Conflating Stimulating the Present and Robbing the Future

Milton Friedman warned in Free to Choose, "If all we want are jobs, we can create any number--for example, have people dig holes and then fill them up again or perform other useless tasks... Our real objective is not just jobs but productive jobs." Obama and Co. have proposed an economic plan that includes spending $200 million on employing people to relay sod on the mall -- $200 million to dig holes, and fill them up again.

Is the BCS an Antitrust Violation?

I'm from north Florida, about 45 minutes from Gainesville. My brother attends the University of Florida, and the majority of my high school friends are Gator grads. I will be in Gainesville on Thursday night with friends watching the National College Football "Championship" game between the Florida Gators and the Oklahoma Sooners. I am a devoutly loyal fan of a professional football team from north Florida, but I couldn't care less whether the Gators win or lose on Thursday.

The absence of a playoff system to determine the champion of college football completely removes all legitimacy from the sport, and I cannot devote time and emotion to something I don't believe to be legitimate. I know I'm not alone in my apprehension towards college football because of the bowl system. The collusive activity keeping the bowl system intact has restrained my consumptive interest in the sport, and the endless complaints about the system suggests that it restrains the interest of others, too.

This sparks a question: Is the existence of the bowl system to the exclusion of a an alternative, more reasonable system (read: playoff system) to determine the sport's champion a violation of antitrust law? The basic standard, if I recall correctly from undergrad, for establishing illegal anti-competitive business practices is whether the practices represent an "unreasonable restraint of trade." I've never heard an argument that could lead one to conclude that the bowl system is reasonable.

Here's hoping I get that coveted unpaid internship with the FTC this summer. I'm taking down Dartmouth Dining Services first, the BCS second.

Barney Frank, Paul Krugman, and the Apocalypse

It is a safe argument that congressional irresponsibility is a cause of the present recession. A rarer argument is that the irresponsible use of language by Democrats in congress is a cause of the recession. Accordingly, I'll fill the void and make it: the grossly inaccurate language of Democrats in politics, economics, and the media comparing the present economy to the Great Depression is a cause of the economy's problems, or at the very least stands to exacerbate them.

Consider that the short-term prosperity of the economy is foremost a function of consumption, and consumption is a function of consumer confidence and consumptive ability. Consumer confidence reached an "all-time" low in December since the Consumer Confidence Index was created in 1967. Yet consumptive ability, roughly measurable by the unemployment rate (6.7% in December), is only slightly worse than it was during the first recession of George Bush's presidency (6.3% in June 2003).

What are the determinants of consumer confidence? The economic condition of individuals is certainly a gauge consumers use, but given the disparity between consumptive ability and confidence, in this case it has clearly been overwhelmed by other barometers. It seems clear that two extraordinary conditions have primarily driven the extreme lack of confidence. The first is the erratic and dramatic behavior of the stock market during October and November. The second is the pervasive, apocalyptic language comparing the economy to the Great Depression among Democratic politicians and the media. The Dow has stabilized, but the apocalypse continues in relentless media reports.

If the nature and frequency of such reports continue, it stands to reason that consumption will be hindered by depressed confidence beyond that which it would if characterizations of the economy were accurate by Democrats and the media. The economy will suffer in the short-term as a result.