The Policy Forums: Recent Posts

The Policy Forums: Recent Posts http://thepolicyforums.com/ The PubPolicy.com Discussion Forum en-US Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:36:53 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.1 <![CDATA[Search]]> q http://thepolicyforums.com/search.php Charles on "Why Cheap is Good" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/why-cheap-is-good#post-32 Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:06:10 +0000 Charles 32@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <p>My biggest problem with the whole “coffee shop” argument — Starbucks / Wal-Mart / Best Buy came along and ruined my whole town is that it ignores the fact that your whole town was complicit in the affair. In the end, if no one went to the Starbucks, that is, they really, truly preferred the weak, overpriced, never open, small-sized coffee served by holier-than-thou employees, Starbucks never could have succeeded.</p> <p>There are those who argue that Starbucks overbids for suppliers so that no one can afford to keep up (the US Steel argument), but that is, and never was, a long-term solution. In the end, Starbucks will keep innovating, lowering profit margins, and Gorilla coffee will keep up or perish — and I get to reap the benefits of the whole thing.</p><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span>Charles</span></li></ul></div> mrothermel on "Why Cheap is Good" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/why-cheap-is-good#post-31 Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:56:24 +0000 mrothermel 31@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <p>Very true. The biggest crack on Monopolies and the need for government flunkies to crank out HHI calculations is the lack of incentive to innovate. Does that mean we can now eliminate the FTC and DOJ (since they have redundant groups). I doubt it…</p> <p>Very similar to “fair trade” coffee or “organically raised” beef. If you cannot compete at your most efficient, try and create a sellable value to allow your business to operate with your inefficiencies in the system. The interesting part about it is all the argumentum ad misericordiam that is made about it. The poor inefficient worker rivals the buggy whip operator of old. I wonder when/if drugs are legalized, will Mr. Bernstein and his ilk wax poetic about the street corner pusher/independent businessman being run out of business by Big Drug?</p> Charles on "Why Cheap is Good" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/why-cheap-is-good#post-30 Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:25:20 +0000 Charles 30@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/images/bookshelf.jpg"><img class="alignright" title="Hand-Crafted Amish Furniture" src="http://pubpolicy.com/images/bookshelf.jpg" alt="" width="250" height="250" /></a>It’s probably not fair to comment on a book I’ve never read, but here I go. I am basing most of my specific comments off of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/us/30iht-letter.html?_r=1&em" target="_blank">Richard Bernstein’s piece in the New York Times</a>. In any case, Ellen Ruppel Shell, a correspondent for <em>the Atlantic</em>, has written a book called<em> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Cheap-High-Cost-Discount-Culture/dp/159420215X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249000297&sr=8-1" target="_blank">Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture</a></em>, in which she argues that America’s drive to cheap, discounted good is detrimental to society overall. Her main point is that cheap goods end up lowering wages, preventing innovation, and hurting the environment.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">I have not read the book, but her arguments are certainly not her’s alone, and the first two points, at least, seem to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. Simply put, there is no reason to think that cheap goods lower wages. The implication is that if people purchased an expensive bookshelf that is handmade, workers would earn more money than if someone purchases an Ikea bookshelf. This logic is faulty in at least two point. First, is that wages are not based on the end product’s price. Wages are based on the relative levels of supply and demand for labor for that particular job. In other words, if Ikea were to double its prices, the factory worker who makes the bookshelf would see exactly zero dollars of that increase.</p></blockquote> <p><br/><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/2009/07/30/why-cheap-good/">Why Cheap is Good</a></p> <div class="addtoany_share_save_container"><ul class="addtoany_list"><li><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=&linkname="><img src="http://pubpolicy.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Save/Bookmark"/></a></li></ul></div><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span></span></li></ul></div> Charles on "Missing the Point on the Gates Arrest" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/missing-the-point-on-the-gates-arrest#post-29 Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:06:01 +0000 Charles 29@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <p>Here is a much more eloquent piece from Reason: <a href="http://www.reason.com/news/show/135039.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.reason.com/news/show/135039.html</a></p><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span>Charles</span></li></ul></div> Charles on "Airline Pricing and Baggage Fees" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/airline-pricing-and-baggage-fees#post-28 Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:52:51 +0000 Charles 28@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <blockquote><p><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/images/check-in.JPG"><img class="alignleft" style="margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 5px;" title="Check-In Hall at Suvarnabhumi International Airport, Bangkok" src="http://pubpolicy.com/images/check-in.JPG" alt="" width="320" height="241" /></a>With the news that American Airlines will increase its <a title="bAAgage fees" href="http://www.aa.com/aa/viewPromotionDetails.do?itemDescriptor=PromotionContent&repositoryName=PromotionContentRepository&repositoryId=16122585" target="_blank">baggage fees</a> starting August 14, 2009, I thought it might be nice to have a little note on airline pricing. It is well known that passengers on the same flight will often pay wildly different prices for the same trip. These prices differ by when you purchased, where you purchase, when the return flight is, how you paid, and many other dimensions. Airlines do this because they engage in a pricing practice called price discrimination.</p> <p>Price discrimination stems from the fact that airlines are not perfectly competitive. Instead, unlike the market for cereal, there are only a few carriers — even fewer at any given airport — and they only go at certain times of the day to certain destinations. Couple that with the fact there are severe financial and regulatory barriers to entry for potential competition, and the result is that airlines have a decided advantage when it comes to choosing what price you get to pay for the privilege of flying with them.</p></blockquote> <p><br/><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/2009/07/27/airline-pricing-baggage/">Airline Pricing and Baggage Fees</a></p> <div class="addtoany_share_save_container"><ul class="addtoany_list"><li><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=&linkname="><img src="http://pubpolicy.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Save/Bookmark"/></a></li></ul></div><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span></span></li></ul></div> CatskillVern on "Missing the Point on the Gates Arrest" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/missing-the-point-on-the-gates-arrest#post-27 Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:05:43 +0000 CatskillVern 27@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <p>CNN’s interview with Sgt Leon Lashley, the black officer at the Gates arrest, is quite disturbing. He said Gates’ behavior was disruptive, situation getting out of control because other people were around and could hear. When AC asked, if he’s in his own home fussing, why not just leave him there, Sgt lashley replied that Gates had stepped outside (onto his front porch)and therefore Lashley would also have arrested Gates.<br /> Who decides what “in control” means on your own front porch, law-abiding you, or the police? Short of any threat of course, is it illegal for a homeowner to “talk back” to police, insult or even yell at them in frustration, on private property?<br /> This raises a serious 4th amendment question about police authority in a non-lawbreaking, non-threatening situation.</p> Charles on "Missing the Point on the Gates Arrest" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/missing-the-point-on-the-gates-arrest#post-26 Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:46:09 +0000 Charles 26@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <p>He was combative, from my understanding, because the officers refused to leave him the hell alone. There is no requirement that he has to cooperate with the police. What he really should have done was walked inside and locked the door.</p><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span>Charles</span></li></ul></div> shamste on "Missing the Point on the Gates Arrest" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/missing-the-point-on-the-gates-arrest#post-25 Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:42:07 +0000 shamste 25@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <p>From what I have read, Gates was not arrested because he refused to show identification. He was arrested for “disorderly conduct” for being combative with the officers (one of which is black).</p> Charles on "Missing the Point on the Gates Arrest" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/missing-the-point-on-the-gates-arrest#post-24 Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:20:15 +0000 Charles 24@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <blockquote><p>Today, President Obama attended the White House press briefing to state that he “could have calibrated those words differently” when he stated that the Cambridge police officer who arrested Henry Louis Gates Jr. acted stupidly. To sum up what happened, Gates, a Harvard professor and leading authority on race, locked himself out of his house. Neighbors witnessed two black men (Gates and an associate) breaking into a house and called the police. The police arrived, questioned Gates, who took offense, and eventually the police arrested Gates. Both sides claim that the other was at fault, and many of the claims center around the police being racist and Gates refusing to cooperate. This matter, however, is not only about civil rights, it is about civil liberties.</p> <p>Now it is certainly plausible to think none of this would have happened if Gates were white. It might be less likely that neighbors would have called the police if they saw a white person locked out of their house. It’s also plausible that the interaction between Gates and police would have gone differently if they were of the same race, but all of that misses the point. Because we are so worried about race we are failing to question why the police even have the right to question or arrest a person who refused to show ID. I am not a Constitutional or Massachusetts law expert, but I question to authority of the police to ask you to produce ID simply because a neighbor called. In other words, what would happen if, every time I see someone I don’t know (or don’t like) doing something, I would call the police.</p></blockquote> <p><br/><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/2009/07/24/missing-point-gates/">Missing the Point on the Gates Arrest</a></p> <div class="addtoany_share_save_container"><ul class="addtoany_list"><li><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=&linkname="><img src="http://pubpolicy.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Save/Bookmark"/></a></li></ul></div><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span></span></li></ul></div> Charles on "Venn Diagrams and Free Speech" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/venn-diagrams-and-free-speech#post-23 Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:15:02 +0000 Charles 23@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <blockquote><p><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/images/venn.jpg"><img class="alignright" style="margin-left: 8px; margin-right: 8px;" title="Venn Diagram" src="http://pubpolicy.com/images/venn.jpg" alt="" width="267" height="230" /></a>Fred Kaplan has written an interesting <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/opinion/21kaplan.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1" target="_blank">history of the legal case</a> that struck down many of America’s obscenity laws, particularly the ability of the US Postal Service to confiscate items from the mail it deemed obscene. The case revolved around a publisher, Grove Press, that sued the Postal Service for confiscating copies of the D. H. Lawrence novel <em>Lady Chatterley’s Lover</em> under the law that prevented the shipment of materials the Post Office deemed to be obscene, lewd, lustful, lascivious, or prurient. Previously, the Supreme Court had ruled that free speech, protected by the First Amendment, did not cover obscenity.</p> <p>The interesting part of the case, for this website, was that the lawyer for Grove Press, Charles Rembar, used a Venn Diagram to point out the logical flaw in the current interpretation of the law. In the case <a title="Roth Vs. the US" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=354&invol=476" target="_blank">Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)</a>, Justice William Brennan wrote,</p> <blockquote><p>All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance – unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion – have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests; but implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance.</p></blockquote> </blockquote> <p><br/><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/2009/07/21/diagrams-speech/">Venn Diagrams and Free Speech</a></p> <div class="addtoany_share_save_container"><ul class="addtoany_list"><li><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=&linkname="><img src="http://pubpolicy.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Save/Bookmark"/></a></li></ul></div><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span></span></li></ul></div> Charles on "How to Solve the Health Care Crisis" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/how-to-solve-the-health-care-crisis#post-22 Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:53:43 +0000 Charles 22@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><img class="alignright" style="margin: 2px 5px;" src="http://pubpolicy.com/images/shoulder2.jpg" alt="acromioclavicular separation" width="258" height="299" />I <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">recently</span> got in a bike crash and separated my shoulder, and my trips to the emergency room and various doctors got me thinking about how difficult to navigate the US health care system really is. Going to the ER, in a great amount of pain required me to wait around for hours before before being seen by a doctor. They were quick to make sure I have insurance, and that opened up levels of care not afforded to the myriad of uninsured patients. After visiting the ER, I called my orthopedist, but he no longer accepts my insurance, so I had to go to the website, find a new orthopedist, make an appointment, realize I didn’t like him, find a new doctor, and so on.</p> <p class="parseasinTitle" style="text-align: justify;">Of course, life does not have to be this difficult. When I go buy a car, I don’t have to work nearly as hard, so why should buying healthcare be any different? In his brilliant book,<em><span id="btAsinTitle"> <a title="The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford" href="http://www.amazon.com/Undercover-Economist-Exposing-Poor-Decent/dp/0345494016/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212794746&sr=8-1" target="_blank">The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor–and Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!</a>,</span></em><span id="btAsinTitle"> Tim Harford lays out the difficulties of health care policy as well as how to overcome many of the problems in the US system. This post recounts his solution with some comments of my own.</span></p></blockquote> <p><br/><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/2008/06/06/solve-health-crisis/">How to Solve the Health Care Crisis</a></p> <div class="addtoany_share_save_container"><ul class="addtoany_list"><li><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=&linkname="><img src="http://pubpolicy.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Save/Bookmark"/></a></li></ul></div><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span></span></li></ul></div> Charles on "How to Get Your Wallet Back" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/how-to-get-your-wallet-back#post-21 Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:38:37 +0000 Charles 21@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <blockquote><p><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/images/wallet.jpg"><img class="alignleft" style="margin: 2px 8px;" src="http://pubpolicy.com/images/wallet.jpg" alt="" width="225" height="169" /></a>Richard Wiseman, the psychologist who brought us <a href="http://www.laughlab.co.uk/" target="_blank">LaughLab, and their quest to find the world’s funniest joke</a>, has come out with another piece of interesting research. Professor Wiseman tried to determine what factors increased the chances of getting a lost wallet returned. He found that wallets containing baby pictures were returned at a significantly higher rates than other wallets.</p> <p>To perform the experiment, Wiseman and his team planted over 500 wallets around different parts of Edinburgh with different objects behind the clear plastic window. Overall, 42 percent of the wallets were returned, but those with a baby picture were returned at a much higher rate — 88 percent. Next came a puppy photo (53 percent), followed by a family photo (48 percent), and finally a photo of an elderly couple (28 percent). Trailing all other objects, at 20 per cent, was a card identifying the wallet owner as a recent charitable donor. Curiously, the lowest overall return rate was experienced by the control wallets — indicating that having something in the wallet is better than nothing at all. Perhaps this is because empty wallets may be considered as discarded.</p> <p>Possibly, the reason for baby pictures doing so well is that humans have an innate desire to protect babies, and returning money to their parents is one way to do so. Dr. Wiseman stated, “If you want to increase the chances of your wallet being returned if lost, obtain a photograph of the cutest baby you can find, and ensure that it is prominently displayed.”</p></blockquote> <p><br/><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/2009/07/20/wallet/">How to Get Your Wallet Back</a></p> <div class="addtoany_share_save_container"><ul class="addtoany_list"><li><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=&linkname="><img src="http://pubpolicy.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Save/Bookmark"/></a></li></ul></div><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span></span></li></ul></div> Charles on "Happy Moon Day" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/happy-moon-day#post-20 Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:26:57 +0000 Charles 20@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <blockquote><p><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="425" height="350" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RMINSD7MmT4" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RMINSD7MmT4"></embed></object></p></blockquote> <p><br/><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/2009/07/20/happy-moon-day/">Happy Moon Day</a></p> <div class="addtoany_share_save_container"><ul class="addtoany_list"><li><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=&linkname="><img src="http://pubpolicy.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Save/Bookmark"/></a></li></ul></div><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span></span></li></ul></div> Charles on "How the Recession Affects Me" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/how-the-recession-affects-me#post-19 Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:03:33 +0000 Charles 19@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <blockquote><p>On my bike ride this morning, I passed through several of Chicago’s northern suburbs, and I noticed the horrendous condition of many of the roads. Over the 50 miles of riding, I had to pass over pot holes, rough patches, and cracks that are worse than any time in recent memory. Of course, this should not be surprising. State and local governments, who are largely responsible for maintaining the roads, are undergoing severe budget problems — high deficits resulting in large spending cuts. It is quite clear to me that one of the cuts is road maintenance. Now I understand that Illinois roads are never going to be in good shape because of the large temperature swings in the spring, but it is now mid-July, and it is clear that no repair attempts have been made in many of the towns.</p> <p>There are lots of places that spending has been cut, and repairing roads can probably wait, but this is a great example of what happens in a recession. As the economy becomes depressed, incomes drop, and tax revenues drop, and government coffers empty — leaving the roads in shambles. This affects state governments the most, as local government earn most of their income from property taxes. Local governments are not immune, however, as tax assessments often drop in during recessions, and another large source of income, grants from the state and Federal government disappear.</p></blockquote> <p><br/><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/2009/07/18/recession-affects/">How the Recession Affects Me</a></p> <div class="addtoany_share_save_container"><ul class="addtoany_list"><li><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=&linkname="><img src="http://pubpolicy.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Save/Bookmark"/></a></li></ul></div><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span></span></li></ul></div> Charles on "Incentives: How to Outrun an Army with Three Arrows" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/incentives-how-to-outrun-an-army-with-three-arrows#post-18 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:58:07 +0000 Charles 18@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <blockquote><p align="justify"><img style="margin: 8px;" title="Can you out run an army?" src="http://pubpolicy.com/images/soldier.jpg" alt="Can you out run an army?" width="253" height="222" align="right" />Economic thought provides the ability to solve problems that lie outside the areas generally covered in economics textbooks. Today’s entry is an example of this. This question and answer is taken from a wonderful book called <em>Hidden Order: The Economics of Everyday Life</em> by David D. Friedman.</p> <p align="justify">Q: A soldier has escaped from an enemy prison and is being chased by ten enemy soldiers. If he can make it to the border, he will be safe, but if he is caught, he will be killed. The soldier’s horse is tiring, and at the current pace, it will grow too tired before the border. Therefore, he will be unable to out run the soldier that are chasing him. His only assets, besides his wits, are three arrows in a quiver (the fact that the soldier has only three arrows is visible to the pursuers). He can shoot three of the chasing soldiers, but then the other seven will catch him. How can the solder use economic thought to escape?</p> </blockquote> <p><br/><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/2005/02/06/incentives-how-to-outrun-and-army-with-three-bullets/">Incentives: How to Outrun an Army with Three Arrows</a></p> <div class="addtoany_share_save_container"><ul class="addtoany_list"><li><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=&linkname="><img src="http://pubpolicy.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Save/Bookmark"/></a></li></ul></div><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span></span></li></ul></div> Charles on "One Small Step for Man" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/one-small-step-for-man#post-17 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:35:31 +0000 Charles 17@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <blockquote><p><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/images/moon.jpg"><img class="alignleft" style="border: 5px solid black; margin-right: 5px; margin-left: 5px;" title="The Moon" src="http://pubpolicy.com/images/moon.jpg" alt="" width="183" height="185" /></a>July 20 marks the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. The New York Times has a nifty little interactive <a href="http://www.nytimes.com//interactive/2009/07/13/science/20090714-voices-interactive.html?ref=science" target="_blank">piece</a> which gives a short account of the recollections of the landing by 24 different people. All the people are either famous (Tom Seaver, Gloria Steinem, Barney Frank) or otherwise involved with space, physics, and NASA. The recollections are interesting because they range from awe to anger — large amounts of money being spent to send someone into space when there are so many problems on Earth.</p> <p>There are lots of justifications for the space program, manned, and un-manned space travel. The normal ones revolve around scientific justification; the technology from the space program filters its way down to the rest of the world, and we get to benefit. I am pretty sure that this is how we got Teflon. There are probably other technologies from the space program, but I have never seen a credible cost-benefit analysis of the Apollo Program that says we received anything close to a positive return on sending men to the moon. Perhaps Tom Wolfe’s royalties on <em>The Right Stuff</em> serve to make it all worthwhile.</p></blockquote> <p><br/><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/2009/07/15/small-step/">One Small Step for Man</a></p> <div class="addtoany_share_save_container"><ul class="addtoany_list"><li><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=&linkname="><img src="http://pubpolicy.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Save/Bookmark"/></a></li></ul></div><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span></span></li></ul></div> Charles on "Cap and Trade Carbon Markets" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/cap-and-trade-carbon-markets#post-16 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:54:42 +0000 Charles 16@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <p>I think the incentives to develop clean energy would have to come from somewhere else. The polluters are just that, polluters. It's possible to tax the oil companies, but that would be a bit like taxing the cigarette manufacturers. You have little idea where the final economic incidence is going to lie. Tax or permit schemes are going to create in incentive to make pollution abatement less expensive, which is a good thing, but if we want to create clean energy, we should do that through the National Science Foundation, or some such R&D type outfit. </p><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span></span></li></ul></div> drucev on "Cap and Trade Carbon Markets" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/cap-and-trade-carbon-markets#post-15 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:49:23 +0000 drucev 15@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <p>there's the old joke about how economic forecasters exist to make weather forecasters look good... combine them both to come up with a carbon emissions policy and then mix in some politicians for good measure ... makes one skeptical.</p> <p>policy only works if it creates incentives to develop cheap clean energy...otherwise you're just extending the date at which all the extractable hydrocarbons will be returned to the atmosphere by a couple of centuries. meaningless on a planetary scale, if not for the next couple of generations of humans.</p> <p>one thing I've often wondered what CO concentrations were like when the hydrocarbon deposits were deposited...since initially whatever CO we're emitting did come out of the air via photosynthesis...not that that's an excuse to do nothing but I guess that's one way to find out. </p> Charles on "Cap and Trade Carbon Markets" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/cap-and-trade-carbon-markets#post-14 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:10:41 +0000 Charles 14@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <p>Druce, Thanks for the great feedback. You and Greg Makiw make all the correct points. I never meant to indicate that cap and trade is a perfect -- or even a good -- solution. I simply meant to say it is less bad. I still feel convinced of that. Assuming all the can openers, a tax and a permit system should be equivalent. I am not so sure why you think the "corporate welfare" is a bad thing. I would rather have the funds be a private windfall than a windfall to government, which is what tax revenue would be.</p> <p>Both systems will generate revenue, the way they work is through the price system. The difference is who receives the revenue. The Mankiw link talks about "revenues rebated to households through lower payroll or income taxes," and that would be great, but realistically, there is not likely to be any sort of correspondence between revenues and rebates (I think I have some crap about the Flypaper Effect somewhere on this site).</p> <p>I am also not sure I agree that knowing the total amount of pollution that is right is as difficult as getting the tax correct. In other words, I think you are talking about a far more complicated can opener when it comes to a tax system. I am not an expert on atmospheric sciences, but from the limited exposure I have to those who are, they seem a lot more convinced they are correct than economist are about understanding the marginal cost structures of carbon emitters, which you would need to know the get the tax correct. </p> <p>Finally, I did not touch on this in the post, but the political feasibility argument is not a small one, though it might be overblown. We use Pigouvian taxes far, far, far more commonly than we use permit systems. </p><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span></span></li></ul></div> drucev on "Cap and Trade Carbon Markets" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/cap-and-trade-carbon-markets#post-13 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:59:25 +0000 drucev 13@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <p>Not particularly persuaded. </p> <p>If you assume all the relevant can openers, there’s not much difference between cap and trade and a carbon tax. Cap and trade sets the quantity of emissions and lets the market determine the price; a tax sets the price of emissions and lets the market determine the quantity. They both impose a cost disincentive on pollution.</p> <p>But compare 2 methods of putting controls on pollution. 1) have a bureaucrat determine how much pollution you have the right to emit, and issue permits, and enforce them, vs. 2) a tax on fuel, according to how much carbon is in it and ultimately emitted. </p> <p>Cap-and-trade = the tax, plus corporate welfare (by giving away the right to pollute up to the initial cap – see <a href="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/08/fundamental-theorem-of-carbon-taxation.html)" rel="nofollow">http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/08/fundamental-theorem-of-carbon-taxation.html)</a>, plus administrative costs, plus opportunities for rent-seeking. </p> <p>Politically, cap-and-trade is great for the bureaucracy that administers and enforces; the bankers that trade; the congressmen who get contributions; and the manufacturers that fall under the initial cap and impose the burden of buying permits on any new entrants; and of course voters don’t hear the T (tax) word.</p> <p>Determining a proper quantity of permissible carbon emissions is as no more or less unknowable and arbitrary than determining the social cost of an additional kg of emissions. In each case you have to adjust over time as technology, population, and cost/accepted quantity of pollution changes. </p> <p>To me, the complexity of enforcement and potential for gaming the system make cap-and-trade clearly less desirable than a carbon tax; but from a political standpoint of course those are features, not bugs.</p> Charles on "Not All Taxes Are Equal" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/not-all-taxes-are-equal#post-11 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:09:37 +0000 Charles 11@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <blockquote><div id="attachment_307" class="wp-caption alignright" style="width: 192px"><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/canada_flag1.png"><img class="size-medium wp-image-307" style="margin: 5px;" title="canada_flag" src="http://pubpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/canada_flag1-300x150.png" alt="canada_flag" width="182" height="91" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Oh Canada!</p></div> <p>In an editorial in the Globe and Mail Jeffrey Simpson <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-very-scary-pm-i-dont-believe-that-any-taxes-are-good-taxes/article1216778/" target="_blank">reported</a> that Canadian Prime Minister (yes, Canada!) Stephen Harper stated that he doesn’t “believe that any taxes are good taxes.” While this is a fun political statement, and a nice sound bite, it’s hard to believe that the Prime Minister of Canada does not believe that some taxation is good. After all, most reasonable people — and many unreasonable ones — acknowledge that we need some form of government (see Somalia), and governments must be funded by taxes. His hyperbole deserves some discussion, however.</p> <p>Economists understand that, except in special cases, taxes do create an initial economic loss. Taxes distort the price mechanism, and the result is that some money simply disappears from the economy. In this sense taxes, though not all taxes, are bad. Of course, we know that taxes can do all sorts of good, on net. Without taxes government would not have the money to fund roads, schools, national defense, research, police, social services, and all the other things that it funds. These things are paid for by taxes, and this is the real object of those “bad” taxes.</p></blockquote> <p><br/><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/2009/07/14/taxes-equal/">Not All Taxes Are Equal</a></p> <div class="addtoany_share_save_container"><ul class="addtoany_list"><li><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=&linkname="><img src="http://pubpolicy.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Save/Bookmark"/></a></li></ul></div><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span></span></li></ul></div> Charles on "Tradable Permits: How to Save the World" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/tradable-permits-how-to-save-the-world#post-10 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:14:19 +0000 Charles 10@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <p>[...] permits. Quickly, let us review how the cap and trade system works (I have detailed the system in this post). We start from the premise that there is some lesser amount of emissions that we want reach. There [...]</p><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span>Cap and Trade Carbon Markets | UtilityMinimization</span></li></ul></div> Charles on "Tradable Permits: How to Save the World" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/tradable-permits-how-to-save-the-world#post-9 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:14:18 +0000 Charles 9@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <blockquote><p align="justify"><img width="258" height="183" align="left" title="Do you want to save the world?" alt="Do you want to save the world?" src="http://pubpolicy.com/images/savetheearth.jpg" />There is a growing consensus among the scientific community that we need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the very, very near future. I will leave it up to those who know more about atmospheric science to debate that point. If we take the claim to be true, then, as policy makers we want to decide on the best course of action to accomplish the goal. There are many ways to reduce emissions, and they are not at all mutually exclusive. In general, solutions revolve around forcing fewer emissions by regulation, using technology to require fewer emissions or lessen the impact of existing emissions, or using taxation and fee schemes to make it expensive to emit greenhouse gasses (The prevailing solution, up to the present, however, is to do nothing about emissions). One solution, in the eyes of economists, holds more promise for saving the world than any other–tradable emissions permits.</p> <p align="justify"></blockquote> <p><br/><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/2006/08/02/tradable-permits-how-to-save-the-world/">Tradable Permits: How to Save the World</a></p> <div class="addtoany_share_save_container"><ul class="addtoany_list"><li><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=&linkname="><img src="http://pubpolicy.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Save/Bookmark"/></a></li></ul></div><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span></span></li></ul></div> Charles on "Cap and Trade Carbon Markets" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/cap-and-trade-carbon-markets#post-8 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:14:10 +0000 Charles 8@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <blockquote><div class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 185px"><img style="margin: 5px;" title="Smoke of Chimneys is the Breath of Soviet Russia" src="http://pubpolicy.com/images/soviet_pollution.jpg" alt="Smoke of Chimneys is the Breath of Soviet Russia" width="175" height="239" /><p class="wp-caption-text">"The Smoke of Chimneys is the Breath of Soviet Russia"</p></div> <p>There is an interesting <a title="The Big Money" href="http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/hey-wait-minute/2009/07/10/coming-carbon-bubble?page=full" target="_blank">post</a> on Slate’s “The Big Money” website that points out what it believes to be a hidden secret about the recently passed (in the House) climate bill. It is a well-thought-out piece, and it makes many good point — though I think it requires some discussion. To recap, the House bill establishes a cap and trade program for carbon emissions as a method to eventually limit CO2 emissions` to a level scientists tell us are environmentally sustainable.</p> <p>In general, a cap and trade system is the system preferred by economists. In an influential <a title="Environmental Economics: A Survey" href="http://www.jstor.org/pss/2727701" target="_blank">article</a> (JStor access required) in the Journal of Economic Literature, Maureen Cropper and Wallace Oates cover cap and trade systems in their original form, which were SO2 permits. Quickly, let us review how the cap and trade system works (I have detailed the system in <a title="Cap and Trade Permits" href="http://pubpolicy.com/2006/08/02/tradable-permits-how-to-save-the-world/" target="_self">this post</a>). We start from the premise that there is some lesser amount of emissions that we want reach. There are lots of ways to arrive at this amount, we could tax the pollution, we could give ownership of the air to somebody that would charge polluters, or we could simply state –by law — that polluters can only emit so much junk into the air.</p> </blockquote> <p><br/><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/2009/07/13/trade-carbon-markets/">Cap and Trade Carbon Markets</a></p> <div class="addtoany_share_save_container"><ul class="addtoany_list"><li><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=&linkname="><img src="http://pubpolicy.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Save/Bookmark"/></a></li></ul></div><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span></span></li></ul></div> Charles on "Papal Encyclical: Pope Benedict and the Economy" http://thepolicyforums.com/topic/papal-encyclical-pope-benedict-and-the-economy#post-6 Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:26:06 +0000 Charles 6@http://thepolicyforums.com/ <blockquote><div class="wp-caption alignright" style="width: 133px"><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/images/benedict.jpg"><img style="margin: 8px;" src="http://pubpolicy.com/images/benedict.jpg" alt="" width="123" height="164" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Benedict XVI</p></div> <p>Pope Benedict XVI has issued a Papal <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html" target="_blank">encyclical </a>that gives the Vatican’s stance on the need to rethink the world economy. The Pope is critical of markets and calls for an international organization to regulate markets world-wide. Why exactly the Pope is weighing in on economic issues is a bit beyond me. Part of it may have to do with the fact that the Vatican is a country too, and the Pope is essentially its elected king. Heads of state have more business opining on global economics than heads of religion.</p> <p>Another reason is the title of the encyclical, which translates to “Charity in Truth.” Charity is more the purview of the Roman Catholic church, and in the encyclical, the Pope calls for debt forgiveness to poor nations and greater social responsibility on the part of business.</p> <p>One funny note, is that, apparently, the Vatican is having a difficult time translating the 144-page document into Latin, from the original German in which it was written.</p></blockquote> <p><br/><a href="http://pubpolicy.com/2009/07/08/papal-encyclical-pope-benedict-and-the-economy/">Papal Encyclical: Pope Benedict and the Economy</a></p> <div class="addtoany_share_save_container"><ul class="addtoany_list"><li><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=&linkname="><img src="http://pubpolicy.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Save/Bookmark"/></a></li></ul></div><div class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo">User information<ul><li><span class="wpbb_anonymous_userinfo_key">Author</span>: <span></span></li></ul></div>