A neoliberal acrostic

Madsen and I have written an acrostic about what we neoliberals believe in:

Nurturing freedom
Embracing globalisation
Optimism for the future
Liberating entrepreneurs
Incentivising innovation
Borderless trade
Encouraging competition
Real choices for all
Accelerating growth
Lifting aspirations

You can see why Corbyn and his friends hate us so much. 

No, this isn't the way to do it - money, not tampons

There is a claim from Scotland that women on benefits cannot afford menstrual products. This may or may not be true but let us, arguendo, assume that it is. The suggested solution is that there should be a state distribution of free to the user menstrual products. This is the wrong solution, entirely incorrect.

If people do not have the money to buy something essential then the solution is to give them the money to buy it, not to provide that thing "free". There are two reasons for this. But the suggestion first:

Tampons and other sanitary products should be given free to women receiving working age benefits, the Trussell Trust charity has said as the Scottish parliament held its first debate on “period poverty”.

Ewan Gurr, the Scotland development officer for the trust, called on the SNP government to consider making feminine hygiene products available free to women in receipt of certain targeted benefits.

Monica Lennon, Scottish Labour’s inequalities spokesperson, who tabled the motion with cross-party support, has championed the issue of menstrual inequality since her election last May as the MSP for Central Scotland.

On Tuesday evening she called for a “firm commitment” from the Scottish government to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the accessibility and affordability of feminine hygiene products.

The first reason against this idea is agency. All of us, without exception, prefer to deploy whatever resources we have as we think they will be best deployed. This is to have agency over our lives. The inevitable effect of this is that we value things that we are given less than we would value the money they cost, or than the receipt of the money they cost. This is the standard argument against the American system of welfare where instead of people getting benefits to buy whatever they receive food stamps which can only be used to buy certain foods. Inevitably there is a black market in Snap cards and the most common sale is $1 on the card in return for 50 cents in cash, the cash then being spent on nappies (there are also those who spend the cash on heroin, beer and so on but that's agency for you).

Even the US Census when measuring poverty admits, somewhat sheepishly, that recipients value goods and services in kind at less than they cost to provide. We can thus make all richer by giving people in need cash to cover said needs rather than offering goods and or services. Either the poor are richer because they value the cash more or we are richer because we can give less cash and they achieve the same level of utility anyway. 

The second is from personal experience: we're of the sort of age and experience where we've done that quick run to the shops. And inevitably come back with or without wings, or applicator, or of the wrong brand, or type. So which of all of these should it be that the state should stock and provide? Some admixture of all? Each store with the free supplies copying that supermarket aisle containing all those choices? Or should those who know which type they prefer simply have the resources to go to that supermarket aisle to collect and pay for the type they prefer? 

Quite clearly that second option is going to work rather better in fitting product to desires. For we've rather a lot of evidence that state planning of what people want to have is rather less efficient than the market's provision, driven by that lust for filthy lucre, of what people desire to have.

So, if we assume that the original charge is true, that women in Scotland do not have the resources to purchase menstrual products the solution is to increase the resources available, not to try to have a state system of "free" provision of them.

Leaving only the important question left. Is it actually true that women in Scotland do not have such resources? 

Three neoliberal ideas from Barack Obama

Here’s another reason to be cheerful: Barack Obama’s final days as President are taking a neoliberal turn.

  1. He’s just spoken out against planning regulations in America’s cities. This is a huge limit on growth – maybe bigger than in the UK. By constraining the supply of housing in places people want to live, like New York and San Francisco, and keeping people in less-productive places, building and zoning regulations are an significant drag on productivity growth – a recent NBER working paper estimated that the costs were equivalent to 13.5% of GDP lost every year. If you could cut those regulations to the level of the median US city, allowing more houses to be built and workers to move, you could boost US GDP by a whopping 9.5%. The "toolkit" of evidence and policy fixes he's released to help people fight back against NIMBYs is a great first step, and his bully pulpit could be even more effective at getting people to realise that blocking developments has a wider cost.
  2. He’s driving ahead with TPP and TTIP against strong opposition. I’m a big fan of these trade deals, which seek to reduce regulatory barriers to trade as well as tariffs. These are really important, because while the WTO requires member states not to put high tariffs on goods, they can be sneaky and protect their domestic firms from better foreign competition with regulation (stringent or time-consuming safety approval processes for things already sold safely in other countries, for example – the FDA does this a lot with drugs and medical instruments). In TPP, the biggest gainer will be the poorest country – Vietnam, and as Tyler Cowen writes it’s a good thing to attach many of the countries involved to the global liberal trading order. 
  3. His White House issued a report last year attacking occupational licensing laws. In America 29% of jobs, including things like hair-braiding and interior design, require licenses that are often expensive or difficult to acquire. (Fourteen states require licenses to braid hair.) The laws seem bonkers, mostly. According to Ramesh Ponnuru, “more than 1,100 occupations are regulated in at least one state, but fewer than 60 are regulated in every state” – a sign that for almost all of them it’s possible to get by without, and a big barrier to migration between states, which helps people to find the right jobs for them (see point 1). We’re lucky in the UK that these aren’t as big of a problem as in America, although some I do suspect some licensed professions, like lawyers and black cabbies, of operating a bit of a racket.

I don’t think Mr Obama will be remembered as a great president, but we may miss him when he’s gone.

Oddly enough, we already know this about the gender pay gap

Given that this comes from the alma mater of one of us perhaps we shouldn't get too grumpy about it. Or, perhaps, we should get grumpier for the same reason. The point being that we already know this about the gender pay gap:

Fewer than one in five of the UK’s top 1% of earners are women, according to a study that highlights a stubborn gender divide among the super-rich.

Researchers writing for the London School of Economics found the UK picture was replicated in all seven other countries they studied, with men always making up a majority of the top income groups.

Women accounted for less than a third of those in the top 10% in all the countries. Higher up the income distribution, the proportion was lower still, with women constituting between 14% and 22% of the top 1%, according to the studypublished by the LSE’s International Inequalities Institute on Tuesday.

Aficionados of this particular statistic will recall when the Statistics Ombudsman (perhaps Commissioner?) rapped Harriet Harman over the knuckles for her misrepresentation of that pay gap. Harman was gaily rolling along telling everyone about the difference in mean wages. And was told to stop being so misleading - we should be using the difference in median wages. 

The reason being that we don't record those with negative wages and there is no obvious limit to wages at the top end. Further, we know very well that the top end of that distribution is heavily weighted in favour of men. Thus, quoting the gap concerning the mean gave an entirely misleading impression of the situation facing the average person - thus the median should, in fact must, be used.

All that this report does therefore is tell us what we already know. That rather fewer women than men successfully climb the greasy pole to the very top. The reason being that rather fewer women think it a useful way to spend ones life - being sensible they find that there are better things to do with the limited time we have here. 

If it were that women are not allowed to do so then that would be a problem: we do believe in equality of opportunity after all. But if the difference comes from freely made choices then it's not a problem, is it, as we don't believe in equality of specific outcome, only in the possibility of the equality of utility maximisation.

This is not capitalism, this is economics

If we are going to discuss what will happen when the robots come to take all out jobs then we need to get our initial analysis correct. Something that Tim Dunlop fails at we're afraid:

How likely is it that a robot will take your job?

It is a question asked with increasing urgency as everything from 3D printing to driverless cars to machine learning is rolled out by a tech industry that sees automation as almost a sacred duty.

To answer, let’s begin with a little-discussed fact. We live in a capitalist system, and the point of capitalism is to destroy jobs, not create them. That might sound counterintuitive but it is easy to explain.

Capitalism is driven by profit. Wages are a cost to be controlled in pursuit of that profit. This means that whenever capital can find a way to turn a buck without employing a human, it will take it, whether it be with robots in factories, automated checkouts at supermarkets or drones to deliver packages.

The destruction of jobs is not something which defines capitalism. It's something which defines economics.

Our basic starting point is that human desires and wants are unlimited. We also note that we have scarce resources with which to sate those desires and wants. Economics is about the allocation of those resources to meet them. Human labour is a scarce resource - we therefore desire to be efficient in our allocation of it just as we wish to be efficient in our allocation of copper, energy or land.

Whatever our economic system we become richer by increasing the efficiency with which we allocate those scarce resources. All economic systems therefore, at least those that make us richer which seems to be rather the point of the exercise, aim to destroy jobs for that is increasing the efficiency with which we use human labour, one of those scarce resources. 

The only point at which capitalism enters the picture is that this mixture of that capitalism plus free markets is the most efficient system devised as yet to reach that desired goal. Of us all being able to consume more, sate more needs and desires, while employing less human labour to get there.

Jobs destruction isn't capitalism - capitalism's just good at it.

Boost jobs for the low-skilled: extended retail trading hours

Up until 2006, Germany regulated all shops' opening hours under a 1956 union-driven law; all shops needed to be closed on Sundays and public holidays, no shops could open after 8pm or before 6am on work days, and if 24th December was a work day, opening hours could be at most 6am-2pm. Then the federal government devolved control of opening hours regulation to the states, and most of them deregulated.

According to a new paper by Mario Bossler and Michael Oberfichtner opening hours deregulations substantially boosted the market for retail workers, comparing states which did deregulate with those that kept the strictures as-is:

We study the effect of deregulating weekday shop opening hours on employment in retailing. Using administrative data on all German food shops, a difference-in-differences analysis shows that relaxing restrictions on opening hours raised employment by 0.4 workers per shop corresponding to an increase by 4%. This effect is driven by part-time employment and employment in large shops, and it implies an increase by 0.1 workers per additional actual weekly opening hour. While the wage bill increased by less than employment, the deregulation seems not to have reduced earnings of workers already employed in retailing before the deregulation

Of course, these weren't specifically Sunday Trading regulations, which stayed intact, but it's not crazy to extrapolate from this that rolling back the size limits that stop bigger shops from opening late in the UK would boost employment here. So that's a sixth reason to hate Sunday Trading Laws.

Just another reason industrial policies don't work

The dreadful suggestion that Britain really should have an industrial policy is raising its ugly head again. Which is an apposite time for a look at what industrial policies actually do to an economy:

The use of industrial policies to support a country’s steel sector has damaging effects on the export competitiveness of downstream manufacturing sectors that make use of steel. That is the central finding of research by Professor Bruce Blonigen, published in the September 2016 issue of the Economic Journal.

We don't, of course, have to look far to find people telling us that steel is one of those essential industries which a country just must have. And thus a sector which simply must be at the heart of any industrial policy.

The problem with this is that steel is an input into other processes - as any such basic industry we might try to protect will be. And thus that input into other industries becomes more expensive (obviously so, if it were already cheaper than foreign made then we wouldn't be trying to have a strategy to protect it, would we?) thus putting the boot into those other industries. That leads to:

One practical concern is that a layering of industrial policies often accumulates over time, leading to the presence of multiple policies at cross-purposes with each other.

Or as we might put that, government commits some other idiocy to try to adjust for the first. Instead of doing the sensible thing and just stopping doing the original idiot one.

Of course, the next stage of this argument is that no, this time around we'll really, and we mean this, study the effect of our industrial policy on all sectors of the economy. Before we intervene even! But that sadly runs into Hayek's objection, that we cannot use anything other than our market economy to calculate our market economy. Which means that we've got to use a market economy, sans intervention, to calculate our intervention - all of which means we'd probably better stay with the market economy in the first place, eh?

So government isn't very good at running research programs then?

The standard argument in favour of government running research programs is that the product, knowledge, is a public good. That is, it's non-rivalrous and non-excludable and thus the private sector will underproduce it. Simply on the grounds that non-rivalrous and non-excludable goods are difficult to profit from and thus a profit seeking private sector won't do very much of that activity. Thus government should step in to produce the socially optimal amount of whatever it is.

There are most certainly areas where we agree with the argument. It is exactly the logic which produces the patent and copyright system for example. However, the wider logic of government intervention in the provision of public goods is not the same as concluding that government must provide that item. We think, for example, of the herd immunity provided by a vaccination campaign. The US does it largely by insisting the children cannot enter public education without having been vaccinated - the UK by the NHS directly providing the vaccinations. We think that second system works a little better. But that is not necessarily true of all public goods.

Which brings us to biomedical research. The Zuckerbergs are funding $3 billion of such. This is welcomed as the field currently rather suffers

Success rates for NIH grant applications are at the lowest they’ve been going as far back as the 1970s. When the money for science is this tight, researchers don’t take big risks. Instead of making innovative leaps in science, researchers early in their careers are typically among the most risk averse, taking on bits of studies designed by their senior mentors. Writing a successful grant application often requires preliminary data – in other words, you need to have already done a chunk of the research you’re proposing to do. Even then, about 20-25% of academic biomedical researchers’ time (in my experience) is spent applying for grants to support their projects. Much of their mental effort goes into grantsmanship, which is not at all the same thing as creativity.

Academic researchers are promoted on the basis of “achievement” – grants won and papers published. Volume is what matters here, not necessarily impact. According to Adam Grant, a professor of organizational psychology at the Wharton School of Business, “The greatest originals are the ones who fail the most, because they’re the ones who try the most.” But biomedical researchers can’t afford to have failed experiments because they’re not publishable. Furthermore, they need to take as much of the credit as possible for that “productivity” to count towards their advancement, so there’s an incentive against working with too many other people. Biomedical research is highly siloed in parallel with the grants funding it. An added challenge is that the gold standard for medical research – the randomized clinical trial, ideally conducted in multiple sites and settings – is very expensive.

The NIH spends 10 times as much per year as that entire Zuckerberg gift. And yet we're told that government does this job of funding research rather badly.

Or as we might put it more widely. That we've identified a possible market failure does not mean that government is the solution - for there is such a thing as government failure too.

Questions in the Guardian we can answer

The Guardian asks us:

Do we really want post-Brexit Britain to be the world’s biggest tax haven?


Next question?

Or in more detail, yes we do want tax competition. For it is that very competition, as it is in so many other areas of life, which limits the amount that we the people can get shafted. 

We all know very well that a monopoly supplier of beer would be watering that of the workers even as they raised the price. We prosecute people who build cartels for the very same reason - such cooperation between producers means that it is the consumer that is going to get screwed.

Tax competition is exactly the same logic. It's entirely true that there does need to be government - no, we are not anarcho-capitalists around here - and that means there must be tax revenue to pay for it. It is also true that a government is going to be sovereign over its own territory. Which means that the only form of competition we can have here, to protect us against that monopolist problem, is between tax jurisdictions rather than within them.

And thus the joy with which we welcome tax competition and yes, even tax havens. Simply because their existence limits the depredations the governors may make upon the pockets of the populace.

And why shouldn't it be us that leads the world in such matters? We did, after all, rather pioneer these very ideas. Our own Adam Smith leading the way in much of it of course. Starting with that point that it is economic freedom which leads to the enrichment of said populace, competition being the thing which ensures that economic freedom.  

We insist that the bakers and then butchers compete for our custom. Why should that not be true of those who would claim to rule us, those who claim to know how our money should be spent? We might even find that leaving it to fructify in the pockets of the populace provides that optimal solution.

Which is exactly why those who would rule us don't desire the system of competition - and thus exactly why we must have it.