Posted by Marc Hodak on March 6, 2008 under Economics | 
I’ve been so freakin’ busy this week, I’ve barely been able to get food and sleep, but I heard that NYU was offering a free lunch to hear Robert Frank. The irony alone would have compelled my attendance, but also I needed a break. Yeah, listening to an economist over lunch is what I consider a break.
So Frank gave his spiel on how the arms race for conspicuous consumption, or positional gain as he calls it, is economically inefficient. Everyone trying to keep up with the Joneses leaves everyone at the same place, relatively speaking. Fair enough? Actually, I don’t buy that there are no net societal gains from the dash toward nicer things, but I guess someone does because he’s selling books.
Anyway, during his talk, Frank concluded with his pet policy–a sharply progressive consumption tax. Frank basically believes in the incentive effects of this tax, which makes sense, and that otherwise diverting funds from wasteful consumption to productive infrastructure would be a great economic deal, which I consider a little more hopeful, to say the least. Frank specifically mentioned that he was hoping to hear a good libertarian rebuttal to this idea since, I guess, he hasn’t heard one yet. Well, this sounded like a personal invitation since I am NYU’s resident libertarian, though I couldn’t imagine what I might say that he wouldn’t have already heard from the GMU mafia, which I know he’s encountered.
So, question:
Read more of this article »
Posted by Marc Hodak on March 1, 2008 under Revealed preference |
Congress regularly blasts the military for being inefficient. And when the military puts a major contract up for bid, and the best consortium wins, Congress is outraged because the consortium includes a European company.
The troubling thing is that Congressional outrage is generally reported at face value.
“It’s stunning to me that we would outsource the production of these airplanes to Europe instead of building them in America,” said Republican Senator Sam Brownback about the Pentagon’s decision.
“We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers,” said Republican Representative Todd Tiahrt.
The problem with the way these articles are written, emphasizing the party of the speakers rather than their home states, is that they separate important information across the page, leaving the reader with the impression that where the congressman stood was divorced from where they sat. I think it would have been more instructive to write it like this:
“It’s stunning to me that we would outsource the production of these airplanes to Europe instead of building them in America,” said Kansas Senator Sam Brownback about the Pentagon’s decision. Kansas is where Boeing, the losing bidder, had promised to build the plane if they had won the bid.
“We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers,” said Representative Todd Tiahrt, Representative to the Fourth Congressional District of Kansas, where Boeing would have made the planes.
Then there is no need to pretend that Congress speaks with one voice on this issue by burying this tidbit toward the end of the article.
Alabama Senator Richard Shelby welcomed the decision. “Not only is this the right decision for our military, but it is great news for Alabama,” he said.
By that point, you won’t have to guess where the winning bidders are assembling these planes.
