It’s time again for weekend reflections, which makes space for longer than usual comments on any topic. As always, civilised discussion and no coarse language.
Coming out of the utegate/emailgate fiasco, I’ve seen a lot of variants on the claim that interventionist policies, like OzCar, are conducive to corruption, while economic liberalism reduces the scope for wrongdoing. I’ll just offer a few observations (readers with access to Google can fill in the details).
* If the standard of behavior implicit in criticism of Wayne Swan were applied to the Howard government, hardly any minister in that government could have remained in office. That particularly includes Howard and Turnbull.
* The Howard government breached standards of public probity on a scale never before seen with an Australian government, and approached only by the later years of Hawke-Keating and the worst of state governments. Not only did numerous ministers engage in activity that personally enriched them, and would have been regarded as corrupt in any preceding government, but the government consistently undermined the integrity of the public service, engaged in cronyism to an unprecedented extent and (Howard in particular) lied consistently and shamelessly. With relatively few exceptions, economic liberals didn’t complain about this.
* The Thatcher-Major, Reagan and Bush II governments were among the most sleazy and corrupt in the modern history of the UK and US (Clinton, Bush I and Blair were marginally better).*
In summary, the idea that economic liberalism goes with high standards of public probity doesn’t pass the laugh test.
* Defenders of economic liberalism may wish to disclaim one or more of these. But I’m not going to respond, except with derision, to anyone who tries to dodge the issue by any of the standard excuses familiar from apologists for the failure of Communism: never really tried, the fault of the individuals not the theory, etc.Meet the Browns film
Yet another in my series of articles on economic theories, empirical hypotheses and policy programs that have been refuted, or undermined, by the Global Financial Crisis. This one, on Real Business Cycle Theory, is a bit econowonkish, but I’m putting it up here because
(a) I hope some econowonks among the readers might find errors and correct me
(b) Judging by some other recent commentary, RBC still has some interest.
* As indeed, they have. My suggestion of a link between calibration and the GMM has been roundly refuted both here and at Crooked Timber. I can only say, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Thanks for the very useful comments on this point, and on RBC more generally.
I doubt that this is exactly what Ross Douthat had in mind, but I have been thinking for a while about one version of extending the duration of a limited-scope copyright. I’d support a proposal that gave Disney unlimited duration ownership of Mickey Mouse and similar characters, both for economic and political reasons. The political reason is straightforward: if Disney got its own side deal, they would have no reason to keep up the push for indefinite extensions of copyright for books and other things I actually care about.
The economic reason is that Mickey Mouse is not a character in a black and white cartoon produced in the 1920s (and cribbed off someone else, IIRC), and his copyright protection does not (except incidentally) act to restrict people who want to reproduce or adapt Steamboat Willie today.
Mickey is, in the terminology of the industry, a franchise. Disney puts millions into producing and promoting Mickey every year, and reaps even more millions as a result. I think it’s plausible to claim that each individual franchise of this kind is a natural monopoly, and that we would be less well served with multiple Mickey suppliers, as opposed to competing franchises like Bugs Bunny (there’s an analogy here with the debate over sporting teams and leagues which I’m too lazy/busy to work out in full). So, I’d be happy to allow Disney, Warner Bros, DC, Marvel and so on to have permanent rights over their characters, as long as they kept on using them.
With Turnbull seemingly doomed, the great sport of Costello-watching gets one last (or maybe not) run onto the field. Will the Libs turn in desperation to the Eternal Bridesmaid, and persuade him to return to the fray? There is a favorable recent precedent with the WA Libs, who persuaded Colin Barnett to reverse a decision to quit, and went on to gain office under his leadership.I’ve never rated Costello, but then, I didn’t (and don’t) think much of Barnett, either.
The big problem for the Libs, I think, is that the Grech scandal goes a long way deeper than Turnbull. Eric Abetz and Joe Hockey are obviously implicated, for example, and the chain of links seems likely to go to Costello as well. And while, as numerous commenters have pointed out, leaks from public servants to Opposition politicians are not that unusual, each such leak constitutes a criminal offence. It’s the kind of thing that “everybody does” from time to time, but it’s only OK if you don’t get caught. Add forgery to the mix, and you’ve got a disaster.
I’ve been planning a post with reviews of lots of the books I’ve been reading, but haven’t got to it. So, I’m going to post a couple now, and try to get back to it later. Here’s a review of Akerlof and Shiller Animal Spirits
Read More »
One thing I do occasionally on the blog is publish snippets I’ve written but haven’t found a place for. This piece has been cut for space reasons from a paper I’m writing on free allocations of emissions permits (‘grandfathering’). Not to keep readers in suspense, I’m against it.