Category: Free Markets

The Market Rewards the Unprejudiced

 

  Source of book cover image: Amazon.com.

 

In his doctoral disseratation on the economics of discrimination, Gary Becker argued that those who discriminate in the labor market pay a price for their prejudice in the form of having to pay higher wages. Those who do not discriminate have open to them an additional pool of workers, whose talents will contribute to the firm’s bottom line. GE’s Jack Welch recounts a story that supports Becker’s claims:

 

(p. 212) Another idea I’ll leave behind is one that developed when I was visiting Japan in the fall of 2000. I had been going there for years and found it difficult to get the best male Japanese graduates (p. 213) to join us. We were having increasing success, but still had a long way to go. Finally, it dawned on me. One of our best opportunities to differentiate GE from Japanese companies was to focus on women. Women were not the preferred hires for Japanese companies, and few had progressed far in their organizations. Again, I got revved up. Fortunately, we had Anne Abaya, an ideal Japanese-speaking U.S. woman in a senior position at GE Capital. She agreed to go to Tokyo to become head of human resources for GE Japan. I gave her a million dollars for an advertising campaign to position GE as "the employer of choice for women. What I didn’t know was how much talent we already had in place. In May 2001, when Jeff and I were on a Japanese business trip, we had a private dinner with 14 of our high-potential women. They ranged from CFO of GE Plastics Japan, general manager of sales and marketing of GE Medical Systems Japan, marketing director of GE Consumer Finance Japan, to the heads of human resources for GE-Toshiba Silicones and GE Medical Systems. Jeff and I had never been with a more impressive young crowd. It confirmed for me how big the opportunity could be.

 

Source:

Welch, Jack. Jack: Straight from the Gut. New York: Warner Business Books, 2001.

 

For the revised version of Becker’s dissertation, see:

Becker, Gary S. The Economics of Discrimination. 2nd Rev. ed., Economic Research Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.

 

Harry Browne Sought Freedom in an Unfree World


Source of book image: Amazon.com.
Harry Browne died Wednesday, on March 1, 2006, of Lou Gehrig’s disease.
Every semester I mention Browne to students in most of my classes. I tell them of his bestseller, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.
I have not read the book for many years. My memory is that Browne tells of how he was unhappy in a high-paying investment career because he did not like having to report to the job on set days, at set times, and to take orders he sometimes did not agree with, from bosses he did not always respect.
He did not feel free, and he he felt that being unfree was making him unhappy. So he quit, his job, divorced his wife, and headed west to write best-selling self-help books.
I tell my students that we don’t have to go as far as Browne did in order to sympathize with his wishing he was not constrained by the firm that had employed him. So I ask my students: given the appeal of Browne’s sentiments, why do we have firms? Why don’t we all just become independent contractors?
The answer, I tell them, is to be found in Ronald Coase’s article “The Theory of the Firm,” in which Coase suggests that firms reduce the transaction costs of team production activities.
I also mention, though, that developments in information technology and the internet, are reducing the transactions costs of creating production teams on a project-by-project basis, and hence are increasing the feasibility of more and more of us becoming independent contractors, or at least working for small firms.
In this regard, I refer them to an article co-authored by Brynjolfsson that argues that IT has differentailly benefitted the small firm, and I refer them to Daniel Pink’s Free Agent Nation. I also mention web sites like guru.com that make it possible for those who want to work as free-agents to find firms that want to hire them on a project-by-project basis. I tell them about the movie industry, that already pretty much assembles teams on a project-by-project basis.
The world may never be the way Harry Browne wanted it to be. But it may be possible to come closer to Browne’s vision, than Browne’s detractors imagined.
Besides his book Harry Browne served the cause of freedom in other ways as well, running for President in 1996 and 2000 on the Libertarian Party ticket.
I do not completely share Browne’s views: sometimes he seems to treat personal commitments too cavalierly. But he wrote well, he stimulated thought, and he sought to make the world a better place. Harry Browne, rest in peace.

Who Decides Treatment When Medicine is Socialized?

Ann Marie Rogers at High Court in London on Wed., Feb. 15, 2006. Image source: online version of NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A6) LONDON, Feb. 15 — When her local health service refused to treat her breast cancer with the drug Herceptin, 54-year-old Ann Marie Rogers sued. But on Wednesday, a High Court judge ruled against her.
In his decision the judge, David Bean, said that although he sympathized with Ms. Rogers’s predicament, the health service in Swindon, where she lives, had been justified in withholding the drug.
“The question for me is whether Swindon’s policy is irrational and thus unlawful,” Justice Bean wrote. “I cannot say it is.”
The ruling has potentially serious implications for patients across the taxpayer-financed National Health Service.
Despite health officials’ contention that decisions about treatment are based solely on clinical effectiveness, critics contend that with drugs growing ever more expensive, cost has become an increasingly important factor. They also say patients are at the mercy of the so-called postcode lottery, in which treatments are available in some postal zones but not others.

For the full story, see:
SARAH LYALL. “British Clinic Is Allowed to Deny Medicine; Decision on Cost Has Broad Impact.” The New York Times (Thurs., February 16, 2006): A6.

Protecting the “Dots”

Is it the free market, or big government, that is most likely to treat individual human beings as expendible “dots”?

One of the best conspiracy movies ever made is the perfect British classic, “The Third Man.” In the most haunting scene, the villain, played adroitly by Orson Welles, takes Joseph Cotten, the good guy, up in a Ferris wheel. The villain, named Harry Lime, has been selling adulterated penicillin in postwar Vienna, making a fortune and causing children to become paralyzed and die.
Mr. Cotten’s character, a pulp fiction writer named Holly Martins, asks him how he could do such an evil thing for money. The two men are at the top of the Ferris wheel, and the people below them look like tiny dots. Mr. Welles’s villain looks down and says, “Tell me, would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you £20,000 for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare?”

BEN STEIN. “Everybody’s Business; When You Fly in First Class, It’s Easy to Forget the Dots.” The New York Times, Section 3 (Sunday, January 29, 2006): 3.

Solow’s Wit (But Not Wisdom): Treat Schumpeter “Like a Patron Saint”


(p. 195) As Robert Solow wrote acidly in 1994, commenting on a series of papes on growth and imperfect competition, “Schumpeter is a sort of patron saint in this field. I may be alone in thinking that he should be treated like a patron saint: paraded around one day each year and more or less ignored the rest of the time.”
Schumpeter was a most unwelcome guest at the neoclassical table. Yet it was hard for the mainstream to reject him out of hand, since Schumpeter was such a celebrant of capitalism and entrepreneurship. He thought it a superb, energetic, turbulent system, one that led to material betterment over time. He hoped it would triumph over socialism. He just didn’t believe it functioned in anything close to the way the Marshallians did, and he was appalled that economists could apply an essentially static model to something as profoundly dynamic as capitalism. Schumpeter wrote presciently, “Whereas a stationary feudal economy would still be a feudal economy, and a stationary socialist economy would still be a socialist economy, stationary capitalism is a contradiction in terms.” Its very essence, as the economic historian Nathan Rosenberg wrote, (p. 196) echoing Schumpeter, “lies not in equilibrating forces, but in the inevitable tendency to depart from equilibrium” every time an innovation occurs.



Source:
Kuttner, Robert. Everything for Sale: The Virtues and Limits of Markets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

“I would have fired me if I was him”

BuffettWarren.jpg
Warren Buffett. Source of image: online version of WSJ article cited below.
A couple of years ago, I think, in the mid-afternoon we went into a nearly deserted Dairy Queen near Dodge and 115th and walked by an old guy eating ice cream with a couple of others (I’m guessing his daughter and grandchild). I said to Jeanette and Jenny something like: if that guy wasn’t dressed so weirdly, I’d say he might be Warren Buffett. He was wearing some kind of overalls with the word WOODS printed in capitals on the back. Suddenly I remembered that I had seen in the paper that Buffett had caddied for Tiger Woods in some sort of celebrity tournament a few weeks earlier. We were tempted to ask for his autograph, but we let him eat his ice cream in peace.

(p. A1) He spends most of his day alone in an office with no computer. He makes swift investment decisions, steers clear of meetings and advisers, eschews set procedures and doesn’t require frequent reports from managers.
. . .
(p. A5A (sic)) Mr. Buffett tends to stick to investments for the long haul, even when the going gets bumpy. Mr. Sokol recalls bracing for an August 2004 meeting at which he planned to break the news to Mr. Buffett that the Iowa utility needed to write off about $360 million for a soured zinc project. Mr. Sokol says he was stunned by Mr. Buffett’s response: “David, we all make mistakes.” Their meeting lasted only 10 minutes.
“I would have fired me if I was him,” Mr. Sokol says.
“If you don’t make mistakes, you can’t make decisions,” Mr. Buffett says. “You can’t dwell on them.” Mr. Buffett notes that he has made “a lot bigger mistakes” himself than Mr. Sokol did.

For the full article, see:
SUSAN PULLIAM and KAREN RICHARDSON. “Warren Buffett, Unplugged; The hands-off billionaire shuns computers, leaves his managers alone, yet has notched huge returns. He just turned 75. Can anyone fill his shoes?” THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (Sat., November 12, 2005): A1 & A5A.

Source of graph: online version of WSJ article cited above.

French “regard the open economy with horror”

The French still regard the open economy with horror. A recent poll suggests that, while two-thirds of the population accepted that reform was necessary, they also wanted to keep the advantages of the present system — a short working week, early retirement for many, and almost invincible job protection. After years of assiduous propaganda, they believe that anything else will lead directly to the horrors of the United States: uninsured people dying of untreated diseases in the streets and, above all, riots.
The case of the state monopoly, EDF (Electricité de France) is instructive, and explains why any reform is so politically difficult. Employees of this vast organization work 32 hours per week; their meals are subsidized to the tune of 50%, their electricity and gas bills by 90%; they can retire at 55; they have the right to holidays at a fifth of their market value, and on average work the equivalent of eight months per year; and when their mother-in-law dies, they can take three days’ paid leave to celebrate. These are not all their privileges, only some; so it is hardly surprising that when the government proposed the privatization of EDF, they went on strike. (The government caved in.) They did so in the name of “the defense of public service” — and the French call the Anglo-Saxons hypocrites!
When a certain critical mass of such subsidy and special privilege for important sectors of the economy is reached, reform becomes impossible without explosion. The government has created an economic monster that it cannot tame, and that is now its master. In any case, periodic explosion has long been the means by which French society has undertaken major political and economic change. In the meantime, repression will become more necessary. For the moment, the banlieues are quiet: That is to say, only 100 cars a night are burned, and life elsewhere continues in its very pleasant way. But there is an underlying anxiety (the French take more tranquillizers than any other nation). No one believes that we have heard the last of les jeunes and of profound economic troubles. The last episode was but a very minor eruption of the social volcano. Every Frenchman believes that the question of a major eruption is not if, but when.

For the full commentary, see:
THEODORE DALRYMPLE. “An Update From France . . . (Remember Those Riots?).” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., February 11, 2006): A8.

Hayek Was Right: Free Speech is Fragile, When Property Can be Seized


For those who doubt the central message of Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, something to ponder:

 

(p. 351) The Sandinistas called coffee farmers who cooperated with them "patriotic producers." Anyone who questioned their politics or policies was labeled a capitalist parasite. Throughout most of the 1980s, any farms that did not produce sufficiently, or whose owners were too vocal, were confiscated by the government.

 

Source: 

Pendergrast, Mark. Uncommon Grounds: The History of Coffee and How It Transformed Our World. New York: Basic Books, 2000.


“Growing Recognition of Economic Costs” of Koyoto Protocol

Commentary on the Kyoto Protocol:

(p. 3) . . . the current stalemate is not just because of the inadequacies of the protocol. It is also a response to the world’s ballooning energy appetite, which, largely because of economic growth in China, has exceeded almost everyone’s expectations. And there are still no viable alternatives to fossil fuels, the main source of greenhouse gases.

Then, too, there is a growing recognition of the economic costs incurred by signing on to the Kyoto Protocol.

As Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, a proponent of emissions targets, said in a statement on Nov. 1: ”The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge.”

This is as true, in different ways, in developed nations with high unemployment, like Germany and France, as it is in Russia, which said last week that it may have spot energy shortages this winter.
. . .
The only real answer at the moment is still far out on the horizon: nonpolluting energy sources. But the amount of money being devoted to research and develop such technologies, much less install them, is nowhere near the scale of the problem, many experts on energy technology said.

Enormous investments in basic research have to be made promptly, even with the knowledge that most of the research is likely to fail, if there is to be any chance of creating options for the world’s vastly increased energy thirst in a few decades, said Richard G. Richels, an economist at the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit center for energy and environment research.

”The train is not leaving the station, and it needs to leave the station,” Mr. Richels said. ”If we don’t have the technologies available at that time, it’s going to be a mess.”

For the full commentary, see:
ANDREW C. REVKIN. “THE WORLD; On Climate Change, a Change of Thinking.” The New York Times, Section 4 (Sun., December 4, 2005): 3.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Coffee Cartel Quotas: “someone always cheated”

In his comprehensive history of coffee, Mark Pendergrast discusses efforts of the coffee-producing nations to raise the price of coffee in 1977:

 

(p. 332) Quota restrictions without consumer country participation never worked in the past, since someone always cheated.

 

Source:

Pendergrast, Mark. Uncommon Grounds: The History of Coffee and How It Transformed Our World. New York: Basic Books, 2000.