Category: Economics

Brazilians See Government as a Father Who Should Hand Out Subsidies to His Favorites

(p. 9) . . . “Brazillionaires” offers more than a flat collection of billionaire tales. Cuadros shrewdly presents his collage of immense wealth against an underlying background of corruption. There are kickbacks for government contracts. There are gigantic taxpayer subsidies: In 2009 alone, the state-run development bank, BNDES, lent out $76 billion, “more than the World Bank lent out in the entire world.” And of course there are lavish campaign contributions, attached to the inevitable quid pro quos. JBS, which leveraged government loans to become the largest meatpacking company in the world, spent $180 million on the 2014 elections alone. “If every politician who had received JBS money formed a party,” Cuadros writes, “it would be the largest in Congress.”
In his telling, Brazilians seem to embrace the cozy relationship between business and government as a source of pride rather than a risk for conflicts of interest. In one passage, Cuadros underscores the contrast between Adam Smith and the 19th-century Brazilian thinker José da Silva Lisboa, viscount of Cairu. Lisboa’s “Principios de Economía Politica” was meant to be an adaptation of Smith’s “Wealth of Nations.” But rather than present a paean to the invisible hand of the market, the viscount offered a rather paternalistic view of economic progress.
“The sovereign of each nation must be considered the chief or head of a vast family,” he wrote, “and thus care for all those therein like his children, cooperating for the greater good.” Swap “government” for “sovereign” and the passage still serves as an accurate guide to the Brazilian development strategy. It’s just that some children — the Marinhos, the Camargos — are cared for better than ­others.
. . .
It would be wrong, . . . , to understand Brazil’s plutocracy as the product of some unique outcrop of corruption. The hold on political power by the rich is hardly an exclusive feature of Brazil. ­Latin America has suffered for generations from the collusion between government and business. Where I grew up, in Mexico, it is the norm.

For the full review, see:
EDUARDO PORTER. “Real Rich.” The New York Times Book Review (Sun., JULY 24, 2016): 9.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date JULY 22, 2016, and has the title “Watching Brazil’s Rich: A Full-Time Job.”)

The book under review, is:
Cuadros, Alex. Brazillionaires: Wealth, Power, Decadence, and Hope in an American Country. New York: Spiegel & Grau, 2016.

Certificate-of-Need Regulations Protect Incumbents and Hurt Consumers

(p. A11) An important but overlooked debate is unfolding in several states: When governments restrict market forces in health care, who benefits? Legislative majorities in 36 states believe that consumers benefit, because restrictions help control health-care costs. But new research confirms what should be common sense: Preventing qualified health-care providers from freely plying their trade results in less access to care.
Most states enforce market restrictions through certificate-of-need programs, which mandate a lengthy, expensive application process before a health-care provider can open or expand a facility. The story goes: If hospitals or physicians could choose what services to provide, competition for patients would force providers to overinvest in equipment such as MRI machines–and the cost could be passed on to patients through higher medical bills.
. . .
These restrictions have largely failed to reduce costs, but they certainly reduce services. A 2011 study in the Journal of Health Care Finance found that certificate-of-need laws resulted in 48% fewer hospitals and 12% fewer hospital beds.

For the full commentary, see:
THOMAS STRATMANN and MATTHEW BAKER. “Certifiably Needless Health-Care Meddling.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., Jan. 12, 2016): A11.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Jan. 11, 2016.)

The “new research” mentioned by Stratman in the passage quoted above, is:
Stratmann, Thomas, and Matthew C. Baker. “Are Certificate-of-Need Laws Barriers to Entry?: How They Affect Access to MRI, CT, and Pet Scans.” Mercatus Working Paper, Jan. 2016.

Technology Platforms Will Create Decades of Gales of Creative Destruction

(p. A11) For traditional businesses, economies of scale are the key to competitive advantage: Larger firms have lower average costs. In the digital economy, network effects matter most. In “Matchmakers” (Harvard Business Review, 260 pages, $35), David S. Evans (a consultant) and Richard Schmalensee (a professor of management) highlight two particular forms.
Direct network effects occur when additional users make a service more valuable for everyone. If one’s colleagues are all on, say, LinkedIn, it will be hard for another professional network to exert a strong appeal. Without the critical mass of LinkedIn, the alternative will have less utility even if its features are better. Indirect network effects arise from positive feedback loops between opposing sides of a market. The value of Rightmove, for instance, the leading online real-estate site in Britain, comes from a matching function: Since each home is unique, buyers prefer the site with the most properties, and real-estate agents favor the site with the most buyers. This virtuous cycle magnifies Rightmove’s advantage even though participants on each side of the market compete with one another: More buyers increase competition for the same homes, and agents compete for buyers.
. . .
“Matchmakers” is . . . measured and analytical . . . . The authors fairly conclude that, while the telegraph was “a far more important multisided platform” than anything produced so far by the Internet, platforms are “behind the gales of creative destruction that . . . will sweep industries for decades to come.”

For the full review, see:

JEREMY G. PHILIPS. “Why Facebook’s Imitators Failed; If one’s coworkers are all on the same platform, any alternative will have less utility–even if its features are better.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., May 19, 2016): A11.
(Note: the ellipsis between paragraphs, and the first two in the final quoted paragraph, are added; the third ellipsis in the final paragraph is in the original.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date May 18, 2016.)

The book under review, is:
Evans, David S., and Richard Schmalensee. Matchmakers: The New Economics of Multisided Platforms. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2016.

Taylor Swift Defends Intellectual Property Rights

(p. A11) In battles against tech titans, Chinese e-commerce swindlers and others, Ms. Swift has repeatedly insisted on being paid for her music and brand–and in the process has taught some valuable lessons in basic economics.
. . .
Last year she picked a fight with Apple after the company announced plans to launch its Apple Music streaming service with a three-month trial period during which users wouldn’t pay subscription fees and Apple wouldn’t pay royalties for the songs streamed.
. . .
Ms. Swift had less luck trying to get the Spotify streaming service to restrict her songs to paying customers, so in 2014 she pulled her catalog from the platform entirely. Her manager said Spotify’s royalty payments are miserly compared with regular album revenues: “Don’t forget this is for the most successful artist in music today. What about the rest of the artists out there struggling to make a career?”
Ms. Swift’s most ambitious crusade may be in China, where she has launched branded clothing lines with special antipiracy mechanisms to combat rampant counterfeiting on e-commerce sites like Alibaba’s Taobao. Said one of the branding executives leading the effort: “It’s time for Chinese companies to say, ‘We don’t want to be known for piracy anymore.’ ” Good luck with that.

For the full commentary, see:

DAVID FEITH. “In Support of Taylor Swift, Economist.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., July 21, 2016): A11.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date July 20, 2016.)

Based on Cost and Fairness, 76.9% of Swiss Voters Say “No” to Taxpayer-Paid Minimum Income for All

(p. C6) ZURICH–Swiss voters on Sunday overwhelmingly rejected a controversial initiative that would have guaranteed all Swiss residents a minimum income on which to live.
The Basic Income Initiative received just 23.1% of the vote in Sunday’s referendum, compared with 76.9% against. . . .
Rather, the significance of Sunday’s vote–which the plan’s backers ensured by collecting the necessary 100,000 signatures–was that it gave a high-profile airing to an idea that has gained traction among economists in Europe and the U.S. in recent years.
Though the monthly amount wasn’t spelled out, it was expected to have been around 2,500 Swiss francs ($2,560) per adult, with a smaller subsidy for children, without regard to employment, education, disability, age or even wealth.
. . .
Opponents, . . . , latched on to two critiques: cost and fairness.

For the full story, see:
BRIAN BLACKSTONE. “Switzerland Votes to Reject Basic Income Initiative.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., June 6, 2016): C6.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 5, 2016.)

Obama and Koch Brothers Agree Occupational Licensing Restricts Opportunity

GranatelliGraceCanineMassageTherapist2016-07-11.jpg“Grace Granatelli, a certified canine massage therapist. In 2013, Arizona’s Veterinary Medical Examining Board demanded that she close up shop for medically treating animals without a veterinary degree.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. B1) SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — “I usually start behind the neck,” Grace Granatelli said from her plump brown sofa. “There’s two pressure points back behind the ears that help relax them a little bit.” In her lap, she held the head of Sketch, her mixed beagle rat terrier, as her fingers traced small circles through his fur.

Ms. Granatelli, whose passion for dogs can be glimpsed in the oil portrait of her deceased pets and the bronzed casts of their paws, started an animal massage business during the recession after taking several courses and workshops. Her primary form of advertising was her car, with its “K9 RUBS” license plate and her website, Pawsitive Touch, stenciled onto her rear window.
But in 2013, Arizona’s Veterinary Medical Examining Board sent her a cease-and-desist order, demanding that she close up shop for medically treating animals without a veterinary degree. If not, the board warned, every Swedish doggy massage she completed could cost her a $1,000 fine.
To comply with the ruling and obtain a license, Ms. Granatelli would have to spend about $250,000 over four years at an accredited veterinary school. None require courses in massage technique; many don’t even offer one.
. . .
(p. B5) The Obama administration and the conservative political network financed by the Koch brothers don’t agree on much, but the belief that the zeal among states for licensing all sorts of occupations has spiraled out of control is one of them. In recent months, they have collaborated with an array of like-minded organizations and political leaders in a bid to roll back licensing rules.
. . .
. . . the current mishmash of requirements is too often “inconsistent, inefficient, and arbitrary,” a White House report concluded last year. Many of them, the report said, have little purpose other than to protect those already in the field from further competition.
. . .
Only rarely are licensing requirements removed. Last month, though, Arizona agreed to curb them for yoga teachers, geologists, citrus fruit packers and cremationists.
But dozens more professions escaped the ax. “Arizona is perceived as a low-regulatory state, but this was the most difficult bill we worked on this session,” said Daniel Scarpinato, a spokesman for the Republican governor, Douglas Ducey.
Licensing boards are generally dominated by members of the regulated profession. And in Arizona, more than two dozen of the boards are allowed to keep 90 percent of their fees, turning over a mere 10 percent of the revenue to the state.
“They use that money to hire contract lobbyists and P.R. people,” Mr. Scarpinato said. “This is really a dark corner of state government.”
They are often joined in their campaign by lobbyists from industry trade associations and for-profit colleges, which sell the required training courses.

For the full story, see:
PATRICIA COHEN. “Horse Rub? Where’s Your License?” The New York Times (Sat., JUNE 18, 2016): B1 & B5.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date JUNE 17, 2016, and has the title “Moving to Arizona Soon? You Might Need a License.”)

The White House report mentioned above, is:
The White House. “Occupational Licensing: A Framework for Policy Makers.” July 2015.

$10,000 Universal Income Would Reduce Work and Cost Taxpayers Trillions

(p. B4) This month [June 2016], Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute will publish an updated version of his plan to replace welfare as we know it with a dollop of $10,000 in after-tax income for every American above the age of 21.
. . .
Its first hurdle is arithmetic. As Robert Greenstein of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put it, a check of $10,000 to each of 300 million Americans would cost more than $3 trillion a year.
Where would that money come from? It amounts to nearly all the tax revenue collected by the federal government. Nothing in the history of this country suggests Americans are ready to add that kind of burden to their current taxes. Cut it by half to $5,000?
. . .
As Lawrence H. Summers, the former Treasury secretary and onetime top economic adviser to President Obama, told me, paying a $5,000 universal basic income to the 250 million nonpoor Americans would cost about $1.25 trillion a year. . . .
The popularity of the universal basic income stems from a fanciful diagnosis born in Silicon Valley of the challenges faced by the working class across industrialized nations: one that sees declining employment rates and stagnant wages and concludes that robots are about to take over all the jobs in the world.
. . .
Work, as Lawrence Katz of Harvard once pointed out, is not just what people do for a living. It is a source of status. It organizes people’s lives. It offers an opportunity for progress. None of this can be replaced by a check.
A universal basic income has many undesirable features, starting with its non-negligible disincentive to work. Almost a quarter of American households make less than $25,000. It would be hardly surprising if a $10,000 check each for mom and dad sapped their desire to work.
. . .
As Mr. Summers told a gathering last week at the Brookings Institution, “a universal basic income is one of those ideas that the longer you look at it, the less enthusiastic you become.”

For the full commentary, see:
Porter, Eduardo. “ECONOMIC SCENE; Plan to End Poverty Is Wide of the Target.” The New York Times (Weds., June 1, 2016): B1 & B4.
(Note: ellipses, and bracketed date, added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date MAY 31, 2016, and has the title “ECONOMIC SCENE; A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty.”)

The Role of Steve Jobs in the Creation of Pixar

(p. B4) . . . [a] book that isn’t out yet (until November [2016]): “To Pixar and Beyond: My Unlikely Journey with Steve Jobs to Make Entertainment History” by Lawrence Levy, the former chief financial officer of Pixar. What a delightful book about the creation of Pixar from the inside. I learned more about Mr. Jobs, Pixar and business in Silicon Valley than I have in quite some time. And like a good Pixar film, it’ll put a smile on your face.

For the full commentary, see:
Sorkin, Andrew Ross. “DEALBOOK; Tell-Alls, Strategic Plans and Cautionary Tales.” The New York Times (Tues., JULY 5, 2016): B1 & B4.
(Note: ellipsis, and bracketed word and year, added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date JULY 4, 2016, and has the title “DEALBOOK; A Reading List of Tell-Alls, Strategic Plans and Cautionary Tales in Finance.”)

The book praised by Sorkin in the passage quoted above, is:
Levy, Lawrence. To Pixar and Beyond: My Unlikely Journey with Steve Jobs to Make Entertainment History. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2016.

Bourgeois Ideology Caused the Great Enrichment

(p. A13) What accounts for the wealth and prosperity of the developed nations of the world? How did we get so rich, and how might others join the fold?
Deirdre McCloskey, a distinguished economist and historian, has a clarion answer: ideas. It was ideas, she insists–about commerce, innovation and the virtues that support them–that account for the “Great Enrichment” that has transformed much of the world since 1800.
. . .
. . . , this monumental achievement was caused by a change in values, Ms. McCloskey says–the rise of what she calls, in a mocking nod to Marx, a “bourgeois ideology.” It was far from an apology for greed, however. Anglo-Dutch in origin, the new ideology presented a deeply moral vision of the world that vaunted the value of work and innovation, earthly happiness and prosperity, and the liberty, dignity and equality of ordinary people. Preaching tolerance of difference and respect for the individual, it applauded those who sought to improve their lives (and the lives of others) through material betterment, scientific and technological inquiry, self-improvement, and honest work. Suspicious of hierarchy and stasis, proponents of bourgeois values attacked monopoly and privilege and extolled free trade and free lives while setting great store by prudence, enterprise, decency and hope.

For the full review, see:
DARRIN M. MCMAHON. “BOOKSHELF; The Morality of Prosperity; Grinding poverty was the norm for humanity until 1800. It changed with the rise of values like tolerance and respect for individual liberty.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., June 13, 2016): A13.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date June 12, 2016.)

The book under review, is:
McCloskey, Deirdre N. Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital, Transformed the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016.

Government Land Use Regulations Increase Income Inequality

(p. A1) . . . a growing body of economic literature suggests that anti-growth sentiment, when multiplied across countless unheralded local development battles, is a major factor in creating a stagnant and less equal American economy.
It has even to some extent changed how Americans of different incomes view opportunity. Unlike past decades, when people of different socioeconomic backgrounds tended to move to similar areas, today, less-skilled workers often go where jobs are scarcer but housing is cheap, instead of heading to places with the most promising job opportunities, according to research by Daniel Shoag, a professor of public policy at Harvard, and Peter Ganong, (p. B2 [sic]) also of Harvard.
. . .
“To most people, zoning and land-use regulations might conjure up little more than images of late-night City Council meetings full of gadflies and minutiae. But these laws go a long way toward determining some fundamental aspects of life: what American neighborhoods look like, who gets to live where and what schools their children attend.
And when zoning laws get out of hand, economists say, the damage to the American economy and society can be profound. Studies have shown that laws aimed at things like “maintaining neighborhood character” or limiting how many unrelated people can live together in the same house contribute to racial segregation and deeper class disparities. They also exacerbate inequality by restricting the housing supply in places where demand is greatest.
The lost opportunities for development may theoretically reduce the output of the United States economy by as much as $1.5 trillion a year, according to estimates in a recent paper by the economists Chang-Tai Hsieh and Enrico Moretti. Regardless of the actual gains in dollars that could be achieved if zoning laws were significantly cut back, the research on land-use restrictions highlights some of the consequences of giving local communities too much control over who is allowed to live there.
“You don’t want rules made entirely for people that have something, at the expense of people who don’t,” said Jason Furman, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

For the full story, see:
CONOR DOUGHERTY. “When Cities Spurn Growth, Equality Suffers.” The New York Times (Mon., July 4, 2016): A1 & B2 [sic].
(Note: the online version of the story has the date July 3, 2016, and has the title “How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality.”)

The paper mentioned above by Ganong and Shoag, is:
Ganong, Peter, and Daniel Shoag. “Why Has Regional Income Convergence in the U.S. Declined?” Working Paper, Jan. 2015.

The paper mentioned above by Hsieh and Moretti, is:
Hsieh, Chang-Tai, and Enrico Moretti. “Why Do Cities Matter? Local Growth and Aggregate Growth.” National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper # 21154, May 2015.