Results for “food”
2044 found

Are Soviet-style price controls returning?

by  Tyler Cowen in

As the New York Times noted last week,
food prices have been on a tear in Russia.  With elections approaching,
Vladimir Putin decided pricey potatoes and pierogies just wouldn’t do.
The solution: Soviet-style price controls.

I am a fan of Daniel Gross’s Slate writings, but I don’t think that claim is quite correct.  What made Soviet-style price controls Soviet-style was the absence of normal residual claimancy.  As David Levy has shown, the resulting incentive was to lower prices to deliberate shortage-inducing levels.  Managers would then sell access for favors, often access to goods and services elsewhere.  Therefore the incentive was to enforce the price control and limit access to the good.  Shortages were virtually everywhere and much of the economy reverted to barter.

Today most Russian firms are private or at least involve residual claimants, and both managers and owners wish to accumulate money not favors.  The incentive is to evade price controls, or to adjust the quality of the good to match the new specified price.  Most markets will still clear, albeit in inefficient ways.  These price controls are hardly a good idea, but their impact won’t be one tenth as bad as the price controls of the older regime.  Often the goal of such price controls is simply to lower the measured rate of inflation, or to allow the government to claim it is doing something rather than nothing.  I’d be surprised if shoppers at the major Moscow supermarkets notice a major difference.

Underappreciated economists, a continuing series

by  Tyler Cowen in

Vivian Hoffman, currently a Ph.d. candidate at Cornell.  When I read this description of her research I think that modern economics is very much on the right track:

I study the economics of anti-poverty and health interventions using household survey and experimental economics methods.  Most of my work to date has been in East Africa.  For my dissertation research on demand for and intra-household allocation of insecticide-treated mosquito nets, I conducted fieldwork in southwestern Uganda. Ongoing projects include a study on the impact of food aid receipt on labor supply and agricultural production in Malawi, estimateing the returns to farm assets in rural Ethiopia, and an experimental investigation into the effect of stigma on HIV testing behavior.  I hope to continue working at the intersection of health and development economics.  My interests also include health and poverty-related issues in Canada and the United States.

Here is the abstract on her main paper:

This paper reports results from a field experiment in Uganda. Whether a mosquito net was purchased or received for free affected who within the household used the net. Free nets were more likely to be allocated to those members of the household most vulnerable to malaria, whereas purchased nets tended to be used by the household’s main income earners. The effect was strongest for free nets received by the mother, increasing the probability that all children five and younger slept under nets by 26 percent relative to when nets had been purchased by either parent or given to the father.

In other words, within the household the breadwinners have a greater practical ability to control priced goods than non-priced goods.  This hints at one reason why men are often more willing to "think like economists" within the family.

You might think that Vivian has not yet done enough to be judged, but surely she has done enough to be judged as underappreciated.  So go appreciate her and remove that label from her name!

Nanny State

by  Tyler Cowen in

The government really doesn’t have the right to tell you what to do, provided you are respecting the rights of others.  Yes maybe public order is at stake and restriction leads to greater liberty, such as when we pay taxes for public goods.  Or maybe the line between liberty and fraudulent behavior is hard to define and we should err on the side of restriction to limit criminal activity.  Or maybe you can imagine a paternalism so "soft" (brussels sprouts in the SEC cafeteria?) that no one could rightfully call it coercion.

But in the majority of cases, government really doesn’t have the right to tell you what to do. 

You can huff and puff and tell me all about socially constructed individuals and the moral arbitrariness of the market’s bargaining solution.  But the more you chip away at the rights of the individual, the more you are weakening the case for the morality of state authority as well.  On a day-to-day basis states are made up of acting individuals.  Bureaucracy can, if used properly, be an enabler of individual autonomy.  But the case for bureaucracy, when indeed that case holds, relies on the intrinsic and instrumental values of individual autonomy.

Knocking down the moral status of me — the victim — does not elevate the moral status of the guy who works at the Department of Agriculture.  Should reading Rawls raise your opinion of The Ministry of Silly Walks?

I want my non-pasteurized, not-aged-for-six-months cheese!

If you agree with the sentiments expressed in this post, you should read David Harsanyi’s new and forceful Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and Other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning American into a Nation of Children.

The Coldest Winter

by  Tyler Cowen in

…this is my first visit to Thomas Keller’s temple of haute cuisine in Yountville, California, and I can’t wait to see whether it lives up to its reputation.  More importantly, however, my dining companions are three outstanding chefs from Sichuan province, a heartland of Chinese gastronomy…None of them has ever been to the West before, or had any real encounters with what is known in China as "Western food," and I am as much interested in their reactions to the meal as my own.

Driving down HIghway 29 to the restaurant, I had prepared my guests by casually remarking, "You’re very lucky, because we are going to visit one of the best restaurants in the world."

In the world? asked Lan Guijun.  "According to whom?"

..as I warm up to the pleasures of this utterly satisfying dinner, I can’t help noticing that my companions are having a rather different experience.  Yu Bo, the most adventurous of the three, is intent of savoring every mouthful and studying the composition of our meal.  He is solemn in his concentration.  But the other two are simply soldiering on.  And for all three of them, I realize with devastating clarity, this is a most difficult, a most alien, a most challenging experience.

They find the creaminess of the sabayon offputting, the rareness of the lamb unhealthy, and the olives to taste like Chinese medicine.  Don’t ask about the cheese, and they are amazed that "a bowl of soupy rice" [risotto] could cost so much.  A few days of dining later, they find eating salad to be barbaric (it is raw), and sourdough bread to be tough and chewy.

Yu Bo, to my great satisfaction, is pleasantly impressed with the first raw oyster of his life, and even ventures to take a second.  When I ask him how they taste, he nods furiously in approval.  "Not bad, not bad; a bit like jellyfish."

That is from Gourmet magazine, August 2005 issue.  Here is my previous post on inaccessibility and large cultures.

Dogs can, monkeys and wolves can’t

by  Tyler Cowen in

The researchers held two containers, one empty and the other
containing food, in front of chimpanzees and dogs. Then they pointed to
the correct container. The canines understood the gesture immediately,
while the apes, genetically much more closely related to humans, were
often perplexed by the pointing finger.

That’s not all. Many dogs were even capable of interpreting the
researcher’s gaze. When the scientists looked at a container, the dogs
would search inside for food, but when they looked in the direction of
the container but focused on a point above it on the wall, the dogs
were able to understand that this was not meant as a sign.

Puppies seem able to do this before they have been socialized with human beings.

Says one researcher: "The great advantage of dogs is that we can study them in their
natural habitat without any great effort," explains Adám Miklósi.

Here is the full story, hat tip to Mark Thoma.

The economy of airports

by  Tyler Cowen in

Maria says:

Here are the things most people would happily pay for at an international transit airport: – a shower – clean underwear (for those of us who habitually forget to pack it) – daylight – an exercise facility to help with the jetlag and minimise DVT – nutritious but not too heavy food – a nap, lying flat, somewhere quiet.

And here’s what is generally available: – Gucci – Chanel – l’Occitane – Bodyshop – Lacoste – Nike – a few plastic seats – McDonalds, dougnuts, and the local variety of fried, sugary dross to add a sugar hangover to your jetlag.

Megan says:

…in an airport, foot traffic is very high, and space is at a premium.  So you should expect to see things that go at a very high volume (McDonalds) or things that are very expensive per-inch-of-display-space, such as Gucci.  Showers and napping capsules do not meet either criteria.

Tyler says:

Think of airports as temporary prisons for the wealthy, and the luxury good offerings as reflecting the extreme value of their attention.  Airports will sell goods which are complements to that attention, which is otherwise so hard to get. 

Compare the Brooks Brothers outlet at Reagan National Airport with the Brooks Brothers outlet at Tysons Corner Mall.  I’ll predict the former devotes a greater percentage of floor space to eye-catching, easy-to-buy, easy to try on items, such as ties.

Another prediction is this: in countries (cities) where the wealthy people are not hurried (relative to shop hours), there should be fewer luxury goods in the airports.  What are examples?  Monaco?  Nice?  Spain?  London would seem to be an example of extreme hurry.

And what does Air Genius Gary Leff say?

Addendum: The genius weighs in.

The theology of popular economics

by  Tyler Cowen in

Once I pick up a popular economics book, I ask myself: what is this book’s implicit theology?  (How would you in this regard classify Freakonomics?  Undercover Economist?  Steve Landsburg?)

That is one of the best first questions to ask about any non-fiction book. 

I view Discover Your Inner Economist as largely Thomist and more Catholic than anything else.

It is suggested that people are capable of simply doing the right thing, although we should not necessarily expect them to do the right thing.

It is suggested that a unified perspective of faith and reason, applied in voluntarist fashion, can indeed give people better and more complete lives.

It is suggested that not everything can be bought and sold, yet markets have a very important role in human life.

The chapters on food, or the seven deadly sins, are too obvious to require explanation.

The book is highly cosmopolitan, and it is suggested that acts of will and understanding can open up the sacraments to us.  The possibility of those sacraments lies right before our very eyes, and they are literally available for free.  Except the relevant sacraments are those of culture, and not of the Roman Church.

I am not a Catholic or for that matter a believer, but as I tried to solve various problems in the exposition, the argument fell naturally into religious ideas.  Religion has so much power over the human mind, in part, because its basic teachings about life are largely true.  Furthermore classical liberalism is far more of an intellectual offshoot of Christianity than most non-Christians are keen to admit.  (Muslims and Chinese often see this more clearly.)

So when I realized that Inner Economist had this strongly Thomist philosophic flavor, I was greatly comforted.

In this post the Episcopalians ponder their Inner Economists.

I hope to write more soon on political philosophy in Discover Your Inner Economist.

Discover Your Inner Playboy

by  Tyler Cowen in

Playboy reviews Discover Your Inner Economist.  Excerpt:

In the self-conscious style of a seasoned blogger, Cowen’s best moments
come when he riffs on the "Me Factor," his term for ego-driven
consumerism. As an avid art and food lover, Cowen’s advice on
broadening your taste focuses on transcending your own Me Factor, to
trick yourself into paying greater attention to your life. Cowen offers
this tidbit for not getting bored in an art museum: "In every room ask
yourself which picture
you would take home — and why." Focusing attention, not letting it
grow scarce, produces economic rewards just as much as investing in
your portfolio.

The link is reasonably safe for work, though one of the ads may make your attention more scarce.  Here is also an NYT and Reuters piece from today on the book.

Paying the Tab

by  Tyler Cowen in

The subtitle is The Costs and Benefits of Alcohol Control, and the book (here is its home page) has more on the latter than the former.  The author, economist Philip J. Cook, produces a wide range of reasonable arguments that alcohol is too cheap on the supply side, given its social costs.

The quality of the argumentation is high, but perhaps I have too much of a libertarian closed mind (more or less) on the issue.  I hold the following views:

1. I don’t have an a priori belief in uniform rates of taxation, and if you twist my arm I’ll admit bad things should be taxed at higher rates than good things, at least provided we can avoid slippery slopes of ever-encroaching government paternalism.

2. Penalties for drunk driving should be much stricter.

3. I think the world would be a better place if most people simply stopped drinking, 100 percent plain, outright stopped.  Admittedly drink cross-subsidizes quality food, so if there is any loser it might be me.

4. For reasons of ethics and morality, I don’t think governments should regulate adult substance consumption.

5. I see some role for governments to regulate substance consumption to prevent spillover effects onto minors.

I do understand that #1, #4, and #5 are not fully consistent, but this mix of views still seems right to me.  And unless I see the world coming to an end through booze — and I don’t — I’m still stuck on #4, no matter how good Cook’s evidence and arguments.  Alcohol is but one issue in the age-old battle between liberty and tyranny, a fight which I see as more important in the longer run than sobriety vs. stimulants. 

I do worry about more powerful drugs or neurostimulators.  I am struck at how weak a temptation alcohol is, relative to what the future will bring.  In the meantime, if alcohol restrictions fail on the grounds of liberty, I guess I am back to my closed libertarian mind.

Discover Your Inner Economist India

by  Tyler Cowen in

I’ve been to India twice and both times I have been received with the utmost hospitality and enthusiasm.  I loved the food, the music, the diversity, and the more-than-occasional chaos.  Most of all I loved how the people engaged me so directly, and how every moment was so full of human drama and stories. 

Since India has given me so much, I wish to make a merit-based gift to India in return. 

My new book Discover Your Inner Economist: Use Incentives to Fall in Love, Survive Your Next Meeting, and Motivate Your Dentist offers a chapter on how to help other people.  In the book I suggest several principles:

1. Cash is often the best form of aid.

2. Give to those who are not expecting it, and,

3. Don’t require the recipients to do anything costly to get the money.

I would like to live by these principles, and I am asking you to help me.

If you want to try a new form of charity, keep reading here, because I am about to send money to people in India, to people who are not expecting it and who will not be asked to do much of anything to get it.

You are about to tell me the names of people I should send money to.  I will then send money.

Simple. 

Here is the plan in more detail:

1. The recipient must live in India and receive the money in India.  I just need enough information to send the money via Western Union.

2. Send your email to [email protected].
Only emails to this address will be considered.  The email must contain
the legal name (as documented on ID papers) of a person who will
receive the money, his or her state in India, and the city of his or
her local Western Union branch.  You can be the person yourself, or you
can send the information on behalf of someone you know.

3. With your email, send a one sentence proposal of how the money will help India.  I am keen to send much of the money to poor people, either directly or indirectly, but of course India is not just about poor people.  Proposals of all kinds are eligible, including using the funds to help expand your steel factory, and yes using the money to open a new call center.  But you must not give the money to beggars. 

4. Only one email per person is allowed.

5. By the end of the week I will send $1000 to India, via Western Union.  One person will receive $500, the other recipients will get $100 a piece; I will email the wire numbers to each approved person.

6. Recipients of the money will execute their plans for helping India.

7. If/when Discover Your Inner Economist is published in India, further names will receive transfers.  I will send at least the net, post-tax value of my Indian advance.  (If the sale of foreign rights is a multi-country deal, I’ll apportion it by relative sizes of book markets for this kind of title.)

I’ve thought long and hard about how to keep the funds away from scammers, and here is the best I can do: All responders are eligible, but the selection algorithm will favor early entrants.  In other words, MR readers (and their friends) with connections to India have the best chance to read this post early, respond, and thus receive a transfer. 

So I would like to ask you a favor, especially if you are Indian or have connections with India.  Please make your nomination as promptly as you possibly can.  (It is also OK to forward this link to people you trust for their nominations; please do.)  This will ensure worthy entries toward the beginning of the email directory.  I believe that MR readers and their friends will put the money to good use and I am asking you to help me in this manner.

One final request.  I am asking my readers — yes that’s you — to also make merit-based donations to India.

You may have noticed that Alex and I have stopped asking for MR donations; we are happy to be prospering.  Would you instead consider sending some money to India?  I already have had several people pledge money off-line.  Remember our MR motto?: "Small steps toward a much better world."

Making your gift is simple.  Just email me at [email protected] and ask for names and emails of recipients.  You also can specify whether you want your money to go to the poor or to an Indian business.  You then send the money yourself and email the recipient the Western Union number of your transfer.  You can even send the money on-line.

No, you do not get a tax deduction but your money goes right to the source, with zero overhead and waste.  Have you ever believed that remittances do more good than bureaucratic foreign aid?  I know I have.  I believe we should be experimenting more with zero-overhead giving (see pp.192-6 in my book), and I am asking you to be in on the ground floor of that experiment.

I know that MR has some very wealthy and very generous readers who even make seven-figure donations.  If you are one of these people, would you consider a larger gift of $10,000 or more?  You can distribute the money to as many or as few names as you like.  Just let me know your plan, and how many email addresses I should forward, and the rest is up to you.  I will keep your identity anonymous unless otherwise instructed.  (If you are a potential recipient of money, but want money only from me and don’t want your email forwarded to others, just let me know in the email itself.)

Addendum: In the comments section, please offer your ideas to others for how to use or give away the money.  You can do this whether or not you have a connection to India.

An economist’s palate

by  Tyler Cowen in

The Washington Post covers my economic principles for finding good food.  Excerpt:

I’m sweating and furiously frustrated when I finally arrive, 30 minutes late, at the Hong Kong
Palace, an utterly nondescript Chinese restaurant in a Seven Corners
strip mall. Tyler Cowen is patiently reading when I arrive, unsurprised
that it took me so long to find it. He almost always likes the
hard-to-find joints best. The fact that Hong Kong Palace has an
unlisted phone number is, in Cowen’s eyes, another big plus.

An economist at George Mason University,
Cowen has rather unusual criteria for restaurant selection. He doesn’t
first look at the menu, the ambiance or the reviews.  Being an
economist, he thinks about the rental market, property taxes,
competition and clientele.  "All of us already act like economists," he
said, digging into a plate of Chengdu dumplings in a black vinegar sauce.  "We just have to think about what we already know about the world and apply it to dining."

I liked this article very much.  Elsewhere here is an interview with me in MacLean’s, the Canadian magazine.  What is it they say about them spelling your name right?

Addendum: Arnold Kling reports on my Bloomberg podcast, which I can’t find on the web either; maybe try here.