ 211 should be able to calculate if from the article. The elasticity shouldn’t be too shocking due to the fact that there are many alternative to sodas (water, juice, tea, kool-aid, beer, etc.). So if I am looking for a justification of this obesity tax, I have to keep looking…

The second reason to tax goods is to reduce the amount of some activity that generates what economist call “externalities”, or more precisely “external costs”. If person A does something, and person B is harmed, we say person A has generated an external cost. We call it an external costs because person B was external to the decision making — they are a victim so to speak.

Because in most situations, person A doesn’t have to pay for the harm caused on person B, there is too much of the activity pursued. As an example, think of smoking. It shouldn’t be too hard to figure out how person B is harmed (second-hand smoke). If we were to tax activity A, person A will do less of that activity, person B will suffer less harm, and we can get back to the optimal amount of that activity. (People who got a C in Econ 211 will also remember you could regulate smoking, say prohibiting it in certain places). In fact, the right sized tax is equal to the amount of suffering caused by 3rd parties. If the right size tax is imposed, the decision maker now truly faces the “full” cost of their actions, and the “problem” is “solved”.

While most people wouldn’t look at in quite the same way, many laws can be interpreted in the lens of external costs. If person A is, say Vince Marinello, and person B is his wife, and the activity that Vince engages in is killing his wife, the external cost is astronomical. While again it would take an odd person (such as me) to think of a prison sentence as a tax — it really is — you commit a murder and you have to pay, big time. They even take away your hair piece.

Ok, back to the obesity tax. We can’t justify it on revenue grounds…but can we justify it on the grounds of obesity causing external costs? Are there external costs associated with obesity?

Suppose I (at the writing about 6′4″ and maybe 175 pounds – make that 176 as I just had a 20 oz Coke), decide to slurp Crisco through a straw until I weigh 450 pounds. Are there external costs? Who else suffers as a result of my newfound obesity?

Nobody…right? Unless…I’ll get to the unless in a second. So there shouldn’t be a tax on obesity?

Is not being obese then just like, say, playing golf? Playing poker? Watching reality TV? It seems patently absurd that the government should tax golfers, tax reality TV, or tax gamblers (oops, scratch that last one – a post for another day). Is the governor wrong?

And finally to my almost epiphany.

Does the answer to external cost question about obesity change if we live in a world where the government has decided to pay for health care (or at least a faction of health care), and pays for it through taxing its citizenry?

I think it does. When I do the Crisco thing, your future tax bill rises due to my government funded health care expenditures, perhaps to pay for my hypertension pills.

My almost epiphany…

First the government decides to provide a service, paying for it by taxing — and then given that decision, it now makes economic sense to have further government intervention (taxes) to reduce the amount of money spent on the original service.

First, it is weird how government intervention in the first place leads to more government intervention as a result, no? The amount of invasiveness in our lives as a result of provided heath care to people is, in the end, much more ranging that simply providing health care to people, right?

Second, where does it stop? Say we were to change to a 100% inclusive government provided health care system, financed by taxes. In that world, wouldn’t any activity that might potentially increase the amount of spending on health care create an external cost? And thus, shouldn’t it too be taxed? Where does it end? A Soda tax? A chocolate cake tax? A pepperoni pizza tax? A rock-climbing tax? A failure to exercise tax? A pregnancy tax?

–CT