Category: Law
Regulating a Monopolist without Subsidy
We study monopoly regulation under asymmetric information about costs when subsidies are infeasible. A monopolist with privately known marginal cost serves a single product market and sets a price. The regulator maximizes a weighted welfare function using unit taxes as sole policy instrument. We identify a sufficient and necessary condition for when laissez-faire is optimal. When intervention is desired, we provide simple sufficient conditions under which the optimal policy is a progressive price cap: prices below a benchmark face no tax, while higher prices are taxed at increasing and potentially prohibitive rates. This policy combines delegation at low prices with taxation at high prices, balancing access, affordability, and profitability. Our results clarify when taxes act as complements to subsidies and when they serve only as imperfect substitutes, illuminating how feasible policy instruments shape optimal regulatory design.
That is from a new paper by Jiaming Wei and Dihan Zou. Via the excellent Samir Varma.
Effective tax rates for billionaires
Here is the tweet, here is the source data.
The Australian government is overreaching already
The social media ban for the young applies to Substack:
The process was more painful for users of newer platforms that collect far less behavioural data—like Substack. Again, this is something I didn’t predict. In the circles I move in, Substack’s sudden requirement that users upload ID has caused significant ire. But this reaction misunderstands how the eSafety Commissioner’s powers work in relation to the under‑16 ban—or perhaps reflects a hope that Substack would have shown more backbone than it did…
Many people assume that if a platform isn’t on the “banned” list, it doesn’t need to comply with the regulations. This is not true. Only platforms expressly excluded are exempt. Everything else is treated as prohibited for under‑16s unless specifically allowed—a distinct departure from the traditional English liberties approach that everything is legal unless expressly made illegal. This approach is to prevent young users from migrating from a banned platform to an unlisted alternative.
That is by Dara Macdonald on Quillette, via Arnold Kling. I am hoping that consistent advocates of free speech will speak up and repudiate this ban…
The Effects of Ransomware Attacks on Hospitals and Patients
As cybercriminals increasingly target health care, hospitals face the growing threat of ransomware attacks. Ransomware is a type of malicious software that prevents users from accessing electronic systems and demands a ransom to restore access. We create and link a database of hospital ransomware attacks to Medicare claims data. We quantify the effects of ransomware attacks on hospital operations and patient outcomes. Ransomware attacks decrease hospital volume by 17–24 percent during the initial attack week, with recovery occurring within 3 weeks. Among patients already admitted to the hospital when a ransomware attack begins, in-hospital mortality increases by 34–38 percent.
That is by Hannah Neprash, Claire McGlave, and Sayeh Nikpay, recently published in American Economic Journal: Economic Policy.
The United States as an Active Industrial Policy Nation
We document and characterize a new history of U.S. federal-level industrial policies by scanning all 12,167 Congressional Acts and 6,030 Presidential Orders from 1973 through 2022. We find several interesting patterns. First, contrary to a common perception, the United States has always been an active industrial policy nation throughout the period, regardless of which party is in power, with 5.4 laws and 3.4 Presidential Orders per year on average containing new industrial policies. Second, we identify roughly 300% more instances of industrial policies than those in the Global Trade Alert (GTA) database during 2008-2022, despite using essentially the same definition. Third, industrial policies in practice are as likely to be justified by national security as by economic competitiveness. Fourth, many U.S. industrial policies incorporate design features that help mitigate potential drawbacks, such as explicit expiration dates and pilot programs for emerging technologies. Finally, based on stock market reactions and firm performance, the identified policies are recognized as economically significant in shifting resource allocations.
That is from a new NBER working paper by
So if I were designing an “industrial policy” for America, my first priority would be to improve and “unstick” its procurement cycles. There may well be bureaucratic reasons that this is difficult to do. But if it can’t be done, then perhaps the U.S. shouldn’t be setting its sights on a more ambitious industrial policy.
A second form of American industrial policy is the biomedical grants and subsidies associated with the National Institutes of Health.
Published in 2019, but still relevant today.
Should You Resign?
At least six prosecutors resigned in early January over DOJ pressure to investigate the widow of Renee Good (killed by ICE agent Jonathan Ross) instead of the agent himself. They cited political interference, exclusion of state police, and diversion of resources from priority fraud cases. Similarly, an FBI agent was ordered to stand down from investigating the killing of Good. She resigned. The killing of Alex Pretti and what looks to be an attempted federal coverup will likely lead to more resignations. Is resignation the right choice? I tweeted:
I appreciate the integrity, but every principled resignation is an adverse selection.
In other words, when the good leave and the bad don’t, the institution rots.
Resignation can be useful as a signal–this person is giving up a lot so the issue must be important. Resignations can also create common knowledge–now everyone knows that everyone knows. The canonical example is Attorney General Elliot Richardson resigning rather than carrying out Nixon’s order to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. At that time, a resignation was like lighting the beacon. But today, who is there to be called?
The best case for not resigning is that you retain voice—the ability to slow, document, escalate, and resist within lawful channels. In the U.S. system that can mean forcing written directives, triggering inspector-general review, escalating through professional responsibility channels, and building coalitions that outlast transient political appointees. Staying can matter.
But staying is corrupting. People are prepared to say no to one big betrayal, but a steady drip of small compromises depreciates the will: you attend the meetings, sign the forms, stay silent when you should speak. Over time the line moves, and what once felt intolerable starts to feel normal, categories blur. People who on day one would never have agreed to X end up doing X after a chain of small concessions. You may think you’re using the institution, but institutions are very good at using you. Banality deadens evil.
Resignation keeps your hands and conscience clean. That’s good for you but what about society? Utilitarians sometimes call the demand for clean hands a form of moral self-indulgence. A privileging of your own purity over outcomes. Bernard Williams’s reply is that good people are not just sterile utility-accountants, they have deep moral commitments and sometimes resignation is what fidelity to those commitments requires.
So what’s the right move? I see four considerations:
- Complicity: Are you being ordered to do wrong, or, usually the lesser crime, of not doing right?
- Voice: If you stay can you exercise voice? What’s your concrete theory of change—what can you actually block, document, or escalate?
- Timing: Is reversal possible soon or is this structural capture? Are you the remnant?
- Self-discipline: Will you name the bright lines now and keep them, or will “just this once” become the job?
I have not been put in a position to make such a choice but from a social point of view, my judgment is that at the current time, voice is needed and more effective than exit.
Hat tip: Jim Ward.
On immigration warrants (from the comments)
As a matter of law ( 8 U.S.C. § 1357) warrants are not strictly required for immigration enforcement.
That may be a bad law – then run folks for the legislature to change it.
That may be unconsitutional law – then sue in court and let the lawyers hash it out.
That may be immoral law and we should support jury nulification.
But I see very little to be gained by demanding the duly designated law enforcement officers be held to some code of conduct defined by the PR concerns.
I think the most unconscionable thing is that we have given officers legal remit to “interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien”, “to arrest any alien in the United States, if he has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest”, “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel …, railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle” explicitly without a warrant and then have neither had the populace buy in nor curtailed the law.
Either rein in the legal remit or instruct the populace what is on the books. As is, we get the worst of both worlds.
The actual laws on the books for immigration are simply not what folks expect. And if the locals are unwilling to help enforce stuff (as is their right as I understand federalism), this only gets more troublesome.
I wish we could have some sort of compromise where the locals will make enforcing immigration law viable and we could remove some of the extraordinairy powers currently on the books. And more than anything I wish somebody, anybody would go after the employers. Jail the folks violating labor laws knowing that they create all manner of horrible situations.
And again, you want full Libertarian open borders? Then make changes to the laws via democracy. But for right now we are unwilling to touch the folks who most benefit from illegal immigrant labor, expect the feds to wisely use massive powers, and are unwilling to face these realities in popular opinion.
That is from Sure. I would very much favor extending civil liberties in these directions, though that does not include going after the employers.
A more intelligent comment than most of the emotional reactions we are seeing
What portion of Republicans think the Trump admin/ICE killing a few hundred people, roughing up a few thousand more, and violating all kinds of civil liberties is an acceptable price to pay for making net migration go deeply negative?
The answer to that tells you when/how this ends.
If it’s a small minority (unlikely), there’s going to be internal pushback that brings the worst excesses under control.
If it’s around half (that’s my guess), you’ll get paralysis but not a doubling down. There will be a lot of what-about-isms and excuse-making and reflexive defending of co-partisans and blaming Democrats/protestors, but it’s basically more of this.
But if it’s a large majority (and it might be), this only gets worse from here. Because it means they don’t actually see what’s going on as unacceptable and in fact find it preferable to not achieving those deeply net-negative immigration goals.
That is from Democrat Gary Winslett. And I agree with his guess for the middle scenario.
More generally, do not let your emotions make you into a counterproductive political force. My personal belief is that recent levels of illegal immigration have become a political problem for the United States (i.e., most voters do not want it, and thus we must do something to stop democracy from being ruined), but it is not a very large practical problem, apart from some number of border and near-border towns. It still yields net gains. So I very much dislike recent ICE activities. But you need to think through the political equilibrium. Making the issue more salient through your emotions and self-righteousness might be turning you into a tool of the forces you dislike. Are you so sure that having people discuss “immigration” more will turn in your favor, when polls indicate that people prefer Republican to Democratic approaches on the issue? “Visceral” discussions about emotionally charged shootings might be worse yet. While Americans do not like recent ICE activities, they still favor rigorous border enforcement and many of them will vote accordingly.
Overall, I want immigration discussions to be less emotional, not more emotional, and perhaps that is the relevant choice variable here.
So often the MAGA strategy is to make an issue more salient, thus winning over time, by provoking opponents into public displays of emotion. Or the strategy is simply to make Trump himself more salient? Are you smart enough to avoid that, and also to keep your own analytical faculties intact? Obviously similar remarks apply to many issues of foreign policy as well, Canada and Denmark are you listening?
The Tyranny of the Complainers II
The Los Angeles City Council recently voted to increase the fee to file an objection to new housing. The fee for an “aggrieved person” to file an objection to development is currently $178 and will rise to $229. Good news, right? But here’s the rest of the story: it costs the city about $22,000 to investigate and process each objection. This means objections are subsidized by roughly $21,800 per case—a subsidy rate of nearly 99%.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the equation:
While fees will remain relatively low for housing project opponents, developers will have to pay $22,453 to appeal projects that previously had been denied.
In other words, objecting to new housing is massively subsidized, while appeals to build new housing are charged at full cost—more than 100 times higher than aggrieved complainer fees. This appears to violate the department’s own guidelines, which state:
When a service or activity benefits the public at large, there is generally little to no recommended fee amount. Conversely, when a service or activity wholly benefits an individual or entity, the cost recovery is generally closer or equal to 100 percent.
Expanding housing supply benefits the public at large, while objections typically serve narrow private interests. Thus, by the department’s own logic, it’s the developers who should be given low fees not the complainers.
Addendum: See also my previous post The Tyranny of the Complainers.
Greenland fact of the day
Greenland held a referendum on 23 February 1982 and voted to leave the European Communities / European Economic Community (EEC) (about 52–53% for leaving).
GPT link. They left in 1985.
I write this not to justify current American policy, which I consider a major mistake with extremely poor execution. Rather the point is that we are pushing the Greenlanders into the arms of the Danes, when over some longer haul it could be very different.
The FT offers many more interesting facts about Greenland, including its growing dependence on Asian foreign labor.
Why are groceries so expensive in NYC?
The lowest-hanging fruit is to simply legalize selling groceries in more of the city. The most egregious planning barrier is that grocery stores over 10,000 square feet are not generally allowed as-of-right in so-called “M” districts, which are the easiest places to find sites large enough to accommodate the large stores that national grocers are used to. Many of these districts are mapped in places that are not what people have in mind when they think “industrial” — mixed-use neighborhoods with lots of housing like stretches of Williamsburg’s Bedford Avenue and almost all of Gowanus, even post-rezoning, are in fact mapped as industrial districts.
To open a full-sized grocery store in these areas, a developer must seek a “special permit,” which requires the full City Council to get together and vote for an exception to the rules. This is a long, uncertain process, and has in the past even been an invitation to corruption.
Most famously, the City Council uses this power to keep out Walmart at the behest of unions and community groups. Thwarted in its plans to open a store in East New York — a low-income Brooklyn neighborhood that could desperately use more grocery options — the nation’s largest grocer instead serves New Yorkers with a store just beyond the Queens/Nassau line in Valley Stream, rumored to be the busiest Walmart in the country. New Yorkers with a car and the willingness to schlep beyond city limits — or pay the Instacart premium — get access to cheaper groceries; the rest get locked out.
When politicians are willing to approve a grocery store, the price can be high.
That is by Stephen Smith, via Josh Barro.
Michelle Tandler on NYC rent control
This is what I’m seeing: + 2.4 million rent-controlled apartments in a city with a massive housing shortage and 1.4% vacancy rate.
+ A huge % of these tenants are wealthy, white boomers using the units as pieds-a-terres while they spend their weekends and summers elsewhere.
+ Meanwhile, the government is using rent control to purposely drive down the value of multifamily housing, so that it can be purchased in a fire sale by the government.
+ The small-time landlords with big rent rolls of “stabilized” units are going under. Their portfolios end up in the arms of PE and foreign money (how are Progressives okay with this?) The banks will get hit by this too.
+ Because there is such a reduction in supply (~40% of units are price-controlled), leftover supply is ~33% more expensive + Because NYC gov is not friendly towards landlords, there is a lack of development –> even less supply
+ Rich and homeowners overwhelmingly support these laws b/c it drives up the value of their condos & co-ops (less supply –> higher prices for condos)
+ Big PE companies like these policies b/c they can buy buildings in fire sales and wait for rent control reform (5-10 years out)
+ Meanwhile – ~2.4 million units are rotting and won’t be brought up to code as tenants leave b/c the numbers don’t pencil –> 50k “ghost apartments” padlocked off market now, maybe 100k soon
+ Gen Z and the working class continue to vote for these policies, hoping they will be among the lucky few to win the lottery ticket of a rent-controlled apartment
+ Meanwhile, boomers hang onto their units and pass them to their children, family members, etc. –> NYC’s housing stock is rotting slowly, going offline, and becoming more expensive
Here is the link. Thoughts to ponder, whether or not you believe in all of those steps. Here is some Maryland data, not sophisticated econometrics.
AI Physicians At Last
In 2004 (!) I wrote:
Many people complain that medicine is too impersonal. I think it is not impersonal enough. I have nothing against my physician (a local magazine says he is one of the best in the area) but I would prefer to be diagnosed by a computer. A typical physician spends most of the day playing twenty questions. Where does it hurt? Do you have a cough? How high is the patient’s blood pressure? But an expert system can play twenty questions better than most people. An expert system can use the best knowledge in the field, it can stay current with the journals, and it never forgets.
It took longer than it should have, but we are finally here. Today, most people already use AI to help diagnose and manage medical conditions, and now:
Utah is letting artificial intelligence — not a doctor — renew certain medical prescriptions. No human involved.
It’s a pilot program for routine renewals but a welcome start. The AMA, of course, is not pleased.
In a statement, Dr. John Whyte, CEO and executive vice president at the American Medical Association, said: “While AI has limitless opportunity to transform medicine for the better, without physician input it also poses serious risks to patients and physicians alike.”
One concern is misuse or abuse, including the possibility that people struggling with addiction could try to game automated systems to obtain drugs inappropriately. Another concern is missing subtle clinical red flags or drug interactions that a doctor would catch.
It’s amazing that anyone can say these things with a straight face. As far as I know, AI has never run a pill mill, unlike human physicians. And the AI
“missing subtle clinical red flags or drug interactions that a doctor would catch.” Is this a joke?
The downside of NAFTA?
We study how NAFTA changed the geography of violence in Mexico. We propose that this open border policy increased trafficking profits of Mexican cartels, resulting in violent competition among them. We test this hypothesis by comparing changes in drug-related homicides after NAFTA’s introduction in 1994 across municipalities with and without drug-trafficking routes. Routes are predicted least cost paths connecting municipalities with a recent history of detected drug trafficking with U.S. land ports of entry. On these routes, homicides increase by 2.1 per 100,000 inhabitants, which is equivalent to 26% of the pre-NAFTA mean. These results cannot be explained by changes in worker’s opportunity costs of using violence resulting from the trade shock.
That is from a new JDE paper by Eduardo Hidalgo, Erik Horning, and Pablo Selaya. Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.
Chairman Powell’s Statement
Whether an independent Fed is desirable is beside the point. The core issue is lawfare: the strategic use of legal processes to intimidate, constrain, and punish institutional actors for political ends. Lawfare is the hallmark of a failing state because it erodes not just political independence, but the capacity for independent judgment.
What sort of people will work at the whim of another? The inevitable result is toadies and ideological loyalists heading complex institutions, rather than people chosen for their knowledge and experience.