Slippery

Socialism and Capitalism are fraught labels that many people will define in their own convenient way. Crony capitalism is surely the wrong capitalism but perhaps defines our unstoppable drift. Both political parties inevitably find cronies with whom they would like to do business: special dispensation in return for political support. Too many businesses sign up for the deal.

Millennial voters are supposedly prompting a shift to the left among would-be candidates for the Democrat Party's nomination for President. Interesting political footwork will be on display for some months. Democrat Party Chair Tom Perez was on one of the news shows this AM showing off some of his dance steps.  Many of the things that many voters seemingly enjoy, he mentioned, were once deemed "socialist." He cited Social Security and minimum wage laws. Others add the modifier "democratic" socialism to distance themselves from the well known socialist catastrophes; Venezuela's Maduro and the plight of his nation are in the news daily. Others prefer current European examples. Arnold Kling notes that they get the story less than half-right.

Russ Roberts and Mike Munger discuss crony capitalism in this week's Econtalk. Is crony capitalism inevitable? Does our Constitution protect us?  Does our culture protect us? Are both layers of protection fraying? Did both political parties (and most economists) wrongly embrace bail-outs in 2008? Did they give away the store? Did they provide ammunition to the left that will be used to challenge defenders of market economics for many years?

I enjoyed the conversation and encourage others to listen to it. I did not come away with the feeling that the drift to cronyism can be arrested. I do not see a modern-day Churchill with the rhetorical and intellectual skills to turn the tide and make the case that "democratic socialism" or cronyism are slippery slopes to avoid. Far from it.

Sunk costs

In recent weeks, California’s new governor canceled (actually scaled back) California’s high-speed rail (previous post), Airbus canceled further work on the A-380, and Amazon has second thoughts about New York city. Is it the end of the sunk cost fallacy? Not really. The sunk cost fallacy results from the natural human tendency to not admit mistakes – and to somehow strive to redeem mistakes. Gamblers seldom walk away from a losing streak (casinos make a lot of money).  Couples and friends with relationships gone sour often stick with them for many years. (We seemingly have no data on this).

Throwing good money after bad has limits. More than half of new business fail within five years. But this is less clear when other people’s money is involved. It is also less pronounced when Bootleggers and Baptists coalitions are in play. Finally, when (especially) vain politicians think of their legacy (and “legacy projects”, e.g. Jerry Brown and the bullet train) the plot thickens. Amazon walked away from a bad prospect way earlier than California did.

I expect that many more economists teaching intro courses talk about market failure than government failure.  I will never know why.

ADDED

http://www.newgeography.com/content/006228-airbus-a380-death-plane-born-die

Infrastructure!!!

Pharaohs, popes and politicians like(d) mega-projects. Peter Hall has documented Great PlanningDisasters. Bent Flyvjberg and his colleagues have that shown such failures are endemic.

Nevertheless, China’s economic accomplishments over the last 30 years, including all those bullet trains, have garnered fans for this-time-is-different central planning.  

Today’s New York Times Magazine includes “The Trillion-Dollar Nowhere”.  It’s about China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The project “will link China’s coastal factories and rising consumer class with Central, Southeast and South Asia, with the Gulf States and the Middle East; with Africa; and with Russia and all of Europe, all by way of lattice and land and sea routes whose collective ambition boggles the mind.” 

The article does a good job evoking some on-the-ground realities. These include nationalisms, politics, ethnic antagonisms and suspicions, historical grievances, etc. The original Silk Road(s) were no picnic – and was eventually by-passed in favor of improved sea transport. It is only now being revisited, about 2,000 years later, because of modern Chinese planning hubris.

What do we know? Grandiose projects attract a natural Bottleggers-and-Baptists constituency. Politicians and planners overreach. One-off projects are naturally difficult and risky. Rational ignorance-plus-politics is easy prey for sunk-cost fallacy thinking.

Almost everyone laughs or scoffs at the California BulletTrain but who cares? It will go forward.

ADDED

I was wrong. Gov Newsom stopped this turkey in its tracks (oops). Nixon-goes-to-China moment?