Michael Giberson
Just saw the movie Where the Wild Things Are.
Fantastic. Wonderful. Amazing.
Back when I was king, it was kind of like that. Only, I had more brothers and sisters when I was king, and they thought they were the king or queen, so it was complicated.
And amazing.
I’m not sure my 13 year-old son was as impressed with the movie, but I think he still thinks that he’s the king.
Michael Giberson
It looks like we may get through the 2009 hurricane season without any new evidence generated of the harm due to anti-price gouging legislation. The lack of a lot of hurricane damage is good, obviously (but I foresee that it may leave me bereft of new material for blogging on price gouging).
Wikipedia currently says, “So far this season ties for record low activity with 1982 for lowest number of hurricanes forming in a season.” The two major hurricanes so far this year have had almost no effect on the oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Gulf Coast, which means no supply disruptions, no price spikes, no declarations of emergencies, and no new price gouging complaints to be investigated by states.
Lacking new material, here is a quote from the Federal Trade Commission’s report on its investigation of price increases and price manipulation claims subsequent to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the late Summer of 2005:
Staff interviews with alleged price gouging retailers indicated that some of highest prices occurred when stations were running out of product, were uncertain about when they would be re-supplied or at what price, were trying to ration their dwindling inventory, or were trying to curtail panic buying. In addition, because unbranded stations saw their wholesale costs increase above those of branded stations, the retail prices of unbranded gasoline increased to high levels. One national retailer told staff that it closed its stations in Florida (which normally bought from a refiner at prices tied to a Platts spot market price) because the firm could not afford to re-supply the stations without either selling gasoline at a loss or risking that it would violate the state’s anti-gouging laws.
That last sentence indicates the harm created by anti-gouging laws. Gasoline consumers in the state would obviously be better off with more supply brought into the state rather than less, and with these stations offering gasoline at a high price rather than not offering gasoline at all. The law impedes activities by gasoline retailers that would help gasoline consumers.
Apparently – despite the FTC’s extensive investigation, thorough analysis and detailed report, despite the logic and evidence presented by economists and others in other forums – many politicians, editorialists, and consumers continue to think anti-price gouging laws are good.
The interesting question: what evidence or argument could persuade open-minded proponents of anti-price gouging legislation to change their minds?
Michael Giberson
Just because someone is professionally qualified to discuss a tree, a rock, or a cloud does not make them expert on what makes good public policy toward trees, rocks, or clouds. Need an example? Here is a clip from an interview with climate scientist Ken Caldeira on Yale Environment 360. Caldeira is currently blog-famous due to his inclusion in the controversial chapter 5 on climate change in Leavitt’s and Dubner’s Superfreakonomics“:
Yale Environment 360: I want to start with this little dust-up over SuperFreakonomics. In the book, you are quoted as saying, when it comes to global warming, “Carbon dioxide is not the right villain.” Is that accurate?
Ken Caldeira: That is not accurate. I don’t believe I said anything remotely like that because I believe that we should be outlawing the production of devices that emit carbon dioxide, and I don’t think we can solve this carbon climate problem unless we drastically reduce our carbon dioxide emissions very soon.
Hold on a minute, did he just say, “I believe that we should be outlawing the production of devices that emit carbon dioxide”? Does he have any policy analysis behind this recommendation, or is it just a jump from “carbon dioxide emissions bad => ban them” without further analysis?
Bad policy advice, at least if we take the remark as presented. (After all, maybe he was misquoted! And, in any case, given the chance Caldeira might add some useful qualifications to his bald statement of lousy policy).
As an economist, I naturally feel qualified to research, study, think about, discuss and opine on just about any topic out there. Similarly, as an economist, I will object to, resent, condemn, and oppose efforts by non-economists to discuss economics or closely related matters. I went to graduate school, this is what I was taught. Environmental policy discussions provide many opportunities for me to indulge both impulses. Climate science? Sure, I can comment on that! A climate scientist spouting off on climate policy? I call foul.
On the other hand, in my professional opinion as an economist, the interview is pretty good on the topic of geo-engineering.
You are currently browsing the Knowledge Problem blog archives for the day Thursday, October 22nd, 2009.
