However, unlike the gas lines of the 1970s, which were induced by price controls, these people still had the option of spending a bit more money to get their gas immediately. If the lines had been induced by price controls, and thus existed nationwide, they would be much longer — and the lower price almost certainly wouldn’t be worth the extra wait. That is the lesson of price controls: The posted price of gas, or anything else, may be lower under price controls, but the price consumers have to pay skyrockets once you take into account their lost time and search costs.

The post Return of Gas Lines to Missouri!!! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The reason is obvious: Contractors have a financial incentive to approve their own work. Do-overs raise costs, and contractors face penalties if a project isn’t completed by deadline. Inspectors working for the contractors know this. Honest though they may be, they also know the financial interests of their employers.

This isn’t a complete picture of the financial interests of the contractors. If contractors cut corners to meet the deadline and put drivers at risk, they also put their business at risk. How many people would hire a contractor who built a bridge that fell into a river? According to the previous Post-Dispatch article covering MoDOT’s change in inspection policy, Jim Ernzen, an Arizona State University professor and director of the Del E. Webb School of Construction, compared inspections from previous projects to inspections from the highway 40 reconstruction:

“We found very little variance,” he said. “These guys realize no matter how fast they get the project done, if they don’t do it correctly, they don’t get the next job.”

Bingo. If a company is really worried about its long-term financial interests, it won’t do a shoddy job. In the end, the contractors really do have the proper incentives.

The post At Least They’re Thinking About Incentives appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The idea is simple. By bailing out the victims of flood relief, the government unintentionally encourages people to move into flood-prone areas, leading to more flood damage in the long term.

The post Catastrophe Setup, Redux appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I saw my fair share of floods while growing up. During the flood of 1993, I watched the Meramec River slowly creep toward my house and into my basement. A few years earlier, my family and I had to evacuate our home near George Winter Park because of excessive flooding. The severe damage that floods can cause makes living in the flood plain risky. When flood damage occurs, state and federal governments typically subsidize reconstruction through government grants and loans offered at subsidized rates, a practice that unintentionally sets the stage for worse devastation later on.

Government aid to flooded areas isn’t necessarily bad. Sending in the National Guard to help people evacuate, for example, fulfills an essential role of the government: protecting the public from real, physical harm. Subsidizing the cleanup and reconstruction, on the other hand, has nefarious long-term consequences.

The intention to help people is never misguided. However, the means used to help people may be ill-advised. So, it’s worth asking: Will this sort of flood relief actually relieve the pain that floods cause? In the short term, the answer is simple and obvious: yes. We can all see a farmer rebuilding his barn. Even more concretely, we’ve seen Chesterfield sprout back up after the 1993 disaster. This isn’t the entire story, though. What isn’t as obvious is that subsidizing reconstruction actually causes more flood damage over time, undermining the intended goal of relief.

It’s not difficult to figure out that lowland areas near rivers have a tendency to flood — or that this can be very costly for home and business owners. To varying degrees, people tend to take these extra costs into account when deciding where to move or set up a new business. But by providing aid to rebuild flood-prone areas, federal and state governments reduce the potential costs of a flood, and thereby the risk associated with living and doing business there. This essentially becomes a subsidy for areas that are likely to be flooded.

Any astute student of economics knows what will happen next. Somewhere in the state, there are people who enjoy the many benefits of living next to a large river like the Mississippi — the boating and fishing opportunities, for instance. But, all things considered, many of these people would ordinarily consider it just a bit too risky to live in such an area. Economists characterize these people as being “on the margin.” When the costs associated with flooding are mitigated by the expectation of disaster assistance, some of the people on the safe side of the margin cross to the risky side — they now see living by the river as an attractive option. Flood relief spurs some marginal home buyers to move into flood-prone areas.

This happens not only with potential residents, but potential business owners, as well. The decreased risk brought by relief efforts means that businesses on the margin build new facilities in the flood plain rather than somewhere else, while businesses already in the area purchase new equipment and improve their buildings rather than limit possible losses.

As a result, these areas contain not only more potential victims, but also a much greater potential for damage. So, while government assistance for flood reconstruction can certainly help people who have been hurt by flooding, it also encourages some people to set themselves up for disaster. When the next flood comes, the damage will likely be much worse than if there had been no flood relief at all — in terms of both dollars and human suffering.

To answer my original question: Does subsidizing reconstruction actually help ease the pain caused by floods? In the long run, the answer is a most emphatic no. Although this sort of relief does some immediate good, it will only cause a great deal more harm down the road.

Matt Simpson is an intern at the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank. He is currently pursuing undergraduate degrees in philosophy and math at Lindenwood University.

The post Flood Relief Establishes Perverse Incentives appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On most days, getting from Eager to Hanley is a guessing game for drivers unfamiliar with the intersection. Figuring out which lane leads where causes some drivers to cut over at the last minute, triggering road rage.

Hanley Road is one of the most traveled streets in the county, with more than 50,000 vehicles using the stretch near Highway 40 daily, according to the county.

An ideal solution would force drivers to take into account the costs they impose on each other when they drive through congested areas, while also providing an incentive for firms to provide alternatives or improvements to the route. Tolls are about as close to that ideal as you can get. If drivers were forced to pay a small fee to cross the highway at Eager and Hanley when it is congested, many of them would find alternate routes or perhaps try to cross when there is less congestion. This would relieve the congestion and provide a quicker route for those who were willing to pay for it.

The tolls would also send a clear signal to anyone who provides transportation services, both governments and firms: If you can provide an alternate route or means of crossing the highway, or improve the intersection, you can make a tidy profit.

It looks like it’s a bit too late for tolls at Hanley and 40, though:

St. Louis County and Missouri transportation officials announced Monday an agreement to add the intersection to the $535 million Highway 40 (Interstate 64) rebuild. The intersection that leads to dozens of stores and restaurants will be rebuilt as a “jug handle” intersection, eliminating left turns to and from Eager.

Perhaps next time, transportation officials will keep our work in mind when deciding how to fund their next project.

The post I’m Just Eager for Tolls appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A raise for 2 million Americans sounds like a wonderful thing, almost too good to be true. Indeed, the Post-Dispatch reports one of the negative side effects:

The bad news: […] some small businesses will pass the cost of the wage hike to consumers.

This is one of many things businesses can do to cope with an increase in any of their costs, whether or not that increase takes the form of labor costs, but this isn’t the only option. Suppose you run some sort of business that employs minimum wage workers, such as a restaurant or a car wash. Keep in mind that in running this business, your main goal is to maximize your profit — within the bounds of the law, of course.

Now, suppose the minimum wage rises, increasing your labor costs. What do you do to keep your profit as high as possible? Well, what would you do if anything else you bought increased in price, like, say, gasoline? You’d probably find a way to buy less of it, either by cutting back entirely or by finding some workable substitute. In this case, you would be trying to find ways to cut back on the use of unskilled labor in your business.

There are numerous ways to cut back unskilled labor. The Post-Dispatch already mentioned one: raising prices. How does this cut back on unskilled labor, you might ask? Higher prices will drive some consumers away, so your business won’t need as much unskilled labor as before.

There are also many substitutes for unskilled labor. You could hire someone more skilled, or replace the worker with machinery of some sort. Something as simple as adding a timer onto the fryers at a restaurant can cut the amount of labor needed to produce fried food.

Your could also find ways to decrease compensation without decreasing wages. Cutting benefits is one example. Or, you could remove some costly “luxury” like air conditioning, making the work environment less pleasant in the process.

The main question is, how much of each of these effects actually occurs? If businesses find ways to significantly cut the use of unskilled labor, unemployment among that group will rise, and perhaps so will unemployment in general. If businesses opt primarily to raise prices, low-income individuals will be hurt the most. If businesses instead cut non-monetary compensation, or reduce workplace amenities, the increase in wages seems to be a wash. A classic Show-Me Institute study has even more detail.

The intended goal of a minimum wage, of course, is to reduce poverty by helping low-income families. However, the minimum wage is a terrible policy tool for accomplishing that goal. According to another one of our classic studies, the typical minimum wage worker is still in school, living with a relative, and part of a family earning $57,000 a year. On the other hand, the typical poor worker is older, out of school, earning $9.58/hour, and the sole earner in a family with children. They are poor not because of low wages, but because they don’t work very many hours. In fact, only 25 percent of low-wage workers are below the poverty line. As a result, the study estimated that Missouri’s increase of the minimum wage to $6.50 would only reduce poverty by less than half of a percentage point.

Increasing the minimum wage won’t do much for most of the people it is intended to help, because it does a poor job of targeting them. Something that targets poor families explicitly and directly, like, say, the earned income tax credit, is far more effective at reducing poverty.

The post Trying to Meet the Minimum appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Brian R.: Urban decay and poverty is a problem that has been ignored in Missouri for far too long. As governor, what will you do to stimulate positive economic activity and lift people out of homelesness and poverty in North St. Louis and Kansas City? Additionally, how do you plan to address rural poverty?

Sarah Steelman: That is a very good question. I believe that any economy, including local economies, have to be allowed to grow themselves. One of the main problems in both Kansas City and St. Louis is the earnings tax. This 1% tax is levied nowhere else in Missouri. In St. Louis, you need look no further than the hole next to Busch Stadium to know that the status quo is not working. In addition, no major corporate headquarters has moved to downtown St. Louis in 50 years. The state should support economic growth in our cities.

She is just on fire this afternoon, isn’t she? The earnings tax is a terrible idea, and should be eliminated in both Kansas City and St. Louis. As Steelman notes, the earnings tax deters businesses, as well as people, from moving into affected areas. If tax revenue is needed, there are much less distortionary means to raise it, such as through a tax on sales or on the value of land.

The post More Steelman appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Joe Hodes, St. Louis: Ms. Steelman,

I was inclined to vote for you until I saw your ad on the ethanol mandate. While corn ethanol has been shown to play a tiny part in driving up food prices (far less than foreign demand, oil prices and speculation), it has driven DOWN the cost of gas by 10 cents or more a gallon.

There have been over a dozen studies by universities, economists, researchers and even the energy industry showing that ethanol REDUCES the cost of gasoline–Missouri’s E10 mandate leads MO to have the CHEAPEST GAS in the nation.

Yet you say in your ad that the ethanol mandate has caused gas prices to rise. No one–even ethanol’s other critics–has been foolish enough to make such a counter-factual statement.

How could you get your facts so wrong?

Thanks,

Joe Hodes
St. Louis, MO

The mandate may be keeping the price of gas 10 cents lower than otherwise, but this gain is lost once you take into account the decreased efficiency of ethanol. E-10 fuel is 2.5 percent less efficient than regular gas, meaning it takes more fuel to go the same distance that normal gasoline would allow. If you want to drive 100 miles with a car that gets 20 miles per gallon, with ordinary gas costing $4 per gallon at the pump, it will cost you $20 for 5 gallons.

With E-10, fuel only costs $3.90 per gallon at the pump, but you now need 5.125 gallons to travel 100 miles, costing you $19.99. A paltry savings of one cent. But this analysis so far doesn’t even take into account the ethanol subsidy that Missouri taxpayers pay. That subsidy is currently 51 cents per gallon, and will fall to 45 cents when the new farm bill takes effect. So, it would actually cost you an additional $2.61 to drive 100 miles, but that cost is paid in taxes instead of at the pump. So, it comes to $22.60 for the same trip. If all actual costs were shown at the pump, E-10 would be priced at 41 cents per gallon more than normal gasoline.

Here is Steelman’s response:

Sarah Steelman: The facts speak for themselves. The studies from the Missouri Corn Growers and others don’t take into account the subsidies that we pay on our tax bills for ethanol. Secondly, they don’t take into account the decreased fuel efficiency of ethanol, meaning that you have to fill up your tank more times to go the same distance. I would invite you to read the Show-Me Institute’s recent study on the topic. The Show-Me Institute, unlike other groups, does not have a financial interest in ethanol. The Show-Me Institute study states that the ethanol mandate will cost Missourians over $1 billion over the next decade. This figure doesn’t even take into account the increased price of food caused by the mandate. I am the only candidate willing to stand up against the special interests who forced the ethanol mandate on our state. If ethanol can stand on its own two feet, let it do so in the free market.

Check and mate. The study in question, detailing the real costs involved with Missouri’s ethanol mandate, can be found on the Show-Me Institute website.

The post Show Me Sarah Steelman appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Asked about the private financing, Wislow said, “We don’t think that we will have a problem with a project as well pre-leased and well-located as this.”

So, why are the tax incentives necessary again?

The post Another Round of Incentives for Centene appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Create a private investment funding source, with the help of financiers and foundations, to assist small businesses with loans or in other ways.
• Provide college or vocational opportunities for needy high school students.
• Create work force training centers in distressed areas.
• Improve transportation and child care offerings to assist people in getting to work.
• Provide specific incentives to employers who hire people living in distressed communities.

Kansas City could follow a simple recipe for growth: low taxes, lax regulations, and strong property rights. Implementing this isn’t necessarily easy, however. To start, the city could repeal the earnings tax, because it provides strong incentives for productive people and businesses to locate elsewhere. A sales tax or a tax on the value of land could raise the same amount of revenue without having as much of a negative effect on growth. A general rule of thumb would be to avoid TIFs, tax abatements, tax credits, and other special tax exemptions. Consumers and businesses will take notice and move in … perhaps with the help of our handy tax estimator.

The post Developing the Core appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post One for the Road(s) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Like Kansas, Missouri is significantly short of meeting all it’s transportation needs. Both states combined have about $60 billion in needs over the next 20 years.

At a recent transportation summit in Mexico, Mo., where MoDOT released a booklet (warning: PDF) detailing the challenges facing Missouri’s transportation system. Included was a list of projects that MoDOT deemed essential.

After detailing some of these projects for the KC Metro area, Cooper remarked:

Just how we fund any of these project no one knows for sure. But expect voters to be asked sometime in the next couple years for some kind of tax increase to fund roads.

Over here at the Show-Me Institute, we always have a few suggestions. David Stokes presented a policy study at the Mexico transportation summit detailing many of them. One is tolling. If the infrastructure improvements are really all that necessary, then people would be willing to pay fees for them when they actually use them, rather than only up front in the form of taxes.

In conjunction with this, public-private partnerships can help as well. Governments aren’t good at much more than actual governing, so instead of having the government take on the financial risk building a new toll bridge, for example, let the private sector do it. If the bridge is likely to be profitable in the long term, firms would be willing to pay for the right to build and operate government-owned infrastructure. This provides another source of revenue that can be used for projects that aren’t as easy to contract out to the private sector.

The best thing is, no new taxes are needed to fund projects this way. With tolling, the only people who have to pay for the projects are the people who use them. I can’t imagine anything that would be more fair.

The post On the Road Again … appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“Who would have thought in a million years that concrete would cost less than asphalt?” asked Jason Marschuetz, the company’s vice president. “The oil prices are ultimately helping us because even though we’re getting hammered once — for diesel — the asphalt companies are getting hammered twice — for diesel and asphalt.”

Concrete and asphalt are substitutes for a variety of applications, including paving roads and driveways. When oil prices rise, concrete gets a little bit more expensive while asphalt gets much more expensive. The result? People use concrete instead of asphalt whenever they can. We should see this trend across the economy — goods and services which are relatively less dependent on oil should become cheaper relative to the oil-guzzling competition.

This is just one of the many ways in which we are less dependent on oil than one might think. Oil may be the cheapest alternative for a variety of applications at $130 a barrel, but if the price increases much, there are numerous ways to achieve the same ends that use less oil. In econo-speak, the demand for oil is more elastic than it appears.

Finally, keep in mind that all the people in the concrete industry see their incomes rise during the oil-induced boom. New jobs are created in the industry as well, because new plants are coming online — such as the plant in Ste. Genevieve. Chrysler workers may be out of a job because of rising oil prices, but new opportunities are opening up because of the same cause.

The post Concrete: A Real Kick in the Asphalt appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We realize there are workers willing to do work and businesses who need those workers. Those workers stimulate our economy by buying goods and services from local sellers.

But there is no reason for that work, and the economic side effects, to occur outside the law.

Agreed. Forcing immigrants to operate outside of the law has several undesirable consequences. First, and foremost, in my opinion, it hurts the illegal immigrants, who tend to be extremely poor people looking for a better life. By being forced to operate outside of the law, illegal immigrants can’t expect the same degree of police protection and contract enforcement as legal citizens. As a result, they are more likely to be subject to violence.

Second, it increases the likelihood that an immigrant will commit a crime in two ways. Immigrants who would rather obey the law are less likely to immigrate if it means they have to break the law, while law breakers see immigration as potentially more attractive. So, their illegal status changes the composition of immigrants to include more law breakers. Also, once immigrants arrive in the United States, they are more likely to break other laws, because they are already here illegally. Violence may even be used as a contract enforcement mechanism, because recourse to the courts is out of the question.

Finally, the illegal status for most immigrants decreases the overall amount of immigration, because preventative measures increase the costs of migration. This means the U.S. will have less of the most valuable resource on the planet: the human mind. Not only does an increase in population through immigration help our economy for the reasons the Globe lists, but more minds leads to a better chance for technological innovation.

So, it seems natural to conclude that the governor made a mistake, and should instead petition federal legislators for an easing of immigration restrictions. Instead, the Globe concludes:

[The bill is] a big improvement over current state law, which simply takes away tax credits and abatements as a penalty. Combine those with federal punishments, and employers now have severe consequences to fear.

Wait … what? The Globe seemed to agree that immigration benefits the U.S. economy, which includes Missouri. And an increase in legal immigration would entail more open borders. Here is the author’s rationale:

People who work in the United States should be paid a fair wage and granted certain workplace rights. Employers should not be able to take advantage of a worker’s legal status by paying substandard wages and offering no benefits.

Apparently, the author has never been to Mexico. There is a reason so many Mexicans migrate here illegally in order to work for employers “paying substandard wages and offering no benefits.” In Mexico, the wages are even lower and the benefits are worse. Simply by moving here, they improve their lot. If the issue is a concern for the welfare of the illegal immigrants, letting them come here illegally is much better than not letting them come at all.

The post Helping Immigrants by Hurting Immigrants appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

[…] too many young people are leaving the farm. He hopes the enhancement of the program will lure more Missourians to return to farming.

Au contraire; it is more likely that not enough young people are leaving the farm. There is nothing intrinsically important about farms. Farms are valuable because they do one thing: produce food. If we can produce more food with fewer farmers, great! Then people — the most important resource we have — are freed to work on something else of value.

Throughout the 20th century, U.S. farm output has increased despite the fact that fewer people have chosen to be farmers. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas:

Since 1948, agricultural production has doubled, while total input use, including labor, land and machinery, declined slightly. […] Between 1948 and 1996, agricultural labor productivity increased more than eightfold. The number of people fed by one farmer has jumped from 15 in 1950 to 128 in 1995, including 34 outside the United States.

Because production doubled and productivity increased by a factor of eight, fewer people are working in agriculture despite this doubling of production.

In A.D. 1000, almost everyone was a farmer. Now, almost no one farms in industrialized nations. A quick comparison of living conditions seems to favor present times. You might object that the driving factor here is technology, not the amount of farmers we have. But you would be missing my point: The fewer people we have farming, the more people we have working on other things, like technological advances.

Farm subsidies such as the Beginning Farmer Loan Program only serve to slow down the tremendous gains in prosperity we have been achieving during the past couple of centuries. And for what? According to Stafford, to get a few Missourians back on the farm. Why, exactly, do we want them on the farm again?

The post A Farewell to Farms appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The question of the day for the state and federal officials seemed to be how the government could help area farmers as the water begins to recede out of their crop fields.

If this is the question, the mistake has already been made. Disaster relief programs often come with nefarious long-term consequences. When government agencies bail out the victims of a disaster, we all feel good in the short term. It’s easy to see the repairs for the farmer’s damaged barn, for example. But, in the spirit of Bastiat, I have to point out what we can’t immediately see.

By consistently sending relief to disaster-prone areas, the government insulates them from some of the risk of living, working, and operating businesses there. This is essentially the same as a government subsidy for areas that are more likely to experience a disaster. As a result, there is more investment in and migration to these areas than there would be otherwise. Because this shifts people and businesses away from areas that experience relatively fewer disasters, the disaster-prone areas come to contain more stuff that can be damaged — and, thus, the average disaster causes more damage than it would have without the existence of government bailouts.

Paradoxically, disaster relief literally sets us up for catastrophe. Of course, once the catastrophe occurs, it leads to an increased demand for even more disaster relief, which, in turn, sets us up for even worse disasters, which … well, you get the idea. Very quickly, this turns into a rather vicious cycle. Let’s hope Missouri voters and politicians choose not to perpetuate the cycle.

The post Setting Ourselves Up for Catastrophe appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Actions may be laudable or blameable; but they cannot be reasonable: Laudable or blameable, therefore, are not the same with reasonable or unreasonable. The merit and demerit of actions frequently contradict, and sometimes controul our natural propensities. But reason has no such influence. Moral distinctions, therefore, are not the offspring of reason. Reason is wholly inactive, and can never be the source of so active a principle as conscience, or a sense of morals.
— A Treatise of Human Nature, book 3, part 1, section 1

This quote is bound to be controversial. Other philosophers would surely disagree — e.g., Kant — and I’m sure the average Joe would take issue with calling morality “irrational” in any sense, which is essentially what Hume is doing. Should we be offended if a school superintendent includes this in his emails? I don’t see why. Sure, the belief is controversial, but we shouldn’t be offended by beliefs merely because they are controversial. There is nothing in the quote to suggest that people who believe otherwise are stupid, immoral, evil, or anything else of that nature.

Including the quote in emails may be motivated by a desire to convert others to the same belief. I have a hard time seeing how this is objectionable, though, considering that the purpose of schools is to do essentially the same thing. Do we not desire to convert children to the belief that 2 + 2 = 4? Perhaps it’s the desire to convert someone to this type of belief that is at issue. Perhaps moral issues should be left out of the classrooms, then. But, first of all, I don’t think a school can function without addressing moral issues. What are we doing when we tell kids that it is wrong to hit each other? Second of all, if this were the issue, it is relatively minor compared to other forms of ideological indoctrination happening inside the classroom.

The method of conversion isn’t objectionable, either. No one is forced to read the quote; they are merely given the opportunity to do so. The same can’t be said for ideological peddling, which goes on inside the classroom.

The only thing that seems to be different is that the superintendent’s quote refers to a deity, and my quote does not. Should it really be offensive to simply to hear about a deity?

Someone might argue that the Constitution has specific language regarding religion, but not regarding meta-ethics — and that is why religion is special. While completely true, this is irrelevant to the question of whether we should get offended about such a quote. This argument ignores the possibility that the Constitution simply got something wrong.

I agree that the superintendent shouldn’t have included the quote in his emails, but not because we should be offended, or because it is intrinsically immoral. The problem is that some people will be offended, which will only cause problems for the school district.

The post Religious Beliefs Aren’t Special appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When political units are small and decentralized, competitive pressure can create market-like outcomes. It’s imperfect, because consumers — i.e., citizens — have to purchase bundles of services rather than purchasing each service separately. However, it’s much better than a large, centralized polity. The key is that the cost of switching to a new political jurisdiction is low. The smaller the polity, the smaller the cost when everything else is equal.

The Post-Dispatch reports on this sort of competition at work in Missouri. The small town of Albany has passed an ordinance legalizing the use of golf carts within city limits. Each golf cart must have an attached seven-foot orange flag, and an annual permit costing $15. Why, exactly was this ordinance passed? Well…

City Administrator Derek Brown said several residents asked the city to legalize the use of golf carts, saying the practice would be cheaper than traveling around town in a car.

It seems gas prices have played a large role in this, but the point is that residents asked for it, and got it. Sure, this sort of thing happens on the federal level, too, but the difference in this case is that residents who don’t like it can leave at a much lower cost. If they do leave, the city’s coffers will begin to dwindle, pressuring city officials to change the law — or, perhaps, become a niche city for golf carr lovers.

This sort of system is exactly what the founders had in mind with federalism. A central government is better apt to provide a few things like defense and dispute resolution between the smaller political units. At the same time, smaller competing polities, like states, counties, and municipalities, provide a somewhat competitive market for government. This does a better job of providing each citizen with the bundle of policies they want. The problem seems to be preventing the transfer of political power from state and local governments to the national government.

The post Beneficial Political Competition …? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri 6th District congressional candidate Kay Barnes today released a major policy stance on energy, a 5-point plan to deal with rising gas prices.

Naturally, I have a point-by-point response.

The 5 points of her new plan are:

• Increasing domestic drilling, by compelling oil companies to use the leases they currently have to drill on federal lands.

Increasing domestic drilling is a good idea to help alleviate the effects of the high price of gas in the short term. However, compelling oil companies to drill more is the wrong way to go about this. I’m not sure about the details of the leases to these federal lands, but I can suggest one way to structure them: If the leases were tradeable commodities (perhaps they wouldn’t be leases anymore) then we can expect whoever values the lease the most to purchase it — which probably would be whoever is willing to drill now. On the other hand, the oil companies may be betting that there is no end in sight, and holding oil in the ground until the price rises even more. If that is the case, a bit of pain now is much better than extreme pain later.

• Repealing tax breaks and subsidies for big oil companies, or redirect such subsidies toward renewable energy sources such as biofuels.

I’m all for making the tax system less complicated by removing exceptions, and I’m in favor of eliminating subsidies — but redirecting them toward biofuels is a bad idea. The incentive to develop alternatives is already huge, and not likely to be affected by government action. Attempts to manipulate the market may end up doing more harm than good.

• Supporting House-passed legislation directing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to curb speculation in the energy markets. A so-called “Enron loophole” had previously exempted electronic energy traders from U.S. regulation.

Speculation actually eases the pain of economic change. When speculators bet on future price changes, they either prematurely increase or decrease the price, depending on what they think the future holds. This eases the pain of economic change because it makes price changes more gradual, rather than arriving as sudden shocks. These speculators also probably know more about future price movements than anyone else. After all, they are the ones with money on the line.

• Lowering federal trade and budget deficits, which would strengthen the value of the dollar when buying foreign oil, thus indirectly lowering the cost of oil.

A surefire way to strengthen the value of the dollar would be to raise interest rates by slowing the growth of the money supply. Barnes wouldn’t have control of that, however, so it’s hard to fault her for leaving this out. However, the high price of oil isn’t the only concern when it comes to manipulating exchange rates. A more favorable exchange rate means less foreign investment in the U.S., and fewer exports.

• Increasing fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, something that Congress started doing again for the first time in three decades when it passed higher fuel economy standards six months ago.

This will either be irrelevant or raise the cost of cars for the average consumer. It will most likely be irrelevant, because consumers are voluntarily choosing to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. It’s amazing how well markets coordinate action.

This policy bundle seems rather questionable to me. There is some merit to at least part of some of the five points, but I have trouble throwing my hat behind any single policy on the list. I wonder what Kay’s opponent, incumbent Sam Graves, is proposing.

The post The Points of Energy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That’s the headline from Missourinet, which brings us this detail:

Half a million dollars has been set aside in the state budget to lure six vet students into a large animal practice, an appropriation to get the Large Animal Veterinary Student Loan Program off the ground.

And why do we need this little subsidy? According to the acting state veterinarian, Dr. Taylor Woods:

[…] it would take at least ten years to ease a critical shortage of veterinarians to serve Missouri’s farms as well as its livestock markets.

Assuming that the wages of veterinarians are allowed to freely adjust to market forces, the subsidy is completely unnecessary. In the short term, the vets who are qualified to treat livestock can charge a premium. As a result, anyone who needs this sort of service is encouraged to seek alternatives, and to purchase these services only when they are absolutely necessary. Also, anyone who can provide treatment for livestock is encouraged to spend more time doing just that. In fact, this is exactly what is happening:

Woods says some [livestock markets] are staffed by elderly vets who have come out of retirement to help out.

Elderly vets certainly aren’t a long-term solution, but market forces take care of that, too. Because the shortage of livestock vets raises their wages, it becomes more attractive for people to become trained in the field. As this happens, the price of livestock vet services comes back down.

This isn’t a novel chain of reasoning, of course; it’s merely the operation of supply and demand applied to the caretakers of our animals.

Of course, the vets don’t really want to hear all of this — but you wouldn’t want to hear it either if the government was offering you free money.

The post Personally, I’m a Sucker for Kittens appeared first on Show-Me Institute.