Wednesday, September 24, 2008

 

Tyler Cowen Endorses (?!) Blowing Up Homes

I have been good for a few days, and avoided my nervous tic of ridiculing Tyler Cowen's blog posts. (This is mostly because I think he's been good on opposing the Paulson Plan.) However, I cannot bite my tongue when he today writes this:

So I have a modest proposal. The Fed/Treasury can identify those parts of the country with the most foreclosures. They can buy or confiscate empty homes in those areas and destroy them. That will raise the price of the remaining homes. Anyone who is otherwise about to default could then sell the home at a high enough price (fingers crossed) to get out of the deal alive. This would stop home prices from falling and it would limit the number of future defaults.


You might think he's kidding, especially with the Swift allusion, but in context I don't think he is. And...how can I put this?...Tyler has said crazier things in his day.

Something is seriously wrong when one of the leading (and smartest) free market economists recommends that the government start destroying buildings in order to help the economy.

Another symptom of this general messed-up-itude: What is the deal with everyone contrasting the financial markets with the "real economy"?? In the real economy, financial markets really are important. If a strange virus suddenly killed off all the people working in advertising, would the analysts wring their hands over whether this would influence "actual output"? What about truckers? They don't actually make stuff, they just move it around, right?

So who are these "real" producers? Farmers and entertainers? Hair stylists?



Comments:
I don't think advertising is a very good example. While advertising does entertain, inform, and grow markets, it also involves companies wasting resources fighting over fixed market share. In a sense, rent-seeking for consumer's attention. Coke & Pepsi advertising in the US, for example - it's not like anyone doesn't know about Coke & Pepsi, so arguably their spending is mostly just wasted. While it's nothing compared to the public sector, as industries go, advertising is pretty bad in this regard.

It frustrates me that libertarians often seem to assume that any consensual industry must be purely positive sum, when in fact there are lots of situations, like advertising well-known products, in which resources are being wasted.
 
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080923/capt.e753cbc85b7e440699d4a69e1e93265b.mccain_2008_misag203.jpg?x=400&y=292&q=85&sig=bo4kukrsayxhZ8VolNwYvw--

Is there something just WEIRD about the slogan on his podium?
 
If advertising meant nothing, then we'd all be enjoying a much tastier RC Cola.
 
And it's frustrating to me when people equate "inefficiency" with "removable inefficiency". What about the inefficiencies from arbitrarily (yes that is how it will appear to market participants) saying to certain groups, "you may not advertise, we figgered the market there is basically saturated, and you didn't give enough to our campaign..."?

Plus, I get to withhold money from Coca-cola :=D
 
Patri said:

I don't think advertising is a very good example.

Actually I think it's a great example, since even a big gun like you underestimates its importance. :)

Do you think it's a waste of resources when companies pay graphic artists to design cool logos for their products?

(Don't worry, I see the distinction between your arguments and--possibly--that of designing cool logos. But I'm wondering how far we can push your viewpoint.)
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]