My recent op-ed against film tax credits was published as a guest commentary in the Columbia Missourian today! As regular readers of this blog will know, it was also discussed by Steve Walsh on MissouriNet and by David Nicklaus on Mound City Money last week.

Over the weekend, I thought a lot about the arguments that were raised in favor of the film tax credit program. I’d like to take this opportunity to respond to them.

(1) The debate over the appropriateness of film tax credits is a natural application of the general principle of the parable of “The Broken Window” by Frédéric Bastiat (1850), which was later developed in Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt (1946).

I am impressed with the sheer amount of commentary generated by my recent blog posts arguing against film tax credits in Missouri. I have heard from people who worked on the Up In the Air set, professors of film, and representatives of the Missouri Film Commission, among others. In his book Economics in One Lesson, Hazlitt explicitly warns that this will happen (emphasis mine):

The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.

To paraphrase Bastiat and Hazlitt, government should consider ce qu’il voit et ce qu’il ne voit pas au même temps when it is deciding policy. In plain English, this means that it should consider “the big picture” instead of only one group of people when forming policy that affects everyone. Hazlitt thinks that this concept is so important that this is his “one lesson,” further reduced to a single sentence (emphasis mine):

The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

Here’s how this relates to the film tax credit program. If we only consider that which we see, ce qu’on voit, then the tax credit programs are considered to benefit everyone. The recipients of the tax credits do assuredly benefit, as they testify in their commentary (Econdiva provided an estimate that the producers of Up in the Air spent nearly $12 million in the state). Bastiat and Hazlitt warn that it is dangerous to ignore the hidden costs, ce qu’il ne voit pas, that affect everybody. Missouri should not focus solely on the benefits of bringing filmmakers to Missouri and ignore the cost of the program to taxpayers.

While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody (e.g., eliminating the earnings tax or commercial property tax surcharges), other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of other groups. Film tax credit programs fall into the latter category. When tax revenue is spent on film productions, taxpayers cannot spend that money in alternative ways, such as education or infrastructure; they face an opportunity cost that is equal to the amount of the subsidy.

(2) There is not enough demand in Missouri for the film industry to exist in Missouri without a considerable level of government assistance.

In their comments, both Cat Cacciatore and Dave Rutherford provided proof of this point — they both travel out of state because there isn’t enough demand for film production work in Missouri (even in today’s status quo, in which we offer a $4.5 million tax credit). If an individual decides to live in a location in which there is not enough demand for him to work full-time, why should the taxpayer have to subsidize his employment?

Let’s say that I am a trained lobster farmer and I choose to relocate to Missouri, which is at a competitive disadvantage for lobster farming because it is very far from the ocean. I have two options: (1) I can petition the government to subsidize my employment; or, (2) I can transfer my knowledge, skills, and abilities to an industry for which there is demand. I believe that the second option is better because it does not burden taxpayers.

Most Missourians work in industries that don’t have targeted tax credits. Their jobs exist because there is enough demand for them. The demand for bakers, babysitters, yoga instructors, doctors, lawyers, and free-market research analysts in Missouri is high enough so that their employers choose to pay for their jobs without government assistance.

Furthermore, if the state stops subsidizing these jobs, then it has more workers available to do other kinds of work. In the comments, Josh Smith notes that:

There is not some fixed “pool of jobs” which can only be expanded by spending tax dollars in the right way. There are many different types and amounts of work that can be done to earn a wage, specialization and trade tend to lead to a more efficient economy.

(3) The $4.5 million applies to state tax revenues, not total expenditures.

I realize that there is some confusion here, and I admit that I should have stated this more clearly in my op-ed. State tax revenues and total expenditures are different numbers. To an out-of-state production crew like Reitman’s, Missouri issues a tax credit to for up to 30 percent of the amount that they spend in state. This means that they get $3 million back if they spend $10 million in Missouri (which they can turn around and sell, because these tax credits are fungible). Given the low multiplier for the film industry (described herein), there is no way that the state would be able to recover that amount of money, whether it be through sales taxes (4.225 percent) or personal income taxes.

(4) These programs do not result in permanent economic activity.

As Sarah Brodsky points out, the purchases cited are single-time expenses (e.g., $30,000 for ice, $185,000 for set dressing items). Few permanent jobs, if any, are created when a filmmaker comes in to the state, works on a film for a finite period of time, and then goes back to California.

Additionally, according to “The Economic Impact of the UK Film Industry,” a 2007 study by Oxford Economics, the film industry has a multiplier of only 2.0. This is lower than the multiplier for the economy average, and indicates that the indirect impacts on employment and output from the film industry are not very far-reaching.

(5) Missouri should leave filmmaking to states that have a comparative advantage in it.

Why is it important that Missouri try to compete in the national or global marketplace in filmmaking? I disagree that states like Missouri should focus on developing industries for which they are at a competitive disadvantage. Missouri would be better off if it focused on the products and services that it produces best (e.g., Budweiser beer, hog farming, mining limestone, manufacturing) and then traded with other states. I agree with Josh Smith that the statement “Other states are doing it, so Missouri should too” is an insufficient reason. He observes:

If other states want to spend their residents’ tax dollars to attract filmmakers, and the result is that Missourians (1) are still able to get the benefits of the product by paying to see the movie (perhaps more cheaply if the tax credits are spent in making the film more affordable, whatever that might mean) and (2) don’t have to spend our tax money to entice the film’s production to locate here then we have a few obvious benefits.

Also, the Michigan economy is in terrible shape! Why would Missouri want to model its tax policies after Michigan’s, even when legislators there are already discussing discontinuing the program? Right now, Michigan has a unemployment rate of 15.3 percent, which is the highest in the country. (By comparison, Missouri’s current unemployment rate is 9.5 percent, which is below the national average of 10 percent). Even before the recession sharpened, Michigan had the highest rate; in September 2008, it was 8.9 percent.

As its comparative advantage, California has more sunlight than the Midwest, which allows for longer shooting hours, as well a variety of landscape types within driving distance, which can stand in for locales around the world. (Remember how Austin Powers remarked, “You know what’s remarkable? That England looks in no way like Southern California!” while driving on an “English” country road in Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me?)

(6) Subsidized industries have difficulty weaning themselves off government assistance.

When a state coddles an industry that does not have a competitive advantage (a so-called “infant industry”), the industry tends to remain dependent on that aid. Industries that are subsidized are not subject to the same competitive pressures as those that are unsubsidized, and they consequently do not have an incentive to innovate. In “The Case For Free Trade,” Milton and Rose Friedman describe some additional negative implications of these infant industries.

The infant industry argument is a smoke screen. The so-called infants never grow up. Once imposed, tariffs are seldom eliminated. Moreover, the argument is seldom used on behalf of true unborn infants that might conceivably be born and survive if given temporary protection; they have no spokesmen. It is used to justify tariffs for rather aged infants that can mount political pressure.

The post Even More on Missouri Film Tax Credits appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The more shoppers expect prices to fall, the less they shop until prices drop. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that forces companies to keep cutting. That reduces profits, making it less likely companies will hire workers or raise wages.

Or how the price of complementary (or substitute goods) can affect both demand and quantity supplied:

Dominick’s supermarkets announced in late August that prices on a range of items in its 81 stores would fall by as much as a third. Included in the cuts were both private-label goods and national brands […]

Dominick’s hopes the low prices will attract customers, who will also buy enough full-priced items to make up the difference.

“Hey, this case of Budweiser is on sale for $15.00! Let’s go buy some pretzels to go with it. Dammit, the pretzels aren’t on sale. Oh, hell, let’s get them anyway.” (There is always a lot of swearing in the liquor aisle.) I definitely recommend the entire article.

The post Fundamental Economic Principles Illustrated in This AP Article appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Referring to Anheuser-Busch, the News Tribune quotes Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill:

"[…] This is a company that’s been profitable year in and year out and has provided good middle-class jobs in America. It feels like to too many people in our country right now that these are the kinds of jobs that are going away."

This seems a bit confused. It assumes that if InBev does successfully purchase Anheuser-Busch, it will move the production facilities overseas. This isn’t necessarily the case. In fact, in the same article, InBev CEO Carlos Brito is contends:

"What we’re proposing basically is really to take an American brand, so successful as Budweiser, and unleashing that to the world via our distribution system," Brito said.

Taken at face value, this quote suggests that there is no reason to assume that InBev wants to move the production of Anheuser-Busch beer overseas. Even if this were right, the idea that the move would cause job losses to the U.S. is still misguided. A certain Frenchman is always relevant. The problem lies in focusing only on what can be easily seen — the jobs lost overseas. A careful analysis will also reveal what is unseen.

If InBev were to move Anheuser-Busch’s production facilities overseas, suddenly a large amount of consumption goods in the U.S. would be imported rather than produced domestically. If this occurs, the importer (in this case, InBev) can do one of two things with the U.S. dollars it receives: invest in U.S. assets or purchase export goods. To the degree that the former occurs, domestic industries are able to expand and create new jobs with the increased investment. In the latter case, export industries see increased demand and respond by ramping up production, creating new jobs.

The net impact of the move overseas on job creation is ambiguous without empirical data, but it isn’t obviously negative (or positive, for that matter) because there are effects running in both directions. The likely long run effect would be minor, if there is one at all. This is assuming that all else is held equal, of course. Without any evidence to suggest that the net effect would be negative, inferring that it would be negative is a bit rash.

One might argue that this is all well and good for an entire country, but what is at stake in this case are the jobs of Missourians — or, more accurately, St. Louisians. This argument is also misguided. The above analysis applies no matter where the border of the domestic region is defined, whether it be St. Louis or your own backyard.

The post Removing the Beer Goggles appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“I was very upfront,” McCaskill said of her discussion with [InBev’s CEO Carlos] Brito. After offering him a Budweiser and sipping one herself, she told him she would “do everything I could to stop this sale from going through … It’s a bad idea. I don’t want you to buy it. The people of Missouri don’t want you to buy it.”

Politicians never seem to understand how capitalism works. The InBev deal is not the government’s decision or the people of Missouri’s decision. It is the decision of the shareholders of Anheuser-Busch. If shareholders reject the InBev deal, AB stock will plummet. But that is the shareholders’ decision, not ours.

More from the article:

Speaking to reporters after, McCaskill blasted the proposal as a “premium profit for hedge fund investors” and said A-B is a strong company that has provided thousands of good middle class American jobs.

Anheuser-Busch displaced thousands of good middle class American jobs last year when it bought out Pennsylvania’s Rolling Rock. And despite a website that looks very familiar to another local website, there was no outcry (or even a tear) from Missouri public officials.

“We do not have a ?For Sale’ sign on our front lawn in America,” she said.

Well, then maybe the government shouldn’t have gotten to the point where the American people owe $9.2 trillion dollars (of which about a third was accumulated under President Clinton, and another third under President Bush). If I owed trillions of dollars in debt, I might have to sell off a few possessions, too.

The Post-Dispatch (surprisingly) ran a pretty good reality check on the AB deal. And yours truly did, too.

The post This Bud’s for Them appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

However, what if wine just seems a little too “fancy” for
your next adventure across the Lake of the Ozarks Community Bridge to a certain section of Camden County, and you don’t want to deal with the hassle of
visiting your neighborhood gas station/pharmacy/liquor store/grocery store to
pick up a few cans of Missouri’s official beverage? Can’t it just be delivered to your home?

Actually, no. Anheuser-Busch (along with every other brewery
and distillery in the state) cannot ship directly to consumers. The reason
for this happens to be the same reason that people in Kansas and Utah won’t be able to take advantage of Amazon’s most recent business venture: After
prohibition, almost all states in the union moved to what is now known as the
three-tier distribution system, composed of manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers of alcoholic beverages. This system was designed to ease the states
back into alcohol consumption, and to further regulate companies like A-B.
However, its separation has led to the notion that producers cannot sell
directly to consumers. In Kansas,
this means that wine can’t be delivered directly to your home. In Missouri (thanks to the
input of a remarkably powerful wine lobby) it can, but you still have to buy
your beer at the store, because the beer lobby is more concerned with other things. This isn’t a big deal if you want to get a Budweiser,
but if you’re in Kansas City and you want to sample the latest Schlafly Reserve, or you’re stuck in Saint Louis without a
special kind of Boulevard, you’re out of luck.

The only solution to this problem? Eliminate the three-tier
system and allow manufacturers to sell directly to customers. This will keep
prices down for consumers and allow for more freedom for direct-delivery
purchases, for both beer and for wine. I really doubt anyone at A-B would be
sad if they were able to sell direct, both because revenue would skyrocket and
because no midlevel jobs would be lost — distributors of A-B products are all
monopolistic in their sale of the company’s products as is. Meanwhile, all of Missouri’s smaller
breweries would no doubt see an increase in business as their distribution
areas grew. How can this not be a good thing?

The post ’47 Cheval Blanc … to Your Doorstep! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As far as we know, the idea was not initiated by a group of students. Thank goodness for that.

The origin of the idea gives evidence that young people sometimes think more clearly than the adults who govern them.

So the students are actually coming up with better ideas for symbols than the adults are. Maybe we should turn over the rest of state business to them, too.

The post Official ________ of the State of Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Budweiser is a Missouri-based international icon that — if officially recognized — might even persuade more people to visit the state, said Rep. Curt Dougherty.

It’s clear that the purpose of this bill is to help out a particular company. (Perhaps in hopes of future campaign contributions?) Or maybe Rep. Dougherty just wants to help Budweiser learn about the political process!

The post State Symbols ? Not Just for Fourth-Graders appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If you have ever been to a state-operated liquor store in Pennsylvania — and they are all operated by the state — you know that you can only buy beer by the case. There is a proposal to change that, and allow beer to be sold in various six-pack quantities: six, 12, 18, or the beloved case of 24. This change would make beer sales in Pennsylvania pretty much like they are in the rest of the western world. Unbelievably, the microbreweries in Pennsylvania are opposed to the 12- and 18-pack allowance. I’m all for making sure small businesses have everything they need to compete, but not at the expense of basic economic choices for the consumer. From the article:

The problem for many is the proposal to allow the sale of 12- to 18-packs of beer: Smaller breweries don’t have the packaging equipment to produce those sizes. It would give larger breweries an even larger price advantage.

"Who’s this bill going to help? It’s certainly not going to be the little guy," said Joseph Piccirilli, consultant to the Iron City Brewing Co. near Pittsburgh, one the state’s larger brewers.

Arguing against these changes just because smaller companies might have to invest capital in packaging equipment is NOT a worthwhile argument against giving consumers more options. The supporters of the bill have some very sensible counterarguments:

The two senators contend the measure would help in-state brewers by creating more outlets for six-pack sales. Customers now may be reluctant to try a case of their beer because if they don’t like the taste, they are stuck with unwanted bottles.

That seems very logical to me, although truth be told I pretty much just drink Budweiser, so I am not the ideal test case here. I also usually buy my beer by the keg instead of in six-packs or cases. (I’ll let you decide whether or not that is a joke. And please note that the required Missouri connection for this blog post is Anheuser-Busch’s extensive lobbying for these changes.)

Here is an obnoxious quote from a microbrewer who clearly enjoys people having the freedom to drink alcohol, but only on his terms:

"There’s not one microbrewer in this state that can make an 18-pack, not one," said Piccirilli, the Iron City consultant, who supports expanded access to six-packs, even 12-packs, but nothing beyond that.

Another microbrewer apparently knows more about both economics and human nature (the two go closely together), and trusts his product and his customers a little more:

Tom Kehoe, president of Yards Brewing Co. in Philadelphia, agreed that the larger-size beer packs would put a strain on in-state brewers. But he does not believe it will drown the state’s craft-beer businesses.

Microbrews, Kehoe said, appeal to a different kind of beer drinker, who usually won’t buy from "the big guys."

I subscribe to the beer theory of civilization, and beer is a great part of life. People should be able to responsibly enjoy it in whatever quantity they choose to buy it. (Safety-based limits are another issue — a drunk should not be able to buy a case on his way out of the bar.) These choices should be up to consumers, not laws backed by breweries.

The post Beer Bloggles appeared first on Show-Me Institute.