Government – Page 123 – artdiamondblog.com

An Unintended Use of Shipping Containers

Source of top image: online version of NYT article cited below. Source of bottom image: http://www.2odessa.com/wiki/index.php?title=Seventh-Kilometer_Bazaar

SEVENTH-KILOMETER MARKET, Ukraine, May 16 – Most of the shops here on the airport road outside Odessa are neither buildings nor stalls. They are shipping containers, stacked two high in rows long enough to be called streets, though these are little more than overcrowded alleys.

From their steel gates spills a consumer abundance of inexpensive clothes, shoes and toys, kitchenware, hardware and software, cosmetics, sporting goods and various sundries — virtually everything, in short, in a part of the world that not long ago was used to getting by with virtually nothing.

. . .

”They were growing wheat here when I came,” said Aleksandr Sedov, who once programmed computers for the Soviet space program and now sells, mostly, suspenders and women’s blouses. ”Now this place is called the field of wonders.”

It was also a dump and a garbage incinerator — paved over and torn down, respectively — when the last Soviet city fathers of Odessa expelled the pioneers in a previously unknown free market from the city, banishing them to a 10-acre spot seven kilometers, or about four miles, from the city’s limits, hence the name. That was in 1989, as the Soviet Union itself was unraveling, and what has since emerged is Europe’s most extraordinary and, some say, largest market.

For the full story, see:

Steven Lee Myers. "Seventh-Kilometer Market Journal: From Soviet-Era Flea Market to a Giant Makeshift Mall." The New York Times (Fri., May 19, 2006): A4.

Illegal Immigration Reduces Wages for High School Dropouts by Only 3.6%

Source of graphic: online version of the NYT article cited below.

As Congress debates an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws, several economists and news media pundits have sounded the alarm, contending that illegal immigrants are causing harm to Americans in the competition for jobs.

Yet a more careful examination of the economic data suggests that the argument is, at the very least, overstated. There is scant evidence that illegal immigrants have caused any significant damage to the wages of American workers.

The number that has been getting the most attention lately was produced by George J. Borjas and Lawrence F. Katz, two Harvard economists, in a paper published last year. They estimated that the wave of illegal Mexican immigrants who arrived from 1980 to 2000 had reduced the wages of high school dropouts in the United States by 8.2 percent. But the economists acknowledge that the number does not consider other economic forces, such as the fact that certain businesses would not exist in the United States without cheap immigrant labor. If it had accounted for such things, immigration’s impact would be likely to look less than half as big.

. . .

. . . , as businesses and other economic agents have adjusted to immigration, they have made changes that have muted much of immigration’s impact on American workers.

For instance, the availability of foreign workers at low wages in the Nebraska poultry industry made companies realize that they had the personnel to expand. So they invested in new equipment, generating jobs that would not otherwise be there. In California’s strawberry patches, illegal immigrants are not competing against native workers; they are competing against pickers in Michoacán, Mexico. If the immigrant pickers did not come north across the border, the strawberries would.

"Immigrants come in and the industries that use this type of labor grow," said David Card, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley. "Taking all into account, the effects of immigration are much, much lower."

In a study published last year that compared cities that have lots of less educated immigrants with cities that have very few, Mr. Card found no wage differences that could be attributed to the presence of immigrants.

. . .

When Mr. Borjas and Mr. Katz assumed that businesses reacted to the extra workers with a corresponding increase in investment — as has happened in Nebraska — their estimate of the decline in wages of high school dropouts attributed to illegal immigrants was shaved to 4.8 percent. And they have since downgraded that number, acknowledging that the original analysis used some statistically flimsy data.

Assuming a jump in capital investment, they found that the surge in illegal immigration reduced the wages of high school dropouts by just 3.6 percent.

For the full commentary, see:

EDUARDO PORTER. "ECONOMIC VIEW; Cost of Illegal Immigration May Be Less Than Meets the Eye." The New York Times, Section 3 (Sunday, April 16, 2006): 3.

In China Too, Special Interest Groups Lobby Against Free Markets

Source of graphic: online version of WSJ article cited below.

(p. A1) BEIJING — When Chinese President Hu Jintao visits the U.S. in mid-April, he is sure to field tough questions about Beijing’s trade and economic policies amid a wave of rising protectionism. But he also is grappling with a similar backlash at home.

Amid one of the longest and fastest growth streaks of any modern economy, China is wrestling with concerns from a rising wealth gap to corruption to environmental damage. But the latest uproar has turned on foreigners, targeting the many outside investors that have piled into China and prospered — even while fueling much of the country’s growth.

. . .

(p. A8) In some ways, the 63-year-old Mr. Hu faces a more complex situation than his predecessors, as China becomes more like the U.S., with greater tolerance of dissenting views and organized interest groups. Resistance to some market-oriented changes is mostly driven by special interests such as disenfranchised farmers, private businessmen and ministries trying to hold on to their powers. At the national legislature’s March meeting, lobbying by interest groups picked up markedly.

For the full story, see:

KATHY CHEN. "Amid Tension With U.S., China Faces Protectionist Surge at Home." The Wall Street Journal (Fri., March 31, 2006): A1 & A8.

Precariousness: In France it is Sought and it is Feared

Coombs and VanderHam on the April 3, 2006 extreme ski run, in which they both died. Source of caption information, and of photo: online version of the first NYT article cited below.

Some seem to seek risk:

(p. A1) ”La Grave goes from tranquil to frightening and mad, and it’s so exhilarating to be in those moods,” Mrs. Coombs said in a telephone interview last week. Her husband, she said, ”never found anything more perfect.”

Last month, Mr. Coombs slipped off a cliff and fell 490 feet to his death. He was 48. He was trying to rescue Chad VanderHam, his 31-year-old protégé and skiing partner from the United States. Mr. VanderHam had gone over the same cliff moments earlier. He also died.

Their accident, during a recreational outing, has focused attention on extreme skiing and on this remote destination, high in the Alps about 50 miles east of Grenoble.

For the full story, see:

NATHANIEL VINTON. "Skiing Beyond Safety’s Edge Once Too Often." The New York Times (Wednesday, May 17, 2006): A1 & C23.

Others seem to fear risk:

PARIS, April 8 – Standing amid the chaos of the protests here this week, Omar Sylla, 22, tried to explain why the French are so angry about what seems to many people like such a small thing: the French government’s attempt to loosen labor laws a bit by allowing employers the right to fire young workers without cause during a trial period on the job.

Even after President Jacques Chirac promised to shorten the period to one year from two, the protests continued, and French students and unions have vowed to keep demonstrating until the law is repealed.

”We need less precariousness, not more,” said Mr. Sylla, the son of immigrants from Ivory Coast, who still lives with his parents in a government-subsidized apartment in a working-class suburb of Paris.

Mr. Sylla said he had searched for years for a job before finding work about a month ago as a baggage handler at Charles de Gaulle International Airport. Even then, he said, he only got the job because his sister works at the airport and pulled strings on his behalf.

For the full story, see:

CRAIG S. SMITH. "French Unrest Reflects Old Faith in Quasi-Socialist Ideals." The New York Times, Section 1 (Sunday, April 9, 2006): 8.

Economists have long puzzled at how the same person can both buy insurance and gamble in a casino. The first seems an act of risk-aversion, and the second of risk-seeking. (Milton Friedman, and others, have tried to explain the paradox.)

But I am puzzled by something else. When risks are taken, why are they so often taken in arenas such as rioting in the streets, or extreme skiing, where they achieve no noble purpose? Whatever risks one is going to take, why not take them in the arena of innovation and entrepreneurship, where the potential benefits to the innovator and to human progress, are huge?

Economic Efficiency Arguments Mattered in Clearing Whirlpool to Acquire Maytag

A few weeks ago, the Justice Department cleared Whirlpool’s $1.7 billion acquisition of Maytag even though the new entity would have a dominating share of the marketplace, controlling about three-quarters of the market for some home appliances.

The department justified its decision by a combination of evidence and law. That included confidential commercial information that the department says it cannot make public; a very broad definition of the marketplace to include foreign companies, some of which have yet to make a bigger push in the United States; and an expansive reading of the economic efficiency defense for permitting such deals.

The decision demoralized the career ranks of the antitrust division at the Justice Department, officials there have said. And it left private antitrust practitioners in Washington wondering whether, in light of the decision and the flurry of corporate dealers, there are could really be any mergers that this administration would challenge.

For the full commentary, see:

Stephen Labaton. "STREET SCENE: LEGAL BEAT; New View of Antitrust Law: See No Evil, Hear No Evil." The New York Times (Friday, May 5, 2006): C5.

Virginia Senator George Allen has “a libertarian sense”

Virginia Senator George F. Allen. Source of photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:George_Allen_official_portrait.jpg

Mr. Allen says he has "a libertarian sense." He describes himself as more in sync with Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan than with George Bush. "I’m one who dislikes limits. I don’t like restrictions. I like freedom. I like liberty. Unless you’re harming someone else, you leave people free."

For the full interview, see:

FRED BARNES. "THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW with George Allen; The Virginian." The Wall Street Journal (Sat., April 22, 2006): A8.

An Inconvenient Truth About “An Inconvenient Truth”

Al Gore. Source of photo: http://in.news.yahoo.com/051008/137/60gzj.html

(p. A25) If Al Gore’s new movie weren’t titled ”An Inconvenient Truth,” I wouldn’t have quite so many problems with it.

. . .

Gore shows the obligatory pictures of windmills and other alternative sources of energy. But he ignores nuclear power plants, which don’t spew carbon dioxide and currently produce far more electricity than all ecologically fashionable sources combined.

A few environmentalists, like Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, have recognized that their movement is making a mistake in continuing to demonize nuclear power. Balanced against the risks of global warming, nukes suddenly look good — or at least deserve to be considered rationally. Gore had a rare chance to reshape the debate, because a documentary about global warming attracts just the sort of person who marches in anti-nuke demonstrations.

Gore could have dared, once he enticed the faithful into the theater, to challenge them with an inconvenient truth or two. But that would have been a different movie.

For the full commentary, see:

JOHN TIERNEY. "Gore Pulls His Punches." The New York Times (Tuesday, May 23, 2006): A25.

Prices Can Be Lower When Few Firms in Industry

Alex Tabarrok. Source of image: http://www.gmu.edu/centers/publicchoice/faculty.html

Price gouging can work only if firms have monopoly power — so if gouging is the explanation for higher premiums, we would expect to see higher premiums in states with less competition. My student, Amanda Agan, and I tested this hypothesis in a study released two days ago by the Manhattan Institute. Contrary to the gouging hypothesis, we found that a 10% increase in industry concentration reduces premiums by $2,200. The result makes sense if we remember that, to increase market share, firms don’t raise prices but rather lower them. Wal-Mart has grown into the nation’s dominant retailer by lowering prices, not raising them.

For the full commentary, see:

ALEX TABARROK. "Rule of Law; Price Gouging Is Bad Medicine." The Wall Street Journal (Sat., May 20, 2006): A9.

We Should Reward Those Who Take Risks to Produce What We Need

On the Democratic and Republican-in-Name-Only side, we have the idea of "windfall profits taxes" on energy companies. These would presumably mandate a desirable level of corporate profits in one sector on which we depend. (And how long do you think it would apply to only one industry?) If profits exceeded that level, they would be taxed.

As far as I can tell, there is no plan to give a rebate to the companies if their profits have fallen below that desired level.

In other words, the plan is to send this message to energy-company investors, including retirees and pension funds: "Yes, we are in a situation of oil and gas shortage. Yes, we want you to risk billions of dollars exploring for and producing and refining oil and processing gas. But if you succeed for any reason, and even if no price-fixing is found, we will punish you for it."

This is what I would call confusion. You usually get more of something by rewarding people for doing it or producing it, not by punishing them for doing it or producing it.

Yes, the human instinct of envy demands that we get some licks in against people who are doing well, even if we are doing only slightly less well ourselves. But economies built on the politics of envy are rarely successful. Ask the Cambodians or the Chinese or the Russians before they went capitalist.

For the full commentary, see:

BEN STEIN. "Everybody’s Business; A Quick Course in the Economics of Confusion." The New York Times (Sun., May 28, 2006):

“My Merit Is My Caste; What Is Yours?”

NEW DELHI, May 22 — The problem of caste prejudice here is as ancient as the Hindu texts. The efforts to redress it date from the formation of modern India nearly 59 years ago. Today — as India enjoys awesome rates of economic progress and confronts the challenge of spreading the benefits to its needy majority — the nation faces a polarizing totem of public policy: a government plan to extend college admission quotas to certain "backward" castes.

Affirmative action is in some ways an even more emotional issue in India than in the United States. In recent weeks, a proposal to extend quotas for admission to some of the country’s flagship, federally financed universities has caused fresh turmoil.

Protests — particularly by medical students who say merit should be the only basis for admission to India’s intensely competitive medical schools — have spread across the country and, here in the capital, hobbled public health services. Advocates and opponents of the measure have exchanged often ugly rants.

. . .

Medical students have been particularly outraged because the plan would further restrict the limited number of seats. Medical education in India begins with a five-year undergraduate program, and the proposal could affect students’ chances of completing their training.

The central lawn of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, the pre-eminent public hospital, was occupied Friday by medical students on the fifth day of a strike that began last week and continued on Monday. "My merit is my caste. What is yours?" read one T-shirt.

. . .

The opponents say set-asides would diminish the quality of India’s best universities and divide students along caste lines.

"Why after 55 years are we still thinking in terms of caste-based reservation?" demanded Poojan Aggarwal, a third-year student at Safdarjung Medical College here. "We should talk now of total meritocracy. We know on this issue none of the political parties will support us."

For the full story, see:

SOMINI SENGUPTA. "Quotas to Aid India’s Poor vs. Push for Meritocracy." The New York Times (Tues., May 23, 2006): A3.

(Note: ellipses added.)