I'm an economist with a passing interest in persuasion. So, I read the NY Times Opinion page to try to learn some new ideas and to learn about how the NY Times tries to persuade the select set of people who read its weighty stuff. My own interest in persuasion mainly focuses on how "climate hawks" attempt to nudge people to embrace low carbon living and to support low carbon policies. Despite their well meant efforts, the population continues to vote on low carbon legislation based on a narrower concept of self interest. See my paper #1 and paper #2.
Below, I report some direct quotes from its letters section and its OP-ED section. I leave it to this blog's readers to decide if this is comedy or opinion. After reading these quotes, I see that quite a few NY Times authors must have slept through Econ 101 or avoided taking this course. This makes me sad because I would like to believe that when smart people study economics that our course material sharpens their logic.
Here are the quotes: Source
To the Editor:
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s search for new ideas and inspiration concerning the plight of middle-class Americans is timely and of extreme importance. As the American dream slips away from far too many, new solutions must be found. You report that under consideration are ideas “such as providing incentives to corporations to increase profit-sharing with employees.”
Every quarter, when earnings are announced, the stock market values of businesses rise or fall depending upon their perceived performance. There have been instances in which a profitable corporation has lost a billion dollars of market value because it “missed earnings” by as little as a penny. This essentially means that a benevolent company that spends money to increase profit-sharing, give raises or contribute to the well-being of a community can have its stock pummeled because some of its income was diverted to employees rather than to its shareholders.
If a corporation earns a bit less per share, but the lives of the workers are enhanced, the company should not be punished but lauded. Instead, we too often see wonderful companies that do all the right things being attacked, broken up or bought outright to “unlock shareholder value.”
As things are now structured, there is little incentive for corporations to raise the incomes and living standards of their employees.
RON FREELAND
Woodstock, Md.
This first letter bemoans perfect competition and wishes that the benevolent monopolist would make a comeback. Econ 101 reminds us that we are all both buyers and sellers of goods and services. Yes, I wish that UCLA paid me $1 million a year but my pay is set by market forces and I benefit from purchasing goods I want from competitive markets. Under Mr. Feeland's system, the prices of goods and services would be much higher.
Now consider, Marc Bittman's column. Here is a direct quote from his piece.
"It’s clear to most everyone, regardless of politics, that the big issues — labor, race, food, immigration, education and so on — must be “fixed,” and that fixing any one of these will help with the others. But this kind of change must begin with an agreement about principles, specifically principles of human rights and well-being rather than principles of making a favorable business climate.
Shouldn’t adequate shelter, clothing, food and health care be universal? Isn’t everyone owed a society that works toward guaranteeing the well-being of its citizens? Shouldn’t we prioritize avoiding self-destruction?
Plenty of Democrats, even those who think of themselves as progressive, would not answer yes to those questions. Some would answer, “Don’t be naïve, that’s impossible,” and others would say, “All we need to provide is equal opportunity for all and let the market sort it out.” (To which I’d reply, “Talk about naïve!”) I’m fine with disagreement, but I’m not fine with standard public questions like “How do we create a better climate for business so it can provide more jobs?” Consider what this implies about the purpose of people, to say nothing about the meaning of life. The business of America should not be business, but well-being."
Mr. Bittman might consider focusing on food rather than "big think". He seems to embrace a Star Wars view of public policy that there are good guys and bad guys but let's think about Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax. The NIT would use free market methods to achieve Mr. Bittman's goal. Thus, would he support it? I doubt it.
For goods such as food and education, can we agree that they should be provided at minimum cost (and hence privately provided) but that every person should be provided with a voucher of a given $ amount so that even a poor person could afford the basic level to guarantee "well being"? If Mr. Bittman really believes his rhetoric then does he support public education which raises the cost of providing such basic education?
Mr. Bittman is an expert on nutritious food. Has he read the University of Chicago's Nobel Laureate George Stigler's linear programming piece written over 70 years ago on how cheap it is to deliver such a healthy diet? Read this review piece.