You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Mike Munger’ tag.

So Tyler Cowen linked to this report discussing the overall decline in violence in American schools despite the spate of school shootings in the news; as he often does, Cowen doesn’t express an explicit opinion on what he links to, but certainly he wouldn’t be the only academic libertarian to believe that mass shootings are distracting outliers that cloud, rather than elucidate, the real issue of the relationship between guns and crime. For example, here is Mike Munger calling school shootings a “non-existent threat,” while here he is linking to a Jeffrey Goldberg article making the broader point that gun ownership is increasing while overall crime is decreasing. Whether this is Cowen’s general line of thought or not, that line of thought does represent a misunderstanding of the issue. In this sense, the school issue really is a microcosm of the overall situation in the United States.

Beginning in the 1960s, the United States suffered a  severe crime wave, fueled largely by lead (perhaps in interaction with other socioeconomic factors), that had broad effects on American geography, urbanity, politics, society, and economics that are still strongly felt today. That wave peaked in the late ‘80s-early ’90s and since then almost all crime everywhere in the country has been in steep secular decline. This has been awesome.

Here, on the other hand, is data from Mother Jones, who seem to have the comprehensive list of mass shootings in the United States since 1982:

shootings

So clearly a growing problem. And a totally distinct one from whether “crime” is high or not. Two different problems, two different root causes, two different policy networks required to address them.

This is why handwaving at the mass shooting problem with palabum about increasing overall safety and low odds of victimization is not a very good strategy, just like doing the same re: terrorism is not a very good strategy for managing people’s fears about that. But it’s even worse when the problem is demonstrably worsening.

Advertisements

Kevin Grier, the sufferable half of Kids Prefer Cheese, writes this about AirBNB:

I used to think AirBNB was cool, but now that Thomas Friedman has slurped it in the Times, I’m not so sure. One interesting thing in the piece was how the AirBNB founder confuses his company’s revenue with new economic activity.

Surely most of AIRBNB’s revenues are actually just diversion, no? I’d guess that at least 75% of their revenue is just diverted from hotel/motel revenue.

This is a common mistake. “look how much NAFTA increased trade”, “Look how much the new stadium will boost the local economy” are examples of this kind of erroneous thinking.

Creation vs. diversion is an important and often overlooked distinction.

I just had a great stay in an AirBNB property in Brooklyn, but the Staten Island Hilton Garden Inn lost the revenue that AirBNB generated.

He’s right about Tom Friedman, of course, but wrong about everything else. But wrong for interesting reasons!

The first, and simple reason, is that on the margins AirBNB, by creating cheaper, unique, higher-quality, or differently-located lodging options, may result in more overall travel. I may choose to take that why-the-heck-not weekend trip to FunTown if I know I can book a super-cheap night in someone’s apartment, or stay in the cool gentrifying neighborhood that doesn’t have any formal hotels.

Secondly, and more importantly, it is certainly the case that AirBNB is more often than not “diverting” trips that would have otherwise occurred in hotels. But that doesn’t mean it’s not creating new economic activity!

A house or apartment is capital, a machine that provides a flow of services, primarily “comfortable shelter.” When you own a house, you can choose to consume those services however you want – entirely for yourself, rent them out to others, occasionally donate a share of those services to friends or relatives (for example, my in-laws just stayed with us the past week, and next week a friend is staying with us). However, until recently, was difficult and uneconomical to rent out one’s residence for simply a day or weekend or week because of issues relating to information, trust, payment mechanisms, and insurance.

But these are all problems that AirBNB, a new technology, has effectively and efficiently solved, making renting out a portion or the whole of one’s home like a hotel or B&B go from “extremely challenging” to “extremely easy.” This makes houses more valuable. To quote the master, Paul Romer:

Economic growth occurs whenever people take resources and rearrange them in ways that make them more valuable. A useful metaphor for production in an economy comes from the kitchen. To create valuable final products, we mix inexpensive ingredients together according to a recipe. The cooking one can do is limited by the supply of ingredients, and most cooking in the economy produces undesirable side effects. If economic growth could be achieved only by doing more and more of the same kind of cooking, we would eventually run out of raw materials and suffer from unacceptable levels of pollution and nuisance. Human history teaches us, however, that economic growth springs from better recipes, not just from more cooking. New recipes generally produce fewer unpleasant side effects and generate more economic value per unit of raw material.

Basically, the combination of AirBNB + house = hotel is a new recipe that makes existing resources more valuable than they once were. If AirBNB really takes off, what we’ll see is that, as more people elect to take trips and stay in people’s homes (as my wife and I have done before and will do again, thanks to AirBNB) the existing stock of homes become more valuable, there will be substantially increased efficiency in the hospitality industry and there will be more efficiency in urban land use since the hotel-to-overnight-stay ratio will decline and thus valuable land downtown can be used for other purposes, like offices, residences, entertainment or commerce.

I’m not a shill for AirBNB, but it’s a great example of how the combination of information exponentiation and aggregation economies of scale that the internet enables can substantially increase economic growth and human welfare by making all the stuff we already had more valuable. My wife and I got an espresso maker on Freecycle, so we didn’t buy one. We bought something else instead (probably a couple of board games). So in one sense that was just consumption diverted from one thing to another, but comparing the equilibria that’s clearly a net increase for human welfare. In the pre-internet days, that espresso maker goes to a landfill. Instead, it goes to us. So the original owners are unaffected, the public waste burden is reduced, and we get the espresso maker we wanted and other stuff. Someone else went on Craigslist and bought a board game for $5 that cost $60 new, and used the savings to help buy a new espresso maker. It’s all about increasing efficiency, and just because it doesn’t always increase GDP doesn’t mean it doesn’t increase welfare and, eventually, growth.

Join 3,848 other followers

Not Even Past

Tweetin’

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

RSS Tumblin’

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.