When Rivalry and Competition Isn't Synonymous

For the past eight years the antitrust division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been in hiding. Virtually no antitrust claims occurred during the Bush administration. But in only the few months Obama has been in office, antitrust claims have abounded. There are currently claims on large pharmaceutical companies, Google, telecom providers, and various airlines.

With this rebound of antitrust law, it is important that the DOJ remembers the matter in which they are defending; consumer welfare. Too often, especially in the past, the DOJ has brought to trial cases in which consumer welfare was actually increased by a so-called anticompetitive agreement.

Up until the 1980’s, lawmakers had a vague and broad idea of what competition was, which turned out to be thoroughly wrong. They viewed firm competition akin to competition seen in sports: the more players, the more competition (i.e. rivalry). So for over half a century antitrust law was mistakenly used to simply increase the number of firms in a given market. This turns out to actually decrease market efficiency and consumer welfare.

The new, and correct, definition of firm competition is whatever means create the highest consumer welfare.

Example: An industry contains 3 firms, all with equal market share. Another industry contains 20 firms, 1 firm with 90% of the market and the remaining 19 firms share the last 10% of the market. Clearly there is more “rivalry” in the latter example but the former example is more competitive.

When looking at competition, we must take into consideration market share - the larger the market share of a firm relative to other firms, the more monopoly tendencies that firm will exhibit. The former industry will create higher consumer welfare and therefore is deemed more competitive by modern standards.

Question: Is bigger always badder?

Answer: No. If a firm is able to increase market power and size by increasing efficiency while still making high quality products, then this is not bad. What’s more, this is actually better for consumers.

Example: Costco. Costco is able to offer high quality products at lower prices than competitors because they have been able to increase efficiency by selling items in bulk in warehouse-like retail stores. They save money by eliminating flashy displays and store decorations and then pass those savings on to consumers.

So the next time you snub Wal-Mart, relish the increases in consumer surplus they allow consumers to enjoy!

Twitter-squatters

In the early 90’s the term “cybersquatter” was coined for internet profiteers whose sole strategy was to register domains in the name of businesses and sell these domains to the associated businesses for big bucks. This has since become illegal following legislation passed in 1999, which granted trademark users the right to sue cybersquatters. Now in the late 2000’s, businesses are facing a similar hurdle and a new term is soon to be forged. Twittersquatters, perhaps?

The mystifying success of Twitter, a service that essentially sends text messages en masse that updates anyone on what you’re doing, has led to problems for businesses who didn’t register for free Twitter accounts and are now being represented by non-associated people with accounts in their names. Soon everything will be sorted out, new legislation will be passed, and that will be the end of the issue until the next networking site springs up that provides a similar opportunity for _______squatters.

But maybe instead of waiting for the next opportunity to arise, we could create a universal solution in the form of a tied-ownership clause for businesses.

Tied ownership is a property right used to distinguish ownership of fugitive property; property that is not stationary or intangible, i.e. wild animals, ideas, etc. Tied ownership is the granting of a right based on the associated entity. The other type of fugitive property right is the right of first possessor – what is currently being used in most cyber related areas. The right of first possessor is axiomatic; the right is defaulted to the first one to claim ownership. What would happen if property such as twitter, facebook, and myspace accounts were defaulted to the tied owner – the entity associated with that name.

Right now the rule of first possessor is used because transaction costs are low; it is easy to determine who is granted the right to the account (the first one to register that account). But we are seeing the same sort of deadweight loss that occurred with cybersquatters in the 90’s, in addition to negative externalities in the form of defamation.

The deadweight loss comes from zero-sum activities, essentially inefficiency caused by over-investment of time and energy by squatters to acquire first possession of the account for the purpose of transfer, rather than production and creation of surplus value.

Sarah Needleman, from the WSJ, reports that unauthorized Twitter-ers have been representing certain businesses and in some cases, advocating their competitors and/or making false claims about the company. Cases such as this cause inefficiency that could otherwise be avoided by implementing a rule to tied ownership.

Unfortunately, the rule of tied ownership is difficult to implement and would cause much confusion. For example, which company would get the Twitter account “Aldo”? Would it be Aldo Shoes? Or Aldo Software Systems? And who would be the governing body that would regulate such matters? Trademark registration could automatically register the associated Twitter account; with any other Twitter similar accounts having to be manually registered by the company. If the company chooses not to register Twitter accounts that represent their trademark (such as Aldo Shoes and AldoShoes) then they forfeit any right to sue the owners of those accounts. This would create large incentives for companies to take care of the registration to avoid any inefficiencies in the system.

Trading Pollution: Are Trade Barriers Ever Appropriate?

There seems to be no lack of subjects to write on with the passage of the climate bill through the House. Yet another provision in the bill is to impose import tariffs on goods from countries not meeting U.S. carbon-emitting requirements. As an economist, I would tote our party line that any barriers to free trade are inefficient – but I have to wonder, “Is that true in every case?”

Political reasoning for imposing import tariffs is simply protectionist. Politicians must support, or appear to support, domestic industry and are no doubt being lobbied by many such industries not wanting to conform to the new emission requirements.

But behind the politics there is another reason for why import tariffs might not be considered inefficient. The objective of the climate bill is not, or should not, be to make American industry more or less competitive, nor to make the American people better or worse off financially; the objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a system of cleaner technology and domestic and international offsets. The climate bill is not for political or economic gain – it is to delay adverse effects of our carbon-excessive lifestyles.

If this is the case, then imagine the effects the bill would have if this provision were not included. Suddenly, it would get more expensive to produce virtually all goods and firms would choose to either trade carbon credits or invest in offsets. These offset opportunities are much more plentiful outside the U.S. and are much less expensive as well, which would entice firms’ offset activities abroad. As domestic prices rise, importing will become more attractive. It should be noted that this does not necessarily imply that goods will be imported from countries allowing total environmental degradation for the purpose of manufacture, but demand for goods will increase in these areas. Consumers would essentially be substituting goods to non-environmentally-regulated countries from regulated-countries; thereby undermining the objective of the bill since the same amount of global carbon will be emitted.


By imposing import restrictions, the government is essentially taxing countries for not upholding certain environmental standards. Unfortunately, there are so many wrongs that go with these sorts of trade barriers that the above argument could not even begin to neutralize.

First, this is the classic case of the U.S. trying to impose American mores on other countries. The U.S. did not sign the Kyoto treaty because we did not want to be held to internationally agreed upon standards; essentially, the U.S. was not ready. Now that the U.S. has decided to take on some environmental responsibility, it assumes every other nation is ready. While many might argue that the U.S. has had the capability of environmental responsibility for years and has recoiled, there are truly many countries that are simply not ready. Who is the U.S. to demand the path in which other countries take?

Further, the provision says that barriers will be imposed on those countries lacking “similar” programs – but what constitutes as similar. Our program focuses on carbon emissions, but there are many other foci a program would take to promote environmental health. China might implement a clean water program which would drastically increase their production costs in just about every industry; and while the objective of the program is the same, to promote a healthier planet, it is quite different and is likely to not be counted as a similar program.

Finally, there is a question of magnitude; will countries be fined a flat tax for not having similar programs? Or will it be based upon a variable element, such as emissions per capita of that country or average emissions of producing a good? Surely, this would create the correct incentives for countries and firms who would adjust production methods until the marginal cost of decreasing emissions equals the increase in marginal revenue from decreasing emissions.

There is always the inevitable trade war that occurs when unilateral trade barriers are imposed – but that is only one of the adverse reactions that will result from import tariffs.

Undermining Clean Air Objectives

We have covered carbon-offsetting and subsidies that provide misleading signals to consumers. But subsidies do far more damage than just misleading consumers; they undermine the very purpose of the Clean Energy and Security Act bill; which is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

By increasing the cost of bad energy goods (by internalizing the externality) then the overall cost of energy to the consumer is increased and this leads to a reduction of energy use. By subsidizing the good energy technologies we reduce the overall cost of energy to consumers thereby causing an increase in, or at the very least, static consumption of energy. The act of subsidizing energy to encourage consumption of clean energy goods over bad energy goods undermines the purpose of the bill in question.

Gilbert E. Metcalf explains the logic and economics of raising prices over subsidizing in his article “Tax Policies for Low-Carbon Energy.” He states that subsidies result in a relative price difference of the two types of goods to encourage consumption in the ‘right direction.’ “If fuel source X causes pollution that is equal to 10 percent of its cost then we can provide the right incentive to fuel users choosing between fuel sources X and Y by raising the price of X by 10% or by lowering the cost of fuel source Y by 1/(1.10) or 9.1%. Either way, the relative cost of fuel source X to Y is now 10% higher than it was prior to the implementation of new energy policy. Either a tax or a subsidy can be effective on the margin of choosing among fuel sources where some sources cause pollution.” Metcalf goes on to explain that the problem lies in the perceived information of the subsidy as explained the previous post. To achieve efficiency, consumers must have perfect information (normally achieved through prices) and by augmenting the prices in the wrong direction, consumers do not realize the true value of the good they are buying.

This is essentially the government playing favourites and losing sight of their true objective. This is exemplified in the subsidies on hybrid cars. Using two cars, the Mazda Tribute Hybrid and the Toyota Corolla, we can see how subsidies can create the wrong incentives for firms. The Mazda Hybrid gets 32 mpg while the Toyota Corolla gets 31. The Toyota Corolla has been engineered to have the highest mpg possible for a non-hybrid car but is not eligible for a subsidy from the government even though Toyota has spent time and energy into making it the most efficient it can be. The Mazda Hybrid is eligible for large subsidies from the government simply because it uses hybrid technology. Very little time and money have been put into making the rest of the car fuel-efficient and instead, has relied solely on the hybrid technology to increase mpg. The subsidy given to the Mazda Hybrid undermines any incentive the firm might have otherwise had to increase mpg through other means such as perfecting the internal combustion engine. Metcalf again argues that “Our tax policy should provide the same incentives to improve mileage regardless of the technology put in place.”

Why Taxes Trump Subsidies

cartoonstock.com

My last post explored the inefficiencies in the primary objective of the Clean Energy and Security Act bill, mainly carbon-offsetting. This post will focus on the other provisions in the bill, mainly, subsidies in the form of tax credits and business grants for those entities choosing to use clean energy technologies.

I must preface that though I am criticizing the abilities of this bill, it is a monumental legislative step in the right direction; though it must still pass in the senate. A friend of mine who does not believe in global warming has even expressed admiration for the bill and its intentions, though agrees with my assessment of its planned execution of those intentions.

The US government has long suffered from control issues. This bill provides subsidies and tax credits for those people who choose to use energy efficient technologies. To understand why this is not a great idea, we must look at the effect subsidies have on decision-making and rationality. In economics, we assume that people are rational agents acting on perfect information, among other things. If information is perfect, then prices represent the actual cost of the goods produced. By subsidizing clean energy technologies through business grants or tax credits the government is essentially creating prices that do not reflect the true social value of the good. Therefore, more is consumed of these goods than would otherwise be optimal and creates a higher social net cost without the same social net benefit that would have occurred if the prices were representative of the value of the good.

So what would be the solution? Instead of making it cheaper to consume certain energy sources, make it more expensive to consume the bad energy technologies. This may seem to achieve the same objective of having consumers substitute good energy with bad but this results in a more socially optimal solution.

Bad energy goods are labeled “bad” because they create an externality and further, this externality is not internalized in the price. This means that the cost to society of using this good is higher than the price being charged by firms because the firms are not held responsible for the negative effects the result from production and use of the good. By increasing the cost of these bad energy goods we can internalize the externality caused by the goods.

Why is this better? This gives consumers perfect information by way of prices so that they are able to choose the socially optimal level of consumption of both, or just one, good(s). The problem with subsidizing goods is that it gives signals to the consumer that the good creates a positive externality, i.e. it increases social welfare. While clean energy technologies trample less heavily on the earth, solar panels and wind turbines must still be produced by a firm using hazardous materials and non-renewable energy. One cannot argue that using such technologies reverse damage in the atmosphere, they only damage it less; therefore, they do not create a positive externality and should not be subsidized.

An Energy Bill with a Catch

Yesterday, a monumental energy bill was passed in the House. While liberals and conservatives are shouting out praise or disapproval, respectively, few have looked past party lines to gauge the real effects of the bill.

The bill is attempting to achieve one main objective which is a 17% reduction in economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The proposed strategy is a cap-and-trade system with large amounts of domestic and international carbon offsetting opportunities. There are provisions in the bill which will assist and mitigate the primary objective such as renewable energy requirements on utilities, energy efficiency incentives for consumers and businesses, grants for green jobs, and research and development on carbon sequestering technologies.

Though I support a bill to mitigate use of carbon-producing technologies, I cannot say with confidence that this bill will be able to achieve that. A system of cap-and-trade can be effective but is easily sabotaged with offset credits. The theory behind cap-and-trade (in this case) is that the government will set a limit on CO2 emissions that can be released into the air and then issue permits to businesses to pollute in the specified range. This provides economic incentives to businesses to reduce emissions for whom it is inexpensive to adopt cleaner air technologies. These businesses can then sell their permits to businesses that cannot easily adopt clean air technologies. So far so good. But then the offsets begin. This allows a business to pollute above their permit allowance so long as they invest in carbon offsetting activities. These carbon offsetting activities could be planting trees in Brazil to encouraging US farmers to adopt energy saving farming practices. Businesses will then invest in the offsets until the cost of offsetting reaches the cost of buying permits. The problem is that offsets reverse any intention and effect that capping has - i.e. it is the purpose of the cap to reduce emissions but offsets allow firms to pollute past the cap as long as they pay for it.


Economically, this makes sense. Those who pollute must pay. But the goal of the bill clearly specifies a 17% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. If the goal is a reduction, then offsets will not help. If the goal instead is to increase the cost of polluting to reduce consumption, then cap-and-trade with offsets is the right system. it might seem that in both cases the reduction in emissions is realized, but in the first system, without offsets, the amount of emissions is set and final, while the with the offsets, the amount of emissions will depend on a multitude of factors such as firm's cost structures, elasticity of demand for that firms products, elasticity of supply of that firm, etc. And this is where it becomes complicated.

Further, though I have not done the research, it seems a bit far fetched to me that planting forests in South America will offset emissions released in the US. On average, maybe this is true, but this isn't statistics where the average rules. This is our air and I want the air I breath in the US to be clean, not clean "on average."

Consuming Health Care

The Obama Administration released a report the other day claiming that Americans must start to reduce their consumption of health care in order to avoid soaring budget deficits and further damage to the economy.  In a time when the government is trying to increase consumption in every other sector, why is consumption on health care considered bad?

Insurance: Using insurance to pay for health care consumption create moral hazard and inefficiency.  Moral hazard occurs when people take greater liberties in risky behavior because they know they are protected by the insurance.  Insurance is based on a set of data based on behavioral patterns in the absence of insurance.  When these people get insurance, their behavior invariably changes because they are now responsible for less of the burden if injury should occur. 

But this doesn't only make people more risk-seeking, it also makes them medi-holics. Americans consume an enormous amount of health care services.  We go to the doctor when we have a cold, we get flu shots every year, it's over precautious.  There is a certain level of precaution that is considered optimal but we are surpassing that level and it results in inefficiency.  

I suppose the argument against this is that it's the market-determined level of health care consumption so it is not bad that we spend so much on health care.  To that I would argue that the optimal level of health care consumption can only be found when insurance is not offered.  Insurance effectively subsidizes health care costs so the level of actual consumption is higher than the optimal level; again, resulting in inefficiency.

Medicare: It is a fact that people aged 65 + spend more on health care than those under 65 and that those older people are on medicare. This means that the government's health care burden is enormous.  Medicare accounts for 14% of the federal budget and we can expect to see this number rise as the elderly population increases. Though people 65 + made up 13% of the population in 2002, they accounted for 36% of health care consumption. Further, the relative size of the aging population has increased greatly since 2002 and will continue to increase for the next 10 years.  This creates an even greater burden for the government, especially in this recessionary time, since many of these medicare recipients will drop any outside coverage and rely solely of medicare for health insurance.

Since health care expenditures are subsidized our consumption is far above the level it should be.  There is no easy solution and I think the Obama Administration is not unjustified to ask Americans to spend less on health care.  Further, since our consumption on health care is inefficient, reducing the amount spent on health care and transferring it to other sectors would not only create a more efficient economy but also a more efficient household allocation of resources.

Fast Facts

Health care consumption per person

1980: $1,106

2004: $6,280

Health care as a percentage of GDP

1980: 9%

2004: 16%

Thanks to http://www.ahrq.gov/research/ria19/expendria.pdf and http://facts.kff.org/