Archive for April, 2011

h1

Don, Deirdre, dignity

April 7, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

As if Mike and I haven’t given you enough nudges to go read Deirdre McCloskey’s Bourgeois Dignity, here’s another one: Don Boudreaux has a lovely column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that introduces the work via the question of whether economic incentives are sufficient to understand and explain human behavior and economic growth. What role does culture play in that dynamic?

Our modern standard of living was sparked by a major cultural change that occurred only a few generations back.

That cultural change — happening first in the Netherlands and soon afterward in Britain — was a change in people’s attitude toward the bourgeoisie. Merchants, innovators and business people came to be, for the first time in human history, not only tolerated but respected. Profit-seeking production, trade and commerce became, for the first time in 70,000 years, widely regarded as worthwhile and productive not only for the profit-earning producers but for society writ large.

And very importantly, the way that people spoke about market activity and about the bourgeoisie who are so essential to it reflected this Earth-shifting change in attitude.

This change in rhetoric about what we today call capitalism and entrepreneurs and profit-seeking and risk-taking and arbitrage and creative destruction is the theme of the most important book I’ve read this millennium: economist Deirdre McCloskey’s magnificent new volume “Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World.”

Don’s excellent essay could also point at another book I’ve recommended here before, and will do again enthusiastically: Matt Ridley’s The Origins of Virtue.
h1

The international possibilities of petroleum from shale will reshape markets

April 6, 2011

Michael Giberson

There is a lot of natural gas locked up in shale in the world. Once shale gas was mostly a footnote to the energy industry, known about but inconsequential because mostly inaccessible. But the technology, and hence the economics, of shale gas development has improved. And those improvements are reshaping the world’s energy markets.

The Energy Information Administration has released a preliminary analysis of several regions throughout the world which concludes the now-producible shale gas resources are vast:

Although the shale gas resource estimates will likely change over time as additional information becomes available, the report shows that the international shale gas resource base is vast. The initial estimate of technically recoverable shale gas resources in the 32 countries examined is 5,760 trillioncubic feet… Adding the U.S. estimate of the shale gas technically recoverable resources of 862 trillion cubic feet results in a total shale resource base estimate of 6,622 trillion cubic feet for the United States and the other 32 countries assessed. To put this shale gas resource estimate in some perspective, world proven reserves of natural gas as of January 1, 2010 are about 6,609 trillion cubic feet, and world technically recoverable gas resources are roughly 16,000 trillion cubic feet, largely excluding shale gas. Thus, adding the identified shale gas resources to other gas resources increases total world technically recoverable gas resources by over 40 percent to 22,600 trillion cubic feet.

By the way, the U.S. Department of Energy wants you to know that its early R&D investment in shale gas technology is producing results today.

But it isn’t just natural gas.

Technology is improving access to oil from shale formations as well. A story in the Wall Street Journal yesterday suggests that Israel may have the potential to become a major oil producer based upon its shale oil potential. See “Could Israel Become an Energy Giant?” In the U.S., oil from shale is one of the reasons North Dakota is booming, and their are several other oil shale efforts now new-and-improved as technology has improved.

It isn’t that everything you once thought you knew about the oil and gas industry is wrong, but you do have to pay attention and allow yourself to, reluctantly, learn something new once in a while.

h1

Goose Island: What if acquiring capital cannibalizes your market?

April 5, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

Last week, Chicago craft brewery Goose Island agreed to be acquired by Anheuser-Busch, which purchased a 58% equity stake in the brewery. Goose Island founder John Hall argues that the deal enables Goose Island to make investments to increase capacity, an investment necessary for continued profitability. He recognizes that some may be skeptical about the deal:

But Anheuser-Busch didn’t buy us to change us. It bought us because we can do things its people can’t. They’re megabig, so it’s harder to get people who sell huge brands to really push new products. As in a lot of industries, it’s the small guys who are really creative, because they have to be creative. That’s what’s made us what we are.

It’s wonderful our customers feel they have a vested interest in us. That’s something we’re all proud of, and we want to continue that tradition.

The reality, however, is that we’re in a capital-intensive business, and it takes an awful lot of money. Not counting our two brewpubs, we’ve up to 115 to 120 regular employees, having added about 20 people just last year.

To deal with that lack of creativity in the “megabig” firm, one of Anheuser-Busch’s strategies over the past decade has been to enter into distribution agreements with craft breweries, and then over time acquire majority ownership stakes in the craft brewery. Before Goose Island, A-B did this with Redhook from Seattle and Widmer Brothers from Portland (through which A-B had a distribution agreement with Goose Island).

Here’s the challenge, though, for growing craft brewers and for A-B: once the craft brewer is acquired by A-B, lots of the people who make up the craft brewer’s traditional market lose interest. Almost all consumption goods are multi-dimensional, and beer is no exception — those who form the traditional market for craft beers value two dimensions that diminish when the brewery is acquired by A-B: independence and localness. Sure, the brewery is still physically operated locally, but it’s a really tough line to follow to grow nationally while maintaining the local relationships and local touch.

Independence is an interesting aspect here. For many craft brewing consumers, once the brewery is no longer independent they lose interest in the beer. Part of what those consumers are buying is, for example, what we enjoyed at Green Man Brewing in Asheville, NC over spring break: sitting at the brewery’s bar, enjoying a beer brewed on premises, and having a really engaging conversation with people who are intimately involved in the production of the beer. BTW, the Green Man IPA really, really rocks. That connection, that intimacy, gets lost as the brewery grows, and certainly is threatened if not destroyed when the brewery is acquired by A-B.

Part of this, I admit, is snobbery regarding mass-market beers, but part of that snobbery is grounded in the fact that the form creativity takes in craft brewing is often the emphasis on unusual flavors or the amplification of intense flavors (one reason why so many craft brewing consumers consider themselves “hop-heads”). Thus a lot of craft beers intentionally appeal to a small sliver of the overall market, and there’s a large concern that A-B acquisition will lead to the “watering down” of the beers and the modification of the recipes to make the flavors less distinctive or intense. But clearly the craft brewing market is growing, so is there a chance that A-B acquisition will not lead to recipe modification at Goose Island?

Another aspect of the localness is that the growth in the craft brewing industry is also manifesting itself in an increase in small local breweries. Between the local breweries in Chicago (Half Acre is in my neighborhood, and Three Floyds in northern Indiana is outstanding, and there are others; in fact, Half Acre’s web page pulls up in my browser saying “Half Acre is a LOCAL Chicago brewing company”) and our retail access to craft beers from other locations (Victory, Dogfish Head, Lagunitas, etc.), the craft brewing market is incredibly rivalrous.

If, at the margin, the sense of localness and the independence make a difference between my choosing a Half Acre Daisycutter over a Goose Island IPA, then Goose Island will be reducing some of its market in its move to increase capacity and try to acquire a larger national market. I hope that they succeed in doing so, but I do think that they will lose some customers who value independence and localness in the process.

h1

More on the trade dependence meme

April 5, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

In the Chicago Tribune, economist Allen Sanderson riffs on the same faulty “dependence” logic that I mentioned briefly last week:

I speak, of course, of our complete dependence on coffee that we are importing mainly from Brazil and Colombia. It’s time to wean ourselves from this harmful addiction. My “Coffee Independence” proposal is the key first step.

We may constitute only 5 percent of the world’s population, but we consume fully a third of the planet’s coffee. This nation runs off coffee, most all of it from a sketchy continent. Should we be cut off by one of these sources, for our caffeine fix we’d be forced to drink Coca-Cola for breakfast as well as 10 other times a day.

Read the whole thing to see just how absurd and illogical the trade “dependence” argument truly is.

h1

John asked for a cycling post …

April 4, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

… but this is an econ post too. John Whitehead was kind to refer to our November lunch conversation in which we discovered a shared interest in cycling (to go along with our shared interests in economics, environmental economics, and beer). There are some ways that even individual recreational cycling reflects core economic ideas, particularly about specialization and comparative advantage (don’t even get me started on the economics and strategy of professional cycling …).

Take the duration of activity, for example. From exercise physiology we learn that we have differentiated muscle fibers, categorized roughly into fast twitch and slow twitch. Fast twitch are the muscle fibers that engage for quick bursts, working with the anaerobic energy system in sprints and other short but intense activities. Slow twitch are the muscle fibers that enable you to work aerobically, over long distances and durations. Different people possess these types of muscle fibers in different proportions (think of that as your initial endowment), and you can develop more of one or the other at the margin, but given your initial endowment, you are going to have a predisposition toward one or the other. Just as in talking about trade and exchange, this predisposition has a lot to do with comparative advantage.

More after the cut … Read the rest of this entry ?

h1

Law does not evolve apace with economic dynamism

April 4, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

At Reason Brian Doherty reports on home gardeners in Oakland being fined for zoning violations when they sell produce, and their being required to spend a lot of money to acquire commercial permits.

Bob Dylan, prophet for his generation: even your home garden absolutely is against the law–at least if you dare let any of its produce exchange for cash with a fellow inmate in the open-air prison of America.

Reason also featured an article from Baylen Linnekin about food trucks in the April issue. Speaking about food truck regulations and permits in DC,

“You also need to get a permit for your cart or your truck from the Department of Health,” says Shapiro. “But they don’t give out any more permits. The Department of Health has capped the amount of food-vending permits. And you cannot get one. The waiting list is even closed. But it was 10 or 15 years’ wait. It’s impossible to get a food vending permit from the city.…If you want to get a permit for your cart or truck, you cannot do it.”

Surely there must be some way? “No,” confirms Zoe Tobin, associate press secretary with the city health department. “The number of permits is capped under the city’s administrative code,” Tobin explains. “The city council would have to change the administrative code in order for there to be more permits available.” Unless city legislators act, the city’s vendor permit ceiling will stay capped at 3,100 renewable two-year permits and 1,000 seasonal permits.

We have the same problems in Chicago, and they are becoming increasingly apparent as food trucks grow in popularity with the chef crowd. In Chicago you can only operate a food truck if you have cooked the food in a stationary kitchen that has been inspected by the Department of Health (and in Evanston you can only operate a food truck if you already operate a bricks-and-mortar restaurant; regulatory entry barrier, anyone …?).

Furthermore, the Chicago Health Department has also taken to raiding shared kitchens. There are a couple of people who own commercial kitchens and who rent out space in that kitchen. Think about the economics of this and the growth of social media: if you are a small-scale chef but you have a loyal, core following, and you can, say, use Twitter to share information about where to buy your sandwiches/cupcakes/confections etc., you may have a viable business if you can economize on the infrastructure and capital costs of setting up a commercial kitchen. But the Department of Health doesn’t just require the kitchen owner to have an inspection and permit; it requires every single person who uses the kitchen to have a separate permit and inspection (and pay a separate fee, naturally). Notice the illogical foundation of this policy in this context — different chefs may use different parts of the kitchen, but they may also use the same parts at different times of day (the economics of this is similar to hotel rooms, electricity transmission, airline seats, ice skating rinks, anything where capacity utilization of infrastructure is a core issue). It would be in the owner’s interest to ensure the health practices of her renters, and the Department of Health could enforce compliance at lower cost by random inspections that could occur at any time of day. But no, they have to raise business costs by requiring every single renter to have a separate permit.

The Chicago Department of Health has ruined more than a few promising small food businesses with this policy; when they raid a shared kitchen and find a renter without a permit they destroy all of the prepared food and food inputs on the premises.

We can apply this example to a broader general point: law does not evolve apace with economic dynamism. The combination of increasing rents and the aggressive rivalry in the restaurant industry with technological change has induced chefs to be creative and look for alternative business models, such as food trucks and tweeting routes and locations to potential customers. The inherent incentive to maintain a healthy cooking space so you can continue to get word-of-mouth and repeat business exists, but is ignored and undermined by onerous health regulations that do not adapt to these changes, allegedly because they are “protecting the public interest”, but really because bureaucracies innovate slowly, if at all. The Department of Health suffers no cost, harm, or penalty if they drive entrepreneurs out of the city, so there’s no natural check on their exercise of power.

h1

Market design helps people attain goals effectively

April 3, 2011

Michael Giberson

Harvard economic systems designer Al Roth is profiled in the Boston Globe:

Academically speaking, Roth is a pioneer of so-called market design: finding situations where a market is failing — often, a place that most people wouldn’t even recognize as a market — and making it work better. Roth has influenced a cadre of young, energetic market designers, many of whom have taken up prominent positions at top universities. Inspired by Roth’s work, these rising economists are also setting their sights on real-world problems. Some are looking at dating websites; others are interested in how universities could do better at scheduling their students’ classes. Like Roth, all of them envision a world in which economists, as unlikely as it may seem, are recognized as society’s mechanics.

Some market-oriented people will react negatively to the idea of “economists … as society’s mechanics,” but the negative reaction is based on a misunderstanding. Roth is no central planner. The point is to rework organizations so that participants in those organizations can more effectively achieve their goals.

When most people think of economics, they think of money — the study of how much things cost and why. Roth distinguishes himself by being more interested in situations where money plays little or no role — for instance, the process that determines who among the thousands of patients awaiting kidney transplants nationwide should receive the small number of organs that are available. As a society, we’ve decided we’re not comfortable with people selling their organs, so some other system — some other kind of market — is required. And a market, in Roth’s view, does not necessarily come down to prices, nor is it always ruled by simple principles like supply and demand: As long as people are competing with each other to get what they want, then resources are being allocated, and that means economists should be thinking about it.

One response to the lack of markets for transplantable kidneys is to agitate for change, to advocate lifting the regulations that prevent it. (Same for bone marrow.) These are good ideas. While we wait for society to get over its squeamishness at allowing compensation to donors, Roth’s kidney exchange is enabling more people to obtain transplants now. And Roth’s work on repugnance in markets is helping probe the reasons many people are reluctant to let markets work in this realm, so useful to advocates for change.

A by-product of working in areas where money plays little or no role is becoming sensitized to the role that money plays when it is allowed:

The trouble is that when you can’t rely on prices to stand in for value, things get complicated. In typical markets, “Money finds the matches,” said Utku Ünver, an associate professor of economics at Boston College who has collaborated with Roth on projects. “But when there’s no money, there’s lots of friction, and there are lots of things that may cause these markets to fail and not function efficiently.”

When you can’t use prices to express how much something’s worth, in other words, figuring out who should get what becomes a complicated business. “That’ll kill your economics 101 market real quick,” said [MIT economist Robert] Gibbons. “Al comes along to help you with situations where you’re not allowed to use the price mechanism.”

 

h1

Kauffman econ bloggers forum today!

April 1, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

Live! Here! Now! The annual Kauffman Foundation Econ Bloggers Forum is being webcast today, until 11:30 CDT and then again 1:00-4:00 CDT. A lineup of great speakers; I was unable to attend last year, but greatly enjoyed the event two years ago. I think Bryan Caplan is about to speak …

I will be participating remotely via video web conference link, talking about the economic and moral aspects of why I am not flying and why I’m not there in person, riffing off of my earlier post about the TSA and its immoral, illegal, wasteful and inefficient policies.

h1

Onion: fruit, vegetable, or economics rag?

April 1, 2011

Michael Giberson

What is the deal with Yahoo Answers? Someone asks whether an onion is a fruit or vegetable, and the voted “best answer” says “An onion is a bulb.” What?

Also, I’d be remiss in not sharing this:

Continued Existence Of Edible Arrangements Disproves Central Tenets Of Capitalism

WALLINGFORD, CT—Upending more than two centuries of free-market theory, leading economists across the globe announced Thursday that the fundamental principles of capitalism had been “irrefutably disproved” by the continued existence of the designer fruit-basket company Edible Arrangements.

According to experts, the Connecticut-based franchise, which arranges skewered pieces of fruit into displays vaguely resembling floral bouquets, has defied all modern economic models, expanding continuously for the past decade despite its complete lack of any discernible consumer appeal.

“In theory, the market should have done away with Edible Arrangements long ago,” said American Economic Association president Orley Ashenfelter, who added that one of the crucial assumptions of capitalism is the idea that businesses producing undesired goods or services will fail. “That’s how it’s supposed to work. Yet somehow, despite offering no product of any worth whatsoever, this company not only makes payroll every week, but also generates strong profits.”

“It’s mind-boggling,” Ashenfelter continued. “I honestly have never even heard the name Edible Arrangements mentioned in conversation before. Seriously, has anyone?”

Upon examining the so-called Edible Arrangements paradox, economists worldwide have abandoned many of the ideas that have dominated economic thought since the time of Adam Smith, arguing that the forces of supply and demand are powerless to explain the company’s 45-piece line of officially licensed NASCAR-themed fruit bouquets.

There’s more. Not not-from-the-Onion.

I was reluctant to dump Adam Smith et al. until the sentence about the “45-piece line of officially licensed NASCAR-themed fruit bouquets.” If true, then mind boggling.

(If you really want to know, click here, but trust me this is a red pill/blue pill moment. There is no going back and you may not want to know how deep the rabbit hole goes.)

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 39 other followers