Senator Rand Paul re-introduces 'Audit the Fed' bil

Reuters  article "Senator Rand Paul re-introduces 'Audit the Fed' bill" (January 28th, 2015) discusses a new bill introduced by Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and 28 other Senators to "audit the Fed." This would expand the yearly audits taken by 1) Government Accountability Office, 2) the Office of the Inspector General, and 3) Private firms, to include monetary policy discussions, minutes of which are currently released with a three week lag.  Detailed accounts of their holdings are released each week.

The real intent of the bill seems to be to monitor Federal Reserve policy discussion in real time.  This will have two effects: first, to generate more comments for politicians like Rand to jawbone Fed officials about.  Second, it will chill discussion in times of crisis.

In the end, chipping away at the Fed's independence is a good way to get higher inflation.  From Alesina and Summers (1993), the relationship between Federal Reserve bank independence and inflation (click to enlarge).

 

Another aspect of the conservative echo chamber that has lead to insanity.  Sadly, Corrections sees little way to end it.

Edit:  Even a broken clock is right twice a day.  Senator Warren:

[...] but I oppose the current version of this bill because it promotes congressional meddling in the Fed's monetary policy decisions, which risks politicizing those decisions and may have dangerous implications for financial stability and the health of the global economy.

The worst thing for a party about giving up its sanity for poorly-thought-out crusades,is it cedes sanity to the opposition.

Proportion of Murders Committed by Age of Offender

If you ask anyone, you'll quickly learn that kids today commit far more murders than they used to.  Kids and teenagers today are just more violent, more brutal, right?

As with every "the world is worse" stories one is told by anyone over twenty (who inevitably believe that the world is always worse), this one is incorrect.  Below, Corrections plots the proportion of total murders by age (click to enlarge).

Give Peaceful Resistance a Chance

New York Times opinion "Give Peaceful Resistance a Chance" (March 9th, 2011) offers insight into part of an economist's raison d'être. The article by Erica Chenoweth, a Professor of Government at Wesleyan University, misunderstands heterogeneity in revolutionary starting conditions. Her claim:

Unfortunately for the Libyan rebels, research shows that nonviolent resistance is much more likely to produce results, while violent resistance runs a greater risk of backfiring.

To back up this statement, she claims that:

Indeed, a study I recently conducted with Maria J. Stephan, now a strategic planner at the State Department, compared the outcomes of hundreds of violent insurgencies with those of major nonviolent resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006; we found that over 50 percent of the nonviolent movements succeeded, compared with about 25 percent of the violent insurgencies.

Why is this bad research? Because not all revolutions have the same starting conditions. Imagine a world in which there exist dissidents who optimally choose between armed rebellion and peaceful protesting. These dissidents know the government they face and the probability of success of a given venture. Then the observed probability of failure for armed revolution may be higher than of peaceful protest even when both were always chosen optimally. To understand why Chenoweth and Stephan get the results they do, observe the following conjecture in figure form (click to enlarge).

A rational rebel will take the upper envelope of these two decisions. If this is the case, then we will see violent revolutions under oppressive regimes that generally fail, and peaceful protest under non-oppressive regimes that generally succeed. There will be no Ghandi's under Hitlers, Stalins, and Mussolini's. Ghandis can only be successful under men who are inherently peaceful when others are peaceful with them, such as Churchill. Similarly, it may often be difficult for Malcolm X's or The Weathermen to succeed in vastly less oppressive societies, where hoses and dogs rather than machine guns and concentration camps are used to control protest. They are unable to gain the sympathies of the populace. Martin Luther Kings are better suited for the United States than the Malcolm Xs or Bill Ayers of the world.

It is no coincidence that Bill Ayers changed from attempting to bring down the United States by armed rebellion to bringing it down from within--he reoptimized.

The conclusions Chenoweth attempts to draw are faulty due to sample selection.  Armed rebellion may be more likely to succeed conditional on the situation but less likely to succeed when looking at the unconditional success rate.

No, They're Not a 'Hitler' or a 'Stalin'

New York Times article "No, They're Not a 'Hitler' or a Stalin'" (November 16th, 2010) offers a complete misreading of Russian history leading up to the Second Congress of Soviets following the October Revolution of 1917.

Communism has never once arisen — not in the U.S.S.R., not in China, not in Cambodia, not in Cuba, not in Vietnam, not in North Korea — as the cumulative result of social reforms. It was always brought by violent revolution carried out by a fanatical minority, usually during or right after war. Once in power, committed revolutionaries sought to transform agrarian countries such as Russia or China into modern industrial states by oppressing peasants and applying political terror.

This is not true. The lead-up to the Russian Revolution was 56 years in the making, seeing a series of social reforms brought on by both violent extremists and political reforms. In the period between the Peasant Reform of 1861 and the October Revolution, Russia saw the freeing of the serfs, an overhaul of the penal code and judicial system, the creation of the Duma, the legalization of trade unions, organization of political parties, and the creation of local elective bodies with their own taxation rights. To be sure, Russia also saw anti-liberal reforms, but this strengthens the point that this period of great social reform lead directly to the Revolution of 1905, which in turn found its new steady state after the February and October Revolutions of 1917.

The claim that Communism did not result from "cumulative reforms" is a fallacy. Cumulative reforms certainly co-moved with increasing instability in Russia over the course of a half century, leading to the first Communist government, enabling it to kill tens of millions of people until its fall in 1991.

A Legislature of far too little impact

Los Angeles TImes editorial "A Legislature of far too little impact" (September 5th, 2010) neglects the economic idea that an inefficient government may be desirable.

Unfortunately, those successes must be regarded as exceptions. Smart and important legislation, much of it propelled by substantial public support, fell by the wayside in the final days. Indeed, what is most notable about the recently concluded session is not the little bit of good policy the Legislature made but the great deal that it did not. Not to mention the bad bills it passed.

At first glance, it would appear that an increase in efficiency of government would always be pareto improving. However, it may be that an inefficient government is desirable for some.

Specifically, one might see increased government activity as a long-term drain on growth. If, as Rothbard put it, "the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large", then we might consider the societal implications for that band being more efficient (they are better able to steal). In this sense, it may be desirous for us to constrain government to only support inefficient programs.

The Law of Demand holds: if something is more expensive, people will buy less of it. In this case, increasing the price of government makes us demand less of it. This, in turn, helps to maximize freedom. This point would hold for consequentialist libertarians, for instance, who might view any government action as more likely to be from an interest group looking to transfer money from the general public using the government, than out of a real interest of a populace.

Where else might this apply?  Deontological libertarians recognize that behind every state action is the barrel of a gun, to put it bluntly.  Take a parking ticket--it wouldn't seem that a firearm is behind one.  However, if one foregoes payment, either a violation warrant may be issued, at which point at any time a man with a firearm (police officer) may go to your home and arrest you by force.  Alternatively, you may simply run the risk of being arrested (through the use of force) the next time you are pulled over.  The only power The Law has is violence and the threat of violence.  

Deontological libertarians further believe that this initiation of the use of force is wrong.  Consequentialist libertarians have no such issue with the initiations of the use of force.  These libertarians support liberty because they see it as bringing about desirable conditions.  Therefore, a politically savvy Deontological libertarian might desire to make large government inefficient so Consequentialst libertarians essentially adopt all Deontological positions.

Corrections concludes that a government that efficiently takes and spends resources is not necessarily desirable due to these economic concerns.  Indeed, we have indicated that for reasons of political economy, some groups may even desire to make it less efficient to manipulate other groups to the adoption of similar positions.

How to Lose an Election Without Really Trying

New York Times opinion "How to Lose an Election Without Really Trying" (August 7th, 2010) discusses political "amnesia", a concept that sounds particularly non-economical. Corrections suggests an alternative model.

Betting on amnesia is almost always a winning, not a losing, wager in America. Angry demonstrators at health care town-hall meetings didn’t remember that Medicare is a government program, and fewer and fewer voters of both parties recall that the widely loathed TARP was a Bush administration creation supported by the G.O.P. Congressional leadership.

There may be a real reason for political "amnesia." We might take a "regime switching" model as an explanation. The republican party can take on two values. One in which most Republicans want to reduce government intervention, and one in which they do not.  Individuals do not know what state or "regime" Republicans are in, but have signals.  (regular readers will see the familiarity between this Regime Switching model and our earlier article introducing the Kalman Filter).

In any case, we can generate a random variable in which Republicans are in a "regime."  They have a 95% chance of staying in whatever regime they are currently in next period, and a 5% chance of switching regimes.  In our case, we have a signal with noise which broadly tracks the true regime (because of the noise, we can get "false" signals).  In this case, we observe the following signal.  As the blue line is close to one, we see high legislative activity and Republicans are likely to be in a pro-government mood, though they may or may not be.  Using the blue line, our probabilities, and a standard regime switching model, as James Hamilton outlines here (gated) and here (ungated), we can make a "best guess" of what our regime is.  Graphically below, we display our signal in blue and our "best guess" as a red dotted line.  The red line is the "probability"we assign to each state (click to enlarge).

A measure of our success is the following graphical display, in which we again graph the probability that we assign to each state, while also graphing the "truth" (something we wouldn't ordinarily observe) (click to enlarge).  We call this a 'Hamiltonian' Regime Switch simply because we're following Hamilton's outline, not in relation to the mathematical concept.  Note that times when our guess (red dotted line) spikes and our regime (solid blue) doesn't change  were noise that lead us to believe regimes switched when they did not.  Also note that we are (asymptotically) efficient with our estimator--linear weightings cannot do better, ex ante.

This modeling situation appears to be more appropriate than suggesting "amnesia."  We can extend this situation in the case of having no signal as well.  In the case of having no data and predicting what regime or state we are in, or the case of forecasting what state we will be in at some future period, probabilities will slowly converge to our unconditional probabilities--a 50/50 probability of being in Regime 1 or Regime 2.

This seems to be an adequate story for voter "amnesia."  Voters observe strong signals of the regime Republicans are in when they have legislative power.  This may be the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, for instance.  In such a case, voters understand with a clear signal "where" Republicans are.  When they are out of power for a time, or with a noisy signal, they may be less sure than they were two years ago--they recognize the regime can switch.

Corrections suggests that this sort of model is more satisfactory and economical than a model positing "amnesia" in voters.

Hiroshima 65 years later: US attends ceremony, but offers no apology

Christian Science Monitor article "Hiroshima 65 years later: US attends ceremony, but offers no apology" (August 6th, 2010) offers a mildly confusing omission when discussing the August 6th and August 9th, 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Some Japanese still want an apology for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while others complained about the absence of President Obama.

Corrections is confused at their desire for an apology. It would appear to any student of coetaneous documentation that nuclear bombing was a Pareto-improving (if unilateral) decision. Surrender was not an immediate option. Waiting for surrender would have caused more continuous Chinese civilian deaths in Manchuria. Waiting would also have given the Soviet Union the opportunity to invade; it is worth noting that the mass rapes of East Germans in the aftermath of invasion (approximately 240,000 East German women died in connection with Soviet rapes, of a population of around 19 million, let alone massive German deportations to the Gulag and tens of thousands of deaths in Speziallager as the war ended). A planned invasion, Operation Downfall, composed of two separate invasions, Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet, would have caused anywhere from 500,000 and 1,000,000 Japanese deaths, also causing between 109,000 and 800,000 Allied deaths. Comparably, the bombings killed between 8-13 Allied deaths (POW's held in Nagasaki) and between 150,000 and 246,000 Japanese deaths. We forego discussions of other paths of history (for example, the singular bombing of Hiroshima, or a "display" bombing for Japanese observers), suggesting merely that examination of wartime documents offer similar analyses.

The decisions are graphically represented below (click to enlarge). It is difficult to view without opening in a larger window, due to the scope of differences in deaths. The x-axis represents Allied deaths, while the y-axis represents Japanese deaths. The grey-blue area are the maximum and minimum estimates of Secretary of War Henry Stimson. The green bars represent the Joint Chief's estimate earlier in the year. The red bars represent the actual deaths because of the nuclear bombings. Finally, note that the 8-13 Allied deaths are not displayed in the red because they do not render in a manner discernible from zero.



As we can see from the diagram, the nuclear bombings were clearly the favorable outcome for almost any weighting of Japanese and Allied deaths. This analysis foregoes discussion of casualties, rather than fatalities, which only strengthen the point. Indeed, as an interesting side fact, 500,000 Purple Hearts were produced in anticipation of the invasions--these have instead been used for all Purple Hearts given out in the Korean War, Vietnam War, Operations Desert Shield/Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom/New Dawn. There are still approximately 100,000 Purple Hearts left over from this anticipatory production run.

It would appear to Corrections an apology by the United States for the use of nuclear weapons does not appear appropriate, given the Pareto-improving nature of the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Rather, from our analysis it appears that the Japanese should offer an expression of gratitude for the bombings, which saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives.

wheninrome15 on "Can a Soda Tax Save Us From Ourselves?"

Corrections appreciates commentary. A comment by “wheninrome15” was left in response to our post “Can a Soda Tax Save Us From Ourselves?” (June 4th, 2010).   It was thoughtful enough to warrant its own post in response.

The post by wheninrome15 follows:

I'm going to have to side with Mankiw on this one, but his argument is not completely clear, so I can see why you would go in this direction with it. Maybe he is just aiming at a more general audience, but if we're going to do the real deal, we have to address the elephant in the room, namely dynamic inconsistency. Below are my notes from thinking the matter through, hope they will benefit you as well.

To frame this issue, let's first consider a 2-period model with discounting (with 2 periods it doesn't matter what sort of discounting is going on, geometric, hyperbolic or otherwise). The agent maximizes $$u_1(x_1)+du_2(x_2)$$ subject to some budget constraint (say, $$x1+x2=M$$) where d is the discount factor.

In solving this problem, we know that, starting from an allocation of $$u_1(x_1), du_2(x_2)$$, the agent moves an extra dollar to the second period precisely when the transfer causes $$du_2$$ to go up by more than $$u_1$$ goes down. If we are instead thinking of a “multiple agents” framework, then it must be that such bargaining occurs precisely when agent 2, with utility function $$du_2$$, gains more from an extra dollar than agent 1, with utility function u1, loses. So you could think of this as Coasian bargaining, but the 2nd period agent is _not_ someone with utility function $$u_2$$; rather, he has utility function $$du_2$$.

[Sidenote: By the way, in one sense it is an illusion that Coasian bargaining is occurring here. Why are the agents trading with utility functions $$u_1$$ and $$du_2$$ rather than $$u_1$$ and $$u_2$$? The problem is a total unilateral lack of property rights. Agent 1 can steal whatever he wants from agent 2 (provided he has free access to credit, he can even go into debt, which agent 2 will be forced to repay). Agent 2's share is completely determined by agent 1's altruism. If $$d=0$$, for example, then agent 2 is simply screwed, unless we really are thinking of him as an agent with utility function $$du_2=0$$. Another clue is that the outcome is completely independent of the initial assignment of property rights (i.e. period 1 and 2 endowments). But for the present purposes it is actually somewhat useful to continue to suppose Coasian bargaining is occurring, so let's keep it.]

So, when you say that Coasian bargaining will occur, let us be clear that you mean between agents with utility functions $$u_1$$ and $$du_2$$, not $$u_1$$ and $$u_2$$. When Mankiw uses the word “externality,” he does not mean that perfect bargaining isn't taking place, but rather that it is taking place at the exchange rate of 1 to d rather than 1 to 1. Coase does not say what the exchange rate should be, it simply says that, given the exchange rate, trade will occur.

To say that agent 1 imposes an externality on agent 2 is to say that agent 1 is not fully weighing the effect of his actions on agent 2's utility...so how much should he be weighing it? How much, really, should we care about agent 2? Here we are discounting his native utility function $$u_2$$ by a factor of d, but maybe that's just fine...in reality we might think discounting should be going on. Perhaps people are fine with the fact that they don't care about tomorrow as much as they care about today. It would be a poor social planner who made it his goal to eliminate discounting that people really wanted around. It's hard to construct a defensible argument that people shouldn't be geometrically discounting. In a multiperiod model, with discounting $$(1, d, d^2, d^3,...)$$, there is no job for a social planner. But on the other hand it's pretty easy to take issue with hyperbolic discounting and the like. Dynamic inconsistency is rotten, and there is value in helping people to eliminate it [see endnote, but don't read it till you finish this paragraph]. Once you have dynamic inconsistency, everything you're saying simply flies out the window. Coase does not answer the question of what the relative price should be; you have to decide that for yourself, you have to take a stand. In the world of dynamic inconsistency, “the” utility function is no longer well-defined, because it depends on the perspective in time that you choose! You may want a “t=minus infinity” perspective or a “t=10 periods ago” perspective or a “t=now” perspective...but once you pick it you're stuck, you have to evaluate everything from that perspective. It is no longer simply maxing utility, but rather maxing utility w.r.t. time t. Go ahead and treat the agent's weights of ($$1, bd, bd^2, bd^3$$,...) as gospel if you like (that's quasihyperbolic discounting from t=now. The b captures the notion that the agent discounts in the usual geometric way except that he discounts all future periods by an additional factor of $$b<1$$, i.e. he really cares about now), have that be your criterion for how resources ought to be allocated if you like...but all the agent's plans will just fly out the window next period, won't they? If agent 1 wants to stop agent 2 from gorging at agent 3's expense, Coase will not save him! Agent 1 wants the terms of trade to be $$bd$$ to $$bd^2$$ (i.e. 1 to d), but next period they will simply be 1 to $$bd$$. One solution is for agent 1 to precommit, and indeed in a world with perfect information and frictionless and complete commitment, there is no dynamic inconsistency problem. But in reality people are often naive or inert. Thus, the reasoning goes, people can potentially be helped by a soda tax that helps them to resist soda that isn't really maximizing their utility (w.r.t. the point in time that you have decided they really care about). In matters such as these, protecting people from themselves is always always always about dynamic inconsistency. So if your argument does not go there, then you can be sure that it's not getting to the heart of the matter. The point of this is not at all to convince you that soda taxes are a good thing on net; that will come down to Mankiw's last sentence. But that is Mankiw's point too, that it comes down to his last sentence. I do not think his argument stops short of that.

[Endnote: I said that with dynamically consistent discounting, it's hard to argue that a person should do something else. The reason is that, for any proposed alternative, you would be telling them to do something they'd never want to do, no matter what perspective in time they were looking at it from. But with dynamic inconsistency, their decision about what's best depends on their perspective in time, and so in fact you have to make a judgment call about what perspective to call best. And once you pick the perspective, you are forced to concede that the agent -- who does not stick with the perspective you picked (or any perspective, for that matter) -- is doing things that do not maximize his utility.]

In broad strokes, your argument as Corrections understands it can be summarized by the following points (in order of their argumentation):

1. Mankiw did not address dynamic inconsistency but it is relevant.
2. We can summarize the intertemporal problem as a problem of negotiation between two agents.
3. That point (2) is an illusion because the first individual has full property rights.
4. Mankiw's point suggests that perfect trade may be taking place, but at the wrong "exchange" rate.
5. We can't make an argument against geometric discounting very well, but we can against hyperbolic discounting.
6. Hyperbolic discounting leads to an "unnecessary" loss in utility.
7. When evaluating utility loss, one must pick a period and discuss utility from that discounted period only.
8. People are naive or intert, and because of this, they may be helped by a soda tax.

Our responses are organized as follows:

• We agree that dynamic inconsistency is an elephant in the room, but not that it is important.
• We argue that the primary vehicle for dynamic inconsistency, hyperbolic discounting, is not suitable because it cannot generate a significant loss in utility for individuals (which is why it is so often used in public policy analysis).
• We argue that dynamic inconsistency generally, and hyperbolic discounting in particular is either 1) secretly hidden among individuals 2) have some semi-hyperbolic discounting along some of their income but not all 3) are constantly starving to death in secret.
• We argue that most empirical time preference literature is not necessarily a product of inconsistency, following a line of argument established by Gary Becker and Casey Mulligan.
• We note that irrationality itself is endogenous, using a paper by Gary Becker and Yona Rubinstein on terrorism and fear to make our main point.
• We disagree that one cannot argue for hyperbolic-style discounting--we believe it makes a great deal of sense when we deal with the idea of tradeoffs-with-certainty and tradeoffs-without-uncertainty.
• Finally we note that hyperbolic discounting may largely be an artifact of the laboratory.
• We conclude with a rule of thumb.

First, we agree that Mankiw did not address dynamic inconsistency, so we did not speak to it. We spoke to a case in which an individual body is composed of many different individuals over time. We further noted that these individuals appeared to all have a degree of income, due to savings. We then suggested that given some sort of exchange between past-and-future individuals is occurring, the two should be on the Pareto Frontier. If they are not, because a future-self smokes, then he would do better to save less, and smoke more, in the "Coaseian" bargain that we suggested. We suggest that this argument remains untouched, and maintain our point that Mankiw is wrong in the point he made, in our reading.

We see your point as related-in-conclusion but actually quite different from Mankiw's current-self future-self terminology. Yours is about a single, specific individual attempting to maximize their total utility.

First, we address hyperbolic discounting. For the uninitiated, economists generally model time preferences as exponential discounting. This suggests that people are as impatient between today and tomorrow as they are between tomorrow and the next day. Hyperbolic discounting suggests something special about today, and that people value the difference between today and tomorrow differently from tomorrow and the next day (less). The difference between the two systems in discrete time is displayed graphically below (click to enlarge; the graphic is deliberately very large in the enhancement). Hyperbolic discounting offers a "now-oriented" bent to discounting.

To understand why hyperbolic discounting might be of concern to economists, we can examine how two individuals who have ten time periods to consume 100 units of a good might behave. We give one exponential discounting with $$\beta=.95$$. This indicates that he would be indifferent between consuming 1 unit of good today or .95 units tomorrow. Similarly, we give another with quasi-hyperbolic discounting .95203 and the .96, deliberately calibrating it for comparability with our exponential discounting--they choose to consume the same amount on the first day. However, because in each period, the hyperbolic discounter is newly-impatient upon arrival at a new period, and initially they consume more than they planned in the first period. Using log-preferences, this is displayed graphically below (click to enlarge).

We might notice a few things. First, that the red line, the hyperbolic plan, is different than the green line, what actually happens. The second is how, with reasonable parameters (log-preferences and the aforementioned discount rates) and over a long span (ten periods, or years as calibrated), the deviation from optimal plan is not very large. Indeed, if we were to calculate how much our hyperbolic discounter should pay to stay on his optimal plan, it would be .0322 units, of his 100 units. That is, in this reasonable example calibrated for a ten-year horizon, individuals lose 0.03% of their initial income due to hyperbolic discounting. The sheer smallness of this number suggests that economists concerning themselves with this loss in public policy without first examining the much larger government waste must have ulterior motives.

But let us forego our concerns about the minute nature of hyperbolic discounting and instead note that even were it not small, any person without hyperbolic discounting should be hunting for these individuals with as much passion as the harpies who hunted an Aeschylean Orestes in The Eumenides. Why should we hunt these people with great passion?

Say they have a $$\beta$$ of .95 and a $$\delta$$ of .975. Therefore, in exchange for 1.026 units of period three, I buy one unit of period two consumption from you. Time passes one period, and I can now sell you the one unit of period two consumption for 1.08 units of period three, netting myself a profit of .05 in the third period without sacrificing any consumption.

Of course, this does not have to be done with only one unit--it can be done with your entire fortune. Because the relative prices between future periods are changing for hyperbolic discounters, any arbitrager may come along and, over the course of two periods, consensually exchange all of a hyperbolic discounter's fortune away from him--a hyperbolic discounter and his money are soon parted.

This leads us to conclude that either a) hyperbolic discounters do not exist b) they are well hidden within the population (and thus safe from such traders or c) they have starved in the streets, silently, bereft of the money that was once theirs.

We might further note that time preferences are endogenously determined, as Gary Becker and Casey Mulligan do in their 1997 Quarterly Journal of Economics paper "The Endogenous Determination of Time Preference." They note that by endogenizing discount rates, "it appears possible to explain with a model of rational behavior many assertions in the literature that are claimed to imply irrational choices." Their list includes the fact that people are not equally patient, that income is associated with higher consumption growth, and the relationship between schooling and consumption growth, relationships previously identified as irrational.

Finally, and in light of our previous point, we should note that any lingering inefficiencies will be small. It is difficult to see any market failure preventing individuals from investing in their own time preferences, in individuals requiring the government to provide that good, especially given information asymmetry going the wrong way. At any place where there should be great inefficiencies due to "irrationalities", we should also see great individual effort to overcome the irrationalities.

This is seen, for example, in the paper "Fear and Response to Terrorism: An Economic Analysis" by Gary Becker and Yona Rubinstein, who identify the role of fear in economic behavior, finding that individuals overcome their terror (they study suicide bombers and the use of buses by Israelis) more when they have incentives to do so. So too, do we expect individuals who lose the most because they are irrational to invest the most in changing their own behavior. We might add that subsidizing "irrationality" though a series of government nudges and shoves encourages the opposite type of meta-behavior.

Let us forego the ideas that hyperbolic discounting cannot generate large losses in utility with reasonable parameters, or that they provide arbitrage opportunities, or that individuals will optimally invest in controlling their irrationality and that there appear to be no market failures. Instead, let us note that even without these, hyperbolic discounting might have a real economic rationale. Specifically, there is a reason that today and tomorrow and tomorrow and the next day are different. The decisions we make are assured between today and tomorrow, where we have no such assurances in the next day.

Corrections only sees hyperbolic discounting literature applied in the literature on public choice, perhaps because only public choice examines long enough time periods for hyperbolic discounting to become important (for example, discussing global warming). In this case, there is an obvious reason why individuals should be today-focused. Specifically, because tomorrow has a degree of uncertainty that is not present today, but is present in all future periods. Let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that who is in power politically is an i.i.d. process. Then in making decisions about what legislation to pass, and what to have it depend on, whoever is passing the law should "trust" themselves more than future generations of lawmakers, because they have a smaller chance at being in power in all future periods (and due to our i.i.d. nature, the same, nonunity chance of being in power in all periods). This is a case in which hyperbolic discounting is "rational," though inefficient due to public choice incentives, rather than having anything to do with discounting.

Finally, we note, as Glenn Harrison and Morten Igel Lau do in "Is the Evidence for Hyperbolic Discounting in Humans Just An Experimental Artefact?," that while individuals participating in laboratory experiments appear to prefer to be paid in the present rather than the future, this may be a function of rational payment uncertainty rather than any discounting. Indeed, in this case, hyperbolic discounting in the lab in this situation is actually optimal behavior.

A number of the points we make hold for any form of dynamic inconsistency. We chose hyperbolic discounting because it was both mentioned in the post and is the most common form of dynamic inconsistency.

In light of these arguments, Corrections recalls a the opening of George Stigler's "The Intellectual and the Market Place"

The Intellectual has never felt kindly toward the market place; to him it has always been a place of vulgar men and of base motives. Whether this intellectual was an ancient Greek philosopher, who viewed economic life as an unpleasant necessity which should never be allowed to become obtrusive or dominant, or whether this intellectual is modern man, who focuses his scorn on gadgets and Madison Avenue, the basic similarity of view has been pronounced.

Corrections sees the relationship between the intellectual and individual freedom to be similar. Whether it is Rousseau's belief that individuals must be "forced to be free" (end of Section 7), or Plato's belief in a static, unchanging society where popular music, theatre, and poetry are banned, and the right to raise one's own children is eliminated (in The Republic), or Isaiah Berlin's corruption of the phrase "liberty" in Two Concepts of Liberty to argue a perverted liberty that required an obligation from one's fellow men beyond non-interference, intellectuals have rarely been friends of liberty.

It is in the light of a would-be tyrant that all paternalists should be seen, Corrections notes. As we have noted before, paternalists are would-be slavemasters with a smile.  History, economic and otherwise, as well as the economic theory of public choice, help us see this relationship. Individuals are very good at running their own lives, and are miserable, if not genocidal, when running the lives of others.  The ambivalence of intellectuals to a soda tax is simply a symptom of the hostility of intellectuals to the market place, and to liberty.

Ex-Offenders and the Vote

New York Times editorial "Ex-Offenders and the Vote" (March 21, 2010) displays ignorance of political theory as well. While Corrections attempts to eschew "ought" for "is" at times it becomes necessary to delve into, and correct in, other fields. In this case, the words of John Locke are echoed in an attempt to give force to an argument in the Times.

Millions of ex-offenders who have been released from prison are denied the right to vote. That undercuts efforts to reintegrate former prisoners into mainstream society. And it goes against one of democracy’s most fundamental principles: that governments should rule with the consent of the governed. [Emphasis added].

John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Civil Government (Chapter VIII), wrote "MEN being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent." This was the phrase the Times echoed.

However, Locke had also written (Chapter I), "Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the common-wealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good." So long as a law is providing for the common good (e.g. not impoverishing everyone, not taking their property, and so forth), it is within the capacity of the legislature.

Yet we might continue further, because our subjects are former criminals. When an individual enters society, in the Lockeian concept, he gives it the power to make laws. When he then breaks those laws, he forfeits his power to manage those same laws by re-entering a state of nature (temporarily, and if he uses force)--by breaking them.

The use of Lockeian phrasing deserves the same. It is unimaginable that an ingenuous mind, reading John Locke, could come to the conclusion that disenfranchisement of someone who broke the social compact was out of the scope of a state's power.