If you earn $36,000 per year, you are in the top one percent of our planet, for a more comprehensive look at your relative status, check out the Global Rich List, don’t use commas when you type in your yearly income. Their stated goal is to encourage charity and make us feel happy about how rich we are, in reality I think they are trying to make us feel guilty about how rich we are. They don’t mention the policies and cultural attitudes that created this wealth.
The reference is from the blog of John M Scalzi.
Addendum: Donald Sensing tells us much more about the genesis and meaning of the list.
Read this interview with Roger Douglass, former New Zealand finance minister and the initiator of New Zealand’s market reforms, which now have stalled for a decade.
Douglass tells us: “Government spending on welfare, retirement income, health and education has now reached $8,000 per New Zealander and $24,000 per household per year [that is Kiwi dollars, take 55 American cents as a ballpark figure for the time period in question]”. At the same time the quality of these services has not been rising. Douglass proposes tax credits for these services instead, combined with market provision on the supply side.
Unlike with vouchers (see Alex’s previous post on vouchers), the state would not have to define what constitutes an acceptable education or social service. This is a significant advantage of Douglass’s notion of tax credit. On the other hand, the reform institutes the equivalent of a negative income tax or guaranteed annual income. A welfare payment that is automatic and easy to collect has bad incentive effects and runs the risk of becoming a new middle class entitlement, increased before every election.
Douglass describes “believability” as the biggest obstacle to reform. Given that a large change would be in the offing, most New Zealanders simply would not believe that they would receive equal or greater quality services for the same or lower net price.
Peter Wallison, in today’s Wall Street Journal (registration required, and yes you have to pay), serves up a biting critique of Sarbanes-Oxley, the recent legislation aimed at limiting conflicts of interest within corporations.
Here is a key passage:
…this was a wholesale change in the governance of American corporations, putting significantly more authority into the hands of independent directors and correspondingly reducing the power of corporate managements…it may have had unintended consequences – a reluctance of managements to take the risks and make the investments that had previously brought the economy roaring back from periods of stagnation or recession…The independent directors of a company are part-timers…Unfamiliarity in turn breeds caution and conservatism…They [directors] have little incentive to take risk and multiple reasons to avoid it.
There is not much more to the Op-Ed than that, no real facts, but this is an important point. Passing Sarbanes-Oxley was a kneejerk reaction from a Congress that felt the need to do something, anything, about corporate scandals. The Senate voted for it 99-0 (only a few negative votes in the House), never a good sign, unanimous votes often mean that an angry and uninformed public opinion rules the day. Time will tell what costs we will pay for this mistake.
Here is a small bit on implementation costs, but keep in mind they are secondary to the question of how investment gets distorted. I realize that corporate insiders are not the ones to trust here, but they don’t like the law either.
Let’s accept the fact that corporate governance isn’t always fair, and opt for the system that does the best job of delivering the goods.
Addendum: Here is a direct link.
Virginia Postrel, in defense of the new FDA-approved drug that can make your kids taller.
David Warsh offers a good, balanced piece, with good links, on Russia’s recent economic performance, seven percent growth last year, a bright spot in Europe. A third of Muscovites earn a normal European wage.
I visited Moscow last month, it seemed poorer to me than Mexico City. Even more worrisome, there was a noticeable apathy about politics, only the Mafias seem to care. My wife is Russian, so I had good chances to meet and talk with other Russians, a select group no doubt, but even they had little passion to work for political improvement.
Stay tuned. And don’t ask about the provinces.
Thomas Sowell endorses Arnie for governor, read his analysis, “I will vote for Arnold and hope for the best.”
I have found some data on the relative importance of word of mouth for various purchases and choices. The first number in each category is what percent of respondents say they rely on other people, as one of the three best sources of information in a given area. The second number is the percent relying primarily on advertising:
Restaurants: 83, 35 (word of mouth is huge, by the way check out my ethnic dining guide)
Places to visit: 71, 33
Prescription drugs to try: 71, 21 (the prevalence of word of mouth here surprised me, do men really boast to other men about the effectiveness of Viagra? Or do women spread the word?)
Movies to see: 61, 67 (this time I am surprised that advertising is so effective, I guess that is why they spend $30 million marketing the average Hollywood movie)
Videos to rent or buy: 59, 45
Retirement planning: 58, 9
Clothes to buy: 50, 59
Finding a new job: 47, 54 (I am surprised that ads are so potent here)
Computer equipment: 40, 18
Web sites to visit: 37, 12
From the new book The Influentials, by Ed Keller and Jon Berry. The book is about the ten percent of the American population that (supposedly) tells the other ninety percent what to do, I assume that bloggers fall into the former category. The material is a bit fluffy, still unlike many marketing books it does have useful facts and figures. By the way, we are told that word of mouth is important for books too, although there is no single simple figure to cite.
Tyler is concerned that a voucher system for education might end up looking like our health care market – “a crazy-quilt mix of bad incentives, high costs, and increasing levels of intervention.” But our health care system is not a voucher system – much more relevant is the existing voucher system for housing. Public housing has been a disaster in this country, low quality, dangerous and expensive (to the taxpayer). The Section 8 voucher and similar certificate programs have been far superior on all measures. What would you rather have – an apartment in a public housing project, costing the taxpayer $1000 a month, or a voucher worth $500 a month that you could spend on private housing?
Five major studies have estimated both the cost per unit and the mean market rent of units provided by housing certificates and vouchers and important production programs, namely Public Housing, Section 236, and Section 8 New Construction.1 These studies are based on data from a wide variety of housing markets and for projects built in many different years. Three were multi-million dollar studies conducted for HUD by respected research firms during the Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan administrations. They are unanimous in finding that housing certificates and vouchers provide equally desirable housing at a much lower total cost than any project-based assistance that has been studied, even though all of these studies are biased in favor of project-based assistance to some extent by the omission of certain indirect costs.
As with housing, the market for education would be very competitive so we would not see price rises due to monopoly problems (as Tyler fears might be the case). There has been a big debate about whether private schools result in better outcomes that public schools. Put aside this debate and focus on what is undeniable – private schools have achieved at least as good outcomes as have public schools but at about half the cost (similar to the cost savings of vouchers over public housing). Thus we are starving the most productive sector of the educational market and throwing money at the least productive sector. Prices might rise in a voucher market but only as a rational response to the lower price of quality in private schools.
I saw my first one today – a Segway, ridden by a student! It went by me quite fast. Will they become the next cool item on spread-out suburban campuses? Maybe, but I predict students will still be late for class.
An article in today’s Washington Post cites recent research on the heritability of IQ. Here is the bottom line:
“Genes do explain the vast majority of IQ differences among children in wealthier families…But environmental factors – not genetic deficits – explain IQ differences among poor minorities.” The IQ heritability quotient is 0.72 for well-to-do families, but only 0.10 for poor families. The key data involves 623 pairs of twins born to poor black mothers. It seems that genes and environment interact to a greater degree than had previously been thought, perhaps good genes help you only significantly only when you have a certain minimum level of educational opportunity.
The piece will be out in the November issue of Psychological Science, here is the home page of the author, Eric Turkheimer.
www.aldaily.com carries a review of Virginia Postrel’s new book The Substance of Style, on how ours is an age obsessed with beauty and style. Virginia, of course, has one of the best-known blogs, in addition to being a periodic columnist for the New York Times, I would describe her views as “light-handed libertarian.” I will post a review of the book in due time.
I have often wondered what an educational voucher will buy. How large need vouchers be to give students access to decent education? A recent Cato study, by David Salisbury, attempts to answer this question.
Here is part of the Executive Summary:
“Government figures indicate that the average private elementary school tuition in the United States is less than $3,500 and the average private secondary school tuition is $6,052. Therefore, a voucher amount of $5,000 would give students access to most private schools. Since average per pupil spending for public schools is now $8,830, most states could offer a voucher amount even greater than $5,000 and still realize substantial savings. A survey of private schools in New Orleans; Houston; Denver; Charleston, S.C.; Washington, D.C.; and Philadelphia shows that there are many options available to families with $5,000 to spend on a child’s education. Even more options would be available if all parents were armed with a voucher or tax credit of that amount.”
Salisbury admits that the cost figures do not include all capital outlays or pension liabilities. On the other hand, vouchers could introduce more competition, lowering costs.
I worry about how vouchers themselves will affect prices and costs. Private schools for poor urban students are cheap, in part, because the school knows the parents cannot afford much more. If the first $5000 is free, the price could go up considerably. In addition, if the schools can somehow coordinate on yet higher prices, there will be political pressures to raise the voucher amount.
Mixed public-private systems are not always cheaper than more public systems, in part because private firms are often skilled in extracting resources from the public sector. The American health care system, for instance, has considerably higher administrative costs than does the “single-payer” Canadian system, read here for a recent comparison. I don’t favor national health insurance by any means, but these figures should give pause to voucher advocates.
The research of Harvard professor Caroline Hoxby suggests that increased school competition brings increased school quality. But her work does not clear up the most difficult questions about vouchers. If you imagine the system in place, on a large scale, for lengthy periods of time, and subject to pressures for rent-seeking and regulation, what would it look like? Would it truly serve parent demands for good education, or would it look more like the American system of health care, a crazy-quilt mix of bad incentives, high costs, and increasing levels of intervention?
This delightful site lists and describes the uses of game theory in film, television, music and other areas of popular culture. The entry for Dr. Strangelove, for instance, reads as follows:
Kubrick’s cold war dark comedy. One five-minute scene explains credible commitment, highlighting the importance of clarity, irreversibility, and public knowledge.
Maybe you already knew that one, but check out the takes on House of Games, Princess Bride, and War Games, all underrated movies, chock full of game theory. See also the site’s treatment of TV shows, the links on music and books are skimpier and less convincing. The book section could be much more complete, the music section is doomed to be short, at least they could have mentioned John Cage’s idea for “aleatory” (random) composition. We do learn that the Greek composer Xenakis once wrote an intentionally game-theoretic piece for two competing orchestras.
More deeply, we may question the book’s premise. Has the United States really solved the scarcity problem? That may have been more true five decades ago when a tract called The Affluent Society first made the case. Then, the United States was the world’s dominant industrial power. Today, our material abundance rests on fragile strands: our military reach, the willingness of the world to export cheap goods to us and to lend us the means to pay for them.
In the past 50 years real GDP per-capita has almost tripled (and this doesn’t account for improvements in the quality of many goods and services) and yet it may have been more true 50 years ago that the scarcity problem was solved?!! This is taking family fealty too far. The explanations for our fragile abundance are not too convincing either. Put aside the fact that the US is less dependent on trade than most other industrial nations. More interesting is that Galbraith thinks that the hundreds of billions of dollars we are spending on military adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere are a net positive for the economy. Why? Later he suggests that the Iraq war is about a “tenacious drive for oil.” Where then is the oil dividend? Has Galbraith filled up at the pump recently? In truth, Empire rarely pays and whatever the political case for war it will never turn a profit.
A familiar and useful source on American politics is back, the Almanac of American Politics, edited by Michael Barone, see the book’s web page, you get 1800 pages for your $60. It analyzes every American political district exhaustively, and has been accused of having a conservative political bias. The Chicago Tribune tells us that Barone is to politics as Bill James is to baseball. Recommended for researchers and political junkies.