Friday, March 19, 2004
ANGER AND ELECTION-YEAR POLITICSSharon Begley's Science Journal appears in each Friday's WSJ and is usually a good way to start the weekend. Today, she cites recent Behavioral Economics research by CMU's Jennifer Lerner on shopping ("How Do You Keep The Public Shopping? Just Make People Sad"). Begley also notes, "Last year, researchers found that anger makes people assess situations more optimistically, downplaying risks and overestimating potential benefits ..." And, "Manipulating customers' emotions to make them overpay (Piping dirges into used-car lots? Running clips of Beth's death scene in 'Little Women'?) is ethically dodgy."
At least two other opinion pieces in today's WSJ cite the anger of John Kerry (before him, Howard Dean) and speculate on the reasons. One columnist ascribes Dems' anger to the way the 2000 election ended. Demagogery may smell ethically dodgy but we usually avoid the label, perhaps expecting less of our politicians than of our sales people.
The insight of Public Choice economics is that political actions can be explained by economic motives. Does this extend to Behavioral Economics? Probably not? Have the Democratic candidates concluded that angry voters will be more likely to take risks -- and vote for them?
The CMU lab experiments were low-cost. The one unfolding before our eyes is much more expensive.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
OIL FOR FOODThe WSJ op-ed page has been running a variety of pieces re the UN's Iraq oil-for-food sham. Other major outlets have, to this point, avoided the topic.
I have always wondered about the left's fascination with "the international community". Hans Blix noted on the Jim Lehrer news last night that a Security Council-sanctioned "action" (his word) in Iraq would have been "legitimate". Are all of the voting members at the UN (Security Council and other councils) "legitimate"? The last time I looked, some members in good standing countenanced slavery, repression, torture and all sorts of human rights abuses. Nevertheless, the Blix view is now part of the anti-war mantra.
Countries that respect human dignity have their differences, yet a consensus from this bloc would be a much more plausible basis for the label "legitimate". If there has to be a UN-type group, how about one without the thugs? How to screen them? The EU screens applicants, as does the OECD and many other international groups. Applicants have even been known to work on cleaning up their act. Imperfect and arguable but vastly preferable to today's UN.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
LIFESTYLE CENTERS DOWNTOWNFast-paced change in US cities has many dimensions. Traditional downtowns have mostly been downsizing for years while planners and politicians have mounted programs to reverse the trend. Many of these have failed or been too pricey to be worth imitating.
At the same time, Americans' shopping habits are fast evolving; we now visit "lifestyle centers" where we can shop, meet, relax, etc. Developers savvy enough to fathom our evolving culture have facilitated this consumer-driven trend. Even many supermarkets aspire to become such centers and are undergoing facelifts that include adding mini-coffee bars, delis, wine shops, ATMs, flower shops; some even have massage therapists to deflect the stresses of shopping.
The privatization option has even been discovered in some of the traditional downtowns. Google Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and get approximately 16,000 hits. These are public-private ventures, abetted by favorable rules that (depending on local particulars) feed some revenues to private groups, allowing them to be innovative about their downtown neighborhoods. The results include some new oases, including lifestyle centers downtown. It may not be our fathers' downtown and it is part of the broad downscaling trend but it sure beats traditional ham-fisted renewal.
All that has recently been written about the new Times Square suggests it includes some of both.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
THE BAD GUYS WIN ONEA special queasiness sets in when, in rapid succession, innocents are murdered and maimed by the hundreds and thousands, the brew of European anti-Americanism and craveness kicks in, and (as represented by this morning's LA Times lead editorial) we are told once again that its all our own fault. Go with the UN and the "international community" (of oil-for-food corruption and sham fame), treat it all like a law enforcement matter, and they will leave us alone.
This was the view in 1939, through much of the Cold War, and (in some quarters) after 9/11. University "teach-ins" were held to let us know that we are the real culprits.
This goes much deeper than I can fathom. Many people cannot unlink prosperity from shame. If we live well, we must be doing something wrong. Zero-sum is a deeply held and widespread view.
Monday, March 15, 2004
WHERE ARE THE JOBS? This has become the political and punditry question of the season. Writing in the WSJ last week, Robert Barro addressed it -- and the related question of disparities between the payroll and household surveys. He raised and dismissed various possible explanations. One of these was the rise of self-employment in the age of eBay (not likely to show up in the payroll survey).
The longer-run trend is perhaps more interesting. The BEA's REIS data show a steady rise in the share of non-farm proprietor jobs, from 10.5% in 1969 to 15.5% in 2001. Which regions and states lead? The red states? Which counties lead? The red counties? Anyone buying election futures may want to think about all this. Trouble is that productive people are often too busy to vote.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
TRADE-OFFS FOR PROGRESSIVESIf the post-Cold War left prefers the label Progressive, that's their choice. More interestingly, those who have lived happily in a world of no trade-offs where all sorts of "sustainability" agenda items were thought to be free lunches, have now bumped into one within their own ranks. Sierra Club factions are again stuck on immigration. Having embraced the idea that they can control the future, including international flows of labor and capital, they now find themselves facing charges of "bigotry" from their peers (Rebecca Solnit expressed it this way in Friday's LA Times).
They may have trouble computing the economic costs of barriers, but they are expert at detecting "ethnic bigotry" and the like. It's not easy being Green.
