Quote of the week

2550

quote-of-the-week

Little bit of history trivia. It was this week, actually yesterday, in 1961, Fidel Castro announced that he was a Marxist and would turn Cuba into a Communist country, where the government would take over all the major industries. Or as we call that today, a bailout.

Jay Leno

Blog Review 801

2553

blog-review-801

If the manipulation of your model leads to conclusions that are near insane, shouldn't you be questioning the value of your model?

Very odd behaviour leading to a rather excellent project outcome.

We can tell that the recession really is happening, yes.

The problems with unions don't come only from pay rates: the inflexibility, the job demarcations can be just as damaging.

It would appear that bubbles are inevitable, just something that're innate in the human mind.

There's been good news and bad news over the past week.

And finally, the economist with the gripping hand, a new currency idea and why did the chicken cross the road?

The economists' toolbox

2552

the-economists-toolbox

There's two ways of looking at neo-classical economics. The first is as a coherent series of stories and assumptions about the way that the world works. I certainly hold that view. However, there's another, looser, sense which many more people would agree with. People like Dani Rodrik for example might not agree that those stories and assumptions explain the world (or at times that they are coherent) but neo-classical economics still provides the economist with a toolbox with which to explore the value of certain policies. In this view the value is in the methods rather than the assumptions.

The value of this can be seen in the current discussion of daylight savings time. It's long been an assumption that the move saves energy. Thus most governments promote it and there's even a move here in the UK to move to double summer time so as to save even more energy. The question we would really like the answer to though is whether summer time (or daylight savings time, same difference) does in fact save energy? Just because governments have been assuming it does for a long time doesn't make it so.

Which is what has just been done using the economists' toolbox: an empirical study of whether advancing the clocks saves energy. Something which is actually a little more difficult than you might think. We can't compare a year with savings with a year without as cloud cover and temperature could have varied making accurate comparison impossible. We can't compare areas with and those without for the same reasons. But Indiana had a strange system whereby some counties daylight saved and others did not and then it became statewide that they did. So we can compare the same places with and without and the same (almost) geographic areas with and without. The result?

A final component of our analysis is the calculation of costs associated with the estimated effect of DST. We find that the policy costs Indiana households an average of $8.6 million per year in increased electricity bills. We also estimate social costs of increased pollution emissions due to the residential response to be between $1.6 and $5.3 million per year.

Ahh.

DST leads to more energy use, not less. So I guess that idea of double DST as a way to curb climate change isn't going to work either then?

Does not accept

2544

does-not-accept

And that's most certainly the attitude that the government will take in relation to a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR unanimously passed judgement in favour of DNA and fingerprints not being retained if persons had not been charged or indeed acquitted of committing a crime. Their decision was based on the fact that the actions of the police violated Article 8, the person's right to respect for private life. And of course the Home Secretary Ms Smith rolled out the usual utterances post-verdict, "disappointed with the verdict" and that, "the existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgement".

We have long held that the police are wrong to retain the details of innocent people. Indeed the current DNA database contains the details of some 4.1million people, of which 730,000 people were never charged with any offence. And then there are the children (though some have obviously committed crimes): more than a million under 16-year olds are now on there as well. Of course to err is human, but to retain the details of the innocent merely presumes that they are guilty of some, as yet, uncommitted crime. This ECHR's ruling is welcome (although we shouldn't have to rely on them), but more needs to be done to hold back this tide of totalitarianism.

It may not be the conventional view, but I regard this government is truly socialist – which is reflected in the way it has viewed and treated the realm of privacy. It has pushed back the boundaries and assumed that all we do, know and hold dear, is really theirs. To them we are nothing more than state agents.  We should not be surprised to see that this ruling will be ignored and new legislation will be introduced that comes up with more disingenuous reasoning as to why our DNA are belongs to them!

Cheerio, ASI

2545

cheerio-asi

After eight weeks of working with the wonderful members of the ASI team, it is time for me to say farewell. It has been a great experience working for the Adam Smith Institute, and I have learned more than I ever thought I would in such a short amount of time.

While doing research and writing about current events, I have gained a much clearer understanding of both the important issues in British politics and the Libertarian outlook on them.  Never in my life have I heard so much about the free market and privatization, but all this talk has helped me realize the value of competition and choice in business. I will bring this new appreciation with me as I return to the US to complete my Bachelor’s degree in Economics at Fordham University in New York City.

It has truly been a pleasure interning at ASI. I wish everyone at the organization the best of luck with all of their upcoming projects and publications. I look forward to seeing how the Adam Smith Institute will impact the policy agenda in the future.

Blog Review 800

2539

blog-review-800

The point of actually having intellectually honest economists involved in the formation of public policy.

Netsmith is never sure with politicians. Are they too stupid to be able to recognise the truth or do they think we're too stupid to recognise when they don't tell the truth?

This is strange but true. Some people really shouldn't be saving for their pensions.

Yes, the US auto bailout remains an extremely silly idea.

Remember, MV equals PQ. So if V falls then M must rise to prevent a fall in P and or Q.

Lie detector tests for benefit claimants. Yes, this really is an extremely good idea. If they're allowed to test us we can test them, no?

And finally, form filling and a job offer.

Was there any point?

2542

was-there-any-point

The area around our office has been horribly traffic-clogged and chaotic all week. That's because half the roads in Westminster are closed for the Queen's speech. It seems they needed the roads closed on Monday and Tuesday so they could erect the barriers, closed on Wednesday so the Queen could visit Parliament safely, and then closed yesterday so they could take all the barriers down again.

Now, much as I enjoy the ceremony of occasions like this, I do wonder whether there's really much point, given the disruption involved. After all, it's not like the Queen's speech told us anything new – most of the bills were announced ages ago, and the rest were leaked to the media before the speech. Maybe HM should just have stayed home with the corgis instead?

In fact, I sometimes wonder why the government bothers involving Parliament in things at all, given the contempt it seems to have for the institution. It's well known that Tony Blair attended less than 10 percent of Commons votes during his tenure as prime minister, and rarely attended parliamentary debates (even in the debate on the Iraq war, he left after just a few speeches). Gordon Brown did little better as chancellor, and doesn't seem to have changed much since he's been at Number 10.

Of course, I'm not surprised that ministers don't care much for parliament. Although Labour MPs are rebelling with increased regularity, the Commons still more or less does the government's bidding in the legislative chamber. Most of the committees are just as bad, since they have government majorities and – usually – chairs (the Public Accounts Committee being a notable exception).

Indeed, politics these days is almost all about the media – parliamentary democracy being an unfortunate afterthought. Politicians are driven by polls, polls are driven by media coverage (generally, the more 'your man' is on TV, the better your poll rating), and media coverage is driven by action. And that's why politics-by-media means a constant stream of 'initiatives', endless tinkering, and masses of completely ill thought out legislation which undergoes little scrutiny. Which brings me conveniently back to the Queen's speech...

New confines on wine

2541

new-confines-on-wine

An article in The Times today will surely disappoint many wine lovers throughout the country. The new Crime Bill, which is to be published next week, will include a ban on cut-price drink promotions in an effort to curb irresponsible drinking. The bill will bring about an end to “buy-one-get-one-free" deals and will stop the practice of allowing women to drink free of charge. It will require clubs and pubs to serve wine in smaller glasses as well. The Home Office has also resolved not to ban “happy hours" in pubs and bars throughout England and Wales. But don’t get too excited, the department may decide to give local councils the ability to outlaw them in their respective regions.

This legislation is just a small episode in the series of government restrictions on alcohol and smoking that people have suffered over the past few years. Considering the institution of the smoking ban in pubs and restaurants in July 2007, proposals to tighten pub licensing laws, and talks of allowing bars to only fill two thirds of each pint, it is safe to say that the government is becoming bolder in its attempts at regulation.

Many, including the wine industry, argue that this and other bills will affect moderate drinkers as well, causing them to unjustly suffer the same restrictions and higher prices. It has been established that excessive drinking can lead to crime and disorder, but the measures the government is taking will not be effective in stopping someone keen on drinking him or herself into oblivion. Alcoholics will drink whether or not they can get two beers for the price of one. In the meantime, those who enjoy a glass of wine or a pint every so often are left to suffer.

Blog Review 799

2538

blog-review-799

Turn the argument around. Instead of asking whether we should spend 1% of GDP on (a highly dubious, cost wise) insurance pland against climate change, ask what would be the best insurance scheme for 1% of GDP?

More pointers to a failure of regulation. Turns out the Government did indeed have figures showing how bad things were getting in advance.

It's not just in the UK that the public sector fat cats' pensions are unfunded.

Why it isn't in fact the end of the world. At least, not yet it isn't.

Sadly, while we'd really like to know what to do now we're still arguing over what happened 75 years ago.

Bureaucracy in action. The FSA is shouting at the Halifax for doing something that the FSA insisted the Halifax did.

And finally, it's grim oop north.

Good news for patients

2537

good-news-for-patients

According to the BBC, the number of NHS patients choosing to take their public funding to a private hospital (on the basis that the private provider matches the NHS price) has risen ten-fold in the last year or so, to more than 3,500 a month.

There is an obvious reason for that. Private providers, who are motivated by profit and whose livelihood depends on attracting more customers, are far more attentive to patient needs than the NHS monopoly. No waiting lists, private rooms, clean wards, more communication between patients and clinicians – in other words, a better experience all round. And at no additional cost too!

You might think that everyone would consider this a good thing, but unfortunately you would be wrong. Just read the BBC article I linked to above, the implicitly negative slant jumps off the page every bit as much as the organization's left-wing bias. Take the first paragraph as an example: "Thousands of patients a month in England are using a government reform to get what is effectively private treatment paid for by the taxpayer."

Couldn't they just have said, "Thousands of English patients are now getting better treatment at no additional cost to the taxpayer", instead?

And then we get Jacky Davis of the British Medical Association saying, "This is money that is being lost from the NHS. That can compromise services and patients should be told that by going private in this way they are potentially putting care they may need in the future under pressure."

But that's just wrong. The NHS is not 'losing out' here. Yes, they don't get paid for not providing the service, but then they don't have to spend anything providing it either. They come out about even. Meanwhile, patients see substantial benefits. And if does turn out that NHS hospitals end up getting squeezed out of the market, so what? It will only have happened because people are getting better care elsewhere. That's the whole point of competition.