Twenty years ago an economist got tired of his regular job and started selling bagels. In the morning, he would leave his bagels at offices alongside an honor-box. In the afternoon, he would pick up the leftovers and the payments. Being an economist he kept volumes of data on bagels eaten and payments made allowing him to deduce when and where people were the most dishonest.

Steve Levitt and journalist Steve Dubner write about “Paul F.’s” findings in the New York Times Magazine. Some of the results:

Theft declined 15 percent after 9/11.

People are more honest when the weather is especially good and more dishonest when the weather especially bad.

Smaller offices have lower crime rates, just like smaller cities.

Theft is high near Christmas.

Here’s the byline to the article:

Stephen J. Dubner, an author and journalist in New York City, and Steven D. Levitt, an economist at the University of Chicago, are writing a book about the economics of baby names, cheating, crack dealing and real estate.

Which leads me to wonder, what do these things have in common!

It seems doubtful. Believe it or not, Brad DeLong rises to Alex’s defense and in the process makes a number of excellent points about the market for economists and the economics of predatory pricing.

Shortly I am headed back from Poland to France, for one more day in Europe. I cannot help but wince at the especially high prices in France, compared to the United States. You may recall my mention of the five dollar chocolate bar; at home I could get the same for less than three dollars.

So a microeconomist might conclude that the U.S. dollar should rise over time. Arbitrage will cause people to buy more in the United States, helping out the dollar.

Or look at interest rates. You can pick and choose various comparisons, but overall they are not bearish for the dollar. That is investors do not expect the dollar to fall. Nominal interest rates on the dollar are low, but people are still holding dollars. So those investors presumably expect the dollar to appreciate.

Let’s bring the macroeconomist into the picture. He tells us that the United States has unsustainably high trade and budget deficits. The only way to clear these deficits, he says, is for the dollar to fall at least thirty percent. We will sell more exports, our trade balance will be restored, and our consumption binge will be checked. Long-run accounts will balance.

Could the macroeconomist be wrong? After all, someone has to be wrong.

If we are comparing the dollar and the Euro, I wonder whether the U.S. is really in a deficit position, all things considered. Even if our measured fiscal position is poorer (this depends who you compare us to), isn’t the American economic future brighter? We have better demographics, a more entrepreneurial culture, and arguably a more robust ability to reform and regenerate ourselves. The optimism of a population counts, though it doesn’t fully reveal itself on this year’s balance sheets.

So will the dollar rise or fall? Should we believe the microeconomists or the macroeconomists?

The nice thing about economics, of course, is that someday we will know. The problem with economics, of course, is that we don’t know now.

For an overview, here is a simple essay by Hal Varian on exchange rates. Niall Ferguson, a dollar pessimist, offers political commentary.

I am indebted to conversations with John Nye for some of the ideas in this post.

Not long ago I asked whether the marginal or the average tax rate had more influence on economic behavior. Too often economists take the measured marginal rate as the true trade-offs faced by the individual.

The ever-insightful Randall Parker recently emailed me the following, in support of the point:

1) People in conventional regular jobs do not have total control over how many hours they work or their income. For lots of jobs it is all or nothing. Either you work full time or you don’t work at all. You are on a salary. What you make is what you make. The marginal tax rate for the next dollar doesn’t matter to you since you don’t have much control over whether you get a raise.
You can’t boost or lower your income much in a given year. The alternatives that would give you more control are too risky or lower in income per hour worked or unappealing in some other way.

2) People in entrepreneurial pursuits often have far less predictability of income. It is hard to work harder or less hard in a given year as a reaction to marginal tax rates because you just do not know how many of the deals you are working on will close by the end of the year or when various billables out there will generate a check in your in-box. Believe me on this one if you haven’t been in this position. It is a real situation for lots of people.

3) You can’t predict in advance what your tax burden will be. Hey, only the tax expert can figure it out. How much will you get to keep? You’ll find out when he tells you. Kinda hard to behave during the work year as if you are responding to a known marginal tax rate at any given point.

4) Customers won’t let you respond to a known marginal tax rate. Again, this is a variation on the theme of a lack of control. You make deals early in the tax year and earn income at a low marginal tax rate. Then as the year goes along you keep a smaller fraction of what you earn. What to do about it? Laze off. Take a trip. Oh wait, your customers won’t let you. Still want them to be there in January when the marginal tax rate drops again? Well, you have to work hard to service their needs in the last 6 months of one year to get the lower tax rate income of the first six months of the following year. This means you have to work at a high marginal rate to get the low marginal rate income. Thinking of your tax rate as an average then makes more sense, doesn’t it?

5) On an even longer time scale people choose their careers at the beginning in part based on what they will make. If an economy has a high marginal tax rate then that can be an incentive to choose a less demanding and lower income career path. In that scenario it may make more sense to go for high job security since you could be faced with a tax schedule where you get more after-tax income making say, $50,000 for two years in a row than making $200,000 one year and $0 the next year.
I’d expect a shift toward lower marginal tax rates to most heavily impact career choices. So the impact would gradually increase as more people managed to retrain for higher income careers.

The bottom line: If you want to encourage private economic activity, don’t focus obsessively on measured marginal tax rates. True marginal rates tend to move closely with the size of government more generally. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: government spending is a better measure of our fiscal burden than marginal tax rates.

My thanks again to Randall for writing. And while you are at it, read Randall’s post on how trade protectionism makes us fatter and less healthy.

Addendum: Here is a useful recent piece on what the Laffer curve was all about, by Laffer himself.

I usually read six newspapers a day, and enjoy every one of them (can you guess which six?). But what to do on vacation, especially when traveling abroad? I hate reading papers on-line, plus I left all my passwords at home. And Polish newsstands are of varying quality.

Try NewspaperDirect.com, which delivers print-on-demand copies of your favorite paper directly to your hotel. Here is Poland I am enjoying the American edition of USA Today, and reading about the NBA Playoffs in depth. But hey, if the Lichtensteiner Volksblatt is your thing, you can get that too.

Increases in the price of rice are making a bad situation worse in Haiti. The problem, however, is not solely due to increases in the world price but also because, believe it or not, Haiti has customs duties on rice even though most people can afford nothing else for their one meal a day.

[Under Aristide] an Aristide crony received a near exclusive concession on rice imports and evaded customs duties. That evasion allowed the rice concessionaire to cut about $3 a bag off the market price, pass some of the savings on to the market and pocket the rest.

The new government is apparently less corrupt or at least the lines of corruption have not yet been formed, and as a result the price of rice has risen.