Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: Milton Friedman

In selected cities, Panera Bread is letting you decide what to pay for a bowl of turkey chili. Knowing that that the firm will cover its costs and the rest will go to charity, many people are paying more than the $5.89 suggested amount.

In 2007, the band Radiohead experimented with Pay What You Want (PWYW). For their album, “In Rainbows,” they simply said online, any amount is okay. The aggregate result was hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue.

I wondered what was going on and checked an academic study that took me to several behavioral variables. The first was self-image. Faced with a payment option that depends solely on our conscience, we “self-signal.” The money we choose to spend reflects the “good person” we feel we should be.

However, researchers also uncovered an unexpected consequence. Self-signaling can result in fewer purchases. If the amount that retains our self-image is more than we want to spend, we simply say, “No, we won’t buy it.” We might believe we should pay $20 for that bowl of chili. But we don’t want to pay $20. Rather than diminishing our self-image, we walk away with nothing.

A bit uneasy about PWYW, I became concerned about the price system and profits.

Price System:

  • In a market, prices convey information. Responding to demand and supply, prices create incentives for buyers and sellers. With PWYW, the incentives are distorted.

Profits:

  • As for profits, I hope you will watch this Amanda Palmer TED talk and then read this Milton Friedman article. A musician, Palmer explains why PWYW is really about the trust that dominates her business model. At the other extreme is Milton Friedman saying, ”there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”

Do you agree with Palmer or Friedman and where does Panera fit?

Sources and Resources:  Here and here are articles on the Panera PWYW initiative and here is the academic study that provides further insight.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan Issues

Presidential debate moderator Jim Lehrer said there would be six 15-minute segments in the first presidential debate on October 3rd. Devoting the entire first half to “the economy,” he will also cover healthcare, the role of government, and “governing.”

Like the candidates, let’s do some prepping.

The Economy:

In an excellent NY Times column, James Stewart asks, “Are Americans Better Off?” His answer initially takes us to the basic economic yardsticks that EconLife Election Economics looked at last week: GDP, unemployment, household income and inflation. Tepid, all are slowly improving but close to where they were when Mr. Obama entered office (except the inflation rate which has been low).

How affluent we feel--the wealth effect–is a different story. As Mr. Stewart points out, it all depends on who you are. Those who have more feel richer and more secure because stock markets are up, household debt is down, and home prices have started to rise. However, bombarded by foreclosures, student loans, auto loans and unemployment, the less affluent are not feeling better. Add to that anyone living on interest from treasuries and other securities with a “0″ return and you get many people who are not feeling better off.

Where are we? I hope that each candidate will explain whether we are better off.

Healthcare:

Statistics about US healthcare are tough to pin down when you challenge, defend and predict the impact of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. For example, you could judge healthcare on the basis of mortality rates. However, people disagree about mortality rates because the numbers you select depend on whether you look at the causes of death. With many statistics, equally defendable alternatives are probably feasible.

We can be sure, though, that as the average age of our population ascends, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will be increasingly stretched. I mention Social Security here because demand for its disability benefit has been soaring.

Where are we? I hope that each candidate will convey the daunting challenges we face because of increasingly inadequate revenue for government programs that relate to health care.

For more detail, you can look at 2 Election Economics posts, Assessing the Quality of Current US Healthcare and Our Aging Population.

Role of Government and Governing:

Here we have the great divide. Whether looking at taxes, healthcare or financial regulation, there is an ideological split. The Keynesian side says government, through taxation and regulation can perpetuate economic health and fairness. By contrast, the Adam Smith/Hayek/Friedman perspective says economic prosperity and US freedom depend on the incentive to benefit from hard work, education and entrepreneurship.

Where are we? I hope that each candidate explains and presents the implications of his economic philosophy.

EconLife presented more detail about Keynesian economics here, and the Hayekian view, here.

A final thought: Most articles about the presidential debates focus on “turning the tide,” Janet Brown, the person who organizes the debates, practicing, what to call the president, what each candidate needs to achieve. You see that sadly, few articles are preparing us for content.

Sources and Resources: My thanks to James Stewart for his ideas about being better off and to the LA Times, as the only news source I could locate with an outline of debate topics.

Election Economics Topics:

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

19th Century Urban Transport Was An Environmental Problem

Aluminum recycling is in the news because of a break-up. Together, Alcoa and Novelis (owned by HindalCo, an Indian firm) had been collecting and recycling cans–40 billion last year. But no more. Now, competing for used cans, each firm will do it alone.

Should business firms recycle aluminum? It depends.

Every 2 or 3 months, a recycled aluminum can might be recycled again. Used and empty, cans could be collected by someone who receives 55 cents a pound (approximately 25 cans) and takes them to a scrapyard that crushes, scrapes, and bales them (sort of like a hay bale, but made of cans). Melted and rolled at Alcoa or Novelis or another aluminum producer, the can becomes a part of an aluminum sheet. Next stop? The sheets are deposited at a can producer who prepares them for the beverage firm. Filled with beer or soda or juice, the can is sold and the cycle starts all over again.

Producing cans from recycled materials requires a lot less energy than making aluminum from scratch and municipalities that recycle can generate revenue. However, businesses might not benefit because using recycled aluminum is only marginally cheaper, the product is lower quality and a collection infrastructure is necessary. In addition with Novelis and Alcoa competing for scrap, price could go up.

That takes us to a question we have considered before at EconLife. Is it ethical for a profit-seeking business to be ethical? Believing that profits are the responsibility of the business firm, economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006) said that it is not appropriate for corporate management to pursue social responsibility. Agreeing, former Harvard president and Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers cited Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to display the cataclysmic results of combining doing good with seeking profits.

So, should businesses produce recycled aluminum? The answer seems to be sometimes.

Sources and Resources: This WSJ article does a very good job of conveying how aluminum recycling works. Combine it with this YouTube video and you will see what the business is all about. But, I suggest also looking at this cost benefit analysis.

This brief aluminum recycling video is interesting:

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

10 years ago, the future Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said to Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, “Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”

What won’t they do again? As David Wessel explains in his book, In Fed We Trust, Dr. Bernanke believed that the devastating synergy between tight monetary policy and failing banks made the 1930s economy implode. And, as the head of the Fed when the economy was nosediving, he was not going to let it happen again.

As the guardian of monetary policy, the Federal Reserve oversees the supply of money and credit. Sort of like Goldilocks and the 3 bears, monetary policy makers have to be sure that the money supply is not too much nor too little but just right. Their goal is a balance between the goods and services the economy produces and the money we have to buy them. Too much money is inflationary because too many dollars are chasing what we can buy; too little money means we cannot buy all that has been produced. The problem, though, is that people disagree about how to achieve “just right” monetary policy.

And that takes us to the current debate.

We have had QE1 (quantitative easing) which most economists believe was necessary. As the economy was contracting in 2008, the Fed poured money into banks, other financial institutions and corporations by purchasing different kinds of securities. When they buy securities, the Fed gets the paper while the seller gets the money. A lot of that money finds it way to banks, thereby helping their solvency and (theoretically) their ability to lend.

After QE1, we got QE2. Now QE3 is being debated and not everyone at the Fed agrees.

  • One group says the economy needs another boost from the Fed. Believing that Fed policy should be based on current economic conditions, they say high unemployment and other weak economic indicators require another monetary stimulus. In a Bloomberg interview, San Francisco Fed president John Williams said that lower interest rates create jobs. Referring to the US economy, he said, “ I think what we want to do now is think about a sick patient. You want to get him or her as strong as possible, as well as possible so if they get hit by another shock or another problem they’re in a good position to fend that off.”
  • By contrast, a new paper published by the Dallas Fed, “Ultra Easy Monetary Policy and the Law of Unintended Consequences” says the Fed  should not respond to current data. Emphasizing that easy money policy is not a “free lunch,” the paper explains why the health of financial institutions, the functioning of financial markets, the “independence” of central banks, and prudent government behavior will be sacrificed.

 

In his August 31st talk on at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Ben Bernanke’s position echoes his promise to Milton Friedman.

For an excellent, brief explanation of quantitative easing that my class enjoyed and easily grasped, do look at this Marketplace.org “whiteboard.” Much longer but clear and interesting, David Wessel’s In Fed We Trust is quite good for insight and facts about the Fed and Dr. Bernanke. Finally, for my facts about the current debate, here is the Dallas Fed paper against easy monetary policy, here is an unofficial transcript of a Bloomberg interview of John Williams, the San Francisco Fed president, and here is more about the Bernanke Jackson Hole speech.

More from Econlife on quantitative easing is here and here.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan Issues

People tend to ask, “Who??” when Friedrich von Hayek is named as Paul Ryan’s economic muse. Our purpose right now is to get to know some Hayek basics to see what Ryan brings to the Romney/Ryan candidacy.

Austrian born, a naturalized British citizen, a University of Chicago professor, Friedrich von Hayek (1899-1992) was an economist who saw firsthand the Austrian hyperinflation that followed WW I. Working for the Austrian government, in just 9 months, through 200 pay increases, Hayek blamed government when his salary rose from 5,000 kronen to 1 million but his buying power remained the same. At the London School of Economics, supporting less government, during the 1930s and through the war, he debated John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946; an advocate of government stimulus programs for an economy in depression).

Thinking of Hayek, we can remember two words: prices and freedom.

Prices:

  • Hayek believed that prices provide crucial information. In a market economy, millions of individuals use prices to figure out value as they make decisions about what to produce and what to buy. Without markets, there are no prices. Without prices, there can be no data on which to base production and distribution decisions. Any attempt by government to do central planning was futile because government could not possibly gather the countless bits of pricing information that millions of businesses and consumer use to make individual decisions.

 

Freedom:

  • Hayek said that economic freedom could not be separated from political freedom. Whenever government curtailed the right of the individual to use prices to make buying and selling decisions, it was limiting a fundamental right.

 

As a result, though, Hayek challenged the world’s idealists and optimists by saying you cannot use government to make the world a better place because it will not work. Since government cannot have the (price) data to make the appropriate decisions that only countless individuals separately know, it will ultimately create huge problems like the Austrian hyperinflation that following the WW I.

As the Chair of the House Budget Committee, with Hayek’s ideas as some of his rationale, Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) has sought to diminish the healthcare role government is playing through Medicare and Medicaid. In future posts, we will look at the specifics.

My Sources: I started getting to know Paul Ryan through this New Yorker article and an NPR Fresh Air podcast interview of Ryan Lizza, its writer. To become more familiar with Friedrich von Hayek and his most famous book, The Road to Serfdom, I read Nicholas Wapshott’s Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics and Sylvia Nasar’s Grand Pursuit The Story of Economic Genius.  For a much shorter bio, I suggest econlib summary of Hayek and his ideas.

Election Economics Topics:

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (2) Add a Comment