Thursday, March 28, 2013

Book Review II: Economics in One Lesson

Overall Rating: 5/5

Estimated Reading Time: 8 hours (224 pages, ~2 minutes per page)


Why I choose to read -

  • Recommended by Ron Paul
  • Interested in expanding my knowledge and understanding of economics
  • Lots of media coverage regarding minimum wage, unions, employer mandated health care coverage, bailouts, tariffs, CEO pay, interest rates, etc.
  • In my limited knowledge I seem to gravitate towards the Austrian camp of economics, of which Henry Hazlitt identifies with
  • Excellent Amazon reviews


Background -
  • Subject:
    • Refuting common economic misconceptions
    • Establishing sound economic doctrine for long term, sustainable, local and national economies
  • First Edition: 1946
    • Subsequent Editions: 1962 and 1978
  • Cultural Context
    • Immediate post World War II rebuilding era
    • Thousands of soldiers returning from Europe and Asia
    • Author lived through Great Depression and Roosevelt’s New Deal implementation
    • Bretton Woods Agreement (1944)
      • Created International Monetary Fund (IMF)

  • Author Details
    • Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    • Raised in Brooklyn, New York 
    • Briefly enrolled in New York’s City College
    • First employed by The Wall Street Journal. Also held positions at The New York Evening Mail, The New York Sun, The Nation, The New York Times, and Newsweek.
    • Self identifies with Austrian school of economics

Reflections -
  • What I appreciated:
    • Extremely practical. Coverage of numerous controversial topics from minimum wage to special interest groups.
    • Timely message.
      • Today’s political and economic climate is extremely heated regarding which groups to economically favor and which policies to drum up support for.
    • Entry level economic text providing logical and rational critique of past, present, and future policies.
    • Easy to read and comprehend. Written to the lay person with no background in economics.
    • Needed to understand implications and refute politician’s pet programs.
  • Shortcomings:
    • A little basic on inflation (did reference other work).
    • Falls short on showcasing times to divide from proposed principles (war).


Key Messages -
  • We MUST understand that productivity, not policy, increases real wages.
    • Determining whether an action increases or decreases productivity is the key to solving most economic proposals.
  • Profit provides an incentive to innovation and decreased production costs (efficiency).
    • Greed and dishonesty are the innate problems mistakenly attributed to profit. Profit is not bad, rather it drives economic and technological expansion.
  • It is essential for the health of a dynamic economy that dying industries should be allowed to die and growing industries are allowed to grow.
    • Dying industries (or obsolete) absorb labor and capital that should be released for more efficient growing industries.
    • One occupation can expand only at the expense of other occupations.
  • It is the proper sphere of government to create and enforce a framework of law that prohibits force and fraud.
  • Although capital accumulation (a.k.a saving) may prolong a contraction/depression, it will serve to create a greater boom when all the stored up capital is released.
    • Hoarding is a symptom of economic recession/depression, not a cause.
    • If people are “hoarding money”, interest rates will naturally rise to pull money out of mattresses; don’t need to force people’s hand with artificially low interest rates and inflation.
  • Inflation leads to over expansion of some industries (consumer discretionary) at the expense of others (staples), resulting in misapplication and waste of capital.
    • Inflation is the opium of the people :)
    • Poor are less able to protect themselves from inflation, punishing the poor more than the rich.
  • Government loans are given to the highest risk individuals whom private lenders wouldn’t touch.
    • Places resources in the hands of less efficient entities.
    • Increases tax burden.
    • Market also self-selects the best lenders who make the least amount of bad loans; government does not have competition and bails itself out through taxation or increasing the money supply (inflation).
  • Subsidized housing loans create an oversupply of houses and hurt real people and sound businesses by lowering their current property values (increased supply).
  • Rent controls place a barrier to new construction, the exact thing which would decrease rent.
    • Landlords will also no longer make repairs due to decreased funding.
  • We cannot have maximum production without maximum employment; we can however have maximum employment w/o maximum production.
  • Minimum Wage
    • Exchange higher wages for unemployment.
    • To raise wages we need to raise/increase the productivity of workers, not fix wages/prices.
    • Increases prices of basic goods: food, clothing, etc.
    • Charging higher prices for products hurts exports and helps foreign companies import (hurts trade balance).
      • Eventually leads to tariffs.
    • Encourages black market cash payments (decreased government revenue) when an individual is willing to work for less than minimum wage.
  • Unions
    • Strikes are effective if the employer cannot hire new employees; otherwise strikes are extremely damaging to all parties.
    • Increased wages w/o increased productivity increases prices of products/services which decrease demand which leads to unemployment as less supply is needed.
      • Unions in part lead to the destruction of their own jobs.
    • Unions often are opposed to profit sharing or payment based on output or efficiency (productivity), opting rather for implementing seniority.
  • Tariffs
    • Tariffs benefit a particular producer at the expense of all consumers and all other producers.
    • Eventually trade balances must be equalize. Thus importing will actually increase exporting of goods.
      • Your neighbor is only willing to give you so much (imports) on promise of future repayment. Eventually you will have to pay your neighbor (exports) or your neighbor will stop "trading" with you eliminating both importing and exporting of goods/services.
    • Tariffs decrease labor productivity by funneling resources ($ and work) into less efficient industries.
    • Tariffs always reduce real wages by decreasing efficiency and decreasing productivity
    • Tariffs/boycotts of goods produced without adequate environmental controls, slave labor, or unsafe work practices may be warranted.
      • Understandably very difficult to implement and a better solution may be for individual consumers to research where and how the products they are purchasing are produced.
      • Another potential solution would be businesses would open offering for sale only "fair trade" products. Very similar to fair trade coffee and diamond retailers.
        • A problem solved efficiently and effectively by the private sector without the need for an expanded public sector.
  • Rationing is an interesting topic, but one in which the black market may counteract.
    • Black markets increase dishonesty and in the setting of price controls, inefficiently produce inferior and dishonest goods due to incentives.
  • Prices of goods rise from:
    • Increased demand
    • Decreased supply
    • Surplus of money
  • With corporate income tax, corporations lose 100% of their losses, but may only gain ~65% of their profits.
    • Makes them risk adverse leading to decreased rate of company expansion thus decreased rate of job creation.


To who would I recommend this book? 
  • Everyone 13 years of age and older.

To who would I not recommend Economics in One Lesson?
  • Those who have read in the last 5 years. 
    • If been greater than 5 years should be reread.


Henry Hazlitt delivers a timely, well-articulated, and efficient message of the consequences of unsound economic policy. Serving as an excellent foundational text for common economic thought on a variety of mainstream issues, the need to read and understand Economics in One Lesson exponentially increases as more and more economic and political favors are given to special interest groups. Its messages should be read by all, multiple times, lest we forget and choose of path of slow, ignorant loss of our freedoms and economy.


Next Post Topic: Unemployment Assistance Part I

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Food Assistance Part II: Specifics

Who doesn't like to eat? Whatever mix of quantity, quality, or presentation you prefer, there is no doubt many of us have strong preferences for choosing the food we eat.

Americans collectively spend an estimated $1900 billion on food each year with the average adult spending $600 per month. Wow! While our wealth and incomes allow us to spend extraordinary amounts on food each year, more than 22 million households (close to 50 million Americans) receive public food assistance from the federal government via the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP - a.k.a. food stamps). 

Per the Food and Nutrition Service of the USDA, this is an increase  of 171% in number of recipients since 2008 and 282% from 2000. Monetarily, the cost of SNAP has increased 459% ($61 billion) since 2000 to a total cost of $78 billion in 2012. In addition to SNAP, other public food assistance programs including WIC and Child Nutrition Programs bring the total federal public food assistance to $108 billion in 2012.



For a cost of $600 million per day, ($2 a day per person), every man, woman, and child could be fed in America. Projected over 1 year this would amount to $220 billion. The federal government currently spends $108 billion in food assistance. The $108 billion in public expenditures comprises 2.9% of all federal government spending (4.7% of revenue) and 7.8% of total welfare spending. As public food assistance is not a major contributor to the welfare state or deficit spending, I am more interested in revamping food assistance on principle rather than for purely monetary purposes .

References -
SNAP statistics: USDA Food and Nutrition Services
Government spending statistics: US Government Spending


As covered in Food Assistance Part I (please read to have a general idea of my plan), I believe:
(1) It is the role of the federal government to ensure each citizen's basic needs (including food) are met.
(2) State/local governments and private charities should go above and beyond the proposed system to provide a level of public assistance they prefer.
The primary goal of my proposed public food assistance is to readily, sufficiently, and efficiently provide short-term support to individuals in need to transition into a sustainable living situation.
 
I believe the primary safety net for individuals should be first themselves, secondarily friends/family, thirdly private charities, fourthly short-term federal/state/local government public assistance, and fifthly being a separate public funded support system to be detailed later.



Currently the majority of public food assistance is provided through SNAP:
  • Eligibility requirements (basic):
    • Monthly Income: < $1211 + ($429 x household size)
    • Resource: Must have less than $2000 in cash
  • Maximum monthly dispersed: $200 + (~$150 x household size)
    • Recipient is expected to contribute 30% of net income after deductions
  • Maximum limit of assistance: No limit
  • Maximum length: No limit
    • 3 month time limit if unemployed and not meeting work search criteria
  • Purchasing restrictions: See Food and Nutrition Service
  • Repayment plan: None
  • 2012 Participation
    • Number of people receiving: 47.6 million
    • Cost per year: $78 billion for SNAP ($108 billion with WIC and Child Nutrition Programs)


I propose the following changes designed to transition short and long-term support to friends/family, private charities, and state/local governments . (Please refer to Food Assistance Part I for general information.)
  • Eligibility requirements:
    • None - Everyone who has not reached their maximum lifetime limit is eligible.
  • Maximum monthly dispersed: $120 + ($90 x dependents)
  • Maximum lifetime limit: 4 x ($120 + $90 x dependents)
    • Designed to cover for 4 months at maximum assistance.
  • Maximum length: Unlimited (don’t need with a maximum lifetime limit)
  • Purchasing restrictions
    • Restrictions are difficult as there is often a way to circumnavigate them. This being said, I think there are two options which may achieve a greater level of success. One is to enact very few restrictions, allowing great freedom with little exceptions other than say alcohol. A second approach would be to have an extremely limited formulary of items available for purchase. So much so stores basically dedicate an isle for those items eligible for purchase. Consistent with my belief freedoms should be exchanged for the security of receiving public assistance, I favor the second option.
  • Repayment Plan: Complex

Comparison Chart


SNAP
Proposed System
Income Requirement:
< $1211 + $429 x household size
None
Resource Requirement:
< $2000 in cash
None
Maximum Monthly Aid:
$200 + ($150 x household size) – (net income * 30%)
$120 + ($90 x dependents)
Maximum Benefit Length:
None
None
Maximum Lifetime Aid:
None
4 x $120 + ($90 x dependents)
Repayment Plan:
No
Yes



I believe an effective method of decreasing waste, fraud, and abuse of public assistance programs is to require recipients of aid to pay back into the system after achieving sustainable living conditions. My proposed repayment plan includes the following components:

Total Repayment Amount: Aid received + surcharge of 10-20% (based on time of repayment)
Grace Period: 3 months
  • If Joe received $500 in aid he would be required to pay $550-$600 back into the system.
  • Total surcharge would be based length of repayment. I propose providing an incentive for those who repay the aid they received quicker.
    • Paid in full within 3 months (grace period): 10% surcharge
    • Paid in full within 12 months: 15% surcharge
    • Paid in full after 12 months: 20% surcharge
 Garnished Wages:
  • Aid recipients would be extended a 3 months grace period after which wage garnishing would be enacted.
  • Using current poverty guidelines, 20% of an individual's wages above the poverty threshold would be garnished until food assistance was repaid in full plus surcharge.
    • Poverty Guidelines
  • To further ensure repayment, a death tax would also be applied if needed.



  • While I have no hesitation acknowledging my proposed changes are not a panacea to the ills of both the lack of care to citizens in need, or the mismanagement of taxpayer funds, I do believe the advantages of enacting the proposed changes outweigh the disadvantages as outlined below:

    Advantages:
    • Less stringent eligibility and maximum monthly aid received requirements allowing for a greater number of people who need it to receive it.
    • Decreased fraud/waste/abuse since outside of using identity theft, people will be required to pay back into system what they took out plus more.
    • Disincentives in place to reduce unnecessary utilization.

    Disadvantages:
    • Things may get worse before they get better (happens with most change).
    • Benefits eventually run out (reason for supporting private charities and a quinary safety net to be detailed later).
    • Unsurprisingly since I custom fit the program to my liking I can think of few disadvantages :)


    It is my aim to decrease the restrictions and barriers to receiving public assistance while at the same time decreasing the waste, fraud, and abuse associated with our current system. I believe the above listed changes move us in a direction closer to achieving those goals.


    Next Post Topic: Book Review II: Economics in One Lesson


    $1900 Billion Annual Food Cost Calculation Math

    Thursday, February 28, 2013

    Private Charities Part V: Common Objections

    After completing multiple posts on the potential advantages of private charities, I wanted to conclude with addressing a handful of common objections. It is my hope I have been able to effectively present my case of favoring private charities undergirded by private donations of time, talents, and treasures, rather than public assistance programs founded on forced support. All the while avoiding the pitfall of glorifying them to a point where I show them to be a magic bullet to cure all shortcomings of public welfare programs.


    Fears/Objections -

    1. Underfunded
      1. Concern:
        1. The concern of underfunding is perhaps the loudest war drum defending the need for public assistance programs. It is feared without a central collector and distributor (federal government) of welfare, those individuals in need will be unable to acquire the necessary assistance to meet their needs. This will result in unneeded and unjustified suffering as the resources exist to alleviate such suffering. Taken to an extreme, it is the “people will be dying the in streets” objection.
      2. Rebuttal:
        1. I still see the federal government serving as lender of last resort. (see Basic Level of Care Part I)
        2. I believe citizens should retain the freedom to choose the level of welfare provided to their fellow citizens. (see Private Charities Part IV: The Freedom Reason)
          • Actuality Junkie
            • "If the charity cannot raise the funds it requires, then the people have spoken. Forcing a moral decision to be charitable on your neighbor via legislation for fear that they may not share your generosity is an abomination." 
              • Maybe not an abomination but force typically only breeds bitterness and resentment.
        3. I remain unconvinced private charities would remain underfunded.
          • Decreasing central government welfare spending does NOT reduce total capital in the country. Freeing up capital may provide increased investment in the private sector which may lead to increased private jobs leading to decreased need for welfare.
            • Somewhat of a stretch, but I do believe it will happen to some extent.
        4. Social pressures will motivate the least generous individuals and businesses to become more generous.
          • Example
        5. In response to "people will be dying in the streets", the world reached a population of greater than 6 billion people without the aid of the United States public assistance programs. (and largely due to population increases in developing countries, not first world countries with large public assistance programs)




    2. Unequal distribution
      1. Concern: 
        1. Similar in nature to the underfunded fear, the unequal distribution fear is a localized form of underfunding in which it is perceived total available resources exist to help all in need, however resources are insufficiently distributed to meet all the needs. 
          • In particular, it is feared wealthier geographical areas will have greater giving capacities through increased collections as compared to poorer areas. This will result in an unequal distribution of charity. 
        2. Perhaps of greater concern (to me at least), is the unequal distribution of charity to minorities (gender, age, race, ethnicity, etc. discrimination).
      2. Rebuttal
        1. Preface: I do believe unequal distribution would occur, however I remain unconvinced this is a negative consequence.
        2. Unequal distribution may result in those in need moving to areas with excess supply (charity) resulting in a more even distribution of individuals requesting assistance. In addition, such an equal distribution (or equilibrium) may allow communities to more effectively address not only financial needs, but emotional and knowledge needs as well.
          • May eliminate the “projects”, section 8 housing, tracts, etc.
        3. Those who are concerned about unequal distribution would have the freedom to restrict the distribution of funds to the area of their choosing, in this case those areas which are most impoverished.



    3. Increased Crime
      1. Concern: 
        1. Reducing public assistance programs will result in people becoming more desperate who may then resort to criminal activities to provide for their self-defined needs. 
        2. In addition, another valid concern is society will spend resources on law enforcement, judicial systems, and jails when it may have been more effectively spent on providing welfare.
      2. Rebuttal
        1. I very much agree this is a difficult issue in which I do not have a strong rebuttal. Basically the consequences of getting caught must be greater than the reward of success.
        2. Crime will eventually cause chaos and when criminals (with zero productivity) no longer have productive members to take from. They will have to disperse or become productive themselves.
          • Non-criminals would eventually band together and create an environment where it is in the best interest of former criminals to become productive rather than criminal in nature.
          • Will probably need to increase the ability of civilians to defend themselves.
            • Sensitive issue right now.
            • In the end though it is more effective and efficient for citizens to defend themselves than employ a massive law enforcement agency.
              •  Such agencies are also at high risk for corruption.



    4. Not all citizens will give
      1. Concern: 
        1. Some citizens will choose to hoard their time, talents, and treasures to themselves and not give to the “greater good”. Thus the burden of funding will be unequally distributed on the most generous.
      2. Rebuttal
        1. Of course this will happen, but I already support a basic level of care with the federal government acting as lender of last resort.
        2. Social pressure (see above)
        3. People have spoken
          • Who made us king over other people’s time, talents, treasures. By holding this view we simply want to be gods over others. This invariably leads to social dysfunction as outlined in my freedom reason post.



    5. Innocent will suffer
      1. Concern: 
        1. In the absence of public assistance, innocent victims who may be dependent upon others for the majority of their care (children, elderly, etc.) will disproportionately suffer.
      2. Rebuttal
        1. We already have child protection and elder abuse services for similar cases.
        2. Giving, as with more impoverished areas, may be directly specifically towards children and elders
        3. Private charities could choose to proactively seek out such individuals rather than waiting for them to come to ask for assistance.



    I do want to acknowledge I do not believe I have profound insight or intelligence. Private charities may not be able to accomplish many, if any, of the work public assistance programs do. I would however say if public assistance programs are continued they would benefit from being managed by state/local governments rather than the federal government. This would allow citizens to move to those areas where they agree with the level of public assistance provided.


    All things considered, I believe the potential advantages of private charities outweigh the potential risks. In addition, with our massive debt, our country may not have a choice but to scale back on public assistance programs. It may be wise to voluntarily transfer to a private charity system rather than haphazardly doing it under financial pressure and a high degree of urgency.


    I invite and encourage readers to read Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky and provide comments below or email me additional questions/concerns/thoughts.



    Next Post Topic: Food Assistance Part II: Specifics