Downsizing Blog

Business Subsidies in Alaska

Alaska’s Juneau Empire recently examined the state’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership and found that its claims of success aren’t backed by reality. MEPs are a nationwide network of centers that provide technical and managerial assistance to small and medium-sized firms. Federal funds from the Department of Commerce pay for one-third of the costs of MEP centers, with the balance of costs being paid by state and local governments and the private sector.

The Empire’s analysis found that Alaska’s manufacturing sector hasn’t received a boost from the state’s MEP “after several years in operation at a planned cost of $1.6 million a year, not to mention stretching the definition of manufacturing into housing, art and now farming.” 
 
It appears that MEP and state officials have been primarily concerned with generating favorable press releases:
[T]he nonprofit AMEP and the state have been claiming big successes from the grant program. Some of those triumphs were claimed before the businesses they were assisting came to fruition, while other manufacturing success stories either never went into business, or they did and went bankrupt.
AMEP Executive Director Chris Buchholdt said the partnership is helping companies lower costs and develop new markets, with many poised for national distribution and new hires. He said he hadn't been in touch recently with several companies AMEP had assisted in the past and cited as some of its success stories.
Economic development agencies are better at “press release economics” than promoting policies that will result in real economic growth. They’re also susceptible to political manipulation and corruption. For example, taxpayers subsidized assistance for a toffee company that just happened to be owned by the Alaska MEP’s executive director.
 
A Cato essay on Commerce Department business subsidies argues that companies that find MEP services valuable should be willing to pay for such help from private consultancies:
Indeed, MEP’s description of its own activities sounds like a business consultancy: “MEP will serve as business and technology advisors for manufacturers. MEP will work with manufacturers on the formation of key business strategies, development of focused business plans, and the evolution of growth initiatives that allow manufacturers to aggressively compete.”
That does not sound like something that the government should be doing. It suggests that the government is unfairly arming certain companies in order to do battle with other companies in the marketplace. Rather than playing favorites, the federal government ought to create an attractive environment of low taxes and light regulation so that all American businesses can “aggressively compete” in national and international markets.

 


MMS ‘Captured’ by Industry

“Regulatory capture” occurs when a government entity tasked with protecting the public’s interest instead protects the industry is it supposed to regulate. The latest example is the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service. The MMS was created in 1982 to regulate the oil and gas industry and collect royalties on the resources extracted from federally leased land and waters.

The Washington Post has an in-depth story detailing how the MMS’s cozy relationship with the offshore drilling industry contributed to the BP oil spill. MMS officials considered themselves “partners” with the industry, and the regulations MMS promulgated were often written by the industry itself. Because policymakers are generally more preoccupied with increasing spending and creating new bureaucracies rather than worrying about how existing bureaucracies are actually working, little attention was paid to the MMS’s activities. 

As the Post explains, when policymakers did get involved with the MMS, it was typically to gin up more revenues for the government:
Few in positions of power in Washington paid close attention to MMS and the hard-to-understand world it was charged with regulating. When they did, it was often to pressure the agency to increase the money it earned from leases it sold and the production that followed. Over its 28-year history, MMS grew to become one the government's largest revenue collectors, after the Internal Revenue Service. 
Investigations by the Interior Department’s inspector general over the past several years uncovered a story so sordid that it could have passed for a television soap opera:
Some industry officials built relationships that extended beyond the office. One MMS employee told the agents that she had sex with two oilmen who worked with the program. When IG agents asked whether she had sex with other industry officials, she asked if they had any e-mails to refresh her memory.
“I did date people,” she told them.
One Shell official e-mailed two female MMS employees to invite them to stay with him during a retreat in Keystone, Colo., a resort town in the Rockies. “Don't worry about bringing a thing except yourselves,” he wrote. “Nobody will say a thing about you being here for the night. As far as I'm concerned, you were in a hotel.”
One of the women replied: “You are sooo wonderful. You know how much I totally adore you. I just want to see my best buddies for a few days and unwind in the hot tub.”
It gets worse:
The IG agents found that Lake Charles employees had taken industry-paid hunting and fishing trips. Two MMS officials and their families had traveled to Atlanta on a corporate jet to watch Louisiana State University play in the Peach Bowl. Thirteen employees had used government computers to receive or forward pornographic images or links to pornographic Web sites. An MMS inspector had written four evaluations of an offshore drilling company while negotiating for a job with the firm. Earlier, an inspector had pleaded guilty to making false statements about receiving gifts from industry.
One agency employee, who was dating an inspector, said her boyfriend told her that the time he and other inspectors spent on the platforms amounted to mini-vacations. She told the agents that they “eat like kings, they watch porn and they take naps.”
Regulatory capture is one of the many forms of government failure documented on this website. Policymakers never seem to worry about that in their continual calls to create new departments, agencies, commissions, boards, and other federal entities. When government regulations fail, policymakers almost always heap on more regulations. The government’s recent advances into the health care and financial services industries after its prior failures in those areas will likely lead only to further failures and more economic distortions down the road.
 
Gerald O’Driscoll points out that regulation also fails because the knowledge the regulators would need to possess “is dispersed throughout the industry and broader economy.” Centralizing that knowledge would mean central planning of the economy, which the Soviet Union proved does not work. O’Driscoll cites University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein’s observation that we need simple rules for a complex world:
The complexity of rules is self-defeating, because that complexity requires more knowledge than can be acquired. Brazil has a simple rule for directors of failed banks: They are personally liable. That concentrates the mind of directors on reining in risk-taking by management more effectively than would creating a systemic-risk regulator.
The Obama administration and Congress propose more of the same failed approach to regulation. Instead they should heed Hayek, who observed that “the curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

 

 


Government's Economic Distortions

A couple of weeks ago, David Boaz discussed the Old Testament story in which the people of Israel ask Samuel for a king to rule over them. God’s instructions to Samuel can be summed up as “tell them to be careful of what you wish for.” David brought up the passage in the context of civil liberties, but the story’s lesson also applies to economic liberties.  

Over the past eighty years, the public has become conditioned in times of crisis to turn to their rulers and demand that they “do something.” That the rulers had a hand in the crisis is all too often either unrecognized or it’s a secondary concern. As Robert Higgs demonstrated in his seminal book, Crisis and Leviathan, the rulers will willingly oblige the public and, in the process, come away with more power and control than they had prior to the crisis. Unfortunately, the rulers’ enhanced authority begets more crises in the future. 

The latest chapter in this story is the economic downturn. Many of the “seeds” for the recession were planted by government. Regardless, the average citizen reflexively looked toward Washington to quickly fix the economy. The public’s limited patience meshes well with policymakers who are naturally inclined to operate on a short-term horizon (i.e., the next election). Therefore, policymakers responded with quick-fix measures with almost no regard to the long-term consequences.
 
The long-term economic problems caused by massive deficit spending and mounting debt are the most obvious. But as two stories in the news show, short-term measures implemented by policymakers to “fix” the economy have also introduced unwelcome economic distortions.
 
First, following the expiration of the federal homebuyer tax credit, home sales have fallen off the cliff. The Christian Science Monitor asks: was the homebuyer tax credit the “scam of the century?” The program was riddled with fraud, some folks who were induced to purchase a house are already underwater or are headed in that direction, and the billions of dollars spent on the program did zilch for the long-term health of the housing market.
 
When one looks at ultimate beneficiaries of the tax credit, it’s easy to see why the CSM calls it a “scam”:
[I]n trying to fully understand why the government undertook such a useless and poorly calculated program, it’s important to recognize those who truly walk away from this policy in better standing.
 
Realtors, home builders and mortgage bankers…. some of the most notable culprits of the housing bubble years… all walk away cleanly skimming the proceeds coming from the transactions of an estimated 2 million temporarily stimulated home purchases.
 
It should come as no surprise that these were the very same industry groups that worked tirelessly lobbying to enact this failed policy… it was a simple exchange… your tax dollars to their wallets.
Second, we go from “scam of the century” to the “the dumbest program ever.” The latter refers to the “Cash for Clunkers” program, which Chris Edwards submitted for nomination in August 2009. Chris cited numerous problems with the program, including that “Low-income families, who tend to buy used cars, were harmed because the clunkers program will push up used car prices.”
 
A senior editor at Edmunds.com tells a reporter from WIOD news radio in Miami that used-car prices are way up (h/t Radley Balko): 
If buying a used car is among your cost-cutting measures...be prepared to pay up to 30-percent more than you did last year.
 
It is a simple case of supply and demand.
 
Trouble is...there are fewer used cars.
 
The cash-for-clunkers program took a bunch off the market.
 
Plus, Edmunds Senior Editor Bill Visnick says 5-million fewer new cars were sold last year...which pares down the used car supply even more.           
As Radley sarcastically notes, you can’t blame those supposedly selfish limited government types for this one: 
[W]e have a government program whose stated aim was to shore up huge, failed corporations by giving public money to mostly upper-income people that in the end will penalize low and middle-income people. But remember folks, it’s the libertarians—who opposed C4C—who are greedy corporatists who hate the poor. 
There could be a silver lining in the cloud if more Americans start to realize that asking policymakers to quickly fix problems that government policies helped foster isn’t much different than asking the arsonist to put out the fire.