When it comes to lowering the bar, @realdonaldtrump really raised the bar.
18 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in economics of media and culture, politics - USA Tags: 2016 presidential election
Liberals & conservative media habits
18 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in economics of media and culture, industrial organisation, politics - USA, survivor principle Tags: media bias
The OJ Simpson Ford Bronco Chase Today, 1994
17 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
The OJ Simpson Ford Bronco Chase June 17, 1994. http://t.co/FItxFyOJFD—
Historical Pics (@HistoricalPics) June 22, 2015
Bill Maher: Sanders Supporters Are “Used To Getting Shit For Free”; That’s Not Socialism, It’s “Santa-ism”
13 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, defence economics, economic history, economics of education, economics of media and culture, economics of regulation, environmental economics, industrial organisation, politics - USA, survivor principle Tags: 2016 presidential election, Twitter left
A Milestone For Women In Politics: Libertarians Reflect on Hillary’s Nomination
12 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in economics of media and culture, politics - USA, Public Choice Tags: 2016 presidential elections
Today 1987 Reagan at Brandenburg Gate – “tear down this wall”
11 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in Marxist economics, politics - USA, Public Choice Tags: Berlin, collapse of communism, fall of berlin wall
US tax rates before and after government transfers
11 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in fiscal policy, politics - USA, public economics
#feelthebern will raise your taxes
09 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, economics, entrepreneurship, health economics, labour economics, minimum wage, politics - USA, public economics Tags: 2016 presidential election, antimarket bias, expressive voting, living wage, Old Left, pessimism bias, rational irrationality
#FeeltheBern? There’s a Cure.
09 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, comparative institutional analysis, economic history, economics of education, economics of regulation, health economics, income redistribution, industrial organisation, international economics, politics - USA, Public Choice, public economics, rentseeking Tags: 2016 presidential election, antimarket bias, crony capitalism, living wage, pessimism bias, top 1%
why no protests against #UBI bureaucratic job losses but #TPPANoWay protests aplenty about jobs?
08 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in fiscal policy, labour economics, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, poverty and inequality, public economics Tags: expressive voting, growth of government, rational rationality, size of government, social insurance, universal basic income
The universal basic income is a rare bird for the left. It is the only time the usual suspects on the left are happy to cut government bureaucracy.
Furthermore, the left makes no inquiries as to how these redundant bureaucrats who administered the welfare state will find jobs. The market is left to work its magic for once. How convenient.
When a tariff cut is proposed, a trade deal signed, or job reduction in a bureaucracy suggested perhaps as the result of a privatisation, left-wing activists chain themselves to factory gates or government offices in solidarity. The social upheaval from the job losses among existing workers and their dim prospects of reemployment are paramount in their minds.
Why in the case of a universal basic income is the left so relaxed about job losses. Indeed, it celebrates as an advantage of a universal basic income that “Most of the bureaucracy of the welfare system [is] swept away” .
The universal basic income is the only time the left welcomes a reduction in bureaucracy and the role in the state. This switch from welfare payments to a universal basic income does not make those on the benefit any better off. Normally they are worse off under a universal basic income.
None of the the less well groups which of the concern of the left gain from a universal basic income. Despite this, they sell the jobs of their comrades in the public sector down the river.
I cannot believe the explanation is job losses are OK as long as they are the result of left-wing policies. Unless the labour market is liberalised, its ability to find new jobs for workers, for example, made redundant in the public sector after the introduction of a universal basic income is not any under greater than under a right-wing policy that costs jobs.
High US drug prices as a good shot public good @RobinHoodTax
08 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, comparative institutional analysis, health economics, law and economics, politics - USA, property rights Tags: best shot public goods, creative destruction, drug prices, game theory, good shot public goods, military alliances, NATO, patterns and copyrights, Warsaw Pact, weakest link public goods, World War I
Much is made of the fact that drug prices are lower in Canada and Western Europe as compared to the USA. Indeed, day trips are made across the Canadian border to buy cheaper drugs as compared to the local pharmacy pricin in a US city.
Instead of what is always the relevant public policy question. What would happen in the USA if attempts were made to seriously reduce the price of drugs. The answer is obvious, the incentive to create new drugs would be severely diminished. There are no free lunches in public policy.
Bringing in new drug to the market is a seriously expensive business these days. That is before you consider the commercial risk of inventing a drug that isn’t much better than its competitors.
Of course, you can always be leapfrogged by another drug company brining on a better drug not long after you have brought yours to market. None of this is getting any cheaper.
Innovation by specific drug company is a form of public good production known as best shot public goods. Under a best-shot rule, the socially available amount is the maximum of the individual quantities. There is is a single prize of overwhelming social importance, such as a major drug breakthrough, with any individual’s effort having a chance of securing the prize.
A specialty drug for a year costs more, on average, than most household incomes wpo.st/0y_q0 https://t.co/uss6ikgkYk—
carolyn johnson (@Carolynyjohnson) November 20, 2015
The amount to be produced of a best shot public good depends on the best contribution rather than the usual situation of any contribution is interchangeable. Another example is a large number of people shooting at an incoming missile. The best shot counts, all the others don’t matter.
High drug prices in the USA could be the price of the weakest shot or weakest link public good. Weakest shot public good is where the socially available amount is the minimum of the quantities individually provided. One example a weakest link public goods are military alliances where the success of the alliance depends upon everyone contributing
In the weakest shot or weakest link theory of public good production, the free riding countries of Europe will bring the whole show down by not making their contribution to drug research by buying at good prices from the US pharmaceutical companies.
Perhaps a better way to look at drug innovation is a good shot public good. Someone has to make a reasonable contribution; that has to be the USA because it is such a large market. Without access to good prices in the USA, there wouldn’t be enough of an incentive for drug innovation.
Military alliances such as NATO and the Warsaw Pact probably are examples of good shot public goods. They depend on a number of large countries making their contribution but I always leaned towards the crucial best shot contribution of the USA and former USSR .
In the case of the start of World War I, Triple Entente against Germany was a weaker shot public good. Its defensive wall depended on the strength of the weakest country defending i.e. the unfortified Belgian border (in both wars). The Tripartite Alliance was a best shot public good depending on the strength of Germany’s attack for ultimate success or failure.
Did #FightFor15 forget that @FightFor15 was an ambit claim for a #livingwage
07 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, comparative institutional analysis, labour economics, minimum wage, politics - USA, Public Choice Tags: antimarket bias, expressive voting, living wage, rational rationality
Any decent political movement makes an ambit claim in expectation of being beaten back to its real position. That is basic negotiation tactics in politics.
Such is the volatility of expressive politics that the fight for 15 campaign has taken on a life of its own and is actually delivering on a $15 living wage as the minimum wage in the USA in a growing number of states and cities as well is in Democratic party presidential campaign pledges.
If there is any degree of economic sanity and practicality among living wage advocates, they know that such a high living wage increase will cost jobs.
After all, if a large wage increase for low-paid workers cost no jobs, why not increase everyone’s wage by a similar percentage, which is about 100% in the USA?
@BernieSanders Supporters Brutally Beat Each Other, Suddenly Realize They’re All Bernie Supporters
07 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in politics - USA Tags: 2016 presidential election
#MiltonFriedman v. @berniesanders
05 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, development economics, economic history, economics, economics of regulation, entrepreneurship, growth disasters, growth miracles, income redistribution, industrial organisation, labour economics, macroeconomics, Milton Friedman, minimum wage, occupational choice, politics - USA, Public Choice, public economics Tags: 2016 presidential election, Leftover Left
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments