Summary

“Michael Carrier has written a timely and interesting book. There is much to like about the book, in particular its accessible format and content. I do fear that it is a bit overly ambitious, however, hoping both to educate the completely uninitiated as well as to develop a more advanced agenda, and at times it reads like two separate books. I suppose related to this criticism are my more detailed comments, which perhaps distill down to this: The book repeatedly and appropriately canvasses both sides of some pretty heated debates, nicely presenting the most basic arguments, and suggesting if not saying that these are matters about which we are profoundly uncertain. Nevertheless, with what seems to me to be little support (and with only essentially anecdotal empirical support), Carrier then chooses sides.

For example, the concept of the innovation market is contentious and unsettled. Carrier presents truncated versions of both sides of this debate and then summarily votes in favor of innovation markets, slyly offering to confine the analysis to pharmaceutical industry mergers, but nevertheless offering a “framework for innovation-market analysis.” Frankly, the framework strikes me as little more than a stylized merger analysis under the Guidelines, with a “Schumpeterian Defense” thrown in for good measure (but extremely limited, and essentially the same as the traditional failing firm defense). I see little here to suggest that the innovation market analysis, even as styled by Carrier, will do much effectively to incorporate dynamic efficiency concerns into antitrust. And there are other examples. I would have preferred to see a book that went into far greater depth in defending these sorts of choices among uncertain alternatives.”

In a recent commentary at Forbes.com, former Clinton administration economist Robert Shapiro argues that some 250,000 jobs would be created, and consumers would save $27 billion annually, by reducing the interchange fee charged to merchants for transactions made by consumers using credit and debit cards.  If true, these are some incredible numbers.

Read the full piece here. 

A Senate panel approved the Leegin Bill on a voice vote (HT: Main Justice).  The story behind the link suggests that there is some Republican opposition brewing.  I suspect there will be hearings.  The Bill’s findings make the following two observations…

Read the full piece here. 

Justin Wolfers is one of my favorite economics bloggers in large part because of the empirical, evidence-based approach he takes to economics problems and policy issues.  As co-blogger Todd points out, Wolfers recently generated some data (JSTOR citation counts) that he argues supports the assertion that Hayek is out-classed by those mentioned in the title to this post.  Wolfers, who I think very highly of as an economist, seems to think so, and pointing out that Larry Summers (and presumably a ton of others) out-influence Hayek by this measure.  I thought the post was tongue-in-cheek, to be honest, before I saw the recent update where Wolfers sticks to his guns and cannot reject the hypothesis, therefore, that “insisting that high schools teach Hayek is a clear statement of ideology, not of economic science.”

Read the full piece here. 

The Texas Board of Education recently decided to add F.A. Hayek to the high school economics curriculum. The New York Times reports…

Read the full piece here. 

The soda industry is trending toward vertical integration, which Coke and Pepsi acquiring their largest bottlers.  From the WSJ…

Read the full piece here. 

A number of opponents of Obamacare, such as Wall Street Journal columnist William McGurn, have criticized the President and his people for referring to pending proposals as “health insurance reform” rather than “health care reform.” I suppose these critics think the President is engaging in a sleight of hand in an effort to minimize the significance of the reform proposals — as in, “We’re not reforming the whole health care system, just health insurance. No biggie.” But Mr. Obama is right. This proposal is about insurance rather than the provision of health care itself. And that’s the main problem.

Read the full piece here.

To expand on Geoff’s post about concentration in the seed industry, there has been a consistent line of discussion throughout the day raising the specter of monopoly and anti-competitive behavior, not only in seed but also in livestock.  There are continual references to adverse price effects and limitations in choice for consumers and producers alike, followed by such tagged-on qualifiers as “if there are any”. The implication is that there is good reason to believe such effects exist and simply have yet to be discovered if we look.

Read the full piece here.

A common theme throughout the day has been the declining number of seed companies–increasing concentration–and its effect. Except no one has talked about the effect.  Other than pointing to the structural change itself, no one seems to have any evidence relating to the effect of the change.  One farmer at the open mic session (coincidentally one who had been sued by Monsanto) asserted that the move from 70 seed companies to 4 represented a relevant decline in competition.  But he didn’t talk about any relevant effect; he had nothing to offer on declining return on investment–no evidence that the change actually affected his bottom line.

Read the full piece here.