As I find these, I am going to continue to link to them. I'm sure President Obama doesn't have me in his RSS, but he needs to get the message that his plans for the auto industry are doomed to fail. Some highlights:
"Politicians are addicted to CAFE standards because they create an illusion of doing something sometime in the future without voters experiencing the slightest inconvenience in the present."
"If consumers keep refusing to buy enough small cars from GM and Chrysler to allow them to meet the CAFE rules, how are those companies expected to pay the fines?"
Well-written summary of the many pitfalls of CAFE standards. Definitely worth reading even if you know them already.
Showing posts with label Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Policy. Show all posts
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Not a Twitter Revolution...
But something better! I enjoyed this perspective on the goings-on in Iran in recent weeks. This was certainly not the point of the article, but it was my favorite line:
"I didn’t meet any Iranians calling for U.S. intervention; that’s strictly a debate inside the Washington beltway."
I feel that my role as an American is to simply watch this conflict unfold. I don't think we can do anything to equalize the playing field in Iranian politics - this is an unfortunate fact but a fact nonetheless. There's nothing we should do but watch, though you can count on Interventionist America to do much more.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
More Powerful Fed?
According to this article in today's New York Times, Ben Bernanke is seeking an expansion of the power of the Fed and President Obama supports this.
I'm pretty sure Tyler already addressed this in the Times - here is the article from May. Here is MR. I don't want to simply re-post old things from a better blog than this one, but I think Tyler's point is worth repeating and will need to be repeated over and over for the next couple of years. The Constitution explicitly makes the legislative the most powerful branch, and though it is often easier to defer decision-making powers to the executive branch, I think the Iraqi invasion underscores the need for it to be difficult to make substantial policy decisions.
Personally, I think it's time for the judicial branch to re-assert its authority. Since Jackson, the executive branch is constantly trying to expand. Ever since FDR nearly subsumed the Supreme Court, I think the balance of power has shifted too far away from the court system, and I think the recent expansion of executive power needs to be cut down by the courts. This is unlikely, at best, but I do believe it's what America needs.
I'm pretty sure Tyler already addressed this in the Times - here is the article from May. Here is MR. I don't want to simply re-post old things from a better blog than this one, but I think Tyler's point is worth repeating and will need to be repeated over and over for the next couple of years. The Constitution explicitly makes the legislative the most powerful branch, and though it is often easier to defer decision-making powers to the executive branch, I think the Iraqi invasion underscores the need for it to be difficult to make substantial policy decisions.
Personally, I think it's time for the judicial branch to re-assert its authority. Since Jackson, the executive branch is constantly trying to expand. Ever since FDR nearly subsumed the Supreme Court, I think the balance of power has shifted too far away from the court system, and I think the recent expansion of executive power needs to be cut down by the courts. This is unlikely, at best, but I do believe it's what America needs.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
US, EU on Nationalization
According to this article in the Wall Street Journal Europe, the US is actually more open about governmental involvement in its economy than the European Union. They use Microsoft Windows as an example of EU regulations functioning in the same vein as the government-led bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM in America.
"Governments historically have proven singularly inept at making design decisions, as any number of jokes and real-life stories about Soviet-style economies make clear." Absolutely dripping with Masonomics, one of the things I have missed most while in Italy.
"Once an agency like the EU's competition directorate asserts authority over the features included in a dominant firm's products, there is no easy stopping point short of complete control of all significant business decisions. Once government opens this door, rival businesses (which don't want the leading firm's bundle competing with their products) learn that complaining to government can be a less costly way to gain market share than investing in better products, packaging or marketing."
Sounds like the EU needs to watch Cartoon Wars.
"Governments historically have proven singularly inept at making design decisions, as any number of jokes and real-life stories about Soviet-style economies make clear." Absolutely dripping with Masonomics, one of the things I have missed most while in Italy.
"Once an agency like the EU's competition directorate asserts authority over the features included in a dominant firm's products, there is no easy stopping point short of complete control of all significant business decisions. Once government opens this door, rival businesses (which don't want the leading firm's bundle competing with their products) learn that complaining to government can be a less costly way to gain market share than investing in better products, packaging or marketing."
Sounds like the EU needs to watch Cartoon Wars.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
USA: "Free" Market
I enjoyed this article in the New York Times today about potential cracks in the European Union. Two thoughts:
1. The United States is always held as the beacon of the free-market economy to the rest of the world, and it's amazing to see how many people take the recent events (especially the collapse of GM) as a sign that the market doesn't work.
While I agree that a total unregulated market is probably too... scary? ... for most people to accept, I can't accept GM as a case of market failure. There was far too much regulation involved in the shaping of GM (CAFE standards, powerful unions) for me to say this is purely a case of market failure. In many ways, regulation caused a lot of these problems, and it irks me to hear regulation being called for as the answer.
That being said, maybe the US is just at an inflection point in terms of regulation. Perhaps there are gains to be made from more regulation and gains to be made from less regulation. I'm going to meditate on that one for a few days.
2. It's interesting to me to see Germany and France trying to separate from the EU, exactly as many economists would predict. Germany especially interests me in their handling of the Opel situation. Blocking Fiat seems silly to me, still; it was widely admitted that Fiat's long-term plan was vastly superior to the Magna plan, but Magna saved more German jobs in the short term so Merkel brokered that deal.
In light of the criticism of the US and the market economy, I wonder where the EU will go. Germany and France, according to Erlanger and the Times, want more independence, and EU membership probably is holding them back from some potential growth. However, are they going to head toward a more market-based economy? Will they simply try to be independent but maintain their socialist/mixed economy (whatever you want to call it) philosophy? This situation has definitely piqued my curiosity and I'll be watching it for the next decade.
1. The United States is always held as the beacon of the free-market economy to the rest of the world, and it's amazing to see how many people take the recent events (especially the collapse of GM) as a sign that the market doesn't work.
While I agree that a total unregulated market is probably too... scary? ... for most people to accept, I can't accept GM as a case of market failure. There was far too much regulation involved in the shaping of GM (CAFE standards, powerful unions) for me to say this is purely a case of market failure. In many ways, regulation caused a lot of these problems, and it irks me to hear regulation being called for as the answer.
That being said, maybe the US is just at an inflection point in terms of regulation. Perhaps there are gains to be made from more regulation and gains to be made from less regulation. I'm going to meditate on that one for a few days.
2. It's interesting to me to see Germany and France trying to separate from the EU, exactly as many economists would predict. Germany especially interests me in their handling of the Opel situation. Blocking Fiat seems silly to me, still; it was widely admitted that Fiat's long-term plan was vastly superior to the Magna plan, but Magna saved more German jobs in the short term so Merkel brokered that deal.
In light of the criticism of the US and the market economy, I wonder where the EU will go. Germany and France, according to Erlanger and the Times, want more independence, and EU membership probably is holding them back from some potential growth. However, are they going to head toward a more market-based economy? Will they simply try to be independent but maintain their socialist/mixed economy (whatever you want to call it) philosophy? This situation has definitely piqued my curiosity and I'll be watching it for the next decade.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Paradox of Aid
Why do we send food to people in starving countries? And why is it that they continue to starve?
Cheap/free food keeps poor countries poor, because the workers there all want to start with agriculture. Of course, the availability of cheap/free food prevents them from ever getting started, because there simply is no market for their goods. Thus, aid keeps poor countries poor. So why is it championed as such a great thing?
I've tried to have this discussion with some government/non-Econ majors and they seem to be reasonably accepting of the idea. Nonetheless, American imperialism of food aid continues unabated. What will it take to stop it?
Cheap/free food keeps poor countries poor, because the workers there all want to start with agriculture. Of course, the availability of cheap/free food prevents them from ever getting started, because there simply is no market for their goods. Thus, aid keeps poor countries poor. So why is it championed as such a great thing?
I've tried to have this discussion with some government/non-Econ majors and they seem to be reasonably accepting of the idea. Nonetheless, American imperialism of food aid continues unabated. What will it take to stop it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)