Today’s Quote of the Day…

…is found in a letter from Frederic Bastiat to Richard Cobden (leader of the Anti-Corn Law League) dated 8 April 1845.  The letter can be found on page 58 of the Liberty Fund’s collection of Bastiat’s correspondence, The Man and the Statesman (emphasis added):

Sir,

Since you have permitted me to write to you, I will reply to your kind letter dates 12th December last.  I have been discussing the printing of the translation [of Cobden’s speeches and pamphlets] I told you about with M. Guillaumin, a bookseller in Paris.

The book is entitled “Cobden and the League, or the Campiagn in England in Favor of Free Trade.”  I have taken the liberty of using your name for the following reasons: I could not entitle this work “The Anti-Corn Law League.”  Apart from the fact that this would have a barborous sound for French ears, it would have brought to mind a limited conception of the project. It would have presented the question as purely English, whereas it is a humanitarian one, the most notably so of all those which have brought campaigning to our century.

By presenting the issue of free trade as a humanitarian issue rather than a sectarian or nationalist issue, he demonstrates the universality of the principles of free trade.  Many opponents of free trade like to argue that free trade is conditional.  They may argue that free trade requires “transnational rule-making institutions.”  Or that trade only is good if one nation (ie the nation of the speaker) benefits.  Or that free trade needs to be “fair” (whatever that means).  But Bastiat makes no such prerequisites.  Bastiat and Cobden both argue that free trade is not an English concern, not a French concern, not an American concern, but a human concern.

The Anti-Corn Law League that Cobden was part of was founded in opposition to the Corn Laws, a series of mercantilist legislation that raised the price of food within Great Britain by restricting imports.  Given this legislation occurred at the same time as the Irish Potato Famine, the Corn Law, by artificially increasing scarcity of food, likely caused many deaths in Ireland from the famine.  The Corn Laws contributed to a humanitarian crisis.  We are seeing similar situations going on in Puerto Rico, where scarcity is increased because of the Jones Act, and Houston and Florida where scarcity is increased because of anti-price-gouging legislation.  Free trade is a humanitarian concern, not a sectarian concern.

In Stark Contrast

In booming economic times, the detrimental effects of policies like minimum wage, immigration restrictions, protectionism scarcityism, or socialism, can be hard to see.  The good growth outweighs the bad from the policies, obscuring their effects.  However, once times get tough, then the negative aspects of these policies stand in stark contrast.  By way of metaphor, imagine going downhill in a car.  Lightly applying the brakes won’t do much (depending on how steep the hill is, you may actually gain speed!).  However, if you are going uphill, even a light tap will have a large effect on the car.

Unfortunately, the obscurity generated by the good times can cause less careful thinkers to determine that there are no negative effects of the policies they want.  We see this quite often with protectionism.

We are now seeing the negative effects of protectionism and immigration restrictions here in the US following three major hurricanes that have hit in the past month: Harvey in Houston, Irma in Florida, and Maria in Puerto Rico.  In normal times, the detrimental effects of artificially high prices and artificially scarce resources tend not to be noticed.  Like the farmer who grows 100 acres of corn, and 1 acre is destroyed by parasites, it’s not too noticeable.  But if a disaster hits, and how only 10 acres can grow with 1 acre being destroyed, it’s very problematic.  When times are tough, and resources scarce, the market needs to work.  These artificial restrictions only make the scarcity worse.

Looking at disasters like Irma, Harvey, Maria, etc give us an excellent chance to test the claims of the scarcityists, that protectionism, minimum wage, and immigration restrictions grow the economy, not shrink it.  Given the tough time Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico have is recovering basic supplies, it’s hard to believe the claims of the scarcityists.  Abundance is wealth, not scarcity.

Models, Monopsony, and Minimum Wage

At Cafe Hayek, Don Boudreaux has an excellent post on models and their usefulness in economics.  Don’s gist is as follows:

Anyone can devise a model to show almost anything.  And economics is filled with widely referenced models that are useless (or worse than useless).  The Keynesian Cross comes to mind.  So, too, the textbook model of so-called “perfect competition” (which, in addition to being a model in which almost everything resembling real-world competition is either squeezed out or appears as a monopolizing (!) tactic, isn’t even logically coherent – for in the model no room exists for any agent actually to change prices).

The value of an economic model is found in its ability to make the world more understandable.  Devising a model is no evidence that the named concepts in the model have anything in reality to correspond to them, or that the model is a useful analytical tool.

I have made similar points in the past, noting that the results from models are, well, model-dependent.

In short, the mere fact that a model can show that some preferred policy will increase/decrease economic efficiency doesn’t mean said model is of any analytical use.  Sure, the minimum wage in a monopsony may improve the situation, but that information does us no good if the market is not a monopsony.

But let’s build upon this idea.  Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that a given market where a minimum wage is considered is indeed a monopsony.  As such, it is theoretically possible that minimum wage would be beneficial, that we would not see, over a given price range, a decline in employment.  The poor economist stops here.  He might even advocate for minimum wage at this point.  But, as Bastiat reminds us, the economist looks for not just the seen effects (ie, what the model says), but the unseen effects, too.  The good economist is prompted now to ask “is minimum wage the most cost-effective solution to the problem we are trying to address (in this case, low wages for workers)?”  Minimum wage may be an option here, but it may not be the most beneficial option!  There may be other options, other institutional arrangements, other agreements that can be reached that will create a better outcome!

Gordon Tullock and James Buchanan drive this point home in their 1962 book The Calculus of Consent.  The following is from page 61 of the Liberty Fund Edition of the book (original emphasis):

The most important implication that emerges from the [analytical] approach taken here [in this chapter] is the following: The existance of external effects of private behavior is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for an activity to be placed in the realm of collective choice.

While Tullock and Buchanan are discussing externalities here, we can easily generalize their comment to any form of collective action including minimum wage or other methods used to “improve” monopsonies:  The existence of a monopsony market resulting from private behavior is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for a minimum wage to be imposed.  The burden of proof requires the good economist to demonstrate that any proposed solution is the best of all available options.  Otherwise, the result of the market process, even if less-than-ideal, may be the best choice.

It is easy to play around with models, and any given model may have any number of policy implications.  But the mere fact the model suggests Policy A would work doesn’t necessarily mean that Policy A is the best choice.  If the costs of imposing A are high, then it may likely end up being a net loss!

 

An Open Letter to President Trump

Mr. Trump-

Over the past year, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Metro) has been doing repairs on their subway lines, called “Safe Track.”  During this period, stretches of the different Metro lines have slowed service considerably or closed them entirely for weeks on end.  During this period, Lyft and Uber drivers such as myself have made lots of money ferrying frustrated commuters back and forth to operational Metro stations or their offices.  During rush hour, one could easily command high surge pricing.  As you can imagine, this has been quite a financial boon to us.

But now, Safe Track is coming to an end.  This will mean lost money for us Uber and Lyft drivers.  It is often cheaper for commuters to ride the Metro than pay us.  Furthermore, the Metro is subsidized by the evil governments of Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.  This is hardly fair.  Surely, you can see how this would be bad for America.

Mr. President, in order to Make America Great Again, I insist you demand the Metro to immediately cease their repairs.  Further, they should be required to rip out all the repairs they’ve already done, redo them, and then rip them out again just before being finished.  This cycle should be done into perpetuity.  This would have the duel effect of keeping Lyft and Uber drivers’ incomes high and keeping construction jobs in the area which would otherwise disappear once the work is done.

Some commuters might object to this, saying that the costs of their commutes are already too high.  Don’t listen to them!  They’re just being greedy.  They don’t care about America.

Some businesses might object and say the high cost of commutes may force them to relocate outside of the area.  Don’t listen to them!  They just want to protect their bottom line and don’t care about us workers.

Some economists might object and say that the dearth of transportation options is a cost, not a benefit, to the DMV.  Don’t listen to them!  They’re just in the pockets of Big Business.

Mr. President, for the sake of our jobs and incomes, I demand the above actions be taken!

Signed,

Jon Murphy
Fairfax, VA

The Unseen Costs of Taxation and Regulation

On a EconLog post about E-Verify, commentor “Jay” writes:

I’m confused, if [E-Verify] poorly enforced and therefore only sparsely followed by employers, how does it raise hiring costs?

Jay’s question is an excellent one, and one that gets down into one of the main reasons we have deadweight loss (DWL) stemming from taxes and regulation.  Taxes and regulations change behavior (if they didn’t, we’d only have a transfer of wealth from consumers/producers to the government and there would be no DWL).  The obvious way they change behavior is when people adopt less efficient use of resources (in the case of E-Verify, hiring a worker who may be less productive over a worker who would be more productive because the first worker will pass E-Verify and the second worker won’t).

But evasion of those taxes and regulations are also a cost.  For example, if an employer hires someone who would not pass E-Verify, and as such goes to lengths to ensure his hiring is not caught (paying him under-the-table, hiding him of INS come looking, that sort of thing), these are all extra costs being paid.  Costs of time, or money, or effort that would otherwise have been spent doing something productive (and that’s not even counting the government’s cost of enforcement!).

These costs, while unseen, are very real.  Employers face evasion costs just like anyone else, and will make decisions based upon them, even if they never show up explicitly as some budget item or in an official government report.  These costs will change their actions, and we are all worse off for it.

The Doctrine of Scarcity

Two brothers, Charles and Joseph, are sitting at home reading the news.  The following is a conversation between the two:

Charles: Joe, did you see the nation of Zimbabwe is facing a terrible drought?

Joseph: Are they?  What fabulous luck for them!

C: Luck?  How is this luck?

J: My dear brother, have you no capacity to reason?  The drought is a blessing for the farmers of Zimbabwe!  First, since it makes the supply of food more dear, the prices rise.  The farmers get more money!  This, they can spend on employing more workers (since the land is now less fertile) toiling all day to get the wheat out of the ground.  The demand for workers will increase their wages, making the Zimbabwean worker better off.  Surely, only good times can follow!  This is just Economics 101!

C: Perhaps, Joe, but this is only because there is less food.  Perhaps, in nominal terms, workers earn more, but they can buy less with their money.  Are they not worse off?

J: My dear brother, have you learned nothing?  Their increased pay will make them richer!  What they can’t spend on food, they’ll surely spend on other things!  That’ll further increase demand for workers, raising wages even higher!

C: But that doesn’t solve the initial problem, Joe.  There is still less food to go around.  Sure, they may have more money, but that doesn’t calm an angry belly.  Would it not be better for the rains to come and have the fields of Zimbabwe overflow with grains?

J: And have the price of food plummet?  Have the workers no longer needed (since the fields are now more productive) be unemployed?  Why, think of the chaos of having all those people unemployed!  You would undo the Zimbabwean worker with your mana from Heaven!

C: Perhaps there would initially be people who no longer need work in the fields, but they’d have more full bellies.  Since they are freed up from the labor, they could do other things (maybe make clothing?).

J: You are simply a theorist!  No, brother, it is far better for the people of Zimbabwe to have drought, to drive up prices, use more resources for less output.  Indeed, it is in scarcity, not abundance, that true wealth lies!

C: But you live with less-

J: So?  The workers have work!  That is all they need!  They have a sense of purpose, a sense of living!  What more could a person want?

C: Food, shelter, clothing, leisure…

J: Bah!  More of your theorizing!  The true strength of an economy is the number of jobs it has!

C: But what good are those jobs if you can’t buy anything?

J: Better than having lots to buy and not enough farm jobs.

C: But there are other kinds of jobs.  They can do something else.

J: “Something else!”  More theorizing!  Such an unsatisfying answer.

C: But true nonetheless.

(The conversation continued in this manner for some time).

Joe’s comments may seem weird to our ears, and yet it is the common claim of those who practice the doctrine of scarcity commonly known as “protectionism.”  Since scarcity, and not “protection” or “abundance”, is the foundation for “protectionism” I propose calling these people “scarcitists.”

The scarcitists have a weird idea that it is from scarcity that wealth arises, not abundance.   It is as if the best thing to happen to Man was to be cast from the Garden of Eden.  It is as if Hell, and not Heaven, is our goal.  Scarcisim is a strange doctrine.