Economic Presence
  • Home
  • Paradox found
    • Paradox found

Interfluidity explains why higher inequality leads to more unethical behaviour

4/22/2014

0 Comments

 
A brilliant post that I reproduce in its entirety unedited. (I am not worthy!, I am not worthy!) 

“Incentives to produce” are incentives to rig the gameThat’s obvious, right? But let’s belabor the point.

All too often in discussions about the vast dispersion of circumstance we call “inequality”, people concede a kind of trade-off. Yes, reducing rewards to those at the top of the wealth/income distribution might blunt their incentives to produce. But the cost of that might be offset by utilitarian benefits of transfers to the less well off, or by greater prosperity engendered by MPC effects on aggregate demand, or by whatever.

That’s all well and good as far as it goes. But at current margins, I suspect (with Paul Krugman) there is no tradeoff. There might be a tradeoff in measured GDP, but GDP happily tallies economic coercion and rent-capture along with genuinely productive activity. Suppose that a comic-book evil pharmaceutical company secretly unleashes a disfiguring virus for which — miracle of miracles! — it has an expensive, patented treatment. After the pandemic, consumers would have a choice: tolerate an odiferous oozing eczema (but remain otherwise healthy and productive!), or pay for the treatment. GDP would likely rise! In macroeconmic terms, this kind of thing is an example of the “broken window fallacy“. Causing a disease and then expensively treating it does not in fact make the world richer. But it may well inspire economic activity — the mass production of a new drug, visits to doctors, extra hours people choose to work in order to afford the treatment, etc. In aggregate, we work harder just to stay in place. But the distributional effects of the operation are very real. The extra personal income enjoyed by the conspirators spends nicely.

In real life, it’s not so common for comic-book villains to release icky pathogens and then charge for a cure. But it is very common for doctors to restrict entry into their profession and to act politically to inflate the cost of their services. Goaded by “incentives to produce”, participants in the financial industry do a lot of “innovating” that amounts to finding ways of skimming invisible or unexpected fees from people or persuading them to bear underappreciated and undercompensated risks or maximizing the value to them (and costs to others) of guarantees implicitly or explicitly provided by the state. Nearly every industry hires lobbyists to carve out favorable loopholes and subsidies and regulatory schemes at everyone else’s expense. Tech firms make a business model of invasive surveillance and selling information about people who are their users but not their customers. Patent trolls send extortion letters to users and creators of new technology. Politicians “revolve” out of government into perfectly legal, extravagantly compensated sinecures in the private sector, and then often back into government. Senior members of the military become “private sector entrepreneurs”, garnering contracts from friends and former colleagues in a burgeoning defense and intelligence industry, often for work that used to be performed more cheaply internally. Executives collude with friendly boards who rely upon transparently idiotic consulting practices to extract huge salaries. Some of these things contribute to measured GDP, to “growth”, but their effect on the actual well-being of those outside their industries is, um, questionable.

This stuff isn’t marginal, nor should we expect it to be. In fact, we should expect the prevalence of rent capture (or worse) as a source of economic profit to increase with technological progress. Why? Because, absent chicanery, technology increases the ease of production and the efficiency of distribution. As Schumpeter pointed out, the source of profit in real-life capitalism is the fact that monopoly power is ubiquitous because of natural barriers to competition. The corner store has a monopoly on the convenience of its neighbors, and so can capture some of the surplus that might otherwise be bid away to customers by competitors. On-demand delivery drones would eliminate that monopoly. Yet the corner store industry might lobby to prevent residential rooftop deliveries, in which case it is no longer exploiting a natural inefficiency but capturing a rent. In business school, students are taught that a successful business has a “moat” that makes it difficult for competitors to bid away ones margins. Technological progress renders moats that derive from nature harder to come by. Instead, successful businesses — and successful people (since under capitalism, a human is just a small business) — must rely increasingly on moats that result from social and political arrangements. We choose to grant monopoly rights to “creators” in the form of intellectual property and to expand their scope. We choose to limit the taxi business to medallion holders. We choose to prevent Indian doctors from competing in American hospitals, even though airplanes have eliminated locals’ natural monopoly. We choose to hire from the Ivy League. The distribution of profits is determined by social choices rather than by natural scarcities.

None of this is to say that any particular such choice is “wrong”. The static inefficiency inherent in patent monopolies at least under some circumstances may be overcome by the incentives to invent they yield. Minimum wage laws are restraints on competition that I enthusiastically support precisely because of to whom the “rents” are directed. Maybe sending a gigantic, very random fountain of money to producers of health-care inputs via an inscrutable hodge-podge of public and private payers really is the best way to ensure our cancers are cured before we are diagnosed with them. Who knows?

But the distribution of affluence is less and less a matter of direct attachment to production, and more and more a function of winning social games and political contests that determine to whom the fruits of production will be allocated. There’s no conspiracy in that. Nor is it an answer to say “capital” now determines who enjoys wealth. As technology improves, capital goods become mere commodities like everything else. Financial capital, whatever it is, is not an input into any material production process. It is a construct and artifact of a huge and ever-changing array of social and legal institutions. “Human capital”, “social capital”, and “organizational capital” are things we impute ex-post to winners of distributional contests as an explanation of observed returns. They do not straightforwardly exist in the world.

“Inequality” — high dispersion of outcome — creates a strong incentives to be on the side of winners. There are some circumstances where being on the side of winners means making an outsize contribution to economic production. There are other circumstances where winning means aligning oneself with coalitions capable of winning legal and political contests that may be orthogonal to, or much worse than orthogonal to, any contribution to production. The two strategies don’t preclude one another. Perhaps outsize rewards are shared between those who make unusual contributions to production and those who participate in politically potent guilds. But, at best, increased dispersion increases the incentive to engage in both sorts of behavior. Incentives to produce are also incentives to contest for rents. And at any given time, for any given person, one may be an easier or more reliable means of gaining outsize rewards than the other.

Suppose, reasonably I think, that ceteris paribus humans prefer to “be good”. That is, we prefer to do work that is productive and engage in behavior that is ethical. Suppose, also reasonably, that a well ordered society depends upon people sometimes making choices opposed to their material interests on ethical or other grounds. Then it is obvious how inequality might be costly. Instead of talking about “incentives to” (produce, extract rents, whatever), we might describe outcome dispersion as a tax on refraining from mercenary behavior. If the difference between economic winners and losers is modest, people of ordinary virtue might refrain from participating in activities they consider corrupt, might even be willing to “blow the whistle”, because the cost of doing so is outweighed by their preference for behaving well. But as outcome dispersion grows, absenting oneself from or even opposing activities that would be personally remunerative but socially undesirable becomes too costly. The required sacrifice eventually overcomes a ceteris paribus preference for virtue. Preventing the misbehavior of large coalitions is a collective action problem. An isolated malcontent or whistleblower is likely to be evicted from the coalition without meaningfully improving behavior, if others choose to “circle the wagon”. Outcome dispersion both increases the costs to individuals of engaging in pro-social behavior, and diminishes the likelihood that bearing those costs will be fruitful, since others will have strong incentives not to follow.

Wouldn’t it be odd to live in a country where, say, bankers individually acknowledge that their industry often behaves destructively, where insiders perceptively describe the conditions that create incentives for people to take bad risks or fleece “muppets“, but continue to work in those places and do nothing about it? Wouldn’t it be odd to live in a country where doctors privately apologize for the way their services are “priced“, but nevertheless take home their paychecks and pay AMA dues? Or in a country where economics instructors teach agency costs with case study of textbook pricing, during a course for which students were required to purchase a $180 textbook?

I don’t mean to criticize anyone in particular. (I used to be the economics instructor.) In all of these cases, there really isn’t anything any one individual can do to remedy the bad practices. Making a big issue of them would lead to useless excommunication. Instead we shrug ironically. In our society, an ironic attitude is a token of sophistication (a telling word, which once meant corruption but now implies competence). An ironic attitude towards collective ethics is adaptive. It helps basically decent individuals participate in coalitions that ruthlessly contend for rents. But perhaps we’d have a better society if, rather than turning our ethical discomfort into an object of aesthetic consideration, lots of us worked straightforwardly to remedy it. And perhaps more of us would do so if the risk of losing our place were not so terrible. Ethical behavior is endogenous. “Inequality” renders it costly.

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Karl Pinno

    Categories

    All
    60 Minutes
    Abnormal Returns
    Academic Publishing
    Advice For Econ Students
    Age
    Aid
    Algo Trading
    Aluminum
    Argentina
    Assortive Matching
    Austerity
    Bank Of England
    Behavioural Economics
    Bio Weapons
    Bis
    Bloomberg
    Bonds
    Bono
    Book Of Mormon
    Brain
    Brazil
    Brics
    Bridgewater Associates
    Buffet
    Calgary
    Canada
    Capital Flight
    Carola Binder
    Cds
    Central Banks
    Chainmail Bikinis
    Chanos
    Child Rearing
    China
    Chris Martenson
    Christmas Wishlist
    Climate Change
    College Humor
    Commercial Banks
    Commodities
    Community
    Computer Programming
    Confirmation Bias
    Conservatism
    Conservative
    Constructive Ambiquity
    Consumer Confidence
    Copper
    Corporate Lending
    Counterparty Risk
    Creativity
    Credit
    Culture
    Cwb
    David Einhorn
    David Rosenberg
    Debate
    Debt Crisis
    Deflation
    Demographics
    Depression
    Development
    Dragons
    Dr. Ed's Blog
    Econ Blogs
    Economics
    Ecri
    Education
    Electricity
    Eurasia Group
    Eurozone
    Excercise
    Externalities
    Falkenblog
    Ferguson
    Fertility
    Filtering
    Financial Crisis 2008
    Financial Engineering
    Financial Reform
    Financial Repression
    Financial Research
    Fiscal Policy
    Fiscal Stimulus
    Fisher
    Fixed Income
    Flood
    Food Prices
    Frank And Cook
    Fraud
    Freidman
    Ft
    Game Theory
    Gender
    Generalist
    George Soros
    Get Smart
    Giffen Good
    Global Banking
    Global Economy
    Gmo
    Godfather
    Gold
    Goldman Sachs
    Great Careers
    Greece
    Greenlight Capital
    Happiness
    Hayman Capital Management Lp
    Hbo
    Health
    Hedge Funds
    Homosexuality
    Housing Market
    Hubbard
    Hugh Hendry
    Hussman
    Ian Bremmer
    Imf
    Inception
    Income Smoothing
    India
    Inequality
    Inflation
    Inflationary Expectations
    Inside Job
    Interest Rates
    Interfluidity
    Intuition
    Inventories
    Iran
    Iraq
    Italy
    Janusian Thinking
    Japan
    Jordan Peterson
    Jp Morgan
    Judgement
    Kalecki Equation
    Krugman
    Kyle Bass
    Larry Smith
    Larry Summers
    Lehman Brothers
    Levitt
    Liberal
    Lonely Island
    Luck
    Macro
    Macro Intro
    Macro Predictions
    Management Consulting
    Marginal Revolution
    Market Design
    Market Monetarism
    Marx
    Matt Taibbi
    Mercantilism
    Michael Portillo
    Milton Friedman
    Mircea Eliade
    Mish
    Mishkin
    Monetary Policy
    Monetary Stimulus
    Multipliers
    Mundell
    Music
    Nanex
    Nfl
    Noahpinion
    Nobel Price In Economics
    Oil Price Volatility
    Oil Production
    Omitted Variable Bias
    Optimism Bias
    Overcomingbias
    Palantir
    Pettis
    Phillips Curve
    Placebo
    Podcasts
    Poker
    Poland
    Politico
    Politics
    Portfolio Management
    Prisoner's Dilemma
    Productivity
    Psychology
    Publishing
    Quality
    Quantitative Easing
    Race
    Rand Paul
    Ray Dalio
    Rbc Theory
    Real Interest Rates
    Reality Tv
    Recession
    Redistributionist Reform
    Regulators
    Regulatory Capture
    Remembrance Day
    Research
    Richard Wilkinson
    Riots
    Risk
    Risk Taking
    Robots
    Roubini
    Russia
    Ryan
    Sachs
    Salt
    Saudi Arabia
    Sec
    Seth Klarman
    Shadowbanking
    Shiller
    Signaling
    Smes
    Snap
    Social Policy
    Social Unrest
    Society
    Sorkin
    Soros
    S&P
    Spain
    Specialization
    Speculation
    State Sponsored Terrorism
    Status
    Steve Jobs
    Steven Keen
    Stress
    Structural Unemployment
    Structure Finance
    Sugar
    Suicide
    Svars
    Systemic Risk
    Tax
    Taylor Rule
    Technology
    Ted
    Television
    The Clash
    The Economist
    The Wire
    Thinking
    Thoureau
    Trade
    Trilemma
    Turkey
    Tyler Cowen
    U2
    Unemployment
    Us 2012 Election
    Us Economy
    Us Foreign Policy
    Velocity
    Volatility
    Welfare
    Williams
    Words
    Work
    Writing
    Zerohedge
    Zig Ziglar

    Archives

    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.