Interesting New Journal

by Roger Koppl

Michael Barber is editor of a new journal of interest to Austrian economists, namely Schutzian Research: A Yearbook of Mundane Phenomenology and Qualitative Social Science.  The first issue came out on 9 November 2009.

Here is what they say on their website:

Schutzian Research is an annual journal that seeks to continue the tradition of Alfred Schutz. It seeks contributions that are philosophical, cultural-scientific, or multidisciplinary in character. We welcome a broad spectrum of qualitative and interpretive work, comparable with Schutz’s orientation but not necessarily derived from it. The journal is multilingual in character, with abstracts in English. All submissions will be blindly reviewed by at least two experts in the appropriate field.

Presumably, economic research would be “cultural-scientific.”

Behavioral Economics As Self-Help

by Mario Rizzo  

For quite a number of years I have been saying that I have no objection to behavioral economics per se, aside from the legal paternalism wing. After all, why shouldn’t people use science to make their lives better?  

So now MIT economist Dan Ariely has adapted some of the findings of behavioral economics to helping people regulate their own behavior. This is his advice on how to avoid eating too much on Thanksgiving, but it is applicable more generally to avoiding poor eating.  

Yes, this is where the legal paternalists should shift their considerable skills: self-help books.

 

Pigou is the new Keynes

by Sandy Ikeda

A full-page article in today’s Wall Street Jounal begins:

At the Heavenly Models home for deceased economists, an award is being presented to the resident whose work best explains financial crises, global warming, and other pressing issues of today.

The winner, according to author John Cassidy, is A.C. Pigou, the new flavor of the day.

The article implies that Pigou was the first to articulate the concepts of externalities and market failure.  I’m not sure that’s right, though I haven’t gotten around to reading The Economics of Welfare, but I believe we do have to credit him with the Pigou tax.  So in some ways he’s been almost as dangerous as his “smarter colleague,” although I’ve always felt sympathy for someone who was so much in Keynes’s shadow.

The article also has a sidebar quoting Mises (as well as Friedman, Kindleberger, and of course Keynes) apparently calling last year’s economic crisis.

A Sad, Sorry Song

by Thomas McQuade

In looking back over the many excellent posts and comments that have graced ThinkMarkets in its first year, I was struck by the fact that, while many of the literary virtues have been displayed, there has been – surprisingly – nothing that could pass as poetry.  I hope to be forgiven the presumption of attempting to rectify that omission with the following submission, vile doggerel though it may be.

I have a tale to tell, O!  (A sad, sorry tale, O!) …
It is told in the hope there’s no slipp’ry slope
And that prudence can prevail, O!
Tells the cause of a crisis, cruelly cast
Hitting hard-won savings, thought amassed.
It involves good intentions gone astray,
And the misplaced myth that some experts may
By their brains and their brilliance brave the way
To ensure economic ease, O!

Retrospect Is Prospect?

by Mario Rizzo  

In the course of doing some research about the late economist Charles Kindelberger I came across an obituary article in The Economist dated July 17, 2003. The article made reference to the question whether the Fed’s policies after the then-recent dot com bubble simply saved us from recession or laid the ground for worse to come. It is interesting to read something like this when the current news looks like a replay.  

Economists are split over the recent performance of America’s lender of last resort, the Federal Reserve. Some argue that its policy of easy credit inflated the bubble, although nobody can be certain what effect tighter money would have had once the bubble began to expand. Some economists believe that the Fed’s interest-rate cuts since the bubble burst have been a triumph, preventing a severe recession. Others think that the Fed has merely postponed the day of reckoning.

I am sure there are many other articles out there from this period asking the same question. Have any readers found them?

Just What We “Need”

by Mario Rizzo

Investors’ eagerness to invest in mortgage debt helped drive mortgage rates to all-time lows this week, Freddie Mac said.

The average rate on 30-year fixed-rate mortgages was 4.78%, the agency said Wednesday, matching a record low set in April. That was down from 4.83% from the previous week and 5.97% a year ago

I am amazed that aggregate-demand economists can look at the housing market and simply wonder how to bring it back to normalcy. Today the Wall Street Journal reports that investors are flocking to invest in mortgage-backed securities now that the Fed has been buying them. Freddie and Fannie are too big to fail, and so forth. The risk premium relative to Treasuries has fallen to the narrowest point this year.

From the investor’s perspective these are relatively safe problem-free investments. On the other hand, from the social perspective these investments delay the necessary adjustment of resources out of housing — remember: the over-expanded bubble sector?

Our aggregate-demanders (aka “Keynesians”) do not need to worry because during recessions the allocation of resources is not important. All that matters is propping up spending and restoring “confidence” in something called “the economy.”

UPDATE: A New York Times editorial argues that the housing stimulus is not working. What is their standard of “working”? It is hard to tell precisely. The complaints are that new housing construction has fallen, prices of houses are expected to fall still further and that more homeowners have negative equity. So presumably a policy that “worked” would have increased housing construction, propped up prices, and prevented the spread of negative equity. No readjustment in their play book! What is more disturbing, but predictable, is that the drumbeat for reconsidering the Fed’s plan to begin exiting the housing market has begun:

And the Federal Reserve, whose interventions have sustained the housing market over the past year, must show flexibility. The Fed has made it clear that it would prefer to begin withdrawing support for the market in the months ahead. But without other strong and successful fiscal measures in place, that could do more harm than good.

Stay tuned.

New Paternalism on the Slippery Slopes, Part 6: Rent Seekers

by Glen Whitman

As discussed in the previous post, the “experts” in charge of implementing new paternalist policies will have a tendency to simplify their own theories to make them useful for crafting policy. That alone creates slippery-slope potential. But that potential is magnified by the existence of rent-seekers – that is, interest groups whose agenda is to change policy for their own interests. Such interests can be ideological, monetary, or simply personal. In the paper, we illustrate the power of rent-seekers to distort the facts and confuse the debate with two issues: environmental tobacco-smoke (ETS) and obesity. With respect to ETS, however, we have to run off a potential objection: that ETS is not really a paternalist cause at all, because smoke harms non-smokers (p. 714):

We should note that although policies addressing exposure to secondhand smoke (“environmental tobacco smoke” or ETS) are not strictly paternalistic, inasmuch as secondhand smoke can potentially harm bystanders, paternalist arguments have played an important supporting role. Most importantly, many actual and proposed anti-smoking regulations limit the ability of individuals who may not be bothered by smoke to expose themselves voluntarily to secondhand smoke as customers or employees of restaurants and bars. Furthermore, by creating a hostile environment for smokers, the ETS argument easily slides into the paternalistic. Thus, even some ETS arguments must be regarded as partially paternalistic either in intention or merely in effect.

Seizing the Commanding Heights

by Jerry O’Driscoll  On the Opinion page of yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, George Melloan spells out how government stimulus is stifling lending, crowding out private investment and impeding economic recovery.  He writes that “the credit market has been tilted to favor a single borrower with a huge appetite for money, Washington.” It has done so in a number of ways.   First, the Fed announced that it will evaluate bankers’ pay on the basis of how well they manage risk.  How better to be a good risk manger in a bureaucrat’s eyes than to take no risk?  Purchasing Treasury obligations and federal agency paper is the sure way to avoid risk.  The Fed has a second policy to make that strategy profitable: zero interest-rate borrowing to finance Treasury and agency debt yielding 3%.or more.  The Fed continues to signal it will keep rates low, diminishing interest-rate risk.   These policies are choking off the supply of credit to the private sector, espcially small business.

What Is Austrian Economics?

by Mario Rizzo

Many years ago (around 1982, I think) Jerry O’Driscoll and I wrote a paper that was the basis of an American Economic Association session. The paper was called “What is Austrian Economics?” The paper gradually evolved into our book, The Economics of Time and Ignorance.

The purpose of this book was to present Austrian economics in an updated fashion. To do this we needed to do two things: (1) uncover many of the fundamental ideas implicit in the tradition but not, as of then, sufficiently elaborated or made explicit; and (2) confront Austrian ideas with recent developments in economics, both mainstream and outside of the mainstream.

We faced many initial negative criticisms of the book. I will say that I was very disappointed by some of the old-guard reaction to the book. But do not confuse “old guard” with age because some of the greatest encouragement we received was from Professor Ludwig Lachmann who well understood the necessity of going beyond what the previous generation of Austrians had bequeathed us.

New Paternalism on the Slippery Slopes, Part 5: Deference to Authority

by Glen Whitman

Another problem with the new paternalism is that it necessarily involves greater deference to the authority of experts. Here is the basic logic (p. 710):

Substantial deference to authority is inherent in the application of new paternalist ideas to public policy. This is because the complexities, vagueness, and indeterminism of their analysis (previously discussed) raise the costs of decision-making on the part of voters, politicians, and bureaucrats. The locus of effective decision-making will then quite reasonably shift to experts (“authorities”) or to simplifiers of technical ideas who may have agendas of their own. As Eugene Volokh puts it, “The more complicated a question seems, the more likely it is that voters will assume that they can’t figure it out themselves and should therefore defer to the expert judgment of authoritative institutions . . . .” There will thus be a tendency for policy to slide away from the values of the targeted agents themselves toward those of outsiders regarded as authorities. This happens in at least two ways. First, experts simplify their own theories to make them applicable in a policy context. Second, people seeking to advance their own interests will further simplify the theory and distort the facts to suit their purposes.