Friday, December 30, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
As previously explained on this blog, China is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, even though its overall GDP is half or less than that of the USA. As also explained in that post, some project that China's production of greenhouse gasses will double by 2030. Almost a year ago this blog also called attention to China's under-reliance on nuclear power for electricity generation. As explained then, coal-fired plants account for a disproportionate share of China's electricity compared to various Western nations and Japan. Indeed, as also reported then, China, with the second largest economy in the world, ranks 9th in nuclear generation of electricity, behind such nations as Canada, Ukraine and South Korea. At the same, the post reported, China enthusiastically embraces nuclear power for military purposes, e.g., the propulsion of submarines. The post concluded as follows:
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
The story also helps illustrate the downside of over-reaching Federal regulation. As the story notes, there is also a federal minimum wage, currently equal to $7.25 per hour. (There is an exception for the first 90 days of employment for juveniles --- $4.25 per hour --- so long as employment of the juvenile does not displace an adult worker.) That wage edict applies to any employee working in interstate commerce or working for a firm, no matter how local, with $500,000 in gross sales. Thus, federal law creates a wage floor, even in those states (and there are five) with no minimum wage whatsoever or those with minimum wages lower than that set by the national government. As a result, states that wish to compete with other states for labor and capital by eliminating their minimum wages or, for instance, adopting differential wages for youth greater than 90 days, will find such a policy thwarted by the "one-size fits all" federal floor on wages, a floor that applies equally in Manhattan, New York and Moscow, Idaho. Competitive federalism suffers when the national government asserts a regulatory monopoly over matters properly left to the states.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
|A New Furnace ........|
In honor of the upcoming marathon, here are the ten best lines from the movie, in this blogger's estimation.
1. You used up all the glue on purpose! (Mr. Parker)
2. Nottafinga! (Mr. Parker)
3. Some men are Baptists, others Catholics; my father was an Oldsmobile man. (Ralphie as an adult) (Narrating)
4. Fra-gee-lay. That must be Italian. (Mr. Parker)
5. Uh, I think that says FRAGILE, dear. (Mrs. Parker)
10. Hey Dad! I bet you never guess what I got you for Christmas! (Ralphie)
A new furnace? (Mr. Parker)
He he, that's a good one Dad! (Ralphie).
Friday, December 23, 2011
|Not So Much|
California has not been doing well in this competitive struggle as of late. Once considered a land of opportunity, the state experienced a net outflow of citizens in 2008. The state's unemployment rate currently stands at over 11 percent, one of the highest in the nation. Will's Op-ed calls attention to part of California's problem, namely, a plethora of unduly burdensome regulations that inhibit the creation and expansion of businesses and thus job creation. Will focuses on the plight of CKE, Inc., which owns the Hardees and Carl's Jr. fast food chains. Each such restaurant creates 25 jobs, Will reports. According to Will, these and other "California restaurants are governed by 57 categories of regulations." Moreover, Will goes on to explain that:
Sept. 1 at Maryland
Sept. 8 Lafayette
Sept. 15 at Towson *
Sept. 22 Delaware *
Sept. 29 Georgia State (Family Weekend) *
Oct. 6 at Penn
Oct. 13 at James Madison *
Oct. 27 Maine (Homecoming) *
Nov. 3 at New Hampshire *
Nov. 10 at Old Dominion *
Nov. 17 Richmond *
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
If This is Fairness ......
Zelizer's history is a little out of date. Despite the rhetoric, 1930s Democrats in fact fought for a vision of state-enforced cartelization, including the cartelization of labor, that, when implemented, both deepened and lengthend the Depression. (Many 1930s Democrats also fought to defend Segregation, hardly an example of "fairness to the middle class." Though it should also be noted that, during post-New Deal World War II, FDR issued executive orders banning racial discrimination in factories making weapons and ammunition for the military.) That vision first came to fruition in the 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act ("NIRA"), the centerpiece of FDR's New Deal. The NIRA encouraged industries to proposed so-called "Codes of Fair Competition," which, if approved by the President, would have the binding force of law. Such codes imposed express price fixing, output limitations, barriers to entry and/or various practices that facilitated anticompetitive collusion. Moreover, industries could only obtain approval of such codes if they agreed to pay minimum wages and allowed their employees to join unions --- labor cartels --- that then bargained for higher wages.
Of course, the Supreme Court unanimously invalidated the NIRA in Schechter Poultry Corp. et al. v. United States, reversing the criminal conviction of a small corporation and several of its middle class owners. (The Roosevelt Administration had indicted the defendants on 60 counts of violating an NIRA code. Violations included failure to pay minimum wages (that is, employing too many workers) and --- get this --- allowing customers to select individual chickens for purchase, contrary to the code requirement that the defendants and their rivals sell chickens in blocks.) Ironically, the Supreme Court would later declare so-called "block booking" (requiring customers to purchase an entire package of movies, for instance, unlawful per se under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.) The Court unanimously held that the Act was an unconstitutional delegation of authority to the Executive Branch and that application of the statute to the defendants exceeded the scope of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. After the decision, Justice Brandeis sought out a lawyer from the Department of Justice and asked him to convey a message to FDR:
“This is the end of this business of centralization, and I want you to go back and tell the president that we're not going to let this government centralize everything."
Of course, proponents of centralization (both then and now) claim that expanding the power of the National Government will somehow encourage economic recovery and thus full employment. But the data show otherwise. For instance, President Obama's first Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, Christina Romer, concluded that the NIRA raised prices and wages and thus slowed economic recovery. See Christina D. Romer, Why Did Prices Rise in the 1930s?, 59 J. Econ. Hist. 167, 187-93, 197 (1999). More recently, two UCLA economists, Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian, concluded that various New Deal policies, particularly those that artificially raised wages, both deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. Indeed, these scholars conclude that FDR's New Deal prolonged the Depression by seven years. Finally, in 1999, this blogger argued that 1930s state and federal policies that raised wages likely exacerbated the Depression, by thwarting the process of ordinary macro-economic adjustment. See Alan J. Meese, Will, Judgment and Economic Liberty: Mr. Justice Souter and the Mistranslation of Liberty, 41 William and Mary L. Rev. 3, 48-49 (1999). (I hasten to add that unlike Drs. Romer, Cole and Ohanian, this blogger's arguments were purely theoretical and did not rest upon the sort of sophisticated econometric analysis deployed by these economists.) That is to say, FDR's policies deprived millions of middle class or potentially middle class Americans access to employment, hardly a "fair" result or exemplar of "moral capitalism." Indeed, the NIRA, with its coercive limits on price, wages and output was hardly capitalism, moral or otherwise
To be sure, some New Deal policies ameliorated the plight of unemployed Americans. For instance, the Work Progress Administration ("WPA") provided jobs for millions working on parks and various forms of public infrastructure. Ironically, many who took such jobs were unemployed because other New Deal policies, such as the NIRA and NLRA, eliminated jobs these individuals might otherwise have obtained. As Richard Epstein has observed, coercive interference with free labor markets and resulting unemployment often gives rise to offsetting policies designed to ameliorate the human cost of such misguided policies. Speaking of the New Deal, Epstein has observed:
Hopefully today's Democrats have a different conception of "fairness to the middle class" that that which apparently animated the NIRA, NLRA and similar New Deal policies.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
A recent essay in the New York Times entitled "The End of Tenure" reviews two books critical of modern higher education. The complaints summarized by the review are familiar, and they include:
1) Higher education costs too much, and tuition keeps rising faster than inflation.
2) Tenured faculty at some elite universities do not teach enough, leaving much of the teaching to be done by adjuncts and other faculty who are not on the tenure track.
3) Student debt is rising by leaps and bounds and is unsustainable.
4) Faculty conduct research that is of little practical relevance, a claim that, if true, implies that the social cost of additional teaching by such faculty members is relatively low.
No doubt at least some of these claims are exaggerated. For instance, recent data also published in the Times suggests that horror stories about students graduating with, say, $100,000 in debt are few and far between. Indeed, these data show that 90 percent of students who borrowed to obtain their bachelor's degree graduated with less than $40,000 in debt. Moreover, some of those individuals who emerged with more than $40,000 in debt presumably chose to attend private universities instead of less expensive public institutions, thus undermining somewhat any complaint about resulting debt burdens. (A North Carolina resident who could have attended UNC Chapel Hill but matriculates at Wake Forest or Duke instead should not be heard to complain about his or her resulting debt burden.) Also, the tuition announced by a college or university is merely a sticker price and does not reflect financial aid that schools provide in the form of discounts for students who demonstrate financial need and/or academic merit.
What though about the claim, implied by the very title of the essay, that the institution of academic tenure is partly responsible for these woes? This is not a new claim --- earlier this year a legal academic argued that proponents of academic tenure for law school faculty were insufficiently sensitive to the fact that the institution of tenure increases the cost of law school. Does the institution of academic tenure make college more expensive, reduce access to higher education and pump up student debt?
Certainly not. After all, eliminating tenure and the job security that tenure brings would make academic positions less attractive than before, with the result that schools would have to raise salaries to attract high quality faculty. Moreover, if eliminating tenure led to greater faculty turnover, schools would presumably incur additional costs searching for and replacing departing faculty. In short, other things being equal, eliminating tenure would increase college tuition, reduce access to college and further add to student indebtedness.
While the institution of academic tenure might have some shortcomings, any propensity to raise the cost of higher education is not one of them.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
2) During the same period, real manufacturing GDP grew over 18 percent in Right-to-Work states but just over 8 percent in other states.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
The article's argument falls wide of its intended mark. In any society, longevity depends upon any number of factors, of which the quality of health care is but one. Such factors include the prevalence of accidental death and homicide, the prevalence of unhealthy habits like smoking and excessive drinking, and cultural norms regarding diet and exercise. Indeed, according to one source, the 2008 homicide rate in the United States, 5.22/100,000, was more than ten times higher than that in Japan (.45/100,000), more than five times higher than in Spain (.91/100,000), and more than seven times higher than in Switzerland (.72/100,000). According to another source, America's per capita rate of death from automobile accidents is more than twice that of Japan and Spain and also larger than that of Switzerland as well. If, as seems likely, most victims of homicides and automobile accidents are significantly younger than the nation's average life expectancy, then such differences explain at least part of the gap between life expectancy in the United States and that in other countries. Any comparison of the outcomes produced by different health care systems would have to control for the numerous other independent variables that impact life expectancy.
Moreover, differences in accidental deaths and homicides also highlight another fallacy in the Daily Mail's argument, namely, the treatment of health care expenditures as an exogenous variable that "causes" death at particular ages. In fact, such causation may in many cases flow in the opposite direction. After all, many homicides and accidental deaths themselves result in significant health care expenditures. So do accidents and/or shootings and stabbings that do NOT result in death. Thus, any analysis seeking to isolate the impact of health care expenditures upon longevity, other things being equal, would have to treat health care expenditures as a variable driven in part by other independent variables. For all we know, such an analysis could conclude that the US Health Care System is more efficient than suggested by the Daily Mail's simplistic analysis.