Tyler Cowen takes on free parking in the NYT
IN our society, cars receive considerable attention and study . . . But we haven’t devoted nearly enough thought to how cars are usually deployed — namely, by sitting in parking spaces.
Is this a serious economic issue? In fact, it’s a classic tale of how subsidies, use restrictions, and price controls can steer an economy in wrong directions.
Now, free parking is a favorite bugaboo of a certain strain of microeconomists and economically minded commentators. Nonetheless, little has been done about it. Equally little attention is paid to smaller and even more ubiquitous constraints on free exchange. For example, in most jurisdictions cutting hair at home can legally be done with a vacuum cleaner but cutting it for pay requires schooling, examination and a licensing fee.
On the other hand barrels of ink and the fates of political parties are determined over debates about the taxation of labor. Its a generally accepted principle of Public Economics that taxes are less damaging than regulation and in either case the broader and more uniform the restriction the less damage it does.
As such its not immediately obvious that whether we tax labor at a high marginal rate of 35% or 39.6% has larger supply side effect than whether a young entrepreneur faces a gauntlet of unnecessary classes and fees. In fact I am being too coy. I would be shocked if the taxes mattered more.
In that same vein we just went through a knockdown brawl on the expansion of health care. Yet, it would surprise me if anything short of single payer health care did as much to expand access to the poor as allowing pharmacists to sell any non-addictive drug they see fit.
If there is one part of the medical industry that clearly improves health, its the medicine part. Yet, that’s the one that we through our own choices restrict the poor’s access to the most. We restrict which drugs can be sold, we restrict who can do the selling and restrict who can authorize the sale. Surely, two levels of restriction is enough.
We don’t seem to feel doctors can be trusted to know whether or not a medicine should be prescribed at all, hence the need for the FDA. We don’t think that merely having a prescription in hand is enough to ensure that consumers will get the right drug or that they will be aware of side effects and interactions, hence the requirement for licensed pharmacists.
Yet even still, we require a third level of verification to ensure that consumers, in their apparently infinite foolishness, do not try to buy a drug they don’t need. I am not suggesting that their aren’t many cases in which a consumer might want the advice of a medical professional. However, many trips to the physician aren’t for advice, they are for permission.
These trips, these fees, these wait times are endured not because people want to know what is wrong, but because they want to be allowed to do something about it. Moreover, its precisely here that the shoe pinches for many lower income Americans.
Despite the massive regulatory apparatus surrounding pharmaceuticals many older, yet still quite useful drugs can be obtained for a few dollars. Nonetheless, the sick are forced to pay in time and money for one our most scarce resources, a doctor’s time, in cases where, if given a choice, they wouldn’t even bother to get it for free.
This is the tyranny of big ideas. Reworking America’s health care system, raising or lowering taxes on millions of Americans, fighting the deficit, securing our children’s financial future, etc. These are grand ideas, complicated ideas worth the time and effort of the most serious people in America.
Letting Mary Wilson cut hair if she wants, letting Mark Sanchez buy an asthma inhaler for his kid if he wants or letting Sam Jones open a little grocery store without buying a quarter-acre of parking spots for customers who are more likely to take the bus, these are small ideas. Yet, they are ideas that could directly and immediately affect the lives of the most vulnerable Americans.
They are ideas that could go a little ways towards easing everyday pain and long way towards improving the total welfare of our society.

12 comments
Comments feed for this article
Monday ~ August 16th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Wonks Anonymous
Reminds me of this:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/the-whatpissesyouoff-heuristic.html
and this:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/05/econ-neglects-licensing.html
Monday ~ August 16th, 2010 at 11:33 am
jazzbumpa
Karl -
You usually don’t ramble this much. I’m having a hard time extracting your point. It looks like tax more, regulate less, but I say that with no confidence.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. said, “I firmly believe that if the whole materia medica, as now used, could be sunk to the bottom of the sea, it would be better for mankind-and all the worse for the fishes.” A bit of overstatement, perhaps, but worth considering. I firmly believe our “magic bullet” approach to health care has many bad consequences, including a cavalier attitude toward prevention, and running up costs for everyone. At any rate, the benefits of pharmaceuticals are not so clear cut as you suggest. Every action has unintended consequences. Drugs muck around with basic body chemistry in ways that are very poorly understood, and interactions are truly a great unknown. Occasionally, people die.
Further, I can guarantee you that Dr.’s cannot be relied on to know what medicines you need, and are far too likely to prescribe something unnecessary that will get them some sort of kick-back. Ponder that as an externality.
Buying that kid an inhaler might seem like a short term fix, but he might be better off by discovering what actually triggers the reaction and dealing with causes rather than symptoms. Long term vs short term utility?
Coincidentally, I was just pondering free parking. In the context of, say, Wal-Mart, it’s part of the cost of doing business. In downtown Plymouth, MI, it’s a benefit shared among all the local merchants, and paid for in some sort of non-obvious collective fashion. What’s the problem?
Sam Jones’s little store is irrelevant. It’s DOA, anyway. He can’t compete with Wal-Mart (or even Kroger) on price, and there will never be enough foot and bus traffic to keep him in business. The presence of a Wal-Mart is a well-known death knell for local business, and results in a lower standard of living for the community. Having the lowest price does not always advance the common good.
Regulations generally happen for one of two reasons. Somebody, say, the barber’s lobby, wants to increase barriers to entry – a bad reason; or someone’s utility maximizing creates externalities that can realistically only be addressed by government – a good reason.
Little ideas have their place. But they must also be good, practical ideas.
Cheers!
JzB
Monday ~ August 16th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Paragraphs worth reading - Economics -
[...] SMITH writes:Now, free parking is a favorite bugaboo of a certain strain of microeconomists and economically [...]
Monday ~ August 16th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » Quote Of The Day
[...] Smith on taxes vs. regulation: On the other hand barrels of ink and the fates of political parties are determined over debates [...]
Monday ~ August 16th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Paragraphs worth reading [The Economist] | DreamInn
[...] SMITH writes: Now, free parking is a favorite bugaboo of a certain strain of microeconomists and economically [...]
Tuesday ~ August 17th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Dan
Drugs that lose their efficacy the more people use them need to be restricted as well, even if they’re non-addictive. My danger of contracting antibiotic-resistant bacterial diseases goes up every time somebody takes antibiotics. Everyone enjoys considerable benefit if we limit the people who take antibiotics to only those who will benefit from them.
Tuesday ~ August 17th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Matthew Yglesias » I Am An Unlicensed Barber
[...] Karl Smith’s suggestion can we talk for a moment about the regulation of barber shops? The way I’ve been getting my [...]
Tuesday ~ August 17th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Economic Freedom, Growth and Money « Modeled Behavior
[...] is not to say that taxes aren’t important. Its certainly not to say that regulation is not important. Its just that they have a different kind of importance than monetary policy. We are not going to [...]
Wednesday ~ August 18th, 2010 at 7:35 am
The government restrictions that matter « Modeled Behavior
[...] a license to do so. Most licensing is not as frivolous as the fortune-teller example, yet as Karl recently argued, many commentators who are otherwise concerned with bad government policy tend to ignore seemingly [...]
Wednesday ~ August 18th, 2010 at 7:36 am
Occupational Licensing: Persuading Liberals « Modeled Behavior
[...] a license to do so. Most licensing is not as frivolous as the fortune-teller example, yet as Karl recently argued, many commentators who are otherwise concerned with bad government policy tend to ignore seemingly [...]
Wednesday ~ August 18th, 2010 at 7:38 am
Why Liberals Should Care About Occupational Licensing « Modeled Behavior
[...] a license to do so. Most licensing is not as frivolous as the fortune-teller example, yet as Karl recently argued, many commentators who are otherwise concerned with bad government policy tend to ignore seemingly [...]
Wednesday ~ August 18th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Around the Mediverse: August 18, 2010 « The Notwithstanding Blog
[...] discusses the optimal level of regulatory enforcement, whereas another blogger discusses the “tyranny of big ideas” in the context of regulatory change and improving human [...]