Highly linkable

One of the greatest economists ever, Ronald Coase, passed last week. He was 102 years old. He was still an active, working economist. His two great contributions, The Nature of the Firm and The Theory of Social Costs, fundamentally changed the field. In these he established the importance of transactions costs within firms and how that leads firms to be authoritarian and how assignment of property rights matters in a world of social costs when transaction costs are not zero. These are likely the first and second most cited papers in the history of economics. Here is a good summary of Coase's work and here is an appreciation written upon his passing. Both are well worth reading.

Malcolm Gladwell does an expertly crafted job in this The New Yorker piece pointing out the tension between the general social distaste for athletic differences equalized by certain means (chemical and biological therapies) and the general acceptance of athletic differences generated by natural or surgical means. The contradictions defy good reasoning.

At Advanced NFL Stats John Morgan shows how to lie with statistics. Just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it.

The tip of the iceberg

Should tipping be banned? That is the topic of a recent Freakonomics podcast. Listen to the whole thing.

Tipping expert Michael Lynn says if he had his druthers he would outlaw tipping. I found the reasoning for this conclusion lacking. Most of his research is based on survey data, which by its nature comes with a full shaker of salt. Of course many of the results of the survey research agrees with conventional wisdom priors, and this is a rare instance when I tend to agree with conventional wisdom. Hard to say that the surveys tell us much when they simply tell us what we already believed.

Confirmation bias is seductive. For example, we are told that physically attractive females earn better tips especially from men. What isn't so clear is if assuming they could earn more, the female servers actually deliver superior service to that target audience. Or perhaps they are take the game theory to the next level. Since the men are a sure thing, the female servers focus their attention on other patrons. The men appreciate them just the same while the other patrons get superior service. In this case tips rise from all patrons when compared to the alternative--non-attractive servers for the men and standard or inferior service for other patrons.

The major case Lynn finds against tipping is that it is de facto racially, et al. discriminatory assuming the survey results match reality. Here is where the reasoning is poor. Association with an outcome potentially undesirable, such as black waiters making less tips than white waiters when other factors besides race are supposedly held constant, is then construed as being the undesirable behavior per se. It is as if tipping were the cause of the discrimination rather than simply a correlated symptom of the problem. This is the logic of the disparate impact doctrine. Unfortunately, eliminating tipping even if it is truly used in a discriminatory manner including simply having a discriminatory result doesn't eliminate racial discrimination or disparate impact.

A bigot can exert harm in ways that may be more harmful if the tool of tipping is removed. This is true if the discrimination is done consciously (disparate treatment) or unconsciously (disparate impact). Without the ability to choose a restaurant blind to the color of the staff knowing the bigot can always tip less if the server is of an "undesirable" race (from the perspective of the bigot), the bigot may be lead to only consider restaurants that have low to no proportion of "undesirable" races employed within. In this thinking tipping is a more subtle tool for exerting bigoted behavior. Take away the tool, and the bigot is left with only more blunt means of acting out the bigotry.

Throughout the podcast there seemed to be an air of confusion about what the purpose of tipping is and a dismissiveness in the sense that a practice while long standing and ubiquitous was nevertheless illogical.

The purpose of tipping is to properly align incentives and minimize principal agent problems. It is not a gift. It is not a requirement. A tip should be understood as part of the compensation withheld until service is rendered to be delivered directly from the patron with potential variability depending on quality. It is an emergent solution to a knowledge and cooperation problem.

Some more thoughts:

• Those eligible for tips should be those with an ability to perform above or below the standard. 
• "They work for tips" is not adequate reasoning for how much one should tip. That is simply the definition of the service arrangement. 
• Inflation does not imply that the rate used for a standard tip should change, say from 15% as the old norm to 18% as the new norm. That is really bad math.
• For tipping to be effective, one must be willing to differentiate. At the least that means tipping a minimum amount (perhaps 10%) subject to upward revision if service is excellent. More desirably it means a willingness to tip zero for horrible service or negative (complaining to the manager) and a willingness to tip very well for excellent service.
• Tipping based on a percentage of the cost of goods is generally fine, but there is a floor and ceiling on this causing the rate to become an S curve rather than a straight line. If I order a Coke at the bar while my friends drink beer, I don't simply tip 15% on the $2.00 soft drink. Likewise, an expensive dinner for my wife and I where the before-tip bill is $300 might only rate a $50 tip even if service is excellent. 

Highly linkable

We begin with a couple of strong ones from Bryan Caplan. Here he goes to the mattresses with free-market economists on the "grave evil" of unemployment.

Next he delivers a one, two punch on the issue of public (especially federal) versus private compensation.

David Friedman weighs in on and perhaps settles the infamous and riling post from Steven Landsburg--that's the post that sounds like New York's hottest club . . . it has everything: pornography, rape, environmental destruction, a midget named "Wharhol" who'll throw Campbell's Soup cans at you . . . Okay, I made that last part up.

Bob Murphy, who often challenge's Landsburg on the topic, discusses one of his amusements in the "science vs. religion" debates.

If Marie Antoinette lived in a glass house, would her pot and kettle be black?

So I'm mixing methaphors . . . and stealing one in this case. Bob Stoops, the University of Oklahoma's rather well-paid football coach, made some comments the other day to the Sporting News regarding college football players' "pay". Having read the article, I'm not nearly as worked up as I was when the comments were related to me--so much for the reliability of hearsay.

The part where I'm stealing a metaphor comes from The Oklahoman's columnist, Berry Tramel's, article. I think he gets it basically right: message wasn't so bad, but delivery including the messenger is a problem.

Stoops' message is an argument worth having: that college football players do get paid in the form of scholarships, tutoring, athletic training, etc. Of course at some point the NCAA's basic message would be in conflict with Stoops' in that all the TV ads the cartel runs keep telling us that college athletes are almost always "going pro in something other than their sport". So much for the value of the training.

I read that Stoops says he is all for stipends. So maybe we are just arguing about the form and structure of how college football players, et al. should be paid. But if he wants to argue that a scholarship is of high value to an athlete, and let's remember that value is subjective (i.e., wage value is in the eye of the laborer), then there is a simple test we can conduct. Let athletes choose between full scholarships and the comparable amount in after-tax income. Stop making them attend classes unless they choose to attend and pay for college. If Stoops is right, then not much should change in the college football landscape.

PS. To those who would invoke the silly argument that college football players would make a foolish choice taking the money instead of the education, I'd say be careful the point you raise. Are you sure you know better how adults (nearly all college football players are adults) should live their lives than they do? If college football players are so foolish or short sighted or subject to bad decision making perhaps due to adverse influences in their lives, then are we sure no one other than the people profiting off of their labor should be making these choices for them? Are you sure college is as valuable as you think? Have you read Charles Murray? Are you sure all universities are created (and continue) equal? Does the fact that 115,000 janitors hold bachelor's degrees give you pause? How would you characterize "The Great Gatsby"? Was he . . . uh  . . . great!?

Marriage: a matter of equality before the law

Here comes another post where I relate an on-going discussion I've been having with a friend. The friend is a self-described conservatarian (part conservative and part libertarian). He struggles with some issues of libertarian ideology such as full drug legalization and same-sex marriage. He is thoughtful in his disagreement, when he has disagreement with my strict-liberty philosophy, and this extends to a careful treatment of the same-sex marriage issues. While he is not yet a supporter of same-sex marriage, he is very tolerant of those who are homosexual, and he is questioning his position on the marriage issues. He is willing to learn.

He brought today a new argument that he had heard recently. For background, this relates to an earlier segment of this debate we've been having where I invoked Mike Munger's rather good argument (I believe it is a very good argument) that the issue is not about some slippery slope to three-way marriage, etc. Today the argument brought was something along the lines of the following (I am paraphrasing and probably butchering as well):

The state should be blind in many respects in the marriage contract: Blind to race, blind to national origin, blind to religion, and blind to sexual preference. But the evolutionarily natural and by far historically predominant state of marriage has been between a man and a woman. If the state begins sanctioning the marriage contract between man and man or woman and woman, then the state is no longer blind to sexual preference. The state is making a judgment about conditions within marriage that it was previously blind to. Therefore, the state should not disrupt the natural and common understanding of marriage (man and woman). Otherwise, why not man-woman-woman? Why not spinster sisters who want to avoid inheritance tax? Etc.

The argument itself is a non sequitur and the additional worry at the end is a red herring. It is a strange twist to say that the state is treating people equally by not allowing some people major advantages it offers others because some don't meet a rather arbitrary condition: heterosexual union. 

As we discussed it further, we seemed to get bogged down in the slippery-slope part where if the state says that being a man and a woman are not essential conditions for marriage, then, according to the argument presented, there is no logical way to draw the line limiting it to two people, etc. The idea is in part an attempt to "corner a libertarian" by making me take a difficult position through reductio ad absurdum. If so, he was barking up the wrong tree. My argument was as follows: 

There may be a logical straight line (pun intended) as well as a liberty-principled reason to support marriage contracts among more than two people, but that is a battle for another day. It is not the current debate, and it doesn't shed light on how we should settle the current debate over same-sex marriage. What's more, many of these hypothetical marriages do not follow logically from allowing same-sex marriage. We can draw lines about what will and what will not be considered a legitimate marriage contract. 

I was searching for an analogy in the law to help make this concrete. At first I thought of liable and how it is different in different jurisdictions and somewhat arbitrary, but with liable we essentially get to a point where a balance is struck. Then I thought patent law might be a better analogy as it is a creation of the state as is the marriage contract (in case it isn't obvious, this entire discussion has nothing to do with how a particular religion defines marriage--it is only about state-recognized contract). But then the best analogy came to mind, and I sent the following email:

Forget the liable analogy. This one is much better, I think, to express my argument against the logic you were laying out this morning: The minimum age we allow people to get married.

This is something that has varied arbitrarily throughout history and varies today across societies. In the US it is usually 18 with the exceptions of Nebraska (19) and Mississippi (21). Most states allow minors to get married with parental or judicial consent generally limiting this group to 16 and 17 year olds. There are also pregnancy exceptions for females below 18 along with some other exceptions in various states.

I would equate same-sex marriage prohibitions with age prohibitions for those 18 or above. So Nebraska and Mississippi become the problem cases. Nebraska and Mississippi might argue that if they are forced to move their restriction down to 18, then why not 17? Why not 14? Etc. That isn't the issue. The issue is if legal, consenting adults can marry. Arguments could be made that those below the arbitrarily-set age of majority, 18, should still be allowed to marry, but that is not the issue at hand. Changing the definition of state-sanctioned marriage to include same-sex couples may weaken the case against three-person or more marriage, but that is not the issue being addressed. The issue is whether the state-sanctioned marriage contract can be rightfully limited to couples that are comprised of one male and one female.

My first-best solution is that the state should have no role in marriage--there shouldn't be a marriage penalty or benefit in tax policy, exchange of assets, etc. My second-best solution is that the state should not discriminate when sanctioning a marriage by considering the genders of the marriage participants. We've come a long way since the Army recruiter's standard question for Winger and Ziskey: "Are either of you homosexuals?" We still have a ways to go.

What do you mean a multi-billion $ gov't program has problems?!?

How could this be? Back in the 80s a government program was hatched with the explicit goal of ensuring the poor had access to telephones and the implicit if originally unintended goal of making some firms profits while politicians felt good about themselves. Somehow it went awry. Well, the implicit purpose got out of hand enough that the program has crossed over into waste, fraud, and abuse land.

I asked how can this be? Exhibit 1 (the Baptists):

The Lifeline program—begun in 1984 to ensure that poor people aren't cut off from jobs, families and emergency services—is funded by charges that appear on the monthly bills of every landline and wireless-phone customer. 

Exhibit 2 (the Bootleggers):

The program, which is administered by the nonprofit Universal Service Administrative Co., has grown rapidly as wireless carriers persuaded regulators to let people use the program for cellphone service. It pays carriers $9.25 a customer per month toward free or discounted wireless service.

That's how.

I have personally seen this program in action from both sides: Poor consumers on a street corner under a tent signing up for a phone, and a newly rich entrepreneur rent seeker whose company signs up said consumers and then passes them on to a carrier or administers the telephone plan himself. And still somehow the program's illusory value carried it passed the media's suspicion for some time. I really don't know what it takes to sufficiently raise media suspicion--that would be valuable information.

This problem has more than just some good lessons in incentives including the classic B&B example. I think it also tells us something about how we think based on our reaction to the story (i.e., who we blame and who we pity).

If asked to list out the victims and culprits, who would go in which category? To me the victims are the people taxed to pay for this program and the poor consumers who the program intended to help--more on this second group shortly. The culprits are government officials who created the program especially those who helped craft its evolution to the current mess and the private firms who participated in the fraud--this extends to lobbying to expand/continue the program and encouraging or failing to properly discourage fraud.

Notice how I don't include the poor consumers in the culprit category. Not broadly at least. While certainly there were many who knowingly abused the system, I find it hard to put much blame on people in very difficult situations responding to incentives. In fact, programs like this can be a victimizing force in the lives of those it is designed to help. There are consequences to welfare programs, poorly designed or otherwise, and those consequences can include dependency. People in tough situations do not have the luxury of always taking the ethical high road. Just evaluating what is the ethical high road may be out of their reach.

Justifying torture

A recent discussion at work regarding the movie "Zero Dark Thirty" (I have yet to see it) brought up the subject of torture. Specifically, the discussion centered on if it is justifiable and if so, under what circumstances. Having thought about this a bit before, I was able to offer my view on it. Basically, I believe it boils down to a four-pronged test:

1. Immediacy of Need/Imminence of Threat
2. Certainty of Material Knowledge held by the tortured
3. Certainty of Success in Averting Threat with Material Knowledge
4. Exclusivity of Foreseeable Alternatives

The only conceivable circumstances under which torture could be justifiably used are basically analogous to a peace officer shooting a threatening hostage taker when it is highly likely that the hostage taker is immediately about to commit a grievous wrong and when there are no reasonably foreseeable alternatives to prevent the grievous wrong from being committed. Thus, it does not seem realistic that all or even two of the criteria could be met.

It is amazing to me just how simplistic, naive, and morally shallow some perhaps many can be on this issue. Yes, this is the natural and generally rational position for us to take in most circumstances, but that defense is weakened on this issue because of its general importance combined with its relative straightforwardness--emotional baggage usually used to rationalize torture aside. Unfortunately this is not too surprising given that we live in a world where the President of the United States can unilaterally order "targeted killings" of both foreign nationals and Americans he deems an imminent threat. It seems to get to a convenient theory of justice we have started with ethics and taken away reason and accountability.

In a relative-ranking sense America should strive to have the highest human rights standards in the world, and the absolute level of those standards should be quite high in its own right.

I say shame, shame, shame, shame, shame, shame, shame, shame on you

A while back a Scott Sumner post titled American Shadows got me thinking about current practices, policies, and conditions in our society today that will horrify future generations. I have been planning on doing a post on it along with a sister post about current practices, policies, and conditions that will make future generations laugh, roll their eyes, and shake their heads. This week Sumner had another post along the same theme re-inspiring me. I have decided to combine the posts and will add to these lists as new items occur to me.

I grant that a case can be made for an item to be included on the opposing list or both lists. To the extent that this is a prediction (my primary goal), these are all arguable. To the extent that this is a personal commentary passing judgment on our society (a secondary goal), these are all again arguable, but for different reasons.

These are in no particular order, and I am concerned here with western society in general and the United States in particular. Considering the entire world would be a much, MUCH longer list.

Current practices, policies, and conditions in our society today that will horrify future generations:

• Immigration restrictions
• Trade policies
• Drug laws and enforcement tactics
• Treatment of homosexuals and homosexuality
• Methods of the FDA, et al. 
• Abortion as birth control
• Pain treatment and management intolerance and limitations
• Law and mores that have kept "amateur" athletes less than fully compensated (the case for this item being on this list is made when viewed in light of injuries and opportunity costs (two separate issues) that compound into life-long set backs). On this front there was a step toward justice today.
• Updated: Our tolerance for torture and other harsh treatments including prolonged, indefinite detention.

Current practices, policies, and conditions that will make future generations laugh, roll their eyes, and shake their heads:

• Government-monopolized postal delivery
• Government-run schooling
• Gambling restrictions
• Liquor laws
• Blue laws in general
• Tax policy (could easily warrant a spot on the first list)
• Regulations that aid existing businesses or other powerful interests
• Our views on many facets of science:
• Genetic alteration of plants and food
• Genetic testing and alterations in humans
• Cloning
• Stem cell research
• Our fears and understanding of climate change
• Updated: The silly ways in which we attempt to be good stewards of the environment such as obsessing about carbon footprints and shallow rationing devices to attain some mythical "sustainability" while ignoring the price system.
• Updated: Our fears of robots, machines, automation, AI, et al. This quote from a recent Econtalk with Kevin Kelly fits: "Your calculator is smarter than you right now in arithmetic. It doesn't freak you out just because it's a different kind of intelligence." 

Additions to come I'm sure . . .

Partial list of my favorite things . . .

Partial List of My Most “Controversial” Views

(in no particular order and subject to change)

1.  Government should ideally exit fully from the activity of funding, administering, sanctioning or otherwise engaging in education. As a second-best solution, the government should only facilitate the funding of education by fixed-amount vouchers issued directly to parents and redeemable by any entity that can demonstrate to a non-government third party that they are an education provider. A qualified third party would be one that a significant number and variety of education providers themselves would recognize as being a legitimate if not desirable third-party evaluator.
2. Free movement of people into and out of the United States of America should be allowed unencumbered and unlimited except for those who are known felons or who are carriers of highly dangerous communicable diseases.
3. As a corollary to the previous, the free movement of goods, services, and investment should also be free of encumbrance except for the most extreme cases of vital national interest with great burden of proof put upon the justification for any such limitation. 
4. The federal government of the United States should eliminate fully the income tax (both personal and corporate), all taxes on capital including dividends and capital gains (short and long term), all excise taxes, and all taxes on estates. There are two desirable replacements for the current tax structure: One is a payroll tax of a certain and consistent (i.e., flat) rate applicable to all employment arrangements whereby the tax is assessed on the fair market value of the total compensation (salaries, wages and benefits) earned by an employee. Another perhaps preferable solution would be a certain and consistent (i.e., flat) rate of sales tax applied to the purchase of all final goods and services. As a method to reduce regressivity, a federal tax rebate could be created whereby all adult citizens are issued a refund equal to the sales tax rate multiplied by the dollar value of the poverty level of consumption and all citizens claiming a dependent would be issued a refund equal to 25% of the sales tax rate multiplied by the dollar value of the poverty level. To aim further in adding progressivity to the system, a marginal 10% payroll tax could be applied to all total compensation above $100,000 with this threshold indexed to grow with inflation. 
5. All narcotics and other drugs should be completely legalized.
6. Nearly all if not all zoning laws should be discontinued and dissolved.
7. Prostitution should be legalized.
8. The state should cease and desist from all activities involving sex offense registries and notification requirements.
9. Copyright laws and rules should be very significantly reduced in scope and scale.
10. Patent protection should be considerably rethought with the aim to greatly reduce their anticompetitive and antidevelopment characteristics.
11. There should be no occupational licensure enforced by law.
12. Most not-for-profit, charitable activities are slightly counter-productive at best, highly destructive at worst.
13. Price controls are an extremely poor solution that fails on efficiency as well as liberty grounds. They should be avoided to every extent especially in times of emergency and crisis. 
14. Central banking should be replaced by free banking (first-best solution), replaced by a gold standard as described by George Selgin, et al. (second-best solution), conducted with fixed rules in a regime of NGPD level targeting as described by Scott Sumner, et al. (third-best solution).

An outsider's view of insider trading

As an investment professional, I follow the insider trading laws. And as a CFA charterholder, I follow the more rigorous ethics required by the CFA Institute. But I don't believe in insider trading restrictions. That is I don't subscribe to the theory of justice underpinning insider trading prohibitions. I would like to see these prohibitions largely changed to the extent of elimination generally. I believe this would be an improvement to our society's justice and economic/market efficiency.

The idea of prohibitions on insider transactions hinges on the idea that profiting from knowledge is good but profiting from too much knowledge is bad. Those supporting insider trading restrictions would probably say I've got that wrong. That it isn't too much knowledge but rather unfair knowledge. My answer to that is there is no principled concept of "fair" that allows one to draw a line in the way insider trading laws do making the distinguishment between fair knowledge and unfair knowledge. It takes logical magic tricks to make the distinction. Simply put, the distinction is arbitrary, which is antithetic to logical principals. The arbitrariness can be seen in how ridiculously vague the insider laws are. This makes for dangerous risks--it puts arbitrary power in the hands of already powerful people.

Let's make clear a couple of points. In my opinion insider trading prohibitions are not about prohibiting fraud or misrepresentation. Hence, reducing or eliminating them would not be any sort of condoning of fraud or misrepresentation. They are about making illegal a victimless crime that has in the general public opinion a very negative perception (people benefiting from too much information).

Prohibiting insider trading has several very real negative effects:

• It violates property rights--the right to freely buy and sell in the market.
• It reduces economic/market efficiency by limiting who can bring knowledge into the price system.
• It promotes a false sense of security (moral hazard) by promising that securities transactions are between generally equally equipped traders--this illusion as well as the above problem with market efficiency is mitigated by the next effect.
• It drives some market transactions (insider transactions) into the dark and gives pause to other transactions for fear of raising insider suspicions. This is very much like the negative effects an onerous, complicated tax system brings--wasted resource allocation in compliance and reduced otherwise beneficial activity in avoidance.

My solution is disclosure-based insider trading rules. I am not alone in this idea. Basically I would like to see insider trading laws replaced by a rule requiring open disclosure of any "significant" transactions from an "insider". I would let the courts decide what a "significant" transaction would be, but as a guidance perhaps a trade over $10,000 in notional or exercise value. I would expand the definition of an "insider" to include any employee of a firm (not just the current definition which includes a company's officers, directors and any beneficial owners of more than 10% of a class of the company's equity securities) and as with the current definition any individual who trades shares based on material non-public information in violation of some duty of trust whether inherent or imputed (e.g., getting a tip from the CEO one could reasonably expect was material non-public information). Now more truly if you're not "inside", you're "outside". Failure to properly disclose an insider trade would result in a fine equal to say 25% of the gross profit from the alleged trade. Any employee trade not properly disclosed would also result in the same fine incurred by the employer unless the employee was acting with malicious intent. 

The reason companies would find this change to be largely in their interest is the same reason why companies would want restrictions on insider trading in many cases. Companies have at least two reasons why they don't want their officers making some kinds of insider trades: 

1. It makes for very negative PR for a CEO to sell (buy) the company stock on insider knowledge that negative (positive) news is forthcoming. 
2. A company wants a CEO's incentive to be with the long-term interest of the company whereby he gains (looses) as the firm gains (looses). (Unfortunately, we continue to allow insiders to avoid losses their firms incur generally at tax-payer expense. But that is a problem for another blog post.)

I would anticipate greater popularity of agreements between corporations and their insiders that allow for clawback of earnings or outright damages for insider trades not in company interest. 

What if the Fiscal Cliff solution were to actually get us out of this fine tax mess?

As mentioned previously, I would like to briefly sketch out an approximation of what a terrifically better tax system would look like. This is a second-best solution since I start with the assumption we need a tax burden so massive as to accommodate a government nearly as massive as the one we have today.

If I were asked, "explain taxes to me like I'm a four-year old," I would struggle. Ron Swanson (below) does a decent job striking the emotional chord many of us feel, but this is obviously an emotional appeal designed around the tight confines of satirical comedy. For if it were a comprehensive approach, the tax code would come out looking much worse.



Swanson only gets at the raw theft of it all. He leaves out the destructive properties of bad incentives and resources wasted in compliance and avoidance and evasion.

If we have to have a taxes, we at least should have them with minimal impact both direct and indirect. Directly we waste resources complying and seeking to avoid. Indirectly the effects are much more severe. By taxing capital, we discourage work, risk-taking, and saving. By taxing consumption, we discourage work, risk taking, and consumption. By taxing work, we discourage work, risk taking, consumption, and saving. Work, risk taking, consumption, and saving are all desirable things. But saving has added desirability as it creates opportunities for more of all the other desirable things. Saving is deferred consumption. The reward for the deferring is more later. So it should be obvious, but sadly is not to too many that taxing (discouraging) saving has a compounding negative effect. Which brings me to my proposal for greatly improving upon this fine mess of a tax system we have.

First, we must eliminate all capital taxation (capital gains with its ridiculous long-term/short-term distinction, dividend and interest income, estate taxation, et al.). A flat-income tax would be a big, BIG improvement over were we are today. But we can do better still as this would still be an income tax with the associated negative effect on saving.

Here is the idea (not at all original to me): tax consumption (a sales tax). Let's assume the rate is 20%. We will apply this rate to the purchase of all final goods and services. Income taxes and payroll taxes (save for a new one outlined below) are gone. No longer will we need to turn in an annual term paper on our income to the IRS. No more manipulations of charitable giving and loss carry forward. No more shelters, loopholes, deductions, exemptions, forms 8166 sub A worksheet nine, math that you never can get to add up to the same total twice. Buy something and a tax is built in (this is preferable rather than being added on after the fact). The business submits sales data and taxes due. Most of this infrastructure is in place already. And notice how little opportunity there is for tax evasion save for the ever-dwindling cash side business.

"But what about the poor?" I hear you say. We rebate to every adult the amount of consumption tax that a spending level near the poverty level would imply. Let's target $20,000 (about $5,000 below the official poverty level of income). 20% of $20,000 is $4,000. That amount is payable to every adult American citizen.

"But what about poor children?" I hear you cry. We rebate to every adult claiming a unique dependent (someone cannot be claimed twice as with the current regime) some amount of consumption tax an incremental amount of spending would imply. Let's target $10,000. 20% of $10,000 is $2,000.

"But what about the 'rich' who are now getting checks from the government?" I hear you shriek. That's where the low-impact payroll tax comes in. I think of it as "low impact" because it will be handled by employers similarly to how they handle payroll taxes now. We will maintain the benefit of not having individuals have to play guess how many toothpicks are on the floor with Uncle Sam. The payroll tax will be a marginal rate of say 10% applied to total compensation (wages and benefits) starting at $100,000 with this threshold indexed to inflation.

The structure is the major source of the benefits. The rates and levels are negotiable. Here is what it looks like for a family of four:

Notice that it is progressive. Notice that it is straightforward. Notice that it is not of this world . . . yet.

Update: Some might ask how housing should be treated: as a capital good excluded from taxation or a consumption good subject to taxation. The answer is it depends but can work well in either case. As a capital good making the assumption (probably a bad assumption, that housing is always an investment), it would be excluded. As a consumption good, it would lower the overall tax rate necessary to generate appropriate revenues. The most logical treatment in my mind is to treat any sale or rental of real property as a capital good. Although this increases the tax rate otherwise applicable to consumption, it is a much more straightforward and less manipulable arrangement.

Dollars,Taxes

As we continue to hurtle ourselves toward the fiscal cliff as the Mayans predicted, the prospects for meaningful tax reform dwindles. I thought I'd take a second to reflect on some brief ideas about what good tax reform should encompass.

• Simplification - this is the lower-hanging fruit. We need fewer exemptions, deductions, rates, categories, etc. Unfortunately, this reform has some of the biggest obstacles since so many vested interests are at stake. 
• Eliminating the worst tax policies from an economic-desirability standpoint - this is where economics needs to trump emotion. We need to stop taxing capital--capital gains (both individual and organizational), dividends, interest, corporate profits, etc. These taxes are economically destructive. They discourage savings and lower the trajectory of economic potential. The economic distortion from taxation is no where more insidious than in capital taxation. There is certainly crossover between this reform group and the next. 
• Eliminating the worst tax policies from a justice/fairness standpoint - this is where justice and ethics need to trump envy. We need to stop taxing estates. Death should not imply an additional tax liability. Not only does this tax unfairly tax wealth that has been repeatedly taxed already, but it also causes economic resource distortions as people go to great lengths to avoid the tax. Additionally, we need to stop taxing so progressively. Taxation that compounds as success increases assumes that property rights have a diminishing marginal validity. I fail to see how that can be a reasonable principled position. 

In a later post I plan to sketch out my idea of the tax policy I would most like to see replace our current nightmare. 

Two monkeys walk into the EEOC . . .

A friend sends me this link to a video of research done on Capuchin monkeys concerning payment for learned tasks. The essence of the video comes at the very humorous moment when one monkey discovers that the other monkey is being paid "unequally" for the same task. It is said that the first monkey is "rejecting" the "unequal" pay with the implication that you as a human should do the same. The caption/punchline below the video reads, "If monkeys reject unequal pay, shouldn't you?" We can't really assess from the brief video the meaningfulness of the research. This isn't about the Capuchin, Donnie. But we can comment on the implied call for pay equality and the rather pedestrian approach to the argument.

It would really be something if the second monkey rejected the "unequal" pay (actually getting a more desired grape instead of a less desired cucumber piece). Or if a third monkey went on a hunger strike in protest. The fact that the first monkey only realizes the visible grapes are actually available for payment after the second monkey attains one is impressive (or at least interesting--perhaps this says something about how little we expect of monkeys).  But it is only upon completing the task a second time and then not being awarded a grape that the protest begins. The first monkey didn't connect the "unequal" pay backward to the prior task--she didn't protest immediately upon seeing the second monkey get a grape. Maybe this is the truly remarkable part: The first monkey learned something about the market price for completing the task and appropriately raised her reservation raise.

Higher life forms (those who understand economics like this monkey) understand that the market is a discovery process. It isn't so simple to say what is or is not equal pay. The second monkey seems to get this too in that he doesn't feel ashamed for receiving "unequal" pay. In fact in the human world there are a number of reasons why two people apparently in the same situation presumably performing the same task would in fact receive different compensation. There is nothing inherently unjust or inefficient about it. To assume so is to beg the question about under what circumstances the difference arose.

It seems the first monkey not only understands economics but also understands property rights as well. By reserving her protest for higher wages until after completion of the task a second time, she makes clear that she doesn't believe she deserves the same deal the other monkey got. Rather she is just insisting and aggressively negotiating a new compensation package. She knows that a fair deal isn't "fair" simply and only because it is "equal" to another seemingly identical situation. It is fair if all parties to the deal agree to it freely without force, coercion, or fraud regardless of the comparable deal struck by other parties in another situation. While most monkeys have been diligently working themselves up from nothing into a state of extreme poverty, this one has been studying Locke not Marx.

Yes, I'm reading into this a little too deeply, but live by the exaggerated metaphor, die by the exaggerated metaphor.

If monkeys reject bad economics and faulty understanding of property rights, shouldn't you?

Let's get up a football league

Legend has it that one day in 1895 while sitting in Bud Risinger’s barbershop on Main Street in Norman, Oklahoma John A. Harts spoke some famous words: “Let’s get up a football team”. From there the Sooners were born.

The NCAA has approved what seem to be significantly more powerful sanctions on those who break the cartel’s rules. Be sure to read the article at SI. This comes as a response to the fact that the rewards from “cheating” are greater today by an order of magnitude than they were in decades past. NCAA czar president Mark Emmert recognizes as much:

We have sought all along to remove the 'risk-reward' analysis that has tempted people - often because of the financial pressures to win at all costs - to break the rules in the hopes that either they won't be caught or that the consequences won't be very harsh if they do get caught. The new system the board adopted today is the result of a lot of hard work and membership input devoted to protecting the collegiate model.

Unfortunately for the cartel, this is a losing battle in a soon to be lost war. Besides the growing sentiment against the NCAA’s practices, this change reflects the stakes growing in the sports world. The attractiveness of an alternative model wholly removed from the grip of the NCAA is higher than it has ever been. King Cnut Emmert will not halt this rising tide.

Sports roundup: October 28th

Here is my take on a few sports results and sports-related news. From my perspective these are three stories of losing.

First the big one for me, Notre Dame defeated the Sooners last night yet again. I was very impressed by Notre Dame's game plan, execution, and grit. I was also "impressed" by the officials ability to call a questionable holding penalty on an OU touchdown, miss a pass interference call in a play that had an "interception", and then also miss after review that the ball clearly was trapped on the ground in that  interception. These were critical plays that could have changed the outcome. But I definitely recognize that the team that played better last night won the game.

Because they remain relatively untested for the rest of the season, it will be hard to assess to what degree ND is great versus to what degree OU is just above average. OU has played two very highly ranked opponents this year and underwhelmed in each case.

OU is now 1-9 against the Irish. It is interesting how a team can seemingly "have your number". Those of us at MM know that the number to have is sample size, and that is the key here. This small sample size just doesn't tell us much at all about how great and evenly successful both programs have been. The sample size being so small makes it very susceptible to selectivity bias. In this case some of that is opportunistic while most of it is pure chance. Notre Dame never played a Switzer team and they managed to avoid quite a few Wilkinson teams as well. They've only played Stoops twice catching the Sooners in relatively down years. OU and ND were supposed to play in 2000 and 2001, but it is my understanding that ND bowed out of those appearances.

I can relate to Notre Dame fans in ways I can relate to few programs' fans. They are a highly successful organization with the highest expectations year after year. That makes it hard when losses come. OU's season is now a bitter disappointment for me and most OU fans. When your goals are to compete for conference and national titles, the bar is set very high. It looks very hard for OU to still win the Big 12 this year. Winning the remainder of the games including a bowl game by 50 points would only bring to high relief the disappointment of not completing what would then look to have been possible. This is classic loss aversion as described by behavior economics. Losses hurt more than wins, and that diminishing return affect is greater and greater as winning is more and more expected/achieved.

The pageantry last night was second to none. I was very impressed by how it all came together. We put on a beautiful show for the Irish to fondly remember.

Switching gears, let's mention something about the Harden trade by OKC-Houston. This is striking many as a major WTF? Those sentiments may prove off the mark, but from what we know and see now, the head scratching appears reasonable. Harden is great and valuable. So, either Presti mistakenly estimated value (direct revenue from winning and brand strength and indirect from chemistry) or Simmons overstated the economic upside for the Thunder. There is a chance this tension is looking in the wrong place. The Thunder ownership could be loss averse in the financial sense. They aren't willing to make the investment and pay the luxury tax to effectively bet the come on future gains being worth certain extra expense. They could also suffer as an organization from several behavioral economics shortfalls including optimism bias and overconfidence effect.Or maybe it was spite: Harden wasn't showing "loyalty" and knowing his place as a sixth man. It wouldn't be the first time NBA owners asked not what a player deserved but what that player could give to the cartel organization.

One last topic, the double injustice of Tyrann Mathieu of LSU. The Honey Badger worked hard for negative current wages in the 2011 season for LSU. While not being reasonably paid for his labor, he brought happiness to LSU fans and profit to the LSU athletic department. Contemporarily and subsequently to that season he apparently chose as an adult old enough to die for his country to use some chemicals that are deemed highly naughty. Now his expected future wages are a slight fraction of what they were nine months ago. His life has been a tough and at times sad one. NCAA policies and U.S. law have made it tougher and sadder with less hope.