Government – Page 128 – artdiamondblog.com

Airline Deregulation Allowed Entry, Lower Prices, and More Routes

Source of graphic: online version of the NYT column quoted and cited below.

The top graph above usefully summarizes one of the main results of airline deregulation–lower fares. Other results are sketched below in a couple of passages from a Leonhardt column.

(p. C8) Flying is less expensive, as fares have fallen steadily, adjusted for inflation, and there are more flights to more cities. The barrier to entry is lower. Over the last 30 years, more than 150 airlines have sought bankruptcy protection or disappeared, but more keep springing up as investors continue to put hope over experience, said Denis O’Connor, managing director with AlixPartners, a restructuring firm.
“People don’t understand how easy it is to start an airline,” Mr. O’Connor said, because of a ready supply of pilots and other employees, as well as used airplanes. “Why would you put capital in something if you can’t make a go of it? Southwest is an example of why you would.”
. . .
. . . Southwest’s transformation from a Texas puddle jumper to the biggest airline in terms of domestic traffic (at least until the Delta-Northwest merger is completed) would not have happened without deregulation.
That airline’s evolution is what some experts point to as the best proof of why deregulation, for all its troubles, ultimately is better than a regulated environment.
“This is the free market at work, and we’re not used to it,” said Mo Garfinkle, a lawyer and a longtime airline industry consultant. “The idea of deregulation was to allow entry, whether it was successful or not.”

For the full commentary, see:
MICHELINE MAYNARD. “Did Ending Regulation Help Fliers?” The New York Times (Thurs., April 17, 2008): C1 & C8.
(Note: ellipses added.)

Democratic Representatives Drive Gas-Guzzlers at Taxpayers’ Expense

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

Seven of the eleven representatives in the table above are Democrats. Look at the gas mileage of the cars, and recall that it is the Democrats who are given to lecture us on how we need to do more about the environment.
(The four Republicans on the list are Reynolds, Fossella, Walsh and Saxton.)

(p. A1) Charles B. Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is not so caught up in the question of gas mileage. He leases a 2004 Cadillac DeVille for $777.54 a month. The car is 17 feet long with a 300-horsepower engine and seats five comfortably.
“It’s one of the bigger Cadillacs,” Mr. Rangel, of Harlem, said cheerfully this week. “I’ve got a desk in it. It’s like an airplane.”
Modest or more luxurious, the cars are all paid for by taxpayers. The use of a car — gas included — is one of the benefits of being a member of the House of Representatives.
. . .
(p. A19) Mr. Rangel said he frequently offers rides to constituents so they can discuss their concerns in the luxurious confines of his DeVille.
“I want them to feel that they are somebody and their congressman is somebody,” Mr. Rangel explained. “And when they say, ‘This is nice,’ it feels good.”

For the full story, see:
RAYMOND HERNANDEZ. “What Would You Drive, if the Taxpayers Paid?” The New York Times (Thurs., May 1, 2008): A1 & A19.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

“Representative Charles B. Rangel says his leased Cadillac DeVille projects an image of success.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

Candy Competition

Source of graphic: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

In class, we discuss how consumers pay higher prices for candy and soft drinks because the U.S. government limits on how much foregin sugar we can import. Sometimes a student will claim that candy companies would not lower prices if the price of sugar declined. And sometimes that issue leads to a discussion of whether the candy industry is competitive.
The graphic above, and the quotation below, provide some relevant evidence.

(p. B1) The global confectionary industry has long lacked a dominant player. The top 10 manufacturers controlled just 47% of the $141 billion market as of 2006, the most recent available data. . . .
. . .
If the Wrigley acquisition is successful, Mars will become the world’s largest confectionary company with about 14.4% of the market, overtaking Cadbury’s 10.1%, based on 2006 figures, the latest available, from Euromonitor International.

For the full story, see:
JULIE JARGON and AARON O. PATRICK. “More Sweet Deals in the Candy Aisle?; Cadbury and Hershey in the Spotlight in the Wake of Mars-Wrigley Linkup.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., April 29, 2008): B1-B2.
(Note: ellipses added.)

Great Example of Stigler-Kolko Capture Theory of Regulatory Agencies

George Stigler and Gabriel Kolko are associated with the theory that eventually, govenment regulatory agencies come to be captured by the industry that the agency is charged with regulating.
At the time of the exchange documented below, Wendell Willkie was the head of an electric utility, and Lilienthal was one of the heads of the TVA, which was in the process of taking customers away from Willkie’s utility. Willkie’s argument to Lilienthal is consistent with the capture theory. (But that Lilienthal pushed ahead with his plans, might be seen as inconsistent with the theory.)

(p. 182) Lilienthal set up a meeting in early October 1933 at the Cosmos Club in Washington, the club being, in Lilienthal’s words, “about as neutral a ground as we could think of.”
. . .
(p. 183) Willkie tried yet another tack. No one, he argued to Lilienthal, went into government without the intention of going into the private sector later. The private sector, after all, was where the business lived. If Lilienthal was too nasty, then he was not likely to find work at private utilities companies. Lilienthal was, by his own admission, “pretty badly scared” by the time he left the Cosmos.

Source:
Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. New York: HarperCollins, 2007.

New York Rent Control Limits Incentives to Build Apartments

“Tryn Collins, left, and Mary Hill share small quarters at a loft building in Brooklyn that was transformed from a factory.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

New York City has had rent control in effect for decades. Economists predict that one effect of rent control is that incentives are reduced to build and maintain apartments. As a result, those seeking living space, have fewer options. (For example, the WSJ a few years ago ran a front page article explaining how some enterprising New Yorkers were living in abandoned elevator shafts.)
The article quoted below, provides additional evidence.

(p. A1) One “room” is a cramped cubby that measures, in all, perhaps 25 square feet, just enough for a full-size mattress and whatever can be stashed beneath. The first-floor rooms, in the basement, are musty and windowless, like caves. The second-floor rooms have plywood walls but no doors, only cut-out windows that overlook a kitchen cluttered with day-old dishes, a chore wheel and the odd paintbrush.
One of the residents likens her home to a “giant treehouse.” Another says it is like “living in a public bathroom.”
“Where the stalls are just superficial sight lines that block the other person, but you can hear everything they do,” said Robyn Frank, a 23-year-old artist. She had just moved in to the McKibbin lofts in East Williamsburg, Brooklyn, and sometimes they literally become bathrooms. They are known for their giant, raucous parties; revelers occasionally urinate in the halls.
This is life in what some refer to as the McKibbin “dorms,” a landing pad for hundreds of postcollegiate creative types yearning to make it as artists, and live like them too, in today’s New York.
Newcomers marvel that such a place exists: two sprawling, almost identical five-story former factories filled with mostly white hip young things, smack in the middle of a neighborhood that has little in common with Williamsburg proper, its cocktail-mixing neighbor to the west.
Perhaps 300 people live in each building, which face each other and sit, respectively, at 248 and 255 McKibbin Street. Between one and eight people live in each loft. Few were born before the mid-1980s. Rents can range from $375 for one person to roughly $800 for a space.

For the full story, see:
CARA BUCKLEY. “Young Artists Find a Private Space, Only Without the Privacy.” The New York Times (Weds., May 7, 2008): A1 & A17.

“The Black Hole of Agriculture”: “People Love Free Money”

(p. A17) WASHINGTON — Americans are in sticker-shock over grocery prices, while people in developing countries are rioting over food shortages. And across the heartland, American farmers are enjoying record incomes, but losing sleep over rising expenses and turbulence in the commodity futures markets.
Here on Capitol Hill, though, it is pretty much farm politics as usual.
As Congress works toward final passage of the farm bill, it is poised to continue most of the existing farmer subsidy programs, including about $5.2 billion a year in so-called “direct payments” that will be disbursed even as net farm income is projected to hit a historic high in 2008.
The farm bill, which comes along once every five years and will cost upward of $300 billion, in fact will do little to address many of the most pressing concerns. It will not change biofuel mandates that are directing more corn to ethanol and contributing to a global rise in food prices.
. . .
But even strong proponents of the bill, like Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and chairman of the Agriculture Committee, concede that farm interests are deeply entrenched and that there is little appetite for change among many farm state lawmakers, especially when it comes to the direct payment program.
The direct payments are based on the amount of land that certain farmers own, and Mr. Harkin, who has sought to eliminate the payments, said that many recipients of the money then use it to acquire more land and qualify for more payments.
“It’s like the black hole in space that astronomers talk about: everything gets sucked in and nothing ever comes out,” he said. “This is the black hole of agriculture. It doesn’t make sense, but farmers continue to get it.”
Mr. Harkin said there was not much he could do because “I don’t have the votes,” adding, “People love free money.”

For the full commentary, see:
DAVID M. HERSZENHORN. “NEWS ANALYSIS; Farmers’ Income Rises, as Do Food Prices, but It’s Mostly Politics as Usual.” The New York Times (Thurs., April 24, 2008): A17.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Why Most Economists Oppose the Gas Tax Holiday

(p. A31) Most economists oppose the Clinton-McCain gas tax holiday because they can’t see how consumers will benefit. In fact, “most” is an understatement; when challenged to name one economist willing to back her plan, Mrs. Clinton’s response was to disparage the whole profession.
Why are economists so opposed? In the short run, the supply of gasoline is basically fixed; it takes a while to build a new refinery. The demand for gasoline, in contrast, is more responsive to price; we’re already seeing greater use of public transportation and brisk sales of fuel-efficient cars. When you combine fixed supply with flexible demand, it’s suppliers, not demanders, who pocket the tax cut. That’s Econ 101.
. . .
When the public rejects the mundane explanations for high gas prices — big boring facts like rapid Asian growth — politicians aren’t going to correct them. The best we can expect is for Washington to try to channel the public’s misconceptions in relatively harmless directions. We could do a lot worse than the gas tax holiday; in fact, we usually do.

For the full commentary, see:
BRYAN CAPLAN. “The 18-Cent Solution.” The New York Times (Thurs., May 8, 2008): A31.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Franklin Roosevelt Exposed in The Forgotten Man

Source of book image: http://blog.syracuse.com/shelflife/forgotten.jpg

Amity Shlaes’s new history of the Great Depression is at once depressing and encouraging. It is depressing in showing how vulnerable human progress is to the threat from a dishonest, slick orator, who has not a clue about how the economy works. It is encouraging in that it shows so clearly that the length and depth of the Great Depression was due to easily avoidable mistakes in policy, rather than due to some fundamental flaw in capitalism, as has occasionally been claimed.
Although the book does not shy away from pointing out the flaws of Coolidge, Hoover and Willke, it mainly shows how F.D.R.’s routine whimsical policy reversals and double-dealings, alienated not only his original opponents, but many of his early friends and allies.
The New Deal policies to seize business profits, reduced business incentives to take risks: if the risks turned out badly, the business would lose the investment, while if the risks turned out well, the profits would be taxed away by the federal government.
In addition, the sheer unpredictability of New Deal policies further led the prudent to delay investments, thereby further impeding recovery.
The book is well-written, and should be equally well-read.

The reference for the book is:
Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. New York: HarperCollins, 2007.

Freeing Medical Entrepreneurship Could Speed Cures

Medical entrepreneur Tom Harold. Source of photo: http://www.scyfix.org/management.php

(p. 1D) ScyFix, a Chanhassen, Minn., startup, has developed a device it claims treats diseases such as glaucoma and macular degeneration by shooting electric currents into the eye. The company, which is conducting clinical trials in India and the United States, hopes to sell the first device approved by the Food and Drug Administration designed to restore eyesight.
“To me, this is the pacemaker for the eye,” said Dr. Darrell DeMello, ScyFix president and a former executive at Boston Scientific Corp.
ScyFix hopes to eventually raise $60 million to $70 million to finish its clinical trials.
. . .
(p. 2D) Thomas Harold first came up with the idea for ScyFix in 2002. An Internet entrepreneur and a former executive at General Mills, Harold became interested in studies that showed electricity could restore sight. Drugs, however, could only slow the effects of some diseases.
. . .
Specifically, the studies showed electricity could stimulate the production of neurotrophins, a family of proteins that can instruct optic nerve, retinal neurons and photoreceptor cells not to die. In addition, neuromodulation can also repair cell membranes, allowing cells to absorb nutrients, release wastes, improve blood flow to the eye and rewire faulty nerve connections.
Working with doctors and engineers, Harold, who has no medical background, developed a device that releases low-intensity electric currents into the eyelids through electrodes. A complex mathematical equation programmed into the device controls the amount and frequency of the electricity. Patients can administer the treatment at home twice a day for 20 minutes.
Harold says he is encouraged by the results so far: Since 2002, the device has halted progression of diseases in 95 percent of the 1,000 patients tested in 29 countries, according to ScyFix.
“Everything stopped getting worse,” Harold said. “That was a win in itself.”
In addition, 80 percent of the patients reported vision improvement. There were no side effects, the company said.

For the full story, see:
Lee, Thomas (The Star Tribune). “‘Pacemaker’ for eyes shows initial promise.” Omaha World-Herald (Sunday, March 9, 2008): 1D & 2D.
(Note: ellipses added.)

Below I have pasted a couple of paragraphs from the ScyFIX web site. Note that Europeans are free to try the therapy, if they so desire. But citizens of the United States are not free to try the therapy, due to the regulations of the Food and Drug Admininstration (FDA) of the U.S. government.

Buy ScyFIX 600 and Accessories on-line!
Welcome to ScyFIX international web shop where you can order products, choose payment method, including a secure on-line credit card payment service (SSL), and check your delivery status on-line. Buying on-line is safe and easy and you will be guided all the way. All prices are in € (Euro). Place your order and your credit card company will convert the amount in € to your own currency. We accept Visa, Master Card, EuroCard and most bank cards connected to VISA or Master Card. Follow the instructions to take you through the pages, and then onto a secure site in which you will input your credit card and shipping details. When bank authorization has been attained, you will get a confirmation on-line, as well as a confirming e-mail. If at any stage you wish to change your order, just click the “Remove”-button.
Please note that ScyFIX can not ship devices to US addresses, until the ongoing FDA trials have resulted in an approval to market the product in the USA. US customers who mistakenly order and pay for a therapy kit over the web, will be contacted and refunded. However, ScyFIX will deduct 100€ (Euros) covering banking fees and handling costs. If you are a US resident and want to know more about our therapy, please send an inquiry by e-mail to our European office support@scyfix.org, or fill in your personal information in our Clinical Trial & Purchase Interest Form by clicking here www.scyfix.org/clinical_trial_form.htm.

The paragraphs were accessed on 3/9/08 from:
http://www.scyfix.org/shop/

Hoosiers Were Right to Be Behind the Times

I am a Hoosier by birth and upbringing, and I am not ashamed to admit it, in spite of the fact that “hoosier” is a pejorative in some circles.
Until recently, in Indiana we swam against the tide, in rejecting Daylight Savings Time. It never made sense to me that in order to take advantage of sunlight, the government needed to mandate that the clocks be changed twice a year.
Why couldn’t those who want to use the hours of sunlight differently, simply adjust their own schedules, for example, by getting up earlier or later?
Well the article quoted below, suggests that us Hoosiers may have been wiser than we knew.

(p. D1) For decades, conventional wisdom has held that daylight-saving time, which begins March 9, reduces energy use. But a unique situation in Indiana provides evidence challenging that view: Springing forward may actually waste energy.
Up until two years ago, only 15 of Indiana’s 92 counties set their clocks an hour ahead in the spring and an hour back in the fall. The rest stayed on standard time all year, in part because farmers resisted the prospect of having to work an extra hour in the morning dark. But many residents came to hate falling in and out of sync with businesses and residents in neighboring states and prevailed upon the Indiana Legislature to put the entire state on daylight-saving time beginning in the spring of 2006.
Indiana’s change of heart gave University of California-Santa Barbara economics professor Matthew Kotchen and Ph.D. student Laura Grant a unique way to see how the time shift affects energy use. Using more than seven million monthly meter readings from Duke Energy Corp., covering nearly all the households in southern Indiana for three years, they were able to compare energy consumption before and after counties began observing daylight-saving time. Readings from counties that had already adopted daylight-saving time provided a control group that helped them to adjust for changes in weather from one year to the next.
Their finding: Having the entire state switch to daylight-saving time each year, rather than stay on standard time, costs Indiana households an additional $8.6 million in electricity bills. They conclude that the reduced cost of lighting in afternoons during daylight-saving time is more than offset by the higher air-conditioning costs on hot afternoons and increased heating costs on cool mornings.
“I’ve never had a paper with such a clear and unambiguous finding as this,” says Mr. Kotchen, who presented the paper at a National Bureau of Economic Research conference this month.

For the full story, see:
JUSTIN LAHART. “Daylight Saving Wastes Energy, Study Says.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., February 27, 2008): D1 & D4.

Government Supported Biofuels Increase Global Warming

Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A4) While the U.S. and others race to expand the use and production of biofuels, two new studies suggest these gasoline alternatives actually will increase carbon-dioxide levels.
A study published in the latest issue of Science finds that corn-based ethanol, a type of biofuel pushed heavily in the U.S., will nearly double the output of greenhouse-gas emissions instead of reducing them by about one-fifth by some estimates. A separate paper in Science concludes that clearing native habitats to grow crops for biofuel generally will lead to more carbon emissions.
The findings are the latest to take aim at biofuels, which have already been blamed for pushing up prices of corn and other food crops, as well as straining water supplies. The Energy Department expects U.S. ethanol production to reach about 7.5 billion gallons this year from 3.9 billion in 2005, encouraged by high prices and government support. The European Union has proposed that 10% of all fuel used in transportation should come from biofuels by 2020.
Some scientists have praised biofuels because growing biofuel feedstock would remove gases that trap the sun’s heat from the air, while gasoline and diesel fuel take carbon from the ground and put it in the air. However, some earlier studies didn’t account for one hard-to-measure factor: the decision by farmers world-wide to convert forest and grasslands to grow feedstock for the new biofuels.
. . .
[One] study’s funding came from the National Science Foundation and the University of Minnesota’s Initiative on Renewable Energy and the Environment, . . . The other paper relied on funding from various indirect sources, including the Hewlett Foundation and the Agriculture Department.

For the full story, see:
GAUTAM NAIK. “Biofuels Hold Potential for Greater Levels of CO2; Land Use for Crops May Cancel Out Benefits of Use.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., February 8, 2008): A4.

(Note: ellipses added; and bracketed word added.)
(Note: the somewhat different title of the online version was “Biofuels May Hinder Antiglobal-Warming Efforts; Carbon Emissions Could Increase As Land-Use Shifts.”)