Monthly Archives: May 2021

Work vs. Alms: Sympathy For the Faustian Bargain-Takers

26 Wednesday May 2021

Posted by in Minimum Wage, Welfare State

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Mark Judge says he understands the real importance of #WeAreClosed, a hashtag that’s attained some popularity on Twitter in support of those having to choose between a return to low-paying jobs or continued unemployment benefits. Judge is a conservative author and an old high school friend of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. His notoriety soared in 2018 during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. Christine Blasey Ford, who alleged that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than 30 years before, said Judge had been in the room at the time. Judge offered to cooperate with investigators but denied any memory of the incident, and he was never compelled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Temptation of Joe Lunchpail

I often agree with Judge’s points of view, but not so much in the case of “We Are Closed”. I don’t think he’s identified the right problem or the right villain. He expresses sympathy for those who toil at jobs like dishwashing — and apparently he worked as a dishwasher in the not too distant past. I sympathize as well. It’s tough to make ends meet working a low-wage job. Judge views health insurance as indispensable, and that can take a big chunk out of a low earner’s paycheck. Child care can take another big chunk.

Of course, it’s easy to understand the dilemma faced by these potential re-entrants to the labor force. Under normal circumstances, a worker who is laid off or furloughed can expect to have 30% to 50% of their lost wages replaced by unemployment compensation, depending on the state. That’s somewhere between $500 to $850 a month for a worker earning $10 an hour. COVID assistance now adds another $300 a month, though a number of states will soon end those extended benefits. Still, for now, the extra $300 means the $10/hour worker can replace 50% to 70% of their income if they remain out of work. Rental assistance may also be available due to unemployment or a loss of income. Also, Obamacare premiums are subsidized at low income levels.

In addition to the incremental effect of a decision not to work, all those earning less than $75,000 a year are receiving checks for $1,400. It’s not dependent on being out of work, but it’s a cushion that might convince fence-sitters that marginal wages are not worthwhile for the time being. Any rational individual will weigh public aid against the prospect of a boring, physically demanding, low-wage position.

For the Intercession of Saintly Bosses

Judge cites Henry Ford as the kind of enlightened employer we need more of today. The story goes that Ford wanted his line workers to be able to afford the vehicles they produced, and he did pay his line workers more than the prevailing wage. After all, the technology he implemented made his workers highly productive. However, that he paid them enough to buy Model Ts is something of a myth. And paying employees on any basis other than their productivity is generally a bad business model.

Clearly Judge has large corporations in mind: “Companies that make millions in profit and have high-earning CEOs …” should pay their workers more, he says. It’s foolish to take the position that those “millions” represent some kind of fun money. While high profits surely reflect monopoly power or ill-gotten rents in some cases, my baseline assumption is that profits are necessary to attract the capital needed to maintain and grow a business. And CEO pay is a cheap target: high-level managerial talent is in very short supply. It’s an extremely competitive corner of the labor market, and one seldom gets there via shear nepotism, as Judge implies, or they won’t last long.

Large firms have traditionally paid premium wages. That might be a consequence of more rigorous screening of hires, and certainly large firms tend to have more productive capital per worker. There is some evidence that the large firm wage premium has diminished more recently. Still, if large firms made a regular practice of extracting excess profits by underpaying workers, that wage premium would be negative!

Recently we’ve seen several large corporations make waves by hiking wages in the relatively low-wage retail and food service industries. This includes Amazon, Costco (which has notoriously high labor productivity), Target, WalMart, and Chipotle. This is not so much a matter of enlightenment as it is a reaction to tight labor market conditions exacerbated by the #WeAreClosed” attitude.

Lucifer’s Leviathan

I’d like to cut Judge plenty of slack. He seems to understand work incentives, and he clearly believes work is more fulfilling and socially beneficial than life on the dole. He doesn’t advocate for a higher legal minimum or so-called “living wage”, at least not that I’m aware. Nevertheless, it’s important to note in this context that while a higher wage floor would help certain workers, it would harm the least productive and most needy, who are likely to lose hours or even their jobs if the pay rate threatens to exceed their contribution to output. Then there is the inevitable substitution of capital for labor, as automation becomes a more favorable alternative to higher wage payments. Those workers who keep their jobs may find deteriorated working conditions, as there are many margins along which employers are able to compensate for a higher wage. That includes the most obvious: higher customer prices. However, many small firms facing stiff competition might not be able to manage that. In the end, wage floors really don’t help the working poor, who pay higher prices and might well lose hours or their jobs.

Democrats have been unsuccessful in attaching a higher minimum wage to the Biden infrastructure bill, but they are using the post-pandemic labor shortage as a talking point in favor of putting it back in. It’s also being used in state-level negotiations over minimum wage legislation. Beefed-up COVID relief for workers, as well as the scare tactics regarding continuing COVID risks to workers, have helped to engineer tight labor market conditions and a higher reservation wage among potential workers. Firms are being forced to pay up or go without staff. The largest players with financial reserves may be only too willing to go along with it — we’ve already seen some evidence of that, which puts their smaller competitors in a real bind.

The conundrum faced by low-wage workers in the post-pandemic labor market just might offer a clue as to the impact of a universal basic income on labor force participation. That would bring us full circle to the point at which some will simply choose not to work. Unfortunately, politicians need only hear “Do Something!” to inspire incredibly crackpot policy initiatives. And that way lays the Beast!

The Final Judgement

I’m not sure Judge thought much about the market consequences of ongoing COVID relief or public aid in general. He’d like to see a higher equilibrium wage rate, but he’d surely have mixed feelings about the advantage it confers to large firms at the expense of small ones, given the strong sympathies and antipathies he expresses in his post.

Manual labor is hard! But in the end, low-wage earners who apply themselves and gain job experience can look forward to better things. It’s up to them to seek out the best employment relationship they can. Insisting that firms pay workers more than their productive value is not helpful. If anything, it may buttress political support for governments to impose wage mandates. Public efforts to “help” workers are at best uneven in their effects, helping some workers and harming others. That goes for minimum wages and many forms of public aid, especially the unconditional variety. Judge’s sympathies for those having to choose between returning to work and collecting aid are understandable, but they reflect the sad consequences of the knee-jerk temptation to offer public alms to those presently living and working below their aspirations.

What’s To Like About Income Inequality?

22 Saturday May 2021

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What’s to like about inequality?

That depends on how it happened and on the conditions governing its future evolution. Inequality is a fact of life, and no social or economic system known to man can avoid or eliminate it. It’s “bad” in the sense that “not everybody gets a prize,” but inequality in a free market economic system arises out of the same positive dynamic that fosters achievement in any kind of competition. Even the logic underlying the view that inequality is “bad” is not consistent: we can be more equal if the rich all lose $1,000,000 and the poor all lose $1,000, but that won’t make anyone happy.

Unequal Rewards Are Natural

Many activities contribute to general prosperity and create unequal rewards as a by-product. A capitalist system rewards knowledge, effort, creativity, and risk-taking. Those who are very good at creating value earn commensurate rewards, and in turn, they often create rewarding opportunities for others who might participate in their enterprises. A system of just incentives and rewards also requires that property rights be secure, and that implies that wealth can be accumulated more readily by those earning the greatest rewards.

Equality can be decreed only by severely restricting the rewards to productive effort, and that requires a massive imbalance of power. The state, and those who direct its actions, always have a monopoly on legal coercion. In practice, the power to commandeer value created by others means that economic benefits will waft under the noses of apparatchiks. The raw power and economic benefits usurped under such an authoritarian regime cannot be competed away, and efficiency and value are seldom prioritized by state monopolists. The egalitarian pretense thus masks its own form of extreme inequality and decline. Inequality is unavoidable in a very real sense.

Measuring Trends in Inequality

Beyond those basic truths, the facts do not support the conventional wisdom that inequality has grown more extreme. A research paper by Gerald Auten and David Splinter corrects many of the shortcomings of commonly-cited sources on income inequality. Auten works for the U.S. Treasury, and Splinter is employed by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. They find that higher transfer payments and growing tax progressivity since the early 1960s kept the top after-tax income share stable.

John Cochrane shares the details of a recent presentation made by Auten and Splinter (AS) at the Hoover Institution. A few interesting charts follow:

The blue “Piketty-Saez” (PS) line at the top uses an income measure from well-known research by Thomas Piketty and Emanuel Saez that contributed to the narrative of growing income inequality. The PS line is based on tax return information (fiscal income), but it embeds several distortions.

Realized capital gains are counted there, which misrepresents income shares because the realization of gains does not mark the point at which the true gains occur. Typically, the wealth exists before and after the gains are realized. Realized gains are often a function of changes in tax law and investor reaction to those changes. Moreover, neither realized nor unrealized gains represent income earned in production; instead, they capture changes in asset prices.

Income earned in production is about a third more than the income measure used by PS, even with the capital gains distortion. This omitted income and its allocation across earners is the subject of detailed analysis by AS. Their analysis is consistent in its focus on individual taxpayers, rather than households, which eliminates another upward bias in the PS line created by a secular decline in marriage rates. Then, AS consider the reallocation of income shares due to taxes and transfer payments. After all that, the income share of the top 1% shifts all the way down to the red line in the chart. The most recent observations put the share about where it was in the 1960s. 

The next chart shows income shares for broader segments: the top, middle, and lowest 20% of the income distribution. Taxes and transfers cause massive changes in the calculated shares and their trends over time. Again, these shares remain about where they were in the 1960s, contradicting the popular narrative that high earners are gobbling up ever larger pieces of the pie.

If income shares have remained about the same since the 1960s, that means high and low earners have made roughly equivalent income gains over that time. The next chart demonstrates that the bottom half of the income distribution has indeed seen significant growth in real incomes, despite the false impression created by PS and the common misperception of stagnant income growth among the working class. 

More Distributional Tidbits 

In a sense, all this is misleading because there is so much migration across the income distribution over time. Traditional calculations of income shares are “cross-sectional”, meaning they compare the same slices of the distribution at different points in time. But people near the low end in 1990 are not the same people near the bottom today. The same is true of those near the top and those in the middle. Income grows over time, and those lower in the distribution typically migrate upward as they age and acquire skills and work experience. Upward migration in income share is the general tendency, but there is some downward migration as well. Abandoning the cross-sectional view causes the typical story-line of rising income inequality to unravel.

There are many other interesting facts (and some great charts) in the AS paper and in Cochran’s post. One in particular shows that the average federal tax rate paid by the top 1% trended upward from the 1960s through the mid-1990s before flattening and trending slightly downward. This contradicts the assertion that high earners paid much higher taxes before the 1960s than today. In fact, the tax base broadened over that time, more than compensating for declines in marginal tax rates. 

Given the fact that more exacting measures of inequality haven’t changed much over the years, does that imply that redistributional policies have worked to keep the income distribution from worsening? That seems plausible on its face. If anything, taxes on high earners have increased, as have transfers to low earners and non-earners. Those changes appear to have offset other factors that would have led to greater inequality. However, the framing of the question is inappropriate. Maintaining a given income distribution is not a good thing if it inhibits economic growth. In fact, faster growth in production and greater well-being might well have led to a more unequal distribution of income. In other words, the whole question of offsetting inequality via redistribution is something of a chimera in the absence of a reliable counter-factual.

Wealth

Cochrane has a related post on the sources of wealth in America. Increasingly over the past few decades, wealth has been accumulated by self-made entrepreneurs, rather than through inheritance. That might come as a surprise to many on the left, to the extent that they care. Cochrane quotes Paul Graham on this point:

“In 1982 the most common source of wealth was inheritance. Of the 100 richest people, 60 inherited from an ancestor. There were 10 du Pont heirs alone. By 2020 the number of heirs had been cut in half, accounting for only 27 of the biggest 100 fortunes.

Why would the percentage of heirs decrease? Not because inheritance taxes increased. In fact, they decreased significantly during this period. The reason the percentage of heirs has decreased is not that fewer people are inheriting great fortunes, but that more people are making them.

How are people making these new fortunes? Roughly 3/4 by starting companies and 1/4 by investing. Of the 73 new fortunes in 2020, 56 derive from founders’ or early employees’ equity (52 founders, 2 early employees, and 2 wives of founders), and 17 from managing investment funds.”

The picture that emerges is one of great opportunity and dynamism. While the accumulation of massive fortunes might enrage the Left, these are the kinds of outcomes we should hope for, especially because the success of these new titans of industry is inextricably linked to tremendous value captured by their customers and lucrative opportunities for their employees. 

Here’s the best part of Cochrane’s post:

“We should not think about more or less inequality, we should think about the right amount of inequality, or productive vs. rent-seeking sources of inequality. Or, better, whether inequality is a symptom of health or sickness in the economy. Take Paul’s picture of the US economy at face value. What’s a better economy and society? One in which a few oligopolies … , deeply involved with government, run everything — think GM, Ford, IBM, AT&T, defense contractors — and it’s hard to start new innovative fast growing companies? Or the world in which the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of the world can start new companies, deliver fabulous products and get insanely rich in the process? “

No doubt about it! However, today’s tremendously successful tech entrepreneurs also give us something to worry about. They have become oligarchs capable of suppressing competitive forces through sheer market power, influence, and even control over politicians and regulators. As I said at the top, whether inequality is benign depends upon the conditions governing its evolution. And today, we see the ominous development of a corporate-state tyranny, as decried by Joel Kotkin in this excellent post. Many of the daring tech entrepreneurs who benefitted from advantages endowed by our capitalist system have become autocrats who seek to plan our future with their own ideologies and self-interest in mind.

Conclusion

For too long we’ve heard the Left bemoan an increasingly “unfair” distribution of income. This includes propaganda intended to distort poverty levels in the U.S. The fine points of measuring shifts in the income distribution show that narrative to be false. Moreover, attempting to equalize the distribution of income, or even preventing changes that might occur as a natural consequence of innovation and growth, is not a valid policy objective if our goal is to maximize economic well-being.

The worst thing about inequality is that the poorest individuals are likely to be destitute and with no ability or means of supporting themselves. There is certainly such an underclass in the U.S., and our social safety net helps keep the poorest and least capable individuals above the poverty line after transfer payments. But too often our efforts to provide support interfere with incentives for those who are capable of productive work, which is both demeaning for them and a drain on everyone else. The best prescription for improving the well-being of all is economic growth, regardless of its impact on the distribution of income or wealth.

CDC Makes a Bum Lead Steer: Alternate Reality vs. The Herd

16 Sunday May 2021

Posted by in Herd Immunity, Pandemic

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jordan Schachtel enjoyed some schadenfreude last week when he tweeted:

“I am thoroughly enjoying the White House declaring COVID over and seeing the confused cultists having a nervous breakdown and demanding the continuation of COVID Mania.”

It’s quite an exaggeration to say the Biden Administration is “declaring COVID over”, however. They’re backpedaling, and while last week’s CDC announcement on masking is somewhat welcome, it reveals more idiotic thinking about almost everything COVID: the grotesquely excessive application of the precautionary principle (typical of the regulatory mindset) and the mentality of “zero COVID”. And just listen to Joe Biden’s tyrannical bluster following the CDC announcement:

“The rule is now simple: get vaccinated or wear a mask until you do.

The choice is yours.”

Is anyone really listening to this buffoon?Unfortunately, yes. But there’s no federal “rule”, unless your on federal property; it constitutes “guidance” everywhere else. I’m thankful our federalist system still receives a modicum of respect in the whole matter, and some states have chosen their own approaches (“Hooray for Florida”). Meanwhile, the state of the pandemic looks like this, courtesy of Andy Slavitt:

False Assertions

The CDC still operates under the misapprehension that kids need to wear masks, despite mountains of evidence showing children are at negligible risk and tend not to be spreaders. Here’s some evidence shared by Phil Kerpen on the risk to children:

The chart shows the fatality risk by age (deaths per 100,000), and then under the assumption of a 97% reduction in that risk due to vaccination, which is quite conservative. Given that kind of improvement, an unvaccinated 9 year-old child has about the same risk as a fully vaccinated 30 year-old!

The CDC still believes the unvaccinated must wear masks outdoors, but unless you’re packed in a tight crowd, catching the virus outdoors has about the same odds as a piano falling on your head. And the CDC insists that two shots of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna) are necessary before going maskless, but only one shot of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, even though J&J’s is less effective than a single mRNA jab!

Other details in the CDC announcement are worthy of ridicule, but for me the most aggravating are the agency’s implicit position that herd immunity can only be achieved through vaccination, and its “guidance” that the unvaccinated should be dealt with coercively, even if they have naturally-acquired immunity from an infection!

Tallying Immunity

Vaccination is only one of several routes to herd immunity, as I’ve noted in the past. For starters, consider that a significant share of the population has a degree of pre-existing immunity brought on by previous exposure to coronaviruses, including the common cold. That doesn’t mean they won’t catch the virus, but it does mean they’re unlikely to suffer severe symptoms or transmit a high viral load to anyone else. Others, while not strictly immune, are nevertheless unlikely to be sickened due to protections afforded by healthy vitamin D levels or because they are not obese. Children, of course, tend to be fairly impervious. Anyone who’s had a bout with the virus and survived is likely to have gained strong and long-lasting immunity, even if they were asymptomatic. And finally, there are those who’ve been vaccinated. All of these groups have little or no susceptibility to the virus for some time to come.

It’s not necessary to vaccinate everyone to achieve herd immunity, nor is it necessary to reach something like an 85% vax rate, as the fumbling Dr. Fauci has claimed. Today, almost 47% of the U.S. population has received at least one dose, or about 155 million adults. Here’s Kerpen’s vax update for May 14.

Another 33 million people have had positive diagnoses and survived, and estimates of seroprevalence would add perhaps another 30 million survivors. Some of those individuals have been vaccinated unnecessarily, however, and to avoid double counting, let’s say a total of 50 million people have survived the virus. Some 35 million children in the U.S. are under age 12. Therefore, even if we ignore pre-existing immunity, there are probably about 240 million effectively immune individuals without counting the remaining non-susceptibles. At the low end, based on a population of 330 million, U.S. immunity is now greater than 70%, and probably closer to 80%. That is more than sufficient for herd immunity, as traditionally understood.

The Herd Immunity Threshold

Here and in the following section I take a slightly deeper dive into herd immunity concepts.

Herd immunity was one of my favorite topics last year. I’m still drawn to it because it’s so misunderstood, even by public health officials with pretensions of expertise in the matter. My claim, about which I’m not alone, is that it’s unnecessary for a large majority of the population to be infected (or vaccinated) to limit the spread of a virus. That’s primarily because there is great variety in individuals’ degree of susceptibility, social connections, aerosol production, and viral load if exposed: call it heterogeneity or diversity if you like. Variation across individuals naturally limits a contagion relative to a homogeneous population.

Less than 1% of those who caught the virus died, while the others recovered and acquired immunity. The remaining subset of individuals most vulnerable to severe illness was thus reduced over time via acquired immunity or death. This is the natural dynamic that causes contagions to slow and ultimately peter out. In technical jargon, the virus reproduction rate “R” falls below a value of one. The point at which that happens is called the “herd immunity threshold” (HIT).

A population with lots of variation in susceptibility will have a lower HIT. Some have estimated a HIT in the U.S. as low as 15% -25%. Ultimately, total exposure will go much higher than the HIT, perhaps well more than doubling exposure, but the contagion recedes once the HIT is reached. So again, it’s unnecessary for anywhere near the full population to be immune to achieve herd immunity.

One wrinkle is that CIVID is now likely to have become endemic. Increased numbers of cases will re-emerge seasonally in still-susceptible individuals. That doesn’t contradict the discussion above regarding the HIT rate: subsequent waves will be quite mild by comparison with the past 14 months. But if the effectiveness of vaccines or acquired immunity wanes over time, or as healthy people age and become unhealthy, re-emergence becomes a greater risk.

Sub-Herd Immunity

A further qualification relates to so-called sub-herds. People are clustered by geographical, social, and cultural circles, so we should think of society not as a singular “herd”, but as a collection of sub-herds having limited cross-connectivity. The following charts are representations of different kinds of human networks, from Nathan D. Grawe’s review of “The Rules of Contagion, by Adam Kucharski:

Sub-herd members tend to have more degrees of separation from individuals in other sub-herds than within their own sub-herd. The most extreme example is the “broken network” (where contagions could not spread across sub-herds), but there are identifiable sub-herds in all of the examples shown above. Less average connectedness across sub-herds implies barriers to transmission and more isolated sub-herd contagions.

We’ve seen isolated spikes in cases in different geographies, and there have been spikes within geographies among sub-herds of individuals sharing commonalities such as race, religious affiliation, industry affiliation, school, or other cultural affiliation. Furthermore, transmission of COVID has been dominated by “super-spreader” events, which tend to occur within sub-herds. In fact, sub-herds are likely to be more homogeneous than the whole of society, and that means their HIT will be higher than we might naively calculate based on higher levels of aggregation.

We have seen local, state, or regional contagions peak and turn down when estimates of total incidence of infections reach the range of 15 – 25%. That appears to have been enough to reach the HIT in those geographically isolated cases. However, if those geographical contagions were also concentrated within social sub-herds, those sub-herds might have experienced much higher than 25% incidence by the time new infections peaked. Again, the HIT for sub-herds is likely to be greater than the aggregate population estimates implied, The upshot is that some sub-herds might have achieved herd immunity last year but others did not, which explains the spikes in new geographic areas and even the recurrence of spikes within geographic areas.

Conclusion

It’s unnecessary for 100% of the population to be vaccinated or to have pre-existing immunity. Likewise, herd immunity does not imply that no one catches the virus or that no one dies from the virus. There will be seasonal waves, though muted by the large immune share of the population. This is not something that government should try to stanch, as that would require the kind of coercion and scare tactics we’ve already seen overplayed during the pandemic. People face risks in almost everything they do, and they usually feel competent to evaluate those risks themselves. That is, until a large segment of the population allows themselves to be infantalized by public health authorities.

It’s Time to Make Woke Corporations Hurt!

12 Wednesday May 2021

Posted by in Corporatism, Social Justice, Virtue Signaling

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s a BLM discount! You need only shout the magic words! Ah, but if “woke” corporations are sincere in their avowals to help end racial injustice, there is so much more they can do! In fact, let me describe an idea so good and rich that we really must partner with Black Lives Matter and Antifa to bring it on!

Yes, we know how much the social justice warriors of corporate America care about diversity, inclusion, and eliminating unconscious bias. Also, in their business practices, they are eager to avoid “disparate impacts” on “protected classes” of individuals. However, if they want to get serious, they need to put real money where their mouths are. The Fuzzy Logic blog (FLB) suggests that we dare corporations celebrating “wokeness” to offer free products and services to people of color (POC)!

There is a strong rationale under current law for a slightly less drastic version of this proposal. For example, in 2019, the median household income of African Americans was about 60% that of whites, but Disney charges blacks and whites the same admission price to their theme parks. That means it costs a black family proportionately more of their income than a white family to spend a day at the park in Orlando. That, my friends, is a disparate impact!

I’m not aware of any legal challenges along these lines, but it’s not as if “one price” is a business necessity, which would otherwise offer Disney a defense against such a claim. Disney already offers discounts to seniors and other groups. But why wait for the EEOC to take action when Disney can demonstrate its high-mindedness and good faith by offering race-based discounts right now?

It would be fun to see how the company reacts to pressure for that kind of action. Based on income disparities, the company could discount tickets by 40% to African Americans and by about 26% for Hispanics. Discounting should be extended to Disney Plus subscriptions as well. Those discounts can be revisited each year with appropriate adjustments until such time as income parity is achieved.

In reality, differential pricing is practiced broadly by American businesses. It’s called price discrimination, and it is generally legal. Higher prices tend to be charged to market segments with less elastic (price-sensitive) demand, and lower prices are offered to segments with more elastic demand. It is a rational and often profit-maximizing approach to pricing, but its practice tends to be more subtle than discriminating on price with respect to race or ethnicity. It’s safe to say that pressure to do so would be disruptive and unwelcome to these firms. So I still like the idea!

But again, FLB’s post goes much farther: given past injustices, why limit the reparations to a correction for the disparate impact of pricing? Something more radical is needed as this is a matter of conscience, not merely a legal hurdle to neutralize income disparities:

“These companies (and the many thousands more engaged in this woke crap) must put their own profits where their big, fat lying mouths are. There will be no government bailouts for them; they must pay for their part in condoning and pushing white supremacy for the past bazillion years, and they must pay with their own wealth, wealth they say they accumulated on the backs of black and brown people.”

Therefore, FLB insists that Disney should offer free admission and streaming on Disney Plus to certain racial and ethnic minorities for a period of several years…and free accommodations at Disney Hotels! What a tremendous show of good faith in wokeness that would be!

We’re picking on Disney, and it’s not alone in its professed racial consciousness and pursuit of equal outcomes. There are so many others! Coca-Cola could issue coupons redeemable at full price through a program of outreach in minority communities. Delta Airlines could institute a program of “Black Life Passports” to bona fide African Americans (meaning one must identify as such!) for discounted or free fares. Bank of America will probably want to exceed the minimum requirements under community banking law by offering free banking services and heavily discounted account management fees to African Americans. Amazon will no doubt want to offer free Prime memberships to certain minorities and perhaps throw in some freebies at Whole Foods as well. And Apple has plenty of merchandise to give away. Why wait for Joe Biden to offer free phones in the run-up to the 2024 election like his old boss did?

You probably won’t be happy about this proposal if you’re a corporate shareholder, but then you should not be happy to have witnessed increasing management preoccupation with social justice, and you should not have been happy as your “agents” lost sight of their fundamental missions as business organizations: to produce something well and thereby do well for customers and shareholders. The sad consequence of “stakeholder capitalism” is that everything a business is supposed to do gets done worse.

I recently discussed the assignment of “scores” to public companies for their focus and performance on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors. These ESG scores are used by “woke” fund managers and advisors to select or rate stocks. I personally have no wish to invest in companies seeking to boost their ESGs, but you can read all about that at the link. For our purposes here, ESGs might serve well as a tool for identifying entities most in need of pressure to offer discounts and freebies to POC.

It would be great to see agitation against the woke-most corporations for race-based discounts and free products. Perhaps a broad discussion of the idea would prompt social justice warriors to get on board. It might provide some laughs, but the real hope is to shake the corporate wokesters from their virtue-signaling stupor. Most shareholders wouldn’t like race-based discounts, of course, and that’s part of the idea. A conceivable defensive maneuver for our “target” entities would be a lobbying effort for government action such as tax-financed reparations. That won’t necessarily be cheap for them or their shareholders, however. Get woke, go broke!

NFT Assets, Artists, and Con Games

08 Saturday May 2021

Posted by in Art, Corruption

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The art world is buzzing about “non-fungible tokens” (NFTs), or digital files in which ownership is secured by blockchain technology. As the name suggests, such a crypto-asset can exist only as a whole piece. That’s unlike crypto currency, which is infinitely divisible and, well, fungible. NFTs are diverse in their features and functions, and various kinds of art are now being traded as NFTs: digital images, GIFs, and audio clips, for example.

Beeple Crap

A digital artist named Mike Winkelmann, otherwise known as Beeple, makes digital “Beeple-crap”, as he calls it, like the giant “Xi-bot” shown above. He has successfully monetized the digital images he’s posted on his web site over the last 13 years, and in a coup de grace, he recently aggregated all those images into a one-file mashup NFT for which a buyer paid $69.3 million in Ethereum (less a substantial fee to Christie’s auction house). And Beeple isn’t the only one making big bucks on NFTs!

Beeple’s “collage” is available for anyone to see or copy on the web. It’s called “Everdays: The First 5000 Days”. But precisely what are the rights now held by the buyer of “5000 Days”? Apparently, they are limited to the satisfaction of knowing digital proof of ownership is his, and whatever that smug feeling might be worth on potential resale! In fact, Beeple himself retains the copyright to 5000 Days, so it’s not as if the buyer is the only guy who can ever print a high-resolution copy. But here’s what Beeple says the buyer got:

“The biggest thing he actually bought is a relationship with me to promote his purchase. He and I are very aligned. I want to see this artwork go up in value. He wants to see the artwork go up in value, which benefits me. So the idea that he bought nothing is kind of misleading.”

The buyer, known as Metakovan, is the founder of Metapurse.fund, a highly influential player in crypto ventures and NFTs. But Metakovan’s purchase of 5000 Days is not his first collaboration with Beeple. They already had a significant “relationship”, and this transaction obviously won’t be their last.

If this smells a bit like a con game to you, you’re not alone. Don’t get me wrong: Beeple does produce art … very striking images, in fact. They might not be your cup of tea, and many are a bit cartoonish, but Beeple has computer skills and a real creative streak. He also has a knack for self-promotion unequalled, in relative terms, by perhaps any of the old masters or impressionists.

I’m perfectly happy to know there is a vibrant market in anything people call art. Whatever floats your boat, baby! However, I have trouble believing that long-term growth can occur on top of this kind of “valuation” without an escalating monetary inflation. Between the Federal Reserve’s open-spigot policy of near-zero interest rates and the advent of crypto-currencies with supply limits, dollars are getting cheap. Asset markets, still denominated in dollars, usually receive more than their fair share of bidding as excess dollars accumulate on balance sheets. So the outlook might be bright for NFTs as an asset class, such as it is.

Art In the Ersatz

The most regrettable thing about NFTs like 5000 Days might be what they reflect about the state of the art world itself. Richard Bledsoe of the Remodern Review has a lively take on 5000 Days and NFTs as a new stage in the long decline in the quality of what is called art. Bledsoe is no fan of contemporary art, which he argues has been enabled by elites who have successfully corrupted the art market.

I’m no expert, but I generally view contemporary art as less ambitious and requiring less skill than earlier forms. I think that’s easy to prove (see here and here), but it’s outside the scope of this post. I have wondered whether the emergence of contemporary art was impelled by the tremendous increase in prosperity during the late 19th and 20th centuries and the attendant expansion in the market for original art. Artists such as painters and sculptors, whose labor productivity did not greatly benefit from technology growth (we can argue about the last several decades), might have adjusted to this reality by focusing on simpler and more abstract forms. This is a digression, but it’s surely worthy of a much longer treatment. 

There’s no accounting for tastes, of course, and while I like some contemporary art, I’m definitely sympathetic to Bledsoe’s views. As for NFTs, he quotes from his book, “Remodern America: How the Renewal of Art Will Change the Course of Western Civilization”:

“Billions are being spent on unskilled and intangible contemporary art. Just like in the good old days, many of the suckers are the newly rich or globalists looking for social credibility and a fast buck. There’s a lot of money laundering and tax evasion in the equation as well.

How does the art world convince well-heeled fools to part with their money, when they are offering so little real value in return? Simple. The art market follows the tried and true methods honed by generations of confidence tricksters: the elaborate pantomime known as the long con…”

Don’t You Let That Deal Go Down

Bledsoe gives a brief sketch of the mechanics of the “long con” and how it’s practiced in the art market. He describes players such as the “Shill” (a promoter who avoids revealing a personal stake), the “Face” (a celebrity whose presence helps to “guarantee buzz will exceed rationality), and the lastly the “Roper”:

“… whose affluence leads to influence, a savvy and powerful individual whose participation gives credibility to the whole enterprise. What is ignored is how much moguls like this manipulate the market to serve personal interests, using insider trading, shady financing and backroom deals to inflate the value of their own collections.

In any other industry, common practices of the establishment art market could probably lead to criminal charges. But in the unregulated free-for-all of the art world, it’s very hard to bring these cases of potential white-collar crime to justice, and the victims here are less than sympathetic. After all, the buyers are people who have so much money it’s meaningless to them. Who cares if a bunch of billionaires are getting ripped off?”

All of these players seem well ensconced in the world of promoting NFT art: Beeple in particular, and the “art experts” at Christie’s, Beeple’s celebrity pals (OMG! Katy Perry!!), and finally Metakovan’s stature as an authority on NFTs and “tokenomics”. By the way, his considered opinion is that 5000 Days is “worth a billion dollars”. Well, okay then!

Carbon Indulgences

Another insane aspect of NFTs and the crypto-currencies used to buy them is the pushback over the carbon footprint of crypto-currency mining. This is discussed briefly by Bledsoe as well. While the electricity used in mining is significant, the amount attributable to any given transaction is minuscule. Yet now, sales of high-value NFTs are accompanied by the purchase of carbon credits. Read this description of an auction to be held for a piece of art created by Jerry Garcia on a Mac in 1990. It says “… carbon offsetting to be provided by a company called Aerial.” Now, Jerry Garcia was a talented visual artist on canvas and on his early Mac, not to mention his considerable magic as a guitarist and songwriter. God bless his family, and no offense to the Garcia Foundation, but they were perfect suckers for what has quickly become a standardized virtue signal or buy-off. The fact is that carbon offsets generally don’t have an impact for many years, and there are doubts as to their efficacy in permanently reducing carbon when the time comes.

Redeeming Potential

While the artistic value of NFTs like 5000 Days can be debated, my doubts about their value as assets center around the lack of real ownership rights conferred to buyers. Work is underway, however, on new NFT standards that would allow an NFT buyer to collect royalties, which would obviously carry real value. So, for example, a musician or band could immediately monetize a recording’s future royalties by selling it as an NFT. No one should have qualms about that, and good for the musicians.

I believe other kinds of NFTs have real value, in principle, such as the digital racehorses discussed in this article. Apparently, virtual horse races have already achieved a degree of popularity. These crypto-horses actually win prize money and collect stud fees, based on their digital bloodlines. Another example: NFTs can be concert tickets, electronic possession of which entitles the bearer to a particular seat at the venue; or, an NFT might remain in your “digital wallet” as a season ticket to sporting events. Among the claimed advantages over “normal” electronic ticketing is security, and NFT tickets live on as tradeable memorabilia as well.

Conclusion

It’s still early days for crypto-currencies and especially for NFTs. I can’t object to a free individual spending their hard-earned crypto-wealth on crypto-art like 5000 Days. Unfortunately, the market for NFT art does seem to embody aspects of a confidence game. And like Richard Bledsoe, I’m a skeptic when it comes to most contemporary art. However, there are circumstances under which the value of NFTs can be compelling, and the development of more “use-cases” will increase the value of digital currencies. New NFT standards and applications might well revolutionize certain industries. Continuing asset inflation instigated by central banks, and especially the Federal Reserve, will cause the dollar value of crypto-assets to rise. Big institutions like investment banks are starting to jump on the crypto bandwagon as well. So, while some NFTs might be short-term plays and might even be dangerous swindles, crypto and NFTs in general should not be dismissed as an asset class.

A Blogger’s Lament: It’s a Meme, Meme, Meme, Meme, Meme, Meme, Meme, Meme World

02 Sunday May 2021

Posted by in Blogging

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

A few years ago a guy clicked through to this blog from a social media site. Apparently he made a quick retreat, and he left the following comment: “Ohh, too many words….” It’s not a revelation to me, but it’s amazing how few people are willing to READ!

My nephew, who is something of a political activist and has a news site of his own, put his finger on it last year. In a piece I’d written about pandemic issues, I used a cover photo of a graph illustrating one of my main points, as I do sometimes when empirics are involved. I’m paraphrasing, but he said I shouldn’t use graphs as covers because it scares off potential readers. It says, “if you click through you’ll have to think!” But I have no ambitions to be a mass sensation, and as a reader of blogs I tend to regard such devices positively. On the other hand, if a picture is worth a thousand words, there’s a chance that good thinkers gather in what they presume they need to know without clicking through. That’s almost as bad from my perspective, because I want to give them the thousand words anyway!

Here’s a similar phenomenon: occasionally I’ll use a meme as a cover photo for a blog post, but some people “like” the post solely because of the meme without bothering to click through! I’m glad we’re simpatico, but I’d prefer they read the post. I view that kind of reaction as lazy or the act of an easily distracted individual.

I have no interest in writing for people who don’t want to think, but the rub lies in finding those that do. I have a full time job, so producing more content is not an option. I’m not affiliated with a well-known publication or an institution with a significant presence on the web. My readers come from the WordPress community, search engines, and a few social media sites to which I cross-post. Occasionally, if the subject matter is pertinent, I post comments to articles on other blogs and link to one of my posts. That brings in a few views, and those visitors have a definite interest in the subject matter.

Social media sites would seem to be a natural channel for readers, but of course they are jam-packed with memes. Some of those are very good and some are very funny. Some are surely worth a thousand words, but I quickly develop “meme fatigue”. And both good memes and bad memes seem to be reposted ad infinitum.

Simplification and humor are major elements of “meme art”, and I would describe the best of it as such. The ability to simplify is likewise one of the greatest skills an economist can possess, so I respect it. In fact, I like to call economics formalized common sense, but that formalization must happen within an expository framework. Many of my posts are mere commentary, but I like a somewhat deeper dive than the meme form can accommodate. If I get excited about a topic and immerse myself, blogging gives me an opportunity to do some research and explain my point of view while doing my best to apply economic thinking. Moreover, I like to write. Unfortunately, I’m not all that funny, but sometimes I try.

I’m frequently disappointed to see memes I view as extremist, distorted, shallow or over-simplified. For example, I’m no fan of critical race theory, but it’s not fiction to say that racist memes sometimes appear on social media, which prompts me to block the poster immediately.

I scroll through a few memes each day, but I spend more time checking the other blogs I frequent, where I find gobs of interesting reading material. I join groups related to my musical interests, which offer great recordings. I occasionally watch video commentary, but prefer the written form. I have friends who send me lonnnng videos, but I wish they’d send transcripts instead. A two-hour video is not a commitment I’m usually willing to make!

There are many who say blogging is passé, and apparently many don’t have the patience to read lengthier treatments. It’s still the form I prefer, despite the difficulty of battling for eyeballs with memes. But that’s not quite right: there’s really no battle when it comes to those without interest in detailed treatments of issues. The real battles have to do with finding motivated and patient users with common interests and getting more favorable placement on biased search engines. Good content is also key, but that challenge is part of the joy of blogging.