Skip to main content

You Always Hurt The Ones You Love

I often write of the unintended consequences of government intervention in markets. Most of these unintended consequences stem from regulations (or selective de-regulation) that results in a government putting its thumb on the scales of the market, and distorting real prices. The general mechanism is as follows:

1) Price is determined in the market for a given good.

2) The price for this good is too high for some people to pay.

3) The government wishes these people to have that good as well, and creates a subsidy for these people to acquire the good.

4) The price of the good rises, because it is guaranteed a market based on the subsidy, establishing a new, higher, baseline price for the good.

4a) The more desirable the good, the more likely it is that the increase in price will match the increase in subsidy. Thus pricing more people out of the market for it, and creating more need for government subsidy.

5) Go to step 1.

---They Can Have Any Color They Want, So Long As It's Green---

Michael G. Franc tipped me off to March 30th's Dept. of Transportation press release:
U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced today that the Department of Transportation has posted the new fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks for the 2011 model year…

On January 26, 2009, President Barack Obama directed the Department of Transportation to review relevant legal, technological, and scientific considerations associated with establishing more stringent fuel economy standards, and to finalize the 2011 model year standard by the end of March.

He goes on to quote the Detroit News:
Stricter fuel economy standards….for the 2011 model year will cost struggling auto companies nearly $1.5 billion and boost the cost of passenger vehicles an average of $64 for cars and $126 for light trucks.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said the additional vehicle cost will be recouped by buyers of pickups, SUVs and minivans, through fuel savings, in an average of 7.7 years. Passenger car buyers will recover that cost in an average of 4.4 years.

In a recent post I ask if consumers really will recoup these costs? I don't think so. It is more likely that the price of gasoline will rise to make up the ground we "gained". Remember that oil production is largely controlled to match an acceptable level of profit for oil companies. To many of us, however, the amount of gas we consume is largely a fixed cost (see step 4a), and can't be easily adjusted without purchasing yet another car.

Go to step 1.

How many times do we have to watch this cycle repeated, from college tuition prices, to health care costs, to energy prices? Even when our hearts are in the right place, we're hurting the very people we are trying to help the most when we close our eyes and try to wish away the laws of supply and demand.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

COVID-19 and the Tools We Need to Re-open Wisely

There's a lot of graphs and stats that the news is throwing at people right now. So much so, that you can get information overload trying to make sense of the statistics that have meaning. To quote my old Econometrics professor, "There are three types of lies: 'Lies', 'Damned Lies', and 'Statistics' ". I should also lead with the caveat that I'm an engineer and data nerd by trade, but I'm not an epidemiologist. I welcome feedback from those who have more experience than I do. The most important question we're trying to answer (at least here in Michigan), is "How are we doing?", and "When can we reopen our economy?". With respect to those questions, here's my take on the most important data, and some caveats about what these data are telling us. The four most cited data in news stories are: Total Number of Cases Daily New Cases. Total Number of Deaths Daily New Deaths This post will talk about #1 and #2

The Re-Opening Experiment

We should remind ourselves that, this Memorial Day weekend and the weeks that follow, we are subjects in a grand experiment to see how good we are at social distancing as stay-at-home orders are being slowly lifted. The state's stay-at-home order was never meant to keep you, individually, safe from infection. It was meant to keep hospital's safe from being overwhelmed by too many of us needing them at the same time. In Michigan, the daily new cases of COVID-19 are higher today than they were when we locked down in late March. We are testing whether or not we can open up (with all of our new precautions and protocols) without spiking the rate of spread, but make no mistake: it *is* an experiment, and we *are* the test subjects. Please don't get careless as things start to open up. We need to get our economies back on track, but we are still a long way (and a vaccine away) from being out of the woods. Stay vigilant, folks. Wash your hands. Wear a mask. As has always been the

What Advice Would You Give Your Younger Self?

An old friend recently reached out to me (and presumably others) and asked us what advice we'd give our younger selves, particularly at ages 20, 30 and 40. After writing my response to him, I thought it worth posting myself as well.  The substantive bulk of my response to him follows: ----- The difficult thing is that I really wouldn't change a thing about who I am, so any call for advice feels a bit like a time-traveler scenario where my advice to a younger self would affect the outcome of my present life, and I'm not sure I'd risk it. My experiences shaped me, including the glaring mistakes, and I wouldn't trade places today with anyone on Earth. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics here, and thus assume I won't mess my own (present) life up. Wibbly-Wobbly. Timey-Wimey. It is also important to note that the question is "What advice would you give your younger self?". The a