« Kindle edition of *Create Your Own Economy* | Main | Twitter search of the day »
Assorted links
1. Ezra Klein's new food column.
2. Washington Post markets in everything? The paper has yet to respond, so do be aware there may be another side to this story.
4. 1959.
5. The Kissing Experiment (2009).
6. The end of free banking in contemporary China.
7. California: The Haves and Have-Nots.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 2, 2009 at 10:08 AM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
Ezra Klein's new food column. Let me guess: Glib, superficial musings on the science of food and farming where he appoints himself technocrat without making even a cursory attempt to consider what complexities lead others to opposing viewpoints.
<checks column>
Bingo!
Posted by: Josh at Jul 2, 2009 10:57:46 AM
"I find it hard to believe that none of the liberal commentators breathlessly celebrating Wal-Mart's "capitulation" on national health care have even entertained the most parsimonious explanation: that Wal-Mart is in favor of this because it raises the barriers to entry in the retail market, and hammers Wal-Mart's competition."
Not that I listen to all of them, but I've never seen a liberal commentator acknowledge this concept. Surely, the smartest of them must understand it. However, even capitalists often don't appear to fully understand the nature of competition.
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 2, 2009 10:58:42 AM
McArdle seems to rule out the possibility that there is more than one reason why Wal-Mart decided to shape the process from the inside. But even if there's only one reason, its financial interests, that's enough of a reason to get involved. I go back and forth with being skeptical of a company like Walmart, but suffice it to say that if the company isn't out merely to sabotage any reform efforts from within, it's a positive development.
Also, McArdle is as vague as possible when she suggests that the company could shape the rules to lock out competitors. I would imagine that's certainly a possibility, but exactly how is it going to be accomplished? Perhaps if she can't say, she shouldn't be suggesting.
Posted by: Brian J at Jul 2, 2009 11:09:29 AM
"but suffice it to say that if the company isn't out merely to sabotage any reform efforts from within, it's a positive development."
I would take sabotaging the reform effort as a positive thing. I much prefer their other method of helping - providing low cost clinics and prescriptions.
I can't help feeling if we've lost Walmart on this, things are going to hit the fan soon.
Posted by: Td at Jul 2, 2009 11:54:40 AM
Essentially, Walmart decided to pay the protection money.
Posted by: Rich Berger at Jul 2, 2009 12:16:08 PM
Brian, she makes it perfectly clear that a large company like walmart can disproportionately afford to pay large fixed costs.
Posted by: Alex J. at Jul 2, 2009 12:29:34 PM
It may even be a cost savings for Wal-Mart which already has a national base and must deal with state regulation diversity while a competitor would start in one state and would have to deal with national regulations. Sweet.
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 2, 2009 12:46:17 PM
Walmart is run by morons who don't see the most profitable path forward for themselves.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Jul 2, 2009 12:55:12 PM
"Brian, she makes it perfectly clear that a large company like walmart can disproportionately afford to pay large fixed costs."
"Fixed costs" compared to what? It's Walmart's bet that Target, another "large company" won't be able to afford a government insurance mandate, at least according to this post at Cato.
Posted by: Eric H at Jul 2, 2009 1:04:05 PM
"I much prefer their other method of helping - providing low cost clinics and prescriptions."
And how is that ruled out by what's happening?
"Brian, she makes it perfectly clear that a large company like walmart can disproportionately afford to pay large fixed costs."
What specifically are you trying to say?
Posted by: Brian J at Jul 2, 2009 1:22:57 PM
"Walmart is run by morons who don't see the most profitable path forward for themselves."
Really, Yancey? WMT is the largest private employer in the USA, has one of the most sophisticated inventory and distribution management systems in the world, and had net income over $12 billion each of the last 3 years. Maybe they're not morons?
Posted by: David Whitaker at Jul 2, 2009 1:29:40 PM
I wonder for how many cents to the dollar California IOUs will be sold.
Posted by: Floyd B. Pishko at Jul 2, 2009 1:35:53 PM
"And how is that ruled out by what's happening?"
Brian,
Not to be snide, but to be snide, have you pondered the fact you are commenting on a blog called "Marginal Revolution"?
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 2, 2009 2:21:53 PM
David,
Sarcasm.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Jul 2, 2009 2:35:30 PM
Tyler,
I'm now in California, and I'm feeling at home. Months ago I told you how quickly California was becoming like my Argentina. You should write about the issue of IOUs as fake money, as it happened several times in Argentina (the first one I remember was at the national level in 1962, and then there were some at the provincial level during the late 1980s and the "patacon" issued by the Provincial Government of Buenos Aires in 2001, just before the collapse of December 2001). Your reader Floyd B. Pishko asks a good question but the answer depends mainly on the IOUs being accepted to pay state taxes.
I hope you also write about the cost/benefit analysis of California issuing its own money. California needs a large devaluation a la Argentina but the economists that usually write about the net benefit for small countries (much smaller than California) to have their own monies have said nothing. Please don't tell me that California cannot legally issue its own currency--just look at the many think that the Fed and national government have done to bail out banks and companies.
Posted by: E. Barandiaran at Jul 2, 2009 3:03:41 PM
As I read McArdle column, I was struck by the irony that many of those who defend Wal-Mart for its hard bargaining on prices for everything, dictating to suppliers what they must do to be a supplier, and so on, are also often the defenders of high drug prices and protest any efforts to restrict the practices of the drug makers, defending their high prices and profits as necessary to be leaders in product development.
So, let's see, a US corporation that won't cut overhead, marketing, research and development, and move its operations overseas as demanded by Wal-Mart is just not fit to compete in today's globalized world.
But to allow Medicare or any state government health plan negotiate to buy drugs from overseas suppliers if necessary to drive down the costs of drugs to those they cover is an insult to the free market, and besides that will destroy the competitive edge the US has in product development. The high prices of drugs in the US is required to develop new innovative products and this is a subsidy to the rest of the world which can't be counted on to match US invention and innovation.
The wonders of being able to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time without seeing the contradiction.
Shouldn't all medical costs be negotiated with the same vigor as Wal-Mart negotiates its prices with suppliers? And why shouldn't the government be the lead negotiator, hiring former Wal-Mart buyer to show how to do the job most aggressively?
Posted by: mulp at Jul 2, 2009 4:09:12 PM
About "1959" :
Librarians Mary Kelly and Holly Hibner are smug fools.
Their idiotic snickering at books from the past because they do not conform to contemporary PC ideology is a disgrace.
That they want to "weed" moving and interesting books from a bygone era is a tragedy.
Who said "When I hear about destruction of culture, I want to reach for my
Avtomat Kalashnikova Sorok Cem " ?
Posted by: AK-47 at Jul 2, 2009 4:09:39 PM
Another thought. Democrats are willing to negotiate costs and drive hard bargains.
Republicans are the ones who support paying higher payments to insurers offering Medicare Advantage Plans than it costs Medicare and its patients for Medicare, Medigap, and Part D plans AS A FREE MARKET MEANS OF REDUCING MEDICARE COSTS; and that defend restrictions on imports of drugs, and restrictions on hard bargaining with drug makers to drive down drug prices.
Who do you think Wal-Mart would prefer to be defining the rules for national health care cost control?
Strange bedfellows indeed.
Posted by: mulp at Jul 2, 2009 4:20:02 PM
"Not to be snide, but to be snide, have you pondered the fact you are commenting on a blog called "Marginal Revolution"?"
Not really. I understand the title and its relation to what is posted here. But sometimes, to me at least, people aren't clear, so I ask them to be specific and elaborate.
Posted by: Brian J at Jul 2, 2009 4:27:22 PM
Point being, one penny of added marginal cost for labor would be the wrong direction.
I think Wal-Mart is probably happy with it's own ability to bargain for low drug prices.
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 2, 2009 6:54:58 PM
Thanks to all who participated in the kissing experiment. The polls are now closed, but my associated cognitive neuroscience experiment begins next week. You can follow the research live on Twitter @TheKissingBook.
Posted by: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum at Jul 2, 2009 10:10:31 PM
"Point being, one penny of added marginal cost for labor would be the wrong direction."
Perhaps. But if it can figure out a way to ensure more of its employees have insurance at a reasonably low price, one of its biggest public relations problems goes away. It's extremely hard to put a number on that, but I'd bet it's big.
"I think Wal-Mart is probably happy with it's own ability to bargain for low drug prices."
There's more to insurance than drug prices. Besides, even if there was an employer mandate, this wouldn't go away. The incentive to drive down costs might even be enhanced.
Posted by: Brian J at Jul 2, 2009 11:34:27 PM
Thanks to all who participated in the kissing experiment. The polls are now closed,
And thanks for linking to this AFTER the pictures were removed. Sheesh.
Posted by: anon at Jul 3, 2009 8:04:47 AM
Here are lots of pictures of kissing (safe for work):
Posted by: anon at Jul 3, 2009 8:31:15 AM
"The end of free banking in China"? How come?
Posted by: Han at Jul 3, 2009 9:14:58 AM
