The Wire

  • 26 arrests were made at Hands Across the Border-Lake Eufaula

    Excerpt from WTVM:

    Officers and Deputies from the Georgia State Patrol, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Quitman County Sheriff’s Department, the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency and the Eufaula Police Department conducted joint road-checks in their respective states.

    The enforcement action was held to strengthen the fellowship between the states and departments. Their goal was to work to take drunk and drugged drivers off the road as well as surveying for distracted driving, child and adult restraint violations and other traffic violations.

    They expressed sincere gratitude to EPD Officer Sean Robinson and the other participating Agencies from both states.

    Friday evening’s activity included 11 written warnings and 26 arrests, including four Driving Under the Influence arrests.

  • Editorial: ‘Sweet Home Alabama’ is not a conservative anthem

    Excerpt from The Roanoke Times:

    When Corey Stewart won the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate last week, he appeared on stage to the sound of “Sweet Home Alabama.”

    This would seem a curious song choice for a Virginia politician. We are not Alabama and have never wanted to be Alabama. Granted, there’s a dearth of songs that mention Virginia, and “Sweet Home Alabama” is a rollicking little tune, so maybe we shouldn’t read too much into it.

    On the other hand, Lynyrd Skynyrd was a band that worked the Confederate flag into its logo and the National Review once hailed “Sweet Home Alabama” as one of “the 50 greatest conservative rock songs,” so it’s more likely that the song was picked intentionally. Stewart does love Confederate symbols. “Sweet Home Alabama” even takes a shot at Canada — more, accurately the Canadian rock star Neil Young —so it certainly seems to fit the current Trumpian zeitgeist.

    Meanwhile, the liberal website Slate cited Stewart’s song choice as just one more example of how he’s pandering to the most atavistic elements of the Virginia electorate. In the Slate writer’s words: “He’s a carpetbagger, but for racism.”

    Actually, both of them have it wrong. “Sweet Home Alabama” is not a conservative anthem, and it’s certainly not a cover song for racism. It is, though, one of the most misunderstood political songs of all time, one that’s even been the subject of scholarly study.

  • Man shot and killed at Birmingham gas station

    Excerpt from WVTM:

    The Birmingham Police Department is investigating a shooting that left one man dead at a gas station early Monday morning.

    Officers were called to the 1800 block of Bessemer Rd. at about 3 a.m. on reports of a person shot. When they arrived they found one man dead. The victim was later identified as 30-year-old Denorris Rishard Barnes.

    Police on the scene said three men were at the gas station changing a tire when someone drove up and fired several rounds of gunshots. Barnes was fatally shot. The other two were uninjured. The suspect fled the scene before police arrived.

4 days ago

Stealthy gov’t policies: What Alabama can learn from Hawaiian volcano eruption

(CBS News/YouTube)

Kilauea on the island of Hawaii began erupting on May 3, and has to date destroyed about 600 homes. The terrifying pictures led me to wonder why anyone would build a home on one of the world’s most active volcanoes. Hawaii’s regulation of property insurance provides part of the explanation, and Kilauea’s eruption offers a lesson for Alabama.

Geologists know a lot about volcanoes and lava. The Hawaii Volcano Observatory has mapped over 500 lava vents on Mauna Loa. Hawaii’s volcanoes produce two types of lava, with very different textures and flow speeds. The risk of lava flows varies widely across the island of Hawaii. Geologists divide the island into nine lava flow risk zones, based on the location of the most active vents and the mountains’ contours.

The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a public policy think tank, has detailed the insurance story.


In the 1990s, insurance companies stopped covering homes in the two highest risk lava zones. With insurance unavailable, banks would not write mortgages, and builders could not build homes. The state government created the Hawaii Property Insurance Association (HPIA) to sell low priced insurance. Many homes destroyed in the eruption were built due to HPIA.

Hawaii used an insurance pool to subsidize building on Kilauea. Alabama uses an insurance pool, the Alabama Insurance Underwriting Association, for hurricane coverage along the Gulf Coast. Insurance pools offer “affordable” coverage, meaning priced in line with what people want to pay, not the rate sufficient to allow insurers to cover losses after the next eruption or hurricane. HPIA’s low rates virtually guarantee losses.

Why would insurers join HPIA then? Because they had to. No, Hawaii did not have The Godfather to make insurance companies an offer they couldn’t refuse. Rather, insurers must receive permission from state regulators to operate. Regulators made joining HPIA a condition for operating in Hawaii.

What happens when an insurance pool suffers losses they cannot pay in a future eruption (or hurricane)? They impose assessments, which are essentially taxes, on other state insurance policies. Hawaiians who live on Oahu might have to pay for the destroyed homes.

Insurance pools represent a stealth government policy, one likely to fly under the radar until disaster happens. Hawaii could have let insurance companies charge rates high enough to cover future claims and used taxes to pay part of homeowners’ premiums. For example, insurers could have been allowed to charge $20,000 a year to cover a house on Kilauea, with legislators covering $15,000 of the price using taxes. Instead, HPIA let homeowners just pay say $5,000, and relied on imposing taxes after the eruption.

Subsidizing building in risky areas is poor policy, but I think that transparency makes direct subsidies a better option. Citizens are more likely to reach an informed decision when legislators must spend our taxes. Stealth might produce programs that citizens do not truly want.

Humorist P. J. O’Rourke has said, “Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.” Mr. O’Rourke believes that government will spend our taxes on boondoggles, and often he’s right. Insurance pools suggest though that state legislators are probably subsidizing through insurance some things they would never dare spend our tax dollars on.

Defenders often argue that development would not occur in some risky areas without insurance pools. The point is valid. Yet the risk posed by lava – or hurricanes – is real, and development is more costly as a result. People should only live or work in high risk areas if doing so creates enough value to cover the higher cost. High insurance premiums ask people, “are you sure you want to build a home here?”

Geographer Gilbert White, a pioneer of natural hazards research, argued that disasters were never merely acts of God; our choices contributed to the outcome as well. Whether volcanoes and hurricanes produce disasters will depend on whether government encourages risky decisions.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

1 week ago

Fascinating ways blockchain will change your life, even if Bitcoin turns out to be a bubble


Bitcoin’s price gyrations over the past year have attracted widespread attention. Even if we do not become Bitcoin billionaires, the blockchain technology behind Bitcoin will likely affect our lives by rendering some of government’s functions unnecessary. My Johnson Center colleague Malavika Nair and I explore these possibilities in a new paper we published in The Independent Review.

Bitcoin is a crypto- or digital currency, meaning that instead of currencies they are entries on a computer. The blockchain is the ledger, containing the complete record of Bitcoin transactions. The ledger is updated every few minutes and stored on all of the computers running the system.

The innovation can be understood even if you never managed to program a VCR.


The blockchain is a distributed ledger, which contrasts with the centralized ledger of accounts used by banks, credit card companies and businesses. Centralized ledgers can be falsified or otherwise manipulated by whoever keeps the ledger. Fudging bank records, for example, can let someone spend the money in their account two or more times. We typically rely on third parties, like a bank to keep the ledger, or accountants to audit and verify the books. Every one of the computers running Bitcoin keeps the blockchain’s record of all transactions. Transactions are verified every few minutes, and there is no account keeper who can potentially falsify the record.

What does this mean for government? America was founded on the principle that the government is supposed to work for us. Abraham Lincoln stated this succinctly: “The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves – in their separate, individual capacities.” Economists, political scientists, and political philosophers have subsequently elaborated on this approach.

The blockchain allows individuals, businesses, and charitable organizations to do many things far more effectively on our own than before. Some of the things we have had government do through taxation and regulation we will now be able to do ourselves using the blockchain. This big picture takeaway should not be lost in almost daily news about new blockchain applications.

Consider the case of corporations. Managers have been able to use their control over the transaction ledger to embezzle resources contributed by investors. We have relied on government regulators, like the Securities and Exchange Commission, to ensure corporations and their accountants keep the ledgers accurately.

A corporation could now be built on the blockchain. Investors could readily scrutinize both the stock trades and other transactions for irregularities. No longer will unscrupulous managers be able to hide their misdeeds, reducing the need for government regulation.

Smart contracts could allow citizens to fund projects where we have had to use government taxes. Crowd funding platforms like GoFundMe and Kickstarter provide a glimpse of the possibilities. The blockchain could execute large-scale contracts where thousands of people agree to pay for bridge repairs or to widen a road. The contract could be automatically executed using cryptocurrency when enough people sign. Meanwhile, a new application called GiveTrack uses blockchain technology to increase the transparency of crowd funded charitable donations.

The blockchain provides a new way to record property titles. Americans currently pay for a search of legal documents for outstanding liens or claims against a property’s title every time we buy a home. Titles on the blockchain could be instantly examined. In developing countries, on the other hand, even establishing who owns land is often challenging. Blockchain titles will provide clarity, and allow property to be used as collateral, which is an important contributing factor to economic development.

Bitcoin may or may not survive, but the blockchain is here to stay. The opportunities being created are just now coming into focus. This is typical because no inventor can know all of the uses possible for a new invention. The blockchain will change your life, even if Bitcoin turns out to be a bubble.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

3 weeks ago

The future of jobs and how Billy Joel’s ‘Allentown’ was remarkably prescient

Honda car plant (Made in Alabama)

Over 35 years ago during the 1981-82 recession, Billy Joel released “Allentown” about the plight of this Pennsylvania town. The song resonated across the Midwest during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. It also anticipated, I think, an important change in our economy and society.

I was in high school in suburban Detroit when “Allentown,” and Mr. Joel could easily have been singing about our troubles. Unemployment in Pennsylvania topped out at 12.7 percent in the recession, while Michigan hit 16.4 percent. Something seemed fundamentally wrong.


Fortunately, the U.S. economy recovered, and growth exceeded 7 percent in 1984. President Reagan’s reelection slogan, “It’s morning in America” suggested that the dark days were behind us. His tax cuts and low inflation were beginning to unleash the Reagan-Clinton prosperity.

Prosperity never brought back all the auto, steel, or coal jobs. The causes were many, but the largest was automation. America manufactures as much as ever, just with many fewer workers than in the 1970s. Now artificial intelligence (AI) may automate 800 million jobs worldwide.

Sources of long term, stable employment are vanishing, and AI will accelerate the automation of routinized tasks. In the future, tasks may be automated before hundreds of thousands of workers are hired to do them.

This does not mean the end of work, because our wants and desires for goods and services exceed our productive capacity, and always will. Our households and businesses inevitably have tasks that we’d like done. Humans will be useful, only our jobs will be more fleeting.

“Allentown” foreshadows the social impact of these changes. The lyrics state: “For the Pennsylvania we never found, For the promises our teachers gave, If we worked hard, If we behaved.” These words reflect an implicit deal: follow directions from teachers (and I would add parents and bosses), and you will be taken care of.

I shouldn’t really say taken care of, because the lyrics also mention hard work. Hard work in coal mines, steel mills, and auto plants and helped create the prosperity which workers shared. The middle class, post-War America lifestyle wasn’t a gift from employers, unions, or the government, but a share of the wealth created.

This deal worked because many jobs required on-the-job training but little specific expertise. The skills of a high school graduate sufficed, if people followed the boss’ directions. The gig economy and freelance writer epitomize today’s workplace, and now more people must manage their “careers.” Americans waiting to be told where to go to work hard are struggling in a changing world.

Is anyone responsible for this change? Not really, just as no one designed the prior deal. Economist Adam Smith recognized the existence of spontaneous order in society; our institutions are often the product of human action but not design. The Industrial Revolution’s factories, railroads, and other industries needed workers, and economic and political freedom in England and America meant that people could not be forced into this work. A deal where owners and managers designed the workplaces and marketed the products while employees followed directions made all involved better off.

The old deal is not being shut down by law, and traditional employment will never disappear entirely. One consequence of the ongoing spontaneous change is no official announcement that the old deal is no longer in effect. This probably worsens disillusionment and pain, as a long-successful way of approaching life just isn’t very successful anymore.

President Trump’s proposed tariffs on steel and other imports are a response, I think, to this larger change. We can expect other actions as well, perhaps regulations to slow the introduction of self-driving vehicles to protect jobs. Tariffs and regulations, however, will likely be merely delaying actions.

The good news is that automation will allow us to produce the goods and services we now have, plus many more. And many Americans are embracing freelance careers, perhaps because obeying the boss is often frustrating. The future is bright but will be different, and we must recognize the differences.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

3 weeks ago

Will student loan debt crush Alabama’s graduates?


Many of Alabama’s 2018 high school graduates will start college this fall. Unfortunately, many recent college graduates report putting off buying cars or homes, saving for retirement, or marriage due to student loan debt. Will Alabama’s new grads face this fate?

Student loans now total almost $1.5 trillion, with 2016 graduates averaging $28,000 in debt. With over 10 percent of loans in default, taxpayers may eventually pay much of that $1.5 trillion. A closer look at the numbers, however, offers hope for grads and suggestions for ensuring access to college without excessively burdening students or taxpayers.


The $28,000 loan average is only for grads with debt; 30 percent of grads managed to complete college without borrowing. Students burdened with six figure loans, often featured in news stories, inflate this average and have frequently borrowed for graduate or professional degrees, or to attend expensive private or out-of-state universities.

Attending a public university and paying in-state tuition allows pursuit of a degree with little debt. High schoolers can also earn college credit through dual enrollment and advanced placement courses. Two-year colleges provide a low cost way to begin studies, particularly for students with marginal test scores and grades. College graduates earn 60 to 70 percent more than high school grads, but students who never earn degrees struggle to pay back loans.

Some students will never pay their big loan balances thanks to forgiveness programs. Although student loans are very difficult to discharge in bankruptcy, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness plan cancels remaining balances for government or not-for-profit sector workers after ten years of payments. The plan makes some sense: why collect extra taxes to pay government workers to pay back government loans?

The program, however, lets students planning on public service careers take on debt they will almost surely never repay. Georgetown University used this plan to offer free law school for aspiring public interest lawyers.

Mortgage-sized debts raise the question of why exactly the Federal government is in the student loan business. An economic argument arises from the nature of lending: unlike cars or homes, college degrees cannot readily be repossessed (and indentured servitude is illegal). Students may be unable to borrow for college if they or their parents lack collateral, despite the value of degrees. A market would exist in the absence of Federal student loans, in all likelihood using test scores, college grades, and choice of major in decisions.

I believe that equality of opportunity explains the student loan program, not the economics of lending. The earnings premium shows that for many, college is the gate to the middle class. Americans like everyone to have an opportunity to succeed through hard work. Some nations ration access to college using standardized tests, with a teenager’s poor test performance limiting college options. Americans like people whom experts and bankers think will fail to still have a chance.

Markets generally outperform government programs, but I’m okay with government loans for college. Why? Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute contends that about two thirds of Americans support markets, in principle if not always in the details. Furthermore, this support correlates with the perception that America is a land of opportunity. Maintaining support for markets may require loans to some marginally qualified students.

Access to college as part of an opportunity society suggests focusing loans on undergraduate students. The Urban Institute, however, found that 38 percent of loans now go to graduate students. And the Government Accountability Office found that 30 percent of outstanding loans would likely be forgiven under various programs.

We should rely on market loans for graduate and professional schools. While this may limit some students’ pursuit of advanced degrees, college graduates already earn 30 percent higher salaries than the national average. Why should taxpayers pay for college-educated Americans to pursue even higher salaries?

Alabama’s college-bound 2018 high school graduates need not end up with mortgage-sized student debt. And Federal student loans can provide opportunity for Americans without overly burdening taxpayers.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

1 month ago

Are sales taxes outdated for Alabama’s future economy?


Presidential tweets and a Supreme Court case have reignited the question of taxing internet sales. The Court in April heard arguments in South Dakota v. Wayfair regarding whether a retailer must have physical presence in a state to have to remit sales taxes. The physical presence rule goes back to 1967 and mail order catalogs.

E-commerce has been costing state and local governments tax revenue, as South Dakota argued in the case. But instead of trying to collect sales taxes online, perhaps we should abandon a 20th Century economy tax.


General sales taxes produced 23 percent of state and local tax revenues nationally in 2015, while “selective sales taxes” on gas, tobacco, and alcohol contributed another 11 percent. Alabama raises 48 percent of our tax revenue from these taxes. Abandoning sales taxes would open a chasm in Alabama government budgets.

Economics shows that we will have less of anything which we tax. Taxes affect our behavior, creating a cost beyond the revenue raised for the government. “Optimal tax theory” examines keeping this extra cost as low as possible while raising needed government revenue. Efficiency is not, of course, the only factor for evaluating taxes, as most of us also care about fairness.

First widely used in the 1930s, sales taxes readily funded local governments when most people shopped at stores near home. The local sales taxes Alabamians paid went to their city or county government. Times have changed.

Sales taxes have always had drawbacks. For one, they are regressive, meaning that taxes as a percentage of family income falls as income rises. Although economists disagree about how progressive taxes should be (with a progressive tax, payments as a percentage of income increase with income), few view regressive taxes as fair.

Beyond regressivity, services have also proven hard to tax. Malls and big box stores avoided a local sales tax by locating beyond the city limits. Consumer use taxes, enacted for purchases made without paying sales taxes, have proven cumbersome. High taxes on cigarettes have led to cross-border shopping and smuggling.

Online retailing worsened collection problems. Although Amazon now generally collects sales tax, universal collection will be neither easy nor cheap. Differential tax treatment of online and brick-and-mortar sellers raises economic and fairness concerns. Avoiding sales taxes helps keep inefficient online retailers in business. And brick-and-mortar retailers face unfair competition when consumers can avoid sales taxes online.

Internet shopping has improved life for shoppers and entrepreneurs. Shoppers can choose from sellers world-wide without leaving the house. Makers of unique products no longer need to rely on mail order catalogs, and social media groups promote the products to interested consumers. The cost of collecting sales taxes for small businesses, however, is substantial: 13 percent of tax revenues for small retailers, versus 2 percent for large retailers.

Public service ads today encourage people to shop local retailers to fund local government. But optimal tax theory says we should not let taxes distort economic activity too much. Should we potentially halt the evolution of e-commerce, and all the benefits this may bring, simply because local governments can more easily collect sales taxes from local stores?

Our city and county government provide valuable services like police and fire protection, streets, schools, and garbage collection. These services should be adequately funded. I also believe in federalism and want local governments to impose their own taxes. Having Washington collect more taxes and then fund local governments undermines federalism.

Alternatives exist for sales tax revenues. In Alabama, our lowest in the nation property taxes represent an alternative. We might want to try pollution taxes, which promise sound environmental policy and could fund government.

Should we substantially revamp our tax system? If sales tax collection does not stifle e-commerce, my concern becomes moot. Ultimately government in the United States is supposed to serve our interests. Perhaps sales taxes are as outdated as Sears, Toys-R-Us, and the famous retailers who collected them.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

1 month ago

Karl Marx’s noble ideas that don’t work in an economy


May 5th was the 200th birthday of Karl Marx, the economist who devised socialism. Last November was the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, the first attempt to implement Marx’s ideas. During the 20th Century, millions of revolutionaries fought for communism, and today polls show that perhaps half of Millennials identify as socialists.

What is the enduring appeal of Marx’s ideas? I think this is best seen in his famous slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This sentiment is quite reasonable, and is how healthy families operate: parents support their young children, and then children care for aging parents.

But is it a good way to organize society?


Society is thousands of times more complicated, and extends far beyond familial bounds. Questions immediately arise: Who determines need and ability? How much must the able contribute? And, How much will the needy receive? A socialist government answers these questions.

Consequently, socialism must intrude on individuals. Determining whether an operation is truly necessary or if diet and exercise could suffice, for example, requires a medical and personal history. Must a would-be artist become an engineer because a test revealed their aptitude and society needs engineers? Such details make Marx’s slogan seem less appealing.

Another tension emerges when people fail to live up to Marx’s slogan. A person with great ability, for example, would have to contribute more, with rewards based only on their need. Working 80 or 100 hours a week as a doctor for the same standard of living as a person working 40 hours a week might not seem like a great deal.

Historian Robert Conquest in his book Harvest of Sorrow about famine in Ukraine under Stalin describes what happens when people fail the doctrine. Communist party officials, angry when output fell with the collectivization of agriculture, blamed wealthy farmers, known as kulaks, for hoarding and wrecking collectivization. With the power of government at their disposal, anger toward the kulaks turned violent.

Many nations adopting communism experienced mass state-sponsored violence. The Victims of Communism Foundation memorializes the more than 100 million victims of these regimes. The vast majority of these deaths were due to power-hungry leaders; socialism was tried to varying degrees in Britain, France, and India without government murder. But violence against persons seen as thwarting a noble plan can easily be justified as a means to an end.

Another famous economist, Adam Smith, offered a different take on society. Smith understood the power of voluntary cooperation through markets and observed, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard of their own interest.” Markets harness self-interest to serve peoples’ needs.

Many consider Smith’s vision as morally inferior to Marx’s, perhaps because it relies on self-interest instead of sacrifice. This, I think, is unfortunate. Viewing other people as means to our own ends has, unfortunately, been far too common in human history. The Pharaohs of Egypt built the pyramids using other humans as slaves, showing them as much respect as the stones used in construction. Government planners, Professor Smith noted, often view people as just pieces to be moved around a chess board at will.

Markets make people deal with others voluntarily. We cannot treat the butcher, brewer, or baker as means to our ends. Instead, we must recognize them as humans, and offer them something they value for their assistance.

Self-interest has proven a more effective basis for organizing an economy than sacrifice. Economic freedom in England and the Netherlands enabled the Industrial Revolution and modern prosperity. When people stop enslaving each other, we unleash the unbelievable power of mutual self-interest. Communist nations, by contrast, stagnated; China’s economic takeoff occurred with the introduction of private property.

Socialism is making a comeback. Organizing the economy to meet peoples’ needs seems noble and wise. Humanity’s needs, however, can be more successfully and sustainably met through voluntary agreement among people.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

2 months ago

Pro football in the Spring again — and the big economic challenge the AAF represents


Spring professional football returns in 2019 with the Alliance of American Football (AAF). I am very excited about this and think that the league has an excellent chance to be successful. The AAF’s potential also illustrates one of economics’ most difficult challenges.

The Alliance’s eight teams will play a ten game season beginning after the Super Bowl. The AAF’s founders have great sports backgrounds: Charlie Ebersol is the son of long-time NBC Sports President Dick Ebersol, while Bill Polian was General Manager of three NFL teams. The Alliance will offer a partnership with the players and features former NFL players Troy Polamalu, Hines Ward, and Jared Allen in executive positions.

The Alliance will feature some innovative rules, like only two point conversions after touchdowns. In place of dangerous kickoffs, teams will take possession on their own 25-yard line. Instead of on-sides kicks, a team can take the ball with fourth and ten on their own 35-yard line. Fantasy football will be promoted extensively. Steve Spurrier and Brad Childress will coach the teams in Orlando and Atlanta.

The league will own the teams, which should allow maintenance of salaries consistent with projected revenue. Salaries will be well below the NFL’s average of $1.9 million. But attracting players should not be a problem; Canadian Football League fills its rosters with an average salary of around $80,000. As only about 2 percent of college players make the NFL, many recognizable players will be available.

Many football fans find themselves in withdrawal after the Super Bowl, with the next games seven months away. Add in fantasy players and sports bettors, and the market seems available. The Alliance gives football junkies something to talk about, but what does this have to do with economics? It illustrates a critical and controversial element of economic performance.

Spring pro football sounds like a great and profitable idea. But if spring football is such a great idea, why hasn’t it been tried since the United States Football League’s last spring season nearly 35 years ago? If I am right about the AAF’s prospects, then investors have been missing out on profits, fans on entertainment, and players on opportunity. In other words, the market has failed to deliver something of value.

The fundamental question in economics is whether free markets or activist government provides the better path to prosperity. And the potential inefficiency in markets arises from products and services not available. The items businesses provide every day almost certainly create value, because customers will only repeatedly buy products they find worth the price, while firms won’t continue to sell at a loss. But would products and services which are not available provide value for the economy?

Establishing conclusively that any product not available would make us better off is extremely hard. To see why, consider spring football. The idea must have occurred to investors, since the USFL, Arena Football, and Vince McMahon’s XFL all played spring and summer games. Investors may have explored the idea and identified challenges I do not see. I have never started a business, so professional investors should be more likely to see potential problems than me. Given the potential challenges, the AAF’s success may be far less certain than I think.

Everybody probably has an idea for a new product or service that would make a fortune. As criticisms of the market, most of these claims are really like Monday morning quarterbacking. Further, the claims also invite a challenge: if I were sure that spring football was a “can’t miss” deal, I could invest in the AAF. Yet this well-founded skepticism of great products not available easily bleeds into ideological certainty that markets always provide all valuable new products.

Spring football is returning. As a football fan, I am bullish on the Alliance’s prospects, but the economist in me remains cautious. If the league is successful, then we should ask why this didn’t happen years ago. And that will be an important economic question.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

2 months ago

Occupational licensing: A costly permission slip to work


All states license many occupations. Licensing, essentially a government permission slip to work, emerged in the early 20th Century and is now more extensive than ever. A new report by the Alabama Policy Institute and Johnson Center, “The Costs of Occupational Licensing in Alabama,” provides an evaluation of the current extent and costs of licensing in our state.

Occupational licensing protects consumers from the consequences of high-cost information. We hire expert doctors, architects, and electricians to do things we cannot. Our lack of expertise means that we also have difficulty distinguishing knowledgeable experts from quacks and charlatans. And the consequences can be deadly: a treatable illness becomes life-threatening, or faulty wiring causes fires.


Under occupational licensing, a state-appointed board sets fees, training, experience, and exam requirements for each profession. Individuals not meeting the standards cannot legally practice the trade. Driving out quacks and charlatans ensures consumers that all chiropractors or massage therapists are knowledgeable professionals. More than 800 jobs are now licensed in at least one state, covering about 30 percent of the national labor force, compared with 6 percent in 1950.

Today licensing extends to professions not connected to safety, like florists, barbers, and interior designers. A bad haircut might be disappointing, but hardly represents the harm caused by incompetent architects.

The authors of our new study, led by Dan Smith and Courtney Michaluk Joslin of the Johnson Center combed through Alabama’s laws and regulations. Alabama currently licenses 151 professions, covering 430,000 workers, or 21 percent of our labor force. Initial fees, which average more than $300, reach $1,565 for interior designers, and licensees pay additional annual fees. Currently licensed Alabama professionals paid an estimated $122 million in initial fees, plus another $45 million annually.

Education and training requirements can include college and graduate or professional school (e.g., medical school). Education has explicit costs (tuition, books, materials), and less visible costs (salary not earned while attending school). Using the lowest cost training or college available in Alabama, Smith and Joslin estimate the cost of initial training for current professionals at $65 billion; continuing education costs another $243 million annually.

Much of this training and education is undoubtedly necessary. No one wants to be treated by a “doctor” who merely stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. Rapidly expanding professional knowledge increases needed training and continuing education. To create value, however, each element of training must be worth the cost. This is where occupational licensing fails.

The voluntary market offers many forms of training and product testing, which economists have found quite effective. Examples include Underwriters’ Laboratories for products and the American Meteorological Society’s Certified Broadcast Meteorologist program. The crucial factor for quality in markets is voluntariness.

This seems backward. Shouldn’t valuable training be mandatory, so people can’t avoid it? While plausible, mandates lead professionals to merely satisfy the requirements, or check all the boxes. No one asks: Is this worth the time and cost?
By contrast, professionals and the firms who employ them will only pay for voluntary training which is worth the time and cost. Market feedback is not instantaneous and exact, but typically someone will halt voluntary training which is not creating value. Low-value training persists under legal mandates.

Increased training and education requirements reduce the number of licensed professionals, resulting in higher rates and benefitting current professionals. Economists’ research consistently finds that licensing raises prices for consumers. And continuing education in some fields is little more than a racket, as continuing legal education illustrates. The lawyers giving talks at continuing education seminars are themselves earning credit, and are not paid much for their time. Lawyers pay a lot and spend their valuable time in boring seminars teaching little of value.

Occupational licensing addresses a real problem – assuring the quality of expert services. But like much of our legal and regulatory system, it has evolved into elaborate box checking, which does not create prosperity. Licensing costs Alabamians billions, and yet is poorly designed for delivering high-quality services.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

2 months ago

How many people does the IRS actually audit? Lessons from Tax Day


Income taxes were just due, and I hope that filing this year wasn’t too painful. Despite the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) fearsome reputation, our tax system relies extensively on voluntary compliance. Tax Day thus reminds us why it is important for Americans to believe that our government serves our interests, an impression which seems endangered today.

It may seem odd to think that we voluntarily pay taxes. Few Americans fill out tax forms for fun, and many pay professionals to avoid the stress. We file because the IRS makes us, right? Well, yes and no.

Filing a tax return is legally required, which is the yes part. But what are the consequences of filing a less than truthful return? An IRS audit could reveal your tax evasion or underpayment of taxes. But the likelihood of an audit is less than you probably think: half of one percent of individual income tax returns annually. Audit rates differ based on a taxpayer’s reported amount and nature of income. The IRS examines (their euphemism for audit) only one in five hundred taxpayers making less than $200,000 with no business income.


More than just our individual income tax system relies on voluntary compliance. About one percent of corporate income tax returns are audited, and the sales tax relies on retailers accurately reporting sales. Environmental, workplace safety, and other government regulations depend on accurate reporting of information by businesses.

Voluntarily paying taxes improves our standard of living. The cost of auditing even a quarter of tax returns would be staggering: a huge increase in IRS agents, and enormous monetary, time, and emotional costs for taxpayers. Social science research suggests that treating people like lawbreakers can undermine respect for the law. If so, then having the IRS audit more taxpayers might conceivably increase tax avoidance, especially if some ways to hide or shelter income always exist.

We pay taxes voluntarily because they fund activities we want government to perform. The American Revolution established that in America, government would serve citizens. By contrast, throughout most of human history, people served kings or emperors.

Libertarians like to say that taxes are theft, and this contains a kernel of truth. Ultimately armed federal agents will seize property for unpaid taxes; armed robbers similarly take property, and injure owners if they resist. Taxes are not theft because, and only because, we approve of what government does with our money. Not each and every dollar spent, obviously, but the package as a whole.

Many Americans express a willingness to pay taxes. In 2017, 88 percent of Comprehensive Taxpayer Attitude Survey respondents agreed that cheating on taxes was not acceptable, while 95 percent agreed that paying taxes is a civic duty. Americans seemingly accept that taxes are the price we pay for civilization.

Today perhaps more than ever, however, Americans seem to view government as out of control. President Trump’s campaign promise to “Drain the Swamp” seemed to resonate with millions of Americans. (Whether the President is engaged in swamp draining is a different question.) Many young Bernie Sanders voters also seemed alienated from mainstream politicians. Such attitudes bode ill for a system based on voluntary compliance.

To be fair, perceptions of a disconnect with government are hardly new. Thomas Jefferson viewed his election victory over John Adams in 1800 as a second American revolution, which implies that President Adams was emulating Britain’s King George III. The student protests and urban riots of the 1960s left some political scientists wondering if America was ungovernable. Ronald Reagan claimed that Washington was the problem, not the solution. Conservatives’ concern today about a liberal deep state conspiracy against President Trump may just be old wine in new bottles.

Taxes are not theft because we believe that government ultimately serves us. Tax Day reminds us that if Americans stop believing that government reflects our values and interests, our tax system will no longer function as it has. And the resulting changes will almost certainly be for the worse.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

2 months ago

Will artificial intelligence bring doom or progress?


Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking’s recent death brought new attention to his dire predictions about artificial intelligence (AI). Professor Hawking feared the loss of jobs, rising inequality, and the potential for malevolent AI to threaten human existence. Does a disaster loom? If we remain in control, I think that AI will bring progress.

Robots already do millions of jobs humans used to, and AI could automate countless more. Self-driving vehicles are on the horizon. But AI will automate knowledge-based service jobs in journalism (AI-written news stories) and the law (generating many legal documents).

Will AI mean an end of jobs for humans? No, because AI will not abolish the basic economic fact of scarcity. Our basically unlimited desires for more and better goods and services exceed what we can produce using available resources and current (or imaginable) technology. We will never run out of things to do.


What will humans do as AI develops? Automatic teller machines (ATMs), a primitive form of AI, provide a possible preview. U.S. banks have around 400,000 ATMs, and yet employ more people than when the first ATM debuted in 1969. Intelligent technology reduced the number of human tellers required in a branch, yet banks increased the number of branches.

The automation of good paying jobs in law and journalism may appear likely to increase inequality. We could end up with a few high paying jobs working with the robots or AI, with most workers pushed into low paying jobs. But automating routine bank transactions let employees handle more complicated transactions and offer new services. Furthermore, automation lowers the cost of traditional goods and services. A lower cost of living allows a modest salary to sustain a middle-class standard of living.

The prospects are rosy as long as we remain in control of AI. But what about malevolent machines seeking to enslave or destroy their makers? Others share Professor Hawking’s fear. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ annual “Doomsday Clock” calculation recently began listing potential automated, intelligent killing machines as a doomsday threat. The theme has been a staple of science fiction movies and literature, from the Terminator and Matrix series back to Frankenstein.

As an economist who struggles to use a smart phone, I can’t offer much insight on computer science and machine learning. Economics, though, can offer some perspective.

Good decisions balance benefits and costs, factoring in probabilities when outcomes are not sure things. We further need to express all benefits and costs in dollar amounts. What would be the “cost” of the destruction of civilization? To provide perspective, world GDP was $78 trillion in 2017, and world population exceeds seven billion. An appropriate figure would have many, many zeros.

With this staggering cost, no type of AI research with even a tiny chance of unleashing malevolent machines could seemingly pass a benefit-cost test. This is the economic logic behind the Precautionary Principle, which places the burden of proof to demonstrate safety on developers of potentially dangerous technology.

The problem, however, is identifying the exact types of AI research, if any, which might produce the rise of the machines. If we have no skill in this task, we cannot ban only truly dangerous research. The Precautionary Principle might require shutting down wide swaths of research on computers and automation, which becomes incredibly costly. And we still might fail to prevent the seemingly harmless application which spells doom.

One final consideration comes from the development of atomic weapons by the U.S. While some libertarians view military research critically, I see the Manhattan Project as demonstrating that the leaders of a freedom-loving nation could have good reasons for developing apocalyptic weapons. We may deliberately undertake the fateful AI research.

Artificial intelligence should contribute to progress as long as it remains under our control, improving our decisions in addition to increasing productivity. But if there is a risk of malevolent AI, we simply may not know enough to avoid the danger.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

2 months ago

Money and March Madness: Should college players be compensated?


March Madness just concluded with Villanova winning the title. Given the ongoing college basketball bribery investigation, the bigger question may be whether the Wildcats will eventually vacate the title.

The bribery case first broke last September with ten arrests, including four assistant coaches, based on an FBI investigation dating from 2015. The scandal has already claimed Louisville coach Rick Pitino, fired before this season. The extent of the bribery remains unclear. News reports have implicated twenty top programs as targets, and claimed that the FBI has hours of recorded phone calls. Of course, these reports may prove inaccurate.

Shoe manufacturer Adidas and sports agents funded the payments leading to September’s arrests. Adidas allegedly paid to lure top recruits to teams using their shoes and uniforms. The sports agents allegedly paid to get stars to commit to use them as agents when entering the NBA. The payments clearly violate NCAA rules, since college players are student-athletes, not professionals.

Of course, the NCAA basketball tournament is big business. March Madness earns over $1 billion annually in ticket sales, broadcast rights fees, and sponsorships. Universities and the NCAA market basketball and football like commercial properties.


Some sports economists claim that the NCAA is a cartel. A cartel is a group of independent businesses which coordinate to act like a monopolist, restricting production to increase profits. OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, is probably the world’s best-known cartel.

OPEC sells a product to consumers, while the NCAA “employs” players. So the NCAA tries to suppress players’ “salaries.” Successful cartels must resist competitive pressures. Sellers of oil want to cut their price a little to sell more oil, while college teams want to pay top recruits to win more games and championships.

Economic theory highlights why cartels form and collapse. Being the only cheater on a cartel agreement is the best of all possible worlds for an oil exporter or basketball program. Consequently, a cartel tries to detect and punish cheating, but doesn’t always succeed.

The fear of cartels, or trusts, led to the passage of our anti-trust laws outlawing anti-competitive collusion. Research shows, however, that cartels are not terribly successful, except under certain circumstances. The diamond cartel, sustained by a small number of mines, is probably the most effective. Cartels also succeed by “capturing” government agencies tasked with regulating businesses. Railroads, trucking, and airlines in the U.S. used regulation to maintain cartels until deregulation in the late 1970s.

The NCAA has successfully argued that sports are an element of education. Indeed, sports certainly help student-athletes learn valuable life lessons. And athletes receive scholarships, room and board, tutoring help, and now cost of attendance as compensation.

Players clearly do not get paid a competitive share of the revenue they generate. Economics identifies the effects of not fairly compensating players. One is increased spending on other elements of sports programs, like coaches’ salaries and facilities. Another is the use of athletics revenue to pay for other university programs, like non-revenue sports and music (through marching bands).

Perhaps the most unfair element of college sports is preventing a talented three-point shooter or defensive lineman from pursuing a sports career if they cannot succeed in unrelated academic tasks like conjugating a verb or calculating the slope of a line. The NFL effectively makes playing college football a requirement by restricting draft eligibility to players three years out of high school. The NBA’s “one and done” draft rule has a similar impact. Still, few Americans get very angry about any injustice done to college athletes.

More serious harms connected to college sports, like sexual abuse or assault, represent the greatest cost of not paying players. The culture of secrecy which hides illicit payments to athletes seems to enable predators like Michigan State’s (and USA Gymnastics’) Dr. Larry Nassar and Penn State’s Jerry Sandusky. Athletes get paid to play and benefit, while the victims of sexual predators are scarred for life. The façade of amateurism in college sports would be farce if not for the real harms it shields.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

3 months ago

Public Transit: Why gov’t is short-sighted to invest in a dying transportation form


The first driverless car pedestrian fatality occurred recently in Arizona, almost two years after the first fatal crash. These tragic fatalities signal the ongoing development of this technology. Cars and trucks with drivers killed 5,800 pedestrians in 2016, so a driverless car pedestrian fatality was probably inevitable.

Driverless cars will reshape our economy, as 2.8 million people currently work in transportation. One area of disruption which has flown under the radar is public transportation. A new Cato Institute study, “The Coming Transit Apocalypse,” highlights the looming wreck.


How can we be sure that driverless vehicles will be on the road soon? Nothing is certain in life, but the Cato study notes that more than three dozen companies worldwide are experimenting with the technology, including auto makers, auto parts suppliers, and tech companies. Thus many companies believe that practical self-driving vehicles are within reach. Given that these companies are trying different approaches, it seems likely that at least one successful design will emerge.

Public transportation is already hemorrhaging riders, with a 3 percent decline in the first half of 2017 following a 4.4 percent decline between 2014 and 2016. Seven metro transit systems have seen ridership declines of at least 27 percent since 2009. Although lower gas prices partly explain this, ride sharing services like Uber and Lyft are also having an impact. Ride sharing offers greater convenience than transit with door-to-door, on-demand service, but is currently more expensive. Driverless, shared vehicles are projected to be price competitive with transit. Consequently, the Cato study contends that public transit will be “extinct” everywhere outside of New York City and perhaps a couple of other markets by 2030.

Mass transit has never been very popular since the widespread ownership of cars, and currently carries less than one percent of travelers in all but a few cities. One disadvantage of mass transit is geography: residents and jobs are too spread out in most American cities to generate high enough demand for either buses or trains on centralized routes. Culture also plays a factor, as many Americans simply prefer driving.

Low ridership rates are not due to a lack of government spending, which has exceeded $1 trillion (adjusted for inflation) since 1970. Fares cover only about 30 percent of expenditures. Americans will not use even highly subsidized public transport.

Many transit agencies have deferred maintenance on rail systems, which have a useful life of about 30 years before requiring substantial rebuilding. Washington’s Metro system turned 30 in 2006, and by 2013, incidents of smoke in tunnels were causing evacuations twice a month. Unreliable service makes transit less competitive with ride sharing going forward.

An end of public transport, however, will not end taxpayers’ costs. Many systems went into debt building or repairing subway or rail lines, while others have significant unfunded health care and pension liabilities. For example, the Cato study estimates that Boston’s transit system has $3.4 billion in unfunded liabilities, which represent a portion of employees’ compensation. Transit systems have spent lavishly on new rail lines instead of ensuring that promises to employees will be kept.

Regardless of exactly how quickly self-driving cars take over, further investments in transit infrastructure do seem dubious at this time. Nonetheless, Los Angeles County decided in 2016 to spend $120 billion, primarily on new light rail lines. The Cato study suggests that new rail lines being planned now will be obsolete before finished. Only government agencies spending our tax dollars can afford to be so short-sighted.

The potential transit apocalypse illustrates a recurrent problem. Once political support for spending coalesces, government finds adjusting to changing economic and societal conditions difficult. Mounting losses do not cause proponents to sour on mass transit. Economist Mancur Olson claimed that the entrenchment of programs under democracy produced stagnation.

Public transportation has helped many Americans, particularly those who could not afford cars. Changing conditions, however, require policy changes. I fear that we will still be building subways even after everyone has their own automated chauffer.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

3 months ago

The economics of a military draft

(Marine Corp.)

Fifty years ago, protests and violence in opposition to the Vietnam War and the draft roiled college campuses.  The War appeared hopelessly deadlocked after the Tet Offensive.  Protestors burned draft cards, ransacked draft offices, and fled for Canada.  At the end of March 1968, President Johnson announced that he would not seek reelection.


In January 1973, President Nixon ended the draft, delivering on a campaign promise.  Why did the policy change within just five years?  Dr. David Henderson, an economist and long-time professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, contends that economists played an important role.  The case illustrates how academic research can shape public policy, hopefully for the better.

Let’s first consider the economics of a military draft.  One argument for a draft is that it lowers the cost of the military.  This, however, is based on confusion.  A draft reduces the government’s budgetary cost.  The full cost of the military is the value of the resources used, including personnel.  Uncle Sam paid G.I.’s a monthly salary, but the amount did not have to adequately compensate the soldiers, who faced prison for refusing to serve.

Forcing service does not reduce and can even increase the full cost; persons creating great value in the economy may end up carrying a rifle.  During World War II, draft exemptions were granted for critical jobs in war industries.  And the military made effective use of talented individuals, including future Nobel Prize winners like economist Milton Friedman and physicist Richard Feynman (who was part of the Manhattan Project).  The military understood the full economic cost and sought to use personnel efficiently.

Research by economists in the 1960s speculatively estimated the supply of volunteers.  Individuals’ willingness to volunteer depends on many factors, including pay, the likelihood of war, an individual’s patriotism, and the conditions of service (e.g., the minimum term of enlistment).  This research showed critically that a sufficient number of volunteers could be secured.

Conscription involves concerns beyond economics, like justice.  Even on such questions, though, economics provides insight.  For instance, how should we allocate the burden of defending the nation, including the risk of being killed or wounded in service?  Some believe that a draft lottery distributes this burden more fairly, as all those eligible could be selected.  (The rules for deferments and exemptions certainly matter; the poor and minorities still did a disproportionate share of the fighting in Vietnam.) Economics shows how conscription is equivalent to a tax.  Draftees serve for less pay than they would require to volunteer; if they received $10,000 per year less, it is as if they were taxed this amount.  This “tax” was on top of the risks of combat.  A volunteer military’s higher salaries make taxpayers cover more of the cost, which arguably is fairer.

How did economists influence policy?  While proving the influence of specific ideas on specific changes is nearly impossible, Professor Henderson offers a strong argument.  The aforementioned research documented the costs of conscription and the feasibility of a volunteer military.  A conference at the University of Chicago in 1966 organized by Milton Friedman brought together four hundred professors, opinion leaders, and politicians, including Ted Kennedy and Donald Rumsfeld.  And President Nixon’s Advisory Commission on an All-Volunteer Force, chaired by former Defense Secretary Thomas Gates, included Professor Friedman and other prominent economists.  The Commission held hearings and their report provided the formal basis for ending conscription.

Perhaps most significantly, the participants at the University of Chicago conference and members of the Gates Commission included many supporters of the draft.  The economists’ arguments changed opinions, demonstrating their strength.  The Gates Commission conveyed this message to the public.

Although not widely read, economists’ research affects which policy proposals appear reasonable. Hopefully this leads to better government policies, like the all-volunteer military.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

3 months ago

Tariffs and their impacts explained


President Trump announced last week that he would seek tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. What will the impacts of these tariffs be, and do they constitute wise policy?A tariff is a tax imposed on items imported to the U.S. The proposed 25 and 10 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum will make imported metals more expensive, increasing domestic production of these metals. President Trump will impose the tariffs via executive order, since Congress decades ago gave the president relatively broad discretion to impose tariffs for national or economic security. The Commerce Department determined in February that steel and aluminum imports threaten security, allowing this action.


The president intends to boost domestic steel and aluminum production. The first element of good policy is accomplishing the intended goal. The tariffs do this.

Increased domestic production will come at a cost. Steel and aluminum are used to make consumer goods like cars, lawn mowers, and beverage cans. Furthermore, there are dozens of types and grades of steel. American companies are very good at making some types of steel, while foreign companies are quite good at making other types. No American companies currently make some types of steel.

Manufacturing is efficient when producers of cars, mowers, and cans can purchase the best product at the best price. The tariffs will increase the cost of manufacturing in the U.S., reducing output and employment in industries using these metals. Consumers will face higher prices as well.

The second and more significant element of wise policy is ensuring that the benefits exceed the costs. Is there a compelling reason to protect domestic metals production?

We might think that such protection could spur the labor market. Employment is currently less than 100,000 and 30,000 in aluminum. Based on current import penetration, eliminating all imports – which these tariffs will not do – might in time create 50,000 additional jobs. This total is modest relative to our economy’s 150 million total jobs and 60 million jobs filled annually, and would be at least partially offset by job losses in manufacturing. And January’s 4.1 percent unemployment rate signals a currently strong labor market.

President Trump has spoken often about economic dangers from China. China is only our 11th largest steel supplier; we import the most steel from Canada, South Korea, Brazil and Mexico. Regardless of whether trading less with China is desirable, these tariffs will not really achieve this goal.

The identity of our largest steel trading partners, I think, also allays national security fears. If we feared some security scenario requiring significantly greater domestic production, we could pay American companies to mothball recently closed plants. We do not need to punish automakers daily to prepare for a contingency which may never arise.

Competition from foreign producers receiving government assistance provides, I think, the strongest argument for ever protecting American industries. Government assistance violates the rules of the market, raising economic and justice concerns. Economic efficiency requires that the firms producing the best different steel and aluminum products win out. Export subsidies encourage production by firms which are not the most efficient. Plant closings devastate families and communities. This pain can be justified as like recuperation from surgery if the closings improve economic efficiency. Pain which does not improve the economy is hard to justify.

Are steel producers losing because of unfair trade? The World Trade Organization allows remedies in response to documented unfair trade practices. As of June 2017, American steelmakers had 149 remedies in place, including 24 against China. We had 18 remedies against South Korea (second most after China), yet only eight, six, and zero against Brazil, Mexico, and Canada. Competition in steel seems reasonably fair.

The response of our trading partners provides a final variable here. Our trading partners may impose tariffs against American products in retaliation. No one knows if President Trump’s tariffs will spark a trade war, but wars almost always injure many innocent parties.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

4 months ago

School Shootings: An Alabama economics professor’s take


The recent tragedy at Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High has sadly raised this question again. The failure to prevent the loss of young lives reflects both an unpleasant reality and some problems of politics.

Preventing school shootings is very hard in a nation with millions of guns. Once someone decides to do evil, they can usually get guns and pick the time and place for their act. Law enforcement can only react, and mass shootings typically last just minutes. If deterrence, discouragement, and intervention (if possible) fail, protecting 100,000 schools is nearly impossible.

The impossibility of preventing shootings does not justify doing nothing. Economics emphasizes that we make choices on the margin. Can measures prevent, or reduce the harm from, school shootings without unacceptably abridging citizens’ gun rights?

The occasional failures of agencies administering gun laws provide one component of this difficulty. Convictions that should have prevented the perpetrator of the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting from legally purchasing weapons were never entered into a national database. The FBI and local police did not act on threats made by Florida suspect Nikolas Cruz. And the sheriff’s deputy assigned to Stoneman High failed to engage the shooter.

Several elements of politics make this already challenging task even harder. One is short political attention spans, or what public choice economists call rational ignorance. Our actions have little impact on outcomes in a large democracy: one vote almost never decides a Federal election. So voting against our interests because of not paying attention to politics is almost costless.

Rational ignorance helps politicians appear to act decisively against societal evils like school shootings. If some politicians claim that banning bump stocks (which allow semi-automatic rifles to fire at higher rates) will prevent mass shootings, who could object?

Clever politicians know that easy solutions have little chance of working, and that voters will not hold them accountable for ineffective policy.

Defenders of gun rights seemingly fear that even the most innocuous restrictions will contain provisions somehow restricting gun rights. Such lack of trust may be understandable. Laws are difficult to repeal, as Republicans have discovered with the Affordable Care Act. This difficulty can encourage deceit and subterfuge; trick people into supporting a law they will eventually oppose and policy can be altered for years. In markets, deceit and subterfuge typically provide only temporary benefit. Suppose that a home security company offers an armed response against intruders, which turns out to be calling 911. Disappointed customers will cancel their contracts, and the company’s reputation could be harmed permanently.

One final relevant element of politics is what economist Bryan Caplan has labeled rational irrationality. Voters face few personal and direct consequences from inconsistent or incorrect beliefs, helping these beliefs persist.

What’s the rational irrationality on gun control? If government is for the people, citizens must have a right to reign in an overreaching government. And because a tyrant may not surrender power if citizens ask nicely, “reigning in” must mean armed resistance. But does gun ownership preserve freedom in the United States today, or is this just a libertarian fantasy? And even if an armed populace checked tyranny, would a waiting period necessarily undermine this check?

These are hard and troubling questions for libertarians like me. In politics, we can join the NRA and vow no compromise. In other contexts, gun owners might make tradeoffs. A libertarian gun owner with young children might decide that guns locked safely away can still prevent tyranny.

Unions and management are often as skeptical of each other’s motives and intentions as the two sides on gun control. And yet strikes are rare, because their cost provides an incentive to get past rhetoric and negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. Politics features few personal costs and consequently lots of bluster, deceit, and fantasy. Should we be surprised then that we make little progress on really hard problems?

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

4 months ago

Bitcoin and bubbles explained

Bitcoin has been on a wild ride, rocketing from $1,000 to nearly $20,000 last year. A recent slide to $7,300 brought claims that Bitcoin was a bubble. What exactly is a financial bubble, and does Bitcoin have a future?

Most commonly described as a cryptocurrency, Bitcoin joins together several innovations. It is first and foremost an electronic payment system, not unlike credit cards or mobile banking, using its own currency instead of dollars. Accounts and transactions are recorded on the Blockchain, contained on all the network computers worldwide. Instead of Visa or a bank keeping accounts, the Blockchain ledger is kept by everyone. Bitcoin owners use an electronic key to carry out transactions.

The Blockchain represents a major innovation itself, but that’s a topic for another day. There are now dozens of other cryptocurrencies. Ethereum and Litecoin appreciated by a factor of 100 in 2017.

What determines the value of Bitcoin? The market, meaning everyone willing to buy or sell Bitcoin. Why would anyone trade real money for electronic numbers?

One reason is for purchases, as mentioned. Bitcoin costs merchants less than the three percent credit cards charge and presents less risk of fraud as buyers cannot readily dispute charges for items they purchased. And cryptocurrencies provide millions of people access to global markets for the first time.

A second reason: Some people now use Bitcoin to hold wealth, like gold. For hundreds of years, gold has preserved wealth through wars, inflation, and financial crises. Should banks fail again like in the 1930s, many people believe gold will be safe. Increasingly people feel similarly about Bitcoin.

But gold is real, whereas Bitcoin is computer code. Couldn’t the operators create millions of Bitcoins with a few keystrokes, rendering those bought for thousands of dollars worthless? No, because the Blockchain governs the creation of new Bitcoin and caps the number at 21 million. Only a majority of users can modify the Blockchain, limiting the supply, as with gold.

A third reason to buy Bitcoin is to make a profit. The value of Bitcoin depends on how much people will pay for it. People will pay $10,000 Bitcoin if they think prices will hit $20,000, and $20,000 if it is going to $30,000! In 2017, many investors boarded the Bitcoin train.

When lots of investors buy an asset, the price will rise, making a boom a self-fulfilling prophecy. Prices can rise astronomically, but not forever; eventually, investors can’t afford even higher prices. Shattering the expectation of rising prices can set off an equally rapid price collapse. An asset price bubble is like a roller coaster.

Bubbles challenge economists like myself who think that markets work well. Why? We argue that market prices must guide businesses, investors, and consumers. If so, rising home prices before 2006 indicated a demand for more investment. But if rising prices were just a bubble, we built unneeded houses. Las Vegas’s newly built, never occupied houses and townhomes were wasted investments.

Frequent bubbles render market price signals as noisy as a third-grade class at recess. Some free market economists try to deny bubbles, but Nobel Prize-winning economist Vernon Smith, one of the most thoughtful market economists, believes differently. Professor Smith pioneered the use of experimental methods to test economic theories. He found that bubbles commonly occurred in financial assets experiments; indeed, he had to basically rig an experiment to prevent them. Pricing assets like stocks, gold, and now cryptocurrency involves projecting the future, and excessive optimism contributes to bubbles.

Do bubbles prevent markets from working? Market economies emerged about three hundred years ago, and over this period, standards of living have increased dramatically. Economic history clearly demonstrates that markets, even when occasionally beset by bubbles, produce prosperity. Markets limit the waste from bubbles because investors can sit out during a perceived bubble if they choose, or invest to profit when the bubble bursts.

Is Bitcoin a bubble? Perhaps, but cryptocurrencies offer significant potential. Bitcoin is creating value in the economy, and either it or some successor currency is likely to have a future.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

4 months ago

Should government be run like a business?

(Architect of the Capitol, Pixabay)



I recently wrote about some of the problems with civil asset forfeiture, under which our governments seize money or assets allegedly involved in criminal activity without securing a conviction. An Institute for Justice report detailing forfeiture abuses, “Policing for Profit,” suggests that there is an inconsistency between proper policing and profit. And yet politicians from Al Gore to Donald Trump have wanted to make government more business-like.

Is there a conflict between good government and profit?

The profit motive is enormously important in our economy. Profits are a residual, or what is left over after paying all the costs, and the owners get to keep any profit. Businesses typically must incur costs before selling and are never guaranteed a profit. Agriculture illustrates this: Farmers must buy or lease land and purchase seeds, fertilizer and tractors to grow a crop. If the crop is large enough and market prices high enough, revenue will exceed cost. The farmer keeps any residual, and bears the losses.

Business owners get to make decisions and keep the profit, so they should try to control costs. This marriage of decision-making authority and financial incentive drives the efficiency of business. The pursuit of profit does not mean keeping costs as low as possible, since building luxury cars and mansions can both be profitable. Car makers, though, should avoid waste in building both economy and luxury cars.

No one in government can earn profits. We lose a powerful incentive. But why would, say, policing for profit, lead to problems? For asset forfeiture, we probably only want criminals deprived of their ill-gotten gains. We are not authorizing forfeiture against innocent people (including ourselves). A profit motive might lead to the targeting of innocent people (the poor, minorities) unable to legally defend their assets.
Furthermore, we cannot easily tell when the police pursue forfeiture against an innocent person. The person who has $10,000 or more in cash seized from them might have just won a casino jackpot or sold a car for cash, or may be involved in the drug trade. The lack of clarity prevents us from holding the district attorney, mayor, or offending police officers accountable.

Consider some other potential instances where government could make profits. Illegally parked cars should sometimes be towed, but the danger should ideally be balanced against the owner’s cost and inconvenience. The pursuit of profit makes such balancing less likely. Speed traps and red-light cameras might be used to issue tickets for marginal violations or excessive fines. Private, for-profit prisons might cut spending on food and medical care, creating cruel and unusual conditions for inmates.

The lack of clarity is a common theme. Just how long was that car illegally parked? Did a prisoner given aspirin truly need surgery? We cannot tell when the lure of profit leads to excessive corner cutting.
Yet many business interactions also lack clarity. A delayed flight might be due to unexpected mechanical problems, or a lack of reasonable preparations. An unforeseen design flaw or intentional disregard of safety could both be responsible for auto accidents and safety recalls.

Why is profit-seeking by government a bigger problem? The answer, I think, is that our dealings with any business are voluntary, while our dealings with government are compelled. If I get sick after eating at a restaurant, I can choose never to eat there again. Voluntariness also enables competition, disciplining businesses in the pursuit of profit. Businesses can find shortchanging customers on quality and service very costly.

People cannot typically walk away from dealings with government, as is literally true for the person carrying cash stopped by law enforcement. Prisoners cannot boycott a private prison which they believe does not offer a humane level of care. The state officials administering a contract with a private prison are not “customers,” and may be more tolerant of poor conditions than if they were customers.
Does this mean we can never beneficially make government function more like a business? No, but we must proceed very cautiously. The profit motive is a great force for efficiency when constrained by choice and competition.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

4 months ago

Has Amazon improved our lives? 3 types of Gov’t help make it hard to tell

(Wikicommons & Saturnism/Flickr)
(Wikicommons & Saturnism/Flickr)

Shopping with Amazon Prime has made my life better. But has Amazon improved the U.S. economy? Several forms of government help may account for Amazon’s success. Ensuring that success constitutes progress becomes challenging when government and business are entangled.

Online retailing has clearly benefitted residents of America’s small towns and rural areas. Our shopping options now rival those of urbanites, which historically is unprecedented. And yet three types of government help render an assessment of Amazon’s contribution to progress for the economy problematic.

First, customers long avoided paying sales taxes. Online retailers were exempted from collecting sales taxes in states where they lacked a physical presence. Sales taxes typically run between 8 and 10 percent and are the largest revenue source for state and local governments.

Amazon now collects sales tax for most states. But how many customers were lured online initially to avoid sales tax? Economists have measured the impact as Amazon started collecting sales taxes. One study estimated that their sales fell almost 10 percent and brick-and-mortar retailers’ sales increased in states where Amazon began collecting taxes in 2013.

U. S. Postal Service shipping rates have further helped Amazon. The help here is via a cross-subsidy that may be as much as $1.46 per package. Regulated businesses and government enterprises typically charge some customers a price above cost and use these “profits” to subsidize sales below cost. Economists believe that the Postal Service uses its first class mail monopoly to cross-subsidize other activities. The $1.46 per box figure relies on many assumptions and may be too large. Whatever the exact figure, packages likely get favorable rates.

Finally, Amazon has received economic development incentives from numerous governments, including sales and property tax exemptions, business tax credits, and government-paid employee training and road improvements. Data from the subsidy watchdog group Good Jobs First shows that Amazon received over $600 million in incentives over a decade for building large warehouses, and another $240 million since 2015 to build order fulfillment centers. Amazon is currently choosing a location for a second headquarters, or HQ2, with twenty finalist cities offering up incentives in pursuit of the projected 50,000 new jobs. Maryland has offered a $5 billion package and still trails New Jersey’s $7 billion offer.

Government assistance raises both fairness and economic concerns. Traditional retailers have struggled to meet the challenge of online retailing. While we might observe that competition is often demanding, the rigors are often bearable because everyone plays by the same rules. Brick-and-mortar retailers’ complaints of unfair advantages for online retailers due to sales tax avoidance have merit.

The economic concern involves success. Successful businesses in the market must provide value to customers. Amazon’s free two-day shipping on thousands of items for Prime members requires a sophisticated inventory and delivery system. Amazon’s warehouses, fulfillment centers, and delivery vans are part of that system. Amazon is now experimenting with drone delivery, and hopes to offer same day delivery in major cities.

Such efforts serve customers but are also costly. Only a market test reveals if Prime membership creates value for the economy: Will people pay enough to make Amazon willing to offer the membership? We learn that e-commerce constitutes progress for our economy when it succeeds in competition with brick-and-mortar stores. Let everyone try their best, and let customers decide.

And yet if one competitor has the government pay some of their costs, they can succeed and not create value. Government assistance severs the link between success in the market and economic progress. Economists can then try to guess. For instance, the government incentives pale in comparison with Amazon’s 2017 sales of nearly $180 billion. But modest help may make all the difference given retail’s razor-thin margins. The market is far more reliable than economists’ guesses.

America’s economy has changed radically over the decades. We benefit, however, from progress and not just change. We need our governments to stop helping Amazon and other businesses so that we know that success means progress.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

5 months ago

Civil asset forfeiture: ‘We all probably deserve some blame’ for the disgraceful practice


Civil asset forfeiture involves the government taking assets allegedly used in or the proceeds of criminal activity. The practice has long angered libertarians and produced many injustices. A reform bill has been introduced in the state legislature this session.

First a little history. Civil asset forfeiture in the U.S. dates to the early 1800s, when our nation battled the Barbary pirates and privateers. Privateers were privately funded, equipped, and staffed ships commissioned by nations to raid enemy commercial shipping during conflict. Investors funded privateers in exchange for the captured bounty.

Property belonging to a pirate might be captured without the owner (technically the foreign nation for privateers) being apprehended. The government brought a civil case to seize the property, which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in an 1827 decision. This decision is notable because John Marshall was then Chief Justice. Justice Marshall took the Constitution’s strict limits on government seriously, having innovated judicial review to strike down unconstitutional government actions. The Marshall Court’s ruling suggests that forfeiture is consistent with even limited government.

The Federal and state governments revived and expanded civil forfeiture in the 1980s to prosecute the War on Drugs. Modern forfeiture has two notable features. First, the burden of proof is lower than the familiar guilt beyond a reasonable doubt criminal standard, and civil forfeiture does not require a conviction or even the filing of criminal charges. Second, laws passed in the 1980s allowed the Department of Justice and police departments to keep seized assets.

Not surprisingly, law enforcement dramatically expanded its use of civil forfeiture. And troubling stories of abuse soon began to emerge. In one notorious instance, police in Tenaha, Texas, stopped out-of-town motorists, and if they were carrying cash, threatened them with money laundering charges if they did not agree to forfeiture. At least 140 people were shaken down over a two-year span. Criminal charges were never filed against the motorists, who were disproportionately African-American.

A new report from the Alabama Appleseed and Southern Poverty Law Centers, “Forfeiting Your Rights,” offers details on civil forfeiture in Alabama. The researchers meticulously scoured court records from 2015, as reporting of civil asset forfeiture is not required. In 25 percent of cases, the accused faced no criminal charges. Half of the seizures involved less than $1,400, hardly the riches of drug kingpins. The state “won” half of the cases because the accused made no attempt to defend his or her property. Even if the accused could afford a lawyer, legal fees could easily exceed the amount at stake.

One might want to blame all this on greedy police departments and prosecutors. News stories hint at a different dynamic. A first seizure might have allowed the purchase of some valuable equipment which local government could not afford. Then seizures might have protected the police budget when local tax revenues fell. Pretty soon, local government would begin counting on the revenue, creating pressure for continued seizures, especially small seizures likely to go unchallenged.

We all probably deserve some blame. We do not like to pay taxes, yet still want the police to have the resources they need. Asset forfeiture allows this; all we have to do is tell ourselves that only criminals face forfeiture and ignore evidence to the contrary. The “Forfeiting Your Rights” report demonstrates the cost of funding police through asset seizures in Alabama.

We could alternatively rely on criminal forfeiture, which requires a criminal conviction. As the Marshall Court recognized in 1827, civil forfeiture is appropriate only when the accused cannot be prosecuted. That is not true in the vast majority of cases today. Proving criminals’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial before a jury of one’s peers has proved crucial in making government serve the governed, not the rulers. We discard this wisdom at our own peril.

Nobody likes paying taxes. Proponents of limited government, however, should be willing to fund the tasks we ask of government. We should adequately fund law enforcement through taxes and end the disgrace of civil asset forfeiture.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

5 months ago

The invisible economic cost that affects your life — do you know what it is?

Nineteenth Century poet Christina Rossetti asked, “Who has seen the wind?” Neither you nor I have, but we know that the wind can blow down trees and buildings. Transaction costs in economics are similarly invisible and probably impact our lives even more than the wind.

Transaction costs are the costs of making and carrying out deals and trades. They include transportation costs, the time required for shopping, the cost of writing contracts, and the potential for people to take advantage of other parties. The time needed to read and understand the fine print for everything we buy would be a transaction cost.

As economist Ronald Coase first understood, transaction costs explain the existence and size of businesses. They help answer questions like: Why do businesses contract for cleaning and lawn mowing? Why do rental car damage waivers cost so much? And, why are law firms organized as partnerships?

Lowering transaction costs increases prosperity. Lower transportation costs make global businesses possible, and telecommunications helps manage these enterprises. eBay and Amazon Marketplace allow used items to be sold for much more than garage sale prices. New ways to organize businesses, like the traditional corporation and the benefit corporation, also reduce transaction costs. Economic historian Douglas North attributed much of modern prosperity to transaction cost reductions enabled by the institutions of the market economy.

Still, many economists overlook transaction costs in spite of the work of Nobel Prize winners Coase, North, and Oliver Williamson. The core economic models generally ignore transaction costs, which are sometimes viewed as no more than friction. Frictionless pulleys and tables make physics problems much easier. The frictionless world of physics homework, though, still teaches students a lot about the real world.

In economics, transaction costs significantly affect how we interpret the world. How so? A couple of years ago, my flight back to Atlanta was delayed because a flight attendant fell prior to boarding, hit her head, and likely suffered a concussion. Fortunately, an off-duty flight attendant was on the next flight arriving from Atlanta; if he agreed, he could work our flight for overtime pay. Tension was high as we awaited his arrival.

Professor Coase in “The Problem of Social Cost,” one of the most important economics papers of the 20th Century, explained what we passengers should have done: take up a collection to offer the flight attendant a bonus. One passenger indeed asked a gate agent if we could each give $1 as an extra incentive. The agent responded that an extra $150 would certainly make her more likely to work overtime!

We did not take up a collection, and the flight attendant decided to work our flight for the overtime pay. Our failure to offer a payment could have produced inefficiency if the flight attendant was unwilling to work for just overtime but would have for a bonus. We would have valued getting on with our trips enough to make it worth happening, and yet have remained in Oklahoma City.

The cost of organizing a group of strangers in an airport to make a payment, however, may be quite high. The other passengers might have dismissed a solicitation by a fellow passenger, or presumed that the organizer would just pocket the money. Our value of traveling may not have been enough to cover the bonus and the cost of organizing, making it efficient that we stay in Oklahoma overnight.

My travel dilemma resembles the challenge of public policy: Is the market or government more efficient? We could try using voluntary contributions to pay for, say, national defense. The cost of organizing 320 million people to raise nearly a trillion dollars a year for defense seems impossibly high. Having government to tax us and spend on our behalf may be a better option.

Yet representative democracy is also imperfect, due in part to – transaction costs. Disagreements about the role of government often turn on whether transaction costs are higher in politics or in markets. Given that we cannot see transaction costs (or the wind), disagreement among economists about government policy seems unavoidable.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

5 months ago

Are you aware this is where our taxes go?



Nobody likes paying taxes. Accepting inevitability can make paying less painful; Benjamin Franklin observed that only death and taxes were certain in life. Or perhaps Oliver Wendell Holmes’ observation that taxes are the price we pay for civilization might console us. But the handing of sales tax revenue back to retailers may rekindle anger over taxes.

Rebating revenue compensates retailers for the cost of serving as the tax collector and goes back to the 1930s, when states first imposed sales taxes. Collection costs were significant, especially before computerized cash registers. Not all states compensated retailers, and some allowed only a modest annual rebate.

Sales tax refunds have now become one of the incentives state and local governments use for economic development. Governments for years have offered tax exemptions, regulatory relief, and targeted spending to businesses relocating or expanding in their jurisdiction. Just last week, Toyota and Mazda announced they would build an assembly plant in Huntsville, while gun maker Kimber announced a plant in Troy. Incentives factored in both deals.

Other taxes get diverted to business interests. The city of Troy in 2017 considered a surcharge on movie tickets that would be refunded to theater operators; other cities already do this. Property tax revenues can be exclusively used to benefit a selected neighborhood through a tax increment financing district.

I do not wish to debate development incentives today. Rather, I wish to consider the subterfuge involved with tax diversions.

How much sales tax revenue gets diverted? The only systematic study appears to be a 2008 report by government business incentives watchdog Good Jobs First. “Skimming the Sales Tax” estimated diversion of $1 billion annually, with over $70 million of this total going to Wal-Mart. With the use of incentives increasing, the number is almost certainly bigger today.

Compensating for collection costs seems reasonable but debatable, since businesses do not get compensation for collecting payroll taxes. Refunds as incentives are more problematic, for two reasons.

First, deception undermines the legitimacy of taxes. Libertarians like to say that taxation is theft, and there is a resemblance. Theft involves armed people forcibly taking money or property from people. Ultimately taxes rely on tax evaders facing arrest or seizure of their property.

The consent of citizens distinguishes taxation from theft. We agree to pay sales (and other) taxes to provide government the resources to do what we ask. The sales tax funding of a new jail here in Pike County provides a perfect example. Of course our elected representatives make the decisions for us and representation is imperfect, but in principle we approve taxes. Do you approve of turning over sales tax revenues to retailers?

Second, using tax rebates as a stimulus encourages excessive use of incentives for businesses. There are reasons for and against offering inducements to businesses, and people will disagree about how these balance out. Democracy is about citizens deliberating, and decisions which reflect our judgments.

Obscuring part of the cost through tax rebates increases the difficulty for citizens in accurately assessing incentives’ net value. We easily see the benefit from a new retail store, but may fail to process the lost tax revenue from rebates. We consequently think that inducements offer better value than they do, and then provide them too often.

Confusion over tax diversion can make local governments appear ineffective. Suppose that a local government is funded by a 5 percent local sales tax, which we think should adequately fund its services. Yet if half of the revenue gets refunded, the local government might not have enough money to patch potholes. We hit a pothole and accuse government of wasting our money, instead of recognizing the pothole as a cost of development incentives.

Taxation is not theft as long as we decide how much we pay and what we pay for. Refunding sales taxes to retailers as an incentive may be good policy for state and local governments. But it should be policy only if we make a fully informed decision.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

5 months ago

Lessons about happiness from lottery jackpots

(Mark Ou/Flickr)
(Mark Ou/Flickr)


Did you win the recent Mega Millions or Powerball $400 million jackpots? If not, perhaps you are lucky, since big jackpots often make people miserable. The “lottery curse” and related research findings suggest that perhaps we should rethink our economic priorities.

We all know what we would buy with some extra money, so a big jackpot presumably would be much better. Furthermore, the rich and famous look to be having lots of fun. So winning millions should be great, right?

And yet many lottery winners end up destitute, in prison, or dead. Although the murders are tragic, I am more interested in the personal or financial wounds lottery winners experience. Cases like Mr. Jack Whittaker, who won $315 million in a West Virginia lottery in 2002. Four years later, Mr. Whittaker was bankrupt, and his daughter and granddaughter died of drug overdoses. In an interview, Mr. Whittaker said that he wished he had thrown the winning ticket away.

Additional sad stories abound. Yet with lottery jackpots every week, there are thousands of winners. Dozens of sad stories do not demonstrate a pattern. Research on lottery winners reveals some interesting results.

For example, many lottery winners do not go on wild spending sprees. Winners most commonly purchase houses and cars, and give significant amounts to their children and churches. Half or more of winners keep working, although this depends on the winner’s job. Winners with low paying, low skilled jobs are more likely to quit, while professionals with rewarding jobs frequently keep working.

Surprisingly, however, lottery winners are not significantly happier than control groups. In happiness research, people answer a question of the form, “Overall, how happy are you in life?” on a numerical scale. Lottery riches do not raise these scores.

Cross-country happiness research additionally finds that the richest nations are not the happiest. Prosperity and happiness are correlated, but at a reasonably high level of wealth, more money does not increase happiness.

These findings suggest that perhaps economic growth should no longer be an important goal for our economy. To appreciate the current importance of growth, the lack of a year with three percent growth under President Obama has caused great concern. And the recent Republican tax reforms were sold as potentially spurring growth.

Deemphasizing growth could have numerous implications for policy. High marginal income taxes on top earners are currently viewed as reducing work effort and slowing growth. But if some people pursue raises at the expense of life balance and happiness, the high tax rate could increase happiness by making raises less rewarding.

The “lottery curse” and happiness research do not, I think, justify a rethinking of economic policy. Psychologists recognize that people adjust their baseline after improvements. We quickly take smart phones and flat screen TVs for granted. We often fixate on that next thing we want. Answers to happiness surveys likely reflect the frustrations without adequate contemplation of the values. And even if new products quickly get taken for granted, going back to old ways may be quite unpleasant.

Most of us recognize that money is just a means to an end, and that having more money does not automatically make us happier. Money cannot tell us what will make us happy. And we appreciate the numerous tradeoffs between money and happiness. High paying jobs often involve lots of time, travel, and stress, which can impact an entire family. Many people pass up a high salary for a job or a lifestyle of their choosing.

A free economy and society enables human happiness. Economic freedom allows us to make decisions about things that matter. It is the freedom to earn a living in whatever field we choose, to start a business, live where we want, and even make less money.

It is not a coincidence that the Declaration of Independence included the “pursuit of happiness” among our fundamental liberties. No one or thing can give us happiness, even Powerball. Perhaps lottery jackpots, though, can help us relearn a lesson America’s Founders knew long ago.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

6 months ago

How Alabama ranks in economic freedom … and whether prosperity, fairness and happiness correlate


We frequently wish for a happy and prosperous New Year. As an economist, I know more about prosperity than happiness. Because economic freedom is closely related to prosperity, 2017 closed with some good news for Alabama.

The Economic Freedom of North America report, published by Canada’s Fraser Institute, measures the freedom of markets in U.S., Canadian, and Mexican states and provinces. Alabama’s state freedom score in this December’s report increased slightly, from 6.9 to 7.0. Scores range from zero to ten, with larger numbers representing more freedom. Alabama ranks 24th among the states, right at the national average score.

Economic freedom scores estimate how closely states or nations approximate the ideal of a free, unregulated market economy. The scores have allowed statistical testing of claims about markets, government, and prosperity. If free market economists are correct, then nations or states with more economic freedom should be more prosperous, controlling for other relevant factors.

Many studies have now confirmed this relationship. Consequently, Alabama’s increase in economic freedom could boost growth. But the small increase reflects deviations in measured freedom, not the policies which state freedom scores track. Furthermore, the increase occurred in 2015, since data availability results in a two year lag.

Prosperity, however, is not the only thing we care about, and is probably most important at the subsistence level. For thousands of years, human society persisted at this level, with everyone engaged in growing or gathering food for survival, and famine never far away. The developed nations long ago moved past the subsistence level. So now perhaps we should place greater emphasis on dignity, fairness, and happiness than a somewhat higher standard of living.

Prosperity allows individuals to be treated with more dignity. In tribes that followed the animals they hunted, the old or infirm might have to be turned out. This cruelty was born of economic necessity: tribes struggling to survive could not afford to be slowed down or feed people unable to contribute.

Economic freedom might boost prosperity, but what about fairness and happiness? Freedom also correlates with these values.

Fairness means different things to different people, but one factor is whether the least well-off benefit from prosperity. Purchasing power parity adjusted measures of income provide the best international comparison of standards of living by adjusting for what income buys and not just exchange rates.

The evidence is clear: the poorest are far better off in nations with more economic freedom. The Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World report sorts countries into quartiles based on their national economic freedom. The incomes of the bottom 10 percent of households are ten times higher in the freest nations than the bottom quartile, and more than double the incomes of the bottom ten percent in the second freest quartile of nations.

Inequality has become a contentious issue in the U.S. Whether the distribution of income or wealth should be equal is a challenging question, but the comparisons of the nations’ poorest households demonstrate that poverty in the U.S. and other developed nations is relative, not absolute. Perhaps income should be more equally distributed, but America’s poor enjoy a very decent standard of living from an international perspective.

Can happiness be measured? I am skeptical, but survey questions developed by psychologists seem to elicit happiness levels reasonably well. The United Nations has been measuring happiness worldwide since 2012. And the quartile of countries with the most economic freedom has significantly higher reported happiness than the other quartiles of nations.

A link between economic freedom and happiness makes sense. Freedom allows people to shape the course of their lives. Although freedom does not guarantee good choices, being forced to do something you do not like seriously reduces happiness.

So perhaps economists have something to say about happiness after all. Still, I do not plan to start giving out life advice. But I will wish everyone a happy and prosperous 2018!

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

6 months ago

Republicans’ antagonism toward higher education is understandable … and will have consequences



Republicans’ and Democrats’ attitudes toward higher education are seemingly diverging. Increasingly critical Republican attitudes will likely in time have policy consequences.

An annual Pew Center survey found in 2015 that 54 percent of Republicans thought that higher education’s impact on the country was positive, versus 37 percent negative. This year these numbers flipped to 58 negative – 36 positive, with 65 percent negative among conservative Republicans. Democrats this year were at 72 percent positive, 19 percent negative.

Republicans and Democrats further disagree on the value of college degrees. A recent Wall Street Journal poll found that Democrats agreed, 52 to 43 percent, that a four-year degree is worth the cost. By contrast, Republicans disagreed, 53 to 43 percent.

Republican attitudes may already be affecting policy. The U.S. House recently proposed taxing the largest university endowments, treating graduate student tuition waivers as taxable income, and denying tax deductions for athletics seat licenses. The final tax bill is more favorable to universities, but the proposals represent a warning shot.

Republicans’ antagonism toward my industry makes sense: They are mad at the preponderance of liberals among college professors, and at the liberal policy initiatives from universities. The domination of faculty positions by liberals and Democrats has been documented by numerous methods.

The causes and consequences of this imbalance, however, are less clear. It is unclear, for example, if conservatives are simply less likely to want to be professors or face discrimination because of their views. We know from testimonials that conservatives sometimes face verbal abuse, and yet many liberal professors respect (although they might challenge) conservative students’ views. Whether biased readings or attempts at indoctrination change students’ views is uncertain.

A liberal world view inevitably affects professors’ research. This is not an indictment, or excuse to ignore research you don’t agree with, but rather an observation on the research process. Social science research requires premises about the nature of human society. Here’s one concrete example. Economists typically judge economic performance against the satisfaction of market demand – do consumers get what they want? Yet other social scientists believe that continual advertising and our consumer culture manufacture these demands. Whether demand should be treated seriously affects our research.

Can anything be done about the liberal dominance of college faculties, if it is indeed a problem? Donors and alumni can always attempt to place conditions on gifts, which administrators may or may not accept. As a matter of policy, the University of Colorado brings a conservative professor to campus each year to organize lectures and other activities to provide balance. The Iowa legislature considered a bill mandating using voter registration in faculty hiring. If the sociology department, for instance, had too many registered Democrats, they could only hire registered Republicans. I doubt that this would accomplish much, as some liberal sociologists would surely register as Republicans to secure set-aside positions.

Instead of “affirmative action for conservatives,” perhaps we should embrace a range of intentionally ideological curricula. Economist John Merrifield argues that the primary goal of K-12 education reform should be a diverse menu of options for parents and students. I agree, but why not extend this diversity to programs or even universities embodying conservative and liberal values and approaches?

For example, scholars bitterly debate whether the core curriculum should cover the Great Books or “Western Canon.” Regardless of who is correct, many conservatives regard the Canon as fundamental. Some schools, mostly private colleges, still teach the Great Books.

Alabama’s fourteen public four-year universities already offer a wide range of programs; the University of Montevallo, for example, is a public liberal arts college. Why not have one university dedicated to a conservative educational experience, and another dedicated to a liberal curriculum? While neither might provide balance within their programs, they would increase the range of options available at in-state tuition rates, while truthful disclosure should prevent enrollment by unsuspecting students.

President Trump has attacked the liberal media bias and fake news. The recent House tax proposals, I think, provide warning that higher education may soon face similar attacks. Perhaps embracing and ensuring a range of ideological options will more effectively defuse the growing discontent.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.