Conflict without shared reality

2025-08-172025-08-12 PNRJ core principles, current events, ethics, inequality, politics, tribal paradigm Alan Turing, Atlantic, authority, automation, Babylon Bee, budget, conflict, crime, D.C., Donald Trump, employment, fairness, harm, homicide, immigration, Jonathan Haidt, LGBT, loyalty, manufacturing, National Guard, police, reality-based community, revealed preference, sanctity, Washington

Aug 17 JDN 2460905

Donald Trump has federalized the police in Washington D.C. and deployed the National Guard. He claims he is doing this in response to a public safety emergency and crime that is “out of control”.

Crime rates in Washington, D.C. are declining and overall at their lowest level in 30 years. Its violent crime rate has not been this low since the 1960s.

By any objective standard, there is no emergency here. Crime in D.C. is not by any means out of control.

Indeed, across the United States, homicide rates are as low as they have been in 60 years.

But we do not live in a world where politics is based on objective truth.

We live in a world where the public perception of reality itself is shaped by the political narrative.

One of the first things that authoritarians do to control these narratives is try to make their followers distrust objective sources. I watch in disgust as not simply the Babylon Bee (which is a right-wing satire site that tries really hard to be funny but never quite manages it) but even the Atlantic (a mainstream news outlet generally considered credible) feeds—in multiple articles—into this dangerous lie that crime is increasing and the official statistics are somehow misleading us about that.

Of course the Atlantic‘s take is much more nuanced; but quite frankly, now is not the time for nuance. A fascist is trying to take over our government, and he needs to be resisted at every turn by every means possible. You need to be calling him out on every single lie he makes—yes, every single one, I know there are a lot of them, and that’s kind of the point—rather than trying to find alternative framings on which maybe part of what he said could somehow be construed as reasonable from a certain point of view. Every time you make Trump sound more reasonable than he is—and mainstream news outlets have done this literally hundreds of times—you are pushing America closer to fascism.

I really don’t know what to do here.

It is impossible to resolve conflicts when they are not based on shared reality.

No policy can solve a crime wave that doesn’t exist. No trade agreement can stop unfair trading practices that aren’t happening. Nothing can stop vaccines from causing autism that they already don’t cause. There is no way to fix problems when those problems are completely imaginary.

I used to think that political conflict was about different values which had to be balanced against one another: Liberty versus security, efficiency versus equality, justice versus mercy. I thought that we all agreed on the basic facts and even most of the values, and were just disagreeing about how to weigh certain values over others.

Maybe I was simply naive; maybe it’s never been like that. But it certainly isn’t right now. We aren’t disagreeing about what should be done; we are disagreeing about what is happening in front of our eyes. We don’t simply have different priorities or even different values; it’s like we are living in different worlds.

I have read, e.g. by Jonathan Haidt, that conservatives largely understand what liberals want, but liberals don’t really understand what conservatives want. (I would like to take one of the tests they use in these experiments, see how I actually do; but I’ve never been able to find one.)

Haidt’s particular argument seems to be that liberals don’t “understand” the “moral dimensions” of loyalty, authority, and sanctity, because we only “understand” harm and fairness as the basis of morality. But just because someone says something is morally relevant, that doesn’t mean it is morally relevant! And indeed, based on more or less the entirety of ethical philosophy, I can say that harm and fairness are morality, and the others simply aren’t. They are distortions of morality, they are inherently evil, and we are right to oppose them at every turn. Loyalty, authority, and sanctity are what fed Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition.

This claim that liberals don’t understand conservatives has always seemed very odd to me: I feel like I have a pretty clear idea what conservatives want, it’s just that what they want is terrible: Kick out the immigrants, take money from the poor and give it to the rich, and put rich straight Christian White men back in charge of everything. (I mean, really, if that’s not what they want, why do they keep voting for people who do it? Revealed preferences, people!)

Or, more sympathetically: They want to go back to a nostalgia-tinted vision of the 1950s and 1960s in which it felt like things were going well for our country—because they were blissfully ignorant of all the violence and injustice in the world. No, thank you, Black people and queer people do not want to go back to how we were treated in the 1950s—when segregation was legal and Alan Turing was chemically castrated. (And they also don’t seem to grasp that among the things that did make some things go relatively well in that period were unions, antitrust law and progressive taxes, which conservatives now fight against at every turn.)

But I think maybe part of what’s actually happening here is that a lot of conservatives actually “want” things that literally don’t make sense, because they rest upon assumptions about the world that simply aren’t true.

They want to end “out of control” crime that is the lowest it’s been in decades.

They want to stop schools from teaching things that they already aren’t teaching.

They want the immigrants to stop bringing drugs and crime that they aren’t bringing.

They want LGBT people to stop converting their children, which we already don’t and couldn’t. (And then they want to do their own conversions in the other direction—which also don’t work, but cause tremendous harm.)

They want liberal professors to stop indoctrinating their students in ways we already aren’t and can’t. (If we could indoctrinate our students, don’t you think we’d at least make them read the syllabus?)

They want to cut government spending by eliminating “waste” and “fraud” that are trivial amounts, without cutting the things that are actually expensive, like Social Security, Medicare, and the military. They think we can balance the budget without cutting these things or raising taxes—which is just literally mathematically impossible.

They want to close off trade to bring back jobs that were sent offshore—but those jobs weren’t sent offshore, they were replaced by robots. (US manufacturing output is near its highest ever, even though manufacturing employment is half what it once was.)

And meanwhile, there’s a bunch of real problems that aren’t getting addressed: Soaring inequality, a dysfunctional healthcare system, climate change, the economic upheaval of AI—and they either don’t care about those, aren’t paying attention to them, or don’t even believe they exist.

It feels a bit like this:

You walk into a room and someone points a gun at you, shouting “Drop the weapon!” but you’re not carrying a weapon. And you show your hands, and try to explain that you don’t have a weapon, but they just keep shouting “Drop the weapon!” over and over again. Someone else has already convinced them that you have a weapon, and they expect you to drop that weapon, and nothing you say can change their mind about this.

What exactly should you do in that situation?

How do you avoid getting shot?

Do you drop something else and say it’s the weapon (make some kind of minor concession that looks vaguely like what they asked for)? Do you try to convince them that you have a right to the weapon (accept their false premise but try to negotiate around it)? Do you just run away (leave the country?)? Do you double down and try even harder to convince them that you really, truly, have no weapon?

I’m not saying that everyone on the left has a completely accurate picture of reality; there are clearly a lot of misconceptions on this side of the aisle as well. But at least among the mainstream center left, there seems to be a respect for objective statistics and a generally accurate perception of how the world works—the “reality-based community”. Sometimes liberals make mistakes, have bad ideas, or even tell lies; but I don’t hear a lot of liberals trying to fix problems that don’t exist or asking for the government budget to be changed in ways that violate basic arithmetic.

I really don’t know what do here, though.

How do you change people’s minds when they won’t even agree on the basic facts?

The CBO report on Trump’s terrible new budget

2025-06-082025-06-02 PNRJ current events, politics, public policy budget, Coast Guard, deficit, Medicaid, Medicare, Republican, tax cuts, taxes, Trump

Jun 8 JDN 2460835

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming. We’re back to talking about economics, which in our current environment pretty much always means bad news. The budget the House passed is pretty much the same terrible one Trump proposed.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), one of those bureaucratic agencies that most people barely even realize exists, but is actually extremely useful, spectacularly competent, and indeed one of the most important and efficient agencies in the world, has released its official report on the Trump budget that recently passed the House. (Other such agencies include the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. US economic statistics are among the best in the world—some refer to them as the “gold standard”, but I refuse to insult them in that way.)

The whole thing is pretty long, but you can get a lot of the highlights from the summary tables.

The tables are broken down by the House committee responsible for choosing them; here are the effects on the federal budget deficit the CBO predicts for the next 5 and 10 years. For these numbers, positive means more deficit (bad), negative means less deficit (good).

Commitee	5 years	10 years
Agriculture	-88,304	-238,238
Armed Services	124,602	143,992
Education and Workforce	-253,295	-349,142
Energy and Commerce	-247,074	-995,062
Financial Services	-373	-5,155
Homeland Security	27,874	67,147
Judiciary	26,989	6,910
Natural Resources	-4,789	-20,158
Oversight and Government Reform	-17,449	-50,951
Transportation and Infrastructure	-361	-36,551
Ways and Means	2,199,403	3,767,402

These are in units of millions of dollars.

Almost all the revenue comes from the Ways and Means committee, because that’s the committee that sets tax rates. (If you hate your taxes, don’t hate the IRS; hate the Ways and Means Committee.) So for all the other departments, we can basically take the effect on the deficit as how much spending was changing.

If this budget makes it through the Senate, Trump will almost certainly sign it into law. If that happens:

We’ll be cutting $238 billion from Agriculture Committee programs: And most of where those cuts come from are programs that provide food for poor people.

We’ll be adding $144 billion to the military budget, and a further $67 billion to “homeland security” (which here mostly means CBP and ICE). Honestly, I was expecting more, so I’m vaguely relieved.

We’ll be cutting $349 billion from Education and Workforce programs; this is mostly coming from the student loan system, so we can expect much more brutal repayment requirements for people with student loans.

We’ll be cutting almost $1 trillion from Energy and Commerce programs; this is mainly driven by massive cuts to Medicare and Medicaid (why are they handled by this committee? I don’t know).
The bill itself doesn’t clearly specify, so the CBO issued another report offering some scenarios for how these budget cuts could be achieved. Every single scenario results in millions of people losing coverage, and the one that saves the most money would result in 5.5 million people losing some coverage and 2.4 million becoming completely uninsured.

The $20 billion from Natural Resources mostly involves rolling back environmental regulations, cutting renewable energy subsidies, and making it easier to lease federal lands for oil and gas drilling. All of these are bad, and none of them are surprising; but their effect on the budget is pretty small.

The Oversight and Government Reform portion is reducing the budget deficit by $51 billion mainly by forcing federal employees to contribute a larger share of their pensions—which is to say, basically cutting federal salaries across the board. While this has a small effect on the budget, it will impose substantial harm on the federal workforce (which has already been gutted by DOGE).

The Transportation and Infrastructure changes involve expansions of the Coast Guard (why are they not in Armed Services again?) along with across-the-board cuts of anything resembling support for sustainability or renewable energy; but the main way they actually decrease the deficit is by increasing the cost of registering cars. I think they’re trying to look like they are saving money by cutting “wasteful” (read: left-wing) programs, but in fact they mainly just made it more expensive to own a car—which, quite frankly, is probably a good thing from an environmental perspective.

Then, last but certainly not least, we come to the staggering $3.7 trillion increase in our 10-year deficit from the Ways and Means committee. What is this change that is more than 3 times as expensive as all the savings from the other departments combined?

Cutting taxes on rich people.

They are throwing some bones to the rest of the population, such as removing the taxes on tips and overtime (temporarily), and making a bunch of other changes to the tax code in terms of deductions and credits and such (because that’s what we needed, a more complicated tax code!); but the majority of the decrease in revenue comes from cutting income taxes, especially at the very highest brackets.

The University of Pennsylvania estimates that the poorest 40% of the population will actually see their after-tax incomes decrease as a result of the bill. Those in the 40% to 80% percentiles will see very little change. Only those in the richest 20% will see meaningful increases in income, and those will be highest for the top 5% and above.

The 95-99% percentile will see the greatest proportional gain, 3.5% of their income.

But the top 0.1% will see by far the greatest absolute gain, each gaining an average of $385,000 per year. Every one of these people already has an annual income of at least $4 million.

The median price of a house in the United States is $416,000.

That is, we are basically handing a free house to every millionaire in America—every year for the next 10 years.

That is why we’re adding $3.7 trillion to the national debt. So that the top 0.1% can have free houses.

Without these tax cuts, the new budget would actually reduce the deficit—which is really something we ought to be doing, because we’re running a deficit of $1.8 trillion per year and we’re not even in a recession. But because Republicans love nothing more than cutting taxes on the rich—indeed, sometimes it seems it is literally the only thing they care about—we’re going to make the deficit even bigger instead.

I can hope this won’t make it through the Senate, but I’m not holding my breath.

Trump has proposed an even worse budget

2025-05-112025-05-05 PNRJ current events, politics, public policy budget, deficit, DEI, federal budget, military spending, NASA, probability of superiority, RFK, Trump, USAID

May 11 JDN 2460807

I didn’t really intend for my blog this year to be taken over by talk about Trump. But all the damage that Trump is doing to America and the world is clearly the most important thing going on in economics right now, and it’s honestly just hard for me to think about anything else.

Trump has proposed a budget. (Read at your own risk; what’s on the White House website is more screed than budget proposal. And it’s pretty clearly written by Trump himself, perhaps with some editing.)

It will come as no surprise to all of you that it is a terrible budget, even worse than what the Republicans recently passed.

First of all, Trump is cutting discretionary spending by $163 billion. This is a huge cut—it removes almost one-fourth of all non-military discretionary spending. Trump naturally claims that he’s just reducing waste, shutting down DEI programs (for the right wing this is considered a good thing), what Trump calls “Green New Scam funding” (read: anything remotely related to environmental sustainability or climate change), and what Trump claims are “large swaths of the Federal Government weaponized against the American people” (read: any other departments Trump doesn’t like, whether or not he actually understands what they are for).

And lest you think that these draconian cuts are being done for fiscal responsibility in the face of an utterly massive federal deficit, Trump also proposes to increase military spending by 13%; multiplying that by our current $850 billion budget means he’s adding $110 billion to the military; and he also says he wants to add a further $119 billion in the mandatory budget. This means he’s cutting $163 billion from non-military spending and adding $239 billion in military spending—which will actually increase the deficit.

Trump is ending programs like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (sure, let’s just let Chinese hackers in! Why not? It’s not like there’s anything important on those Pentagon servers!) and Fair Housing (amid a historic housing crisis), as well as slashing the EPA (because who needs clean air and water anyway?).

Unsurprisingly, he’s also ending anything that resembles DEI, which includes both some really good necessary programs, and also some stuff that is genuinely ineffective or even counterproductive. Most people who work at firms that have DEI programs think that the programs do more good than harm, but there are big partisan differences, so cutting DEI will play well with the Republican base. But I for one do not want to play the word game where we say out loud every time “diversity, equity, and inclusion”, because there is a big difference between the fundamentally laudable goals of diversity, equity and inclusion, and the actual quite mixed results from DEI programs as they have been implemented. It’s awful that Trump is cutting DEI with a chainsaw, but we really should have been cutting it with a scalpel for awhile now.

Trump is also throwing money at the border, increasing the budgets of CBP (whatever) and ICE (very, very bad!). This is probably the worst thing about the budget, though it also isn’t a big surprise. Part of the increased ICE spending is “50,000 detention beds”, which since ICE lately has been arresting and detaining people without warrants or trials and courts have specifically ruled that they are violating due process, I believe we can fairly say constitutes a concentration camp. If and when they start actually giving everyone—everyone, dammit—due process, then you can call it a detention center.

Trump is eliminating USAID and folding what’s left of it into DFC; but these institutions had quite different goals. USAID had two goals: Advance America’s interests, and make the world a better place. And while it did have significant flaws, overall it did quite a good job of achieving both of those goals—and indeed, publicly making the world a better place can advance America’s interests. DFC’s goal is to promote economic development by financing investments that otherwise could not be financed. That can also promote America’s interests and make the world a better place, but it excludes many of the vital roles that USAID has played in providing humanitarian aid and disaster relief as well as promoting democracy and advancing environmental sustainability. (And when I say “promoting democracy”, I don’t mean the way the CIA does it, by orchestrating coups; I mean things like helping Ukraine remove its dependency on Russia.) There is more to life than money—but I don’t think Trump really understands that.

Trump is canceling a bunch of subsidies to renewable energy, but honestly I’m not too worried about that; the technology has matured so much that renewable energy is actually the cheapest form of energy for most purposes. (And it kinda makes sense: The sun and wind are already there.) Removing the subsidies will make it harder to compete with oil (because oil is still heavily subsidized); but I still think renewables can win. Basically the past subsidies have done their job, and it’s probably okay to remove them.

There’s a really weird proposal involving food, which I think I will just quote in its entirety:

The Budget also supports the creation of MAHA food boxes, that would be filled with commodities sourced from domestic farmers and given directly to American households.

This sounds… kinda… Maoist? Definitely some kind of communist. Why are we circumventing the highly-functional capitalist market for food with massive in-kind transfers? (Despite scaremongering, groceries in the US are still pretty affordable by world standards.) And how are we going to do that, logistically? (Produce does need to be kept fresh, after all.) Does Trump think that markets have trouble providing food in this country? Does he not understand that SNAP exists, and already prioritizes healthier food?(Or does he plan to get rid of it?) Does he think that the reason most Americans don’t eat a very good diet (which is objectively true) is that they aren’t able to get fresh produce? (And not, say, subsidies for factory-farmed meat and high-fructose corn syrup, or mass marketing campaigns by corporations that make junk food?) I’m not so much against this program as I am really baffled by it. It seems like it’s trying to solve the wrong problem by the wrong means. (I’m guessing RFK Jr. had a hand in this, and I recently learned that he doesn’t believe in germ theory. He is a god-tier crank. Like, his views on vaccines and autism were bad enough, but this? Seriously, you put this guy in charge of public health!?)

There are some things in the budget that aren’t terrible, but they’re mostly pretty small.

One actually good thing about Trump’s new budget is the expansion of VA services. I don’t really have any objection to that. It’s a fairly small portion of the budget, and veterans deserve better than they’ve been getting.

Trump says he won’t be cutting Social Security (so perhaps we dodged a bullet on that one). Of course, if he actually cared in the least about the budget deficit, that’s probably what he would cut, because it’s such a huge proportion of our spending—about one-fifth of all federal spending.

I’m not sure what to think about the changes Trump is making to education funding. He’s shutting down the Department of Education, but it seems like most of what it does (including offering grants and handling student loans) is just going to be folded into other agencies. It doesn’t actually seem like there have been substantial cuts in their services, just… a weird and unnecessary reorganization. My guess is that after Trump had already publicly committed to “end the Department of Education”, some staffer quietly explained to him what the Department of Education actually does and why it is necessary; since he’d already committed to shutting it down, he didn’t want to pivot on that, so instead he shut it down in name only while preserving most of what it actually does in other agencies.

Trump is also investing heavily in charter schools, which… meh. Some charter schools are really good, some are really bad. There isn’t a clear pattern of them being better or worse than public schools. Overall, the preponderance of evidence suggests that the average charter school is worse than the average public school, but there’s a lot of variation in both, so the odds that any particular charter school is better than any particular public school are still quite high. (I recently learned about this measure of effect size, probability of superiority, and it’s now my new favorite measure of effect size. Eat your heart out, Cohen’s d!)

Trump is also diverting funding to apprenticeships; he’s introducing a new “Make America Skilled Again” (ugh) grant that States would be required to spend at least 10% on apprenticeship. I’m pretty okay with this in general. 10% is not a lot, and we totally could use more apprenticeship programs in fields like welding and pipefitting.

Another good thing Trump is doing is increasing funding for NASA; he’s clearly doing it out of a sense of national pride and hatred of China, but hey, at least he’s doing it. We might actually be able to pull off a human Mars mission (several years from now, mind you!) if this higher funding continues.

Trump is also redirecting DEA spending to Mexico, Central America, South America, and China; since most fentanyl in the US is made in Latin America from Chinese ingredients, this actually makes sense. I still don’t think that criminalization is the best solution to drug abuse, but fentanyl is genuinely very dangerous stuff, so we should definitely be doing something to reduce its usage.

Finally, and somewhat anticlimactically, Trump is creating some kind of new federal fire service that’s supposedly going to improve our response to wildfires. Given that we already have FEMA, a significant improvement seems unlikely. But hey, it’s worth a try!

These small good things should not distract us from the massive damage that this budget would cause if implemented.

It was not necessary to shift $160 billion from non-military to military spending in order to increase funding for NASA and the VA. It was not necessary to cut hundreds of programs and eliminate USAID—the agency which did what may literally be the very best things our government has ever done. DEI programs had their flaws, but it was wrong to eliminate all of them, instead of finding out which ones are effective and which ones are not.

And while it’s a tiny portion of the budget, the cuts to the EPA will kill people. Most likely thousands of Americans will die from the increased air and water pollution. It will be hard to pinpoint exactly who: Would that kid with asthma have died anyway if the air were cleaner? Was that fatal infection from polluted water, or something else? But the statistics will tell us that there were thousands of unnecessary deaths. (Unless of course Trump falsifies the statistics—which he very well might, since he routinely calls our world-class economic data “fake” when it makes him look bad.)

The large federal budget deficit will be in no way reduced by this budget; in fact it will be slightly increased. If we were in a recession, I’d be okay with this kind of deficit; it was actually a good thing that we ran a huge deficit in 2020. But we aren’t yet—and when one does inevitably hit (given the tariffs, I think sooner rather than later), we won’t have the slack in our budget to do the necessary Keynesian stimulus.

I don’t see any mention of what’s going to happen to Medicare and Medicaid; given that these two programs together constitute roughly one fourth of the federal budget—and nearly twice the military budget—this is a very conspicuous absence. It’s possible that Trump’s leaving them alone because he knows how popular they are, but this once again reveals the emptiness of Republican deficit hawkishness: If you really wanted to reduce the deficit by cutting spending, you’d do it by cutting the military, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those four things together comprise the majority of the federal budget. Yet it seems that Trump’s budget cuts none of them.

Mind you, I don’t actually want to cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid; so I’m relieved that Trump isn’t doing that. I’m pretty okay with cutting the military, but I’ll admit I’m less enthused about that since the start of the Ukraine War (I think some moderate cuts are still in order, but we should still have a very big military budget to protect ourselves and our allies). But these are the only budget cuts that could realistically reduce the deficit.

What I actually want to happen is higher taxes on rich people. That’s how I want the budget to be balanced. And Trump very obviously will not do that. Indeed he’s almost certainly going to cut them, making our deficit even larger.

So we’re building a concentration camp, the Chinese are going to hack the Pentagon, we’re going to buy more tanks we don’t need, we won’t be able to properly respond to the next recession, and thousands of people will die from air and water pollution. But at least we got more NASA funding!

The Republicans passed a terrible budget

2025-05-042025-04-28 PNRJ current events, inequality, politics, public policy budget, current policy baseline, debt, deficit, Democrat, federal budget, House of Representatives, national debt, Republican, Trump

May 4 JDN 2460800

On April 10, the US House of Representatives passed a truly terrible budget bill. It passed on an almost entirely partisan vote—214 Democrats against, 216 Republicans for, 2 Republicans against. So I think it’s quite fair to say that the Republicans passed this budget—not a single Democrat voted for it, and only 2 Republicans voted against it.

So what’s so bad about it?

Well, first of all, in order to avoid showing just how much it will balloon the national debt, the new budget operates on different accounting rules than normal, using what’s called “current policy baseline” instead of the standard method of assuming that policies will end after 10 years.

In addition to retaining $3.8 trillion in tax cuts that were supposed to expire, this budget will cut taxes by $1.5 trillion over 10 years, with the vast majority of those cuts going to the top 1%—thus the real increase in the deficit is a staggering $5.3 trillion over 10 years. This is absolutely not what we need, given that unemployment is actually pretty good right now and we still have a deficit of $1.8 trillion per year. (Yes, really.) That kind of deficit is good in response to a severe recession—I was all in favor of it during COVID, and it worked. But when the economy is good, you’re supposed to balance the budget, and they haven’t.

The richest 1% stand to gain about 4% more income from these tax cuts (which adds up to about $240 billion per year), while the combination of tax cuts and spending cuts would most likely reduce the income of 40% of the population.

They aren’t even cutting spending to offset these tax cuts. This budget only includes a paltry $4 billion in spending cuts—less than 0.1% of the budget. (I mean, sure, $4 billion is a lot of money for a person; but for a whole country as rich and large as ours? It’s a rounding error.) And then it includes $521 billion in spending increases, over 100 times as much.

They are talking about making more cuts, but they’ve been cagey as to where, probably because the only plausible ways to save this much money are the military, Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security. Obviously Republicans will never cut the military, but the other three programs are also enormously popular, even in deep-red states. It would be not only very harmful to millions of people to cut these programs—it would also be harmful to the Republicans’ re-election chances. They could also get some savings by cutting income security programs like SNAP and TANF, which would probably be less unpopular—but it would also cause enormous suffering.

This new budget is estimated to add some $6.9 trillion to the national debt over 10 years—and even more after that, if the policies actually continue.

I am not exactly a “deficit hawk”; I don’t think the budget should always be balanced. But this is not the time to be increasing the deficit. When times are good, we should balance the budget, so that when we have to go into debt during bad times, we can afford to do so.

And bad times are probably on the horizon, since Trump’s tariff policy is already such a disaster. So are we going to borrow even more then? While bond yields are rising? We’re going to end up spending most of our budget on debt payments! And all this injection of money into the system won’t be good for inflation either (and on top of the tariffs!).

The only sensible thing to do right now is raise taxes on the rich. We need that revenue. We can’t just keep going deeper into debt. And the rich are the ones who would be least harmed by raising taxes—indeed, if you focused the hikes on billionaires, they would barely feel anything at all.

But the Republicans don’t care about what’s in the interest of ordinary Americans. They only care about the interests of the rich. And that’s why they passed this budget.

What most Americans think about government spending

2023-10-222023-10-25 PNRJ politics, public policy budget, debt, federal, government, healthcare, Medicare, military budget, national debt, opinion poll, Social Security, spending

Oct 22 JDN 2460240

American public opinion on government spending is a bit of a paradox. People say the government spends too much, but when you ask them what to cut, they don’t want to cut anything in particular.

This is how various demographics answer when you ask if, overall, the government spends “too much”, “too little”, or “about right”:

Democrats have a relatively balanced view, with about a third in each category. Republicans overwhelmingly agree that the government spends too much.

Let’s focus on the general population figures: 60% of Americans believe the government spends too much, 22% think it is about right, and only 16% think it spends too little. (2% must not have answered.)

This question is vague about how much people would like to see the budget change. So it’s possible people only want a moderate decrease. But they must at least want enough to justify not being in the “about right” category, which presumably allows for at least a few percent of wiggle room in each direction.

I think a reasonable proxy of how much people want the budget to change is the net difference in opinion between “too much” and “too little”: So for Democrats this is 34 – 27 = 7%. For the general population it is 60 – 16 = 44%; and for Republicans it is 88 – 6 = 82%.

To make this a useful proxy, I need to scale it appropriately. Republicans in Congress say they want to cut federal spending by $1 trillion per year, so that would be a reduction of 23%. So, for a reasonable proxy, I think ([too little] – [too much])/4 is about the desired amount of change.

Of course, it’s totally possible for 88% of people to agree that the budget should be cut 10%, and none of them to actually want the budget to be cut 22%. But without actually having survey data showing how much people want to cut the budget, the proportion who want it to be cut is the best proxy I have. And it definitely seems like most people want the budget to be cut.

But cut where? What spending do people want to actually reduce?

Not much, it turns out:

Overwhelming majorities want to increase spending on education, healthcare, social security, infrastructure, Medicare, and assistance to the poor. The plurality want to increase spending on border security, assistance for childcare, drug rehabilitation, the environment, and law enforcement. Overall opinion on military spending and scientific research seems to be that it’s about right, with some saying too high and others too low. That’s… almost the entire budget.

This AP NORC poll found only three areas with strong support for cuts: assistance to big cities, space exploration, and assistance to other countries.

The survey just asked about “the government”, so people may be including opinions on state and local spending as well as federal spending. But let’s just focus for now on federal spending.

Here is what the current budget looks like, divided as closely as I could get it into the same categories that the poll asked about:

The federal government accounts for only a tiny portion of overall government spending on education, so for this purpose I’m just going to ignore that category; anything else would be far too misleading. I had to separately look up border security, foreign aid, space exploration, and scientific research, as they are normally folded into other categories. I decided to keep the medical research under “health” and military R&D under “military”, so the “scientific research” includes all other sciences—and as you’ll note, it’s quite small.

“Regional Development” includes but is by no means limited to aid to big cities; in fact, most of it goes to rural areas. With regard to federal spending, “Transportation” is basically synonymous with “Infrastructure”, so I’ll treat those as equivalent. Federal spending directly on environmental protection is so tiny that I couldn’t even make a useful category for it; for this purpose, I guess I’ll just assume it’s most of “Other” (though it surely isn’t).

As you can see, the lion’s share of the federal budget goes to three things: healthcare (including Medicare), Social Security, and the military. (As Krugman is fond of putting it: “The US government is an insurance company with an army.”)

Assistance to the poor is also a major category, and as well it should be. Debt interest is also pretty substantial, especially now that interest rates have increased, but that’s not really optional; the global financial system would basically collapse if we ever stopped paying that. The only realistic way to bring that down is to balance the budget so that we don’t keep racking up more debt.

After that… it’s all pretty small, relatively speaking. I mean, these are still tens of billions of dollars. But the US government is huge. When you spend $1.24 trillion (that’s $1,240 billion) on Social Security, that $24 billion for space exploration really doesn’t seem that big.

So, that’s what the budget actually looks like. What do people want it to look like? Well on the one hand, they seem to want to cut it. My admittedly very rough estimate suggests they want to cut it about 11%, which would reduce the total from $4.3 trillion to $3.8 trillion. That’s what they say if you ask about the budget as a whole.

But what if we listen to what they say about particular budget categories? Using my same rough estimate, people want to increase spending on healthcare by 12%, spending on Social Security by 14%, and so on.

The resulting new budget looks like this:

Please note two things:

The overall distribution of budget priorities has not substantially changed.
The total amount of spending is in fact moderately higher.

This new budget would be disastrous for Ukraine, painful for NASA, and pleasant for anyone receiving Social Security benefits; but our basic budget outlook would be unchanged. Total spending would rise to $4.6 trillion, about $300 billion more than what we are currently spending.

The things people say they want to cut wouldn’t make a difference: We could stop all space missions immediately and throw Ukraine completely under the bus, and it wouldn’t make a dent in our deficit.

This leaves us with something of a paradox: If you ask them in general what they want to do with the federal budget, the majority of Americans say they want to cut it, often drastically. But if you ask them about any particular budget category, they mostly agree that things are okay, or even want them to be increased. Moreover, it is some of the largest categories of spending—particularly healthcare and Social Security—that often see the most people asking for increases.

I think this tells us some good news and some bad news.

The bad news is that most Americans are quite ignorant about how government money is actually spent. They seem to imagine that huge amounts are frittered away frivolously on earmarks; they think space exploration is far more expensive than it is; they wildly overestimate how much we give in foreign aid; they clearly don’t understand the enormous benefits of funding basic scientific research. Most people seem to think that there is some enormous category of totally wasted money that could easily be saved through more efficient spending—and that just doesn’t seem to be the case. Maybe government spending could be made more efficient, but if so, we need an actual plan for doing that. We can’t just cut budgets and hope for a miracle.

The good news is that our political system, for all of its faults, actually seems to have resulted in a government budget that broadly reflects the actual priorities of our citizenry. On budget categories people like, such as Social Security and Medicare, we are already spending a huge amount. On budget categories people dislike, such as earmarks and space exploration, we are already spending very little. We basically already have the budget most Americans say they want to have.

What does this mean for balancing the budget and keeping the national debt under control?

It means we have to raise taxes. There just isn’t anything left to cut that wouldn’t be wildly unpopular.

This shouldn’t really be shocking. The US government already spends less as a proportion of GDP than most other First World countries [note: I’m using 2019 figures because recent years were distorted by COVID]. Ireland’s figures are untrustworthy due to their inflated leprechaun GDP; so the only unambiguously First World country that clearly has lower government spending than the US is Switzerland. We spend about 38%, which is still high by global standards—but as well it should be, we’re incredibly rich. And this is quite a bit lower than the 41% they spend in the UK or the 45% they spend in Germany, let alone the 49% they spend in Sweden or the whopping 55% they spend in France.

Of course, Americans really don’t like paying taxes either. But at some point, we’re just going to have to decide: Do we want fewer services, more debt, or more taxes? Because those are really our only options. I for one think we can handle more taxes.

Voting Your Dollars

2023-05-282023-05-21 PNRJ politics, public policy budget, charity, democracy, Denmark, donation, GiveWell, Oxfam, priorities, Scandinavia, tax, tax code, tax deduction, UNICEF, voting

May 28 JDN 2460093

It’s no secret that Americans don’t like to pay taxes. It’s almost a founding principle of our country, really, going all the way back to the Boston Tea Party. This is likely part of why the US has one of the lowest tax-to-GDP ratios in the First World; our taxes are barely half what they pay in Scandinavia. And this in turn surely contributes to our ongoing budget issues and our stingy social welfare spending. (Speaking of budget issues: As of this writing, the debt ceiling debacle is still unresolved.)

Why don’t Americans like to pay taxes? Why does no one really like to pay taxes (though some seem more willing than others)?

It surely has something to do with the fact that taxes are so coercive: You have to pay them, you get no choice. And you also have very little choice as to how that money is used; yes, you can vote for politicians who will in theory at some point enact budgets that might possibly reflect the priorities they expressed in their campaigns—but the actual budget invariably ends up quite far removed from the campaign promises you could vote based on.

What if we could give you more choice? We can’t let people choose how much to pay—then most people would choose to pay less and we’d be in even more trouble. (If you want to pay more than you’re required to, the IRS will actually let you right now. You can just refuse your refund.) But perhaps we could let people choose where the money goes?

I call this program Vote Your Dollars. I would initially limit it to a small fraction of the budget, tied to a tax increase: Say, raise taxes enough to increase revenue by 5% and use that 5% for the program.

Under Vote Your Dollars, on your tax return, you are given a survey, asking you how you want to divide up your additional money toward various categories. I think they should be fairly broad categories, such as ‘healthcare’, ‘social security’, ‘anti-poverty programs’, ‘defense’, ‘foreign aid’. If we make them too specific, it would be more work for the voters and also more likely to lead to foolish allocations. We want them to basically reflect a voter’s priorities, rather than ask them to make detailed economic management decisions. Most voters are not qualified to properly allocate a budget; the goal here is to get people to weight how much they care about different programs.

As only a small portion of the budget, Vote Your Dollars would initially have very little real fiscal impact. Money is fungible, so any funds that were expected to go somewhere else than where voters put them could easily be reallocated as needed. But I suspect that most voters would fail to appreciate this effect, and thus actually feel like they have more control than they really do. (If voters understood fungibility and inframarginal transfers, they’d never have supported food stamps over just giving poor people cash.)

Moreover, it would still provide useful information, namely: What happens when voters are given this power? Do they make decisions that seem to make sense and reflect their interests and beliefs? Does the resulting budget actually seem like one that could be viable? Could it even be better than what we currently have in some ways?

I suspect that the result would be better than most economists and political scientists imagine. There seems to be a general sense that voters are too foolish or apathetic to usefully participate in politics, which of course would raise the very big question: Why does democracy work?

I don’t think that most voters would choose a perfect budget; indeed, I already said I wouldn’t trust them with the fine details of how to allocate the funds. But I do think most people have at least some reasonable idea of how important they think healthcare is relative to defense, and it would be good to at least gather that information in a more direct way.

If it goes well and Vote Your Dollars seems to result in reasonable budgets even for that extra 5%, we could start expanding it to a larger portion of the overall budget. Try 10% for the next election, then 15% for the next. There should always be some part that remains outside direct voter control, because voters would almost certainly underspend on certain categories (such as administration and national debt payments) and likely overspend on others.

This would allow us to increase taxes—which we clearly must do, because we need to improve government services, but we don’t want to go further into debt—while giving voters more choice, and thus making taxes feel less coercive. Being forced to pay a certain amount each year might not sting as much if you get to say where a significant portion of that money goes.

To give voters even more control over their money, I think I would also include a provision whereby you can deduct the full amount of your charitable contributions to certain high-impact charities (we would need to come up with a good list, but clear examples include UNICEF, Oxfam, and GiveWell) from your tax payment. Currently, you deduct charitable contributions from your income, which means you don’t pay taxes on those donations; but you still end up with less money after donating than you did before. If we let you deduct the full amount, then you would have the same amount after donating, and effectively the government would pay the full cost of your donation. Presumably this would lead to people donating a great deal; this might hurt tax revenues, but its overall positive impact on the world would be so large that it is obviously worth it. By the time we have given enough to UNICEF to meaningfully impact the US federal budget, we have ended world hunger.

Of course, it’s very unlikely that anything like Vote Your Dollars would ever be implemented. There are already ways we could make paying taxes less painful that we haven’t done—such as sending you a bill, as they do in Denmark, rather than making you file a tax form. And we could already increase revenue with very little real cost by simply expanding the IRS and auditing rich people more. These simple, obvious reforms have been repeatedly obstructed by powerful lobbies, who personally benefit from the current system even though it’s obviously a bad system. I guess I can’t think of anyone in particular who would want to lobby against Vote Your Dollars, but I feel like Republicans might just because they want taxes to hurt as much as possible so that they have an excuse to cut spending.

But still, I thought I’d put the idea out there.

Basic income reconsidered

2022-02-202022-02-16 PNRJ development economics, inequality, politics, public policy basic income, budget, poverty, taxation

Feb 20 JDN 2459631

In several previous posts I have sung the praises of universal basic income (though I have also tried to acknowledge the challenges involved).

In this post I’d like to take a step back and reconsider the question of whether basic income is really the best approach after all. One nagging thought keeps coming back to me, and it is the fact that basic income is extremely expensive.

About 11% of the US population lives below the standard poverty line. There are many criticisms of the standard poverty line: Some say it’s too high, because you can compare it favorably with middle-class incomes in much poorer countries. Others say it’s too low, because income at that level doesn’t allow people to really live in financial security. There are many difficult judgment calls that go into devising a poverty threshold, and we can reasonably debate whether the right ones were made here.

However, I think this threshold is at least approximately correct; maybe the true poverty threshold for a household of 1 should be not $12,880 but $11,000 or $15,000, but I don’t think it should be $5,000 or $25,000. Maybe for a household of 4 it should be not $26,500 but $19,000 or $32,000; but I don’t think it should be $12,000 or $40,000.

So let’s suppose that we wanted to implement a universal basic income in the United States that would lift everyone out of poverty. We could essentially do that by taking the 2-person-household threshold of $17,420 and dividing it by 2, yielding $8,710 per person per year. (Why not use the 1-person-household threshold? There aren’t very many 1-person households in poverty, and that threshold would be considerably higher and thus considerably more expensive. A typical poor household is a single parent and one or more children; as long as kids get the basic income, that household would be above the threshold in this system.)

The US population is currently about 331 million people. If every single one of them were to receive a basic income of $8,710, that would cost nearly $2.9 trillion per year. This is a feasible amount—it’s less than half t he current total federal budget—but it is still a very large amount. The tax increases required to support it would be massive, and that’s probably why, despite ostensibly bipartisan support for the idea of a basic income, no serious proposal has ever gotten off of the ground.

If on the other hand we were to only give the basic income to people below the poverty line, that would cost only 11% of that amount: A far more manageable $320 billion per year.

We don’t want to do exactly that, however, because it would create all kinds of harmful distortions in the economy. Consider someone who is just below the threshold, considering whether to take on more work or get a higher-paying job. If their household pre-tax income is currently $15,000 and they could raise it to $18,000, a basic income given only to people below the threshold would mean that they are choosing between $15,000+$17,000=$32,000 if they keep their current work and $18,000 if they increase it. Clearly, they would not want to take on more work. That’s a terrible system—it amounts to a marginal tax rate above 100%.

Another possible method would be to simply top off people’s income, give them whatever they need to get to the poverty line but no more. (This would actually be even cheaper; it would probably cost something more like $160 billion per year.) That removes the distortion for people near the threshold, at the cost of making it much worse for those far below the threshold. Someone considering whether to work for $7,000 or work for $11,000 is, in such a system, choosing whether to work less for $17,000 or work more for… $17,000. They will surely choose to work less.

In order to solve these problems, what we would most likely need to do is gradually phase out the basic income, so that say increasing your pre-tax income by $1.00 would decrease your basic income payment by $0.50. The cost of this system would be somewhere in between that of a truly universal basic income and a threshold-based system, so let’s ballpark that as around $600 billion per year. It would effectively implement a marginal tax rate of 50% for anyone who is receiving basic income payments.

In theory, this is probably worse than a universal basic income, because in the latter case you can target the taxes however you like—and thus (probably) make them less cause less distortion than the phased-out basic income system would. But in practice, a truly universal basic income might simply not be politically viable, and some kind of phased-out system seems much more likely to actually get passed.

Even then, I confess I am not extremely optimistic. For some reason, everyone seems to want to end poverty, but very few seem willing to use the obvious solution: Give poor people money.

Government shutdowns are pure waste

2019-01-062019-01-02 PNRJ current events, public policy, Uncategorized border wall, budget, Congress, Donald Trump, government shutdown, immigration, National Science Foundation

Jan 6 JDN 2458490
At the time of writing, the US federal government is still shut down.

The US government has been shut down in this way 22 times—all of them since 1976. Most countries don’t do this. The US didn’t do it for most of our history. Please keep that in mind: This was an entirely avoidable outcome that most countries never go through.

The consequences of a government shutdown are pure waste on an enormous scale. Most government employees get furloughed without pay, which means they miss their credit card and mortgage payments while they wait for their back pay after the shutdown ends. (And this one happened during Christmas!) Contractors have it even worse: They get their contracts terminated and may never see the money they were promised. This has effects on our whole economy; the 2013 shutdown removed a full $24 billion from the US economy, and the current shutdown is expected to drain $6 billion per week. The government itself is taking losses of about $1 billion per week, mostly in the form of unpaid and unaudited taxes.

I personally don’t know what’s going to happen to an NSF grant proposal I’ve been writing for several weeks: Almost the entire NSF has been furloughed as “non-essential” (most of the military remains operative; almost all basic science gets completely shut down—insert comment about the military-industrial complex here), and in 2013 some of the dissertation grants were outright canceled because of the shutdown.

Why do these shutdowns happen?

A government shutdown occurs when the omnibus appropriations bill fails to pass. This bill is essentially the entire US federal budget in a single bill; like any other bill, it has to be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.

For some reason, our government decided that if this process doesn’t happen on schedule, the correct answer is to shut down all non-essential government services. This is a frankly idiotic answer. The obviously correct solution is that if Congress and the President can’t agree on a new budget, the old budget gets renewed in its entirety with a standard COLA inflation adjustment. This really seems incredibly basic: If the government can’t agree on how to change something, the status quo should remain in effect until they do. And the status quo is an inflation-adjusted version of the existing budget.

This particular shutdown occurred because of Donald Trump’s brinksmanship on the border wall: He demanded at least $5 billion, and the House wouldn’t give it to him.

It won’t be much longer before we’ve already lost more money on the shutdown than that $5 billion; this may tempt you to say that the House should give in. But the wall won’t actually do anything to make our nation safer or better, and building it would displace thousands of people by eminent domain and send an unquestionable signal of xenophobia to the rest of the world. Frankly it sickens me that there were not enough principled Republicans to stand their ground against Trump’s madness; but at least there are now Democrats standing theirs.

Make no mistake: This is Trump’s shutdown, and he said so himself. The House even offered to do what should be done by default, which is renew the old budget while negotiations on the border wall continue—Trump refused this offer. And Trump keeps changing his story with every new tweet.

But the real problem is that this is even something the President is allowed to do. Vetoing the old budget should restore the old budget, not furlough hundreds of thousands of workers and undermine government services. This is a ludicrous way to organize a government, and seems practically designed to make our government as inefficient, wasteful, and hated as possible. This was an absolutely unforced error and we should be enacting policy rules that would prevent it from ever happening again.

Tax plan possibilities

2017-03-262017-03-26 PNRJ core principles, current events, public policy Barack Obama, basic income, budget, deduction, Donald Trump, healthcare, income, income tax, Laffer Curve, logtax, Medicaid, Medicare, metarate, military budget, Ronald Reagan, single-payer, tax code, tax reform, taxation, taxes

Mar 26, JDN 2457839

Recently President Trump (that phrase may never quite feel right) began presenting his new tax plan. To be honest, it’s not as ridiculous as I had imagined it might be. I mean, it’s still not very good, but it’s probably better than Reagan’s tax plan his last year in office, and it’s not nearly as absurd as the half-baked plan Trump originally proposed during the campaign.

But it got me thinking about the incredible untapped potential of our tax system—the things we could achieve as a nation, if we were willing to really commit to them and raise taxes accordingly.

A few years back I proposed a progressive tax system based upon logarithmic utility. I now have a catchy name for that tax proposal; I call it the logtax. It depends on two parameters—a poverty level, at which the tax rate goes to zero; and what I like to call a metarate—the fundamental rate that sets all the actual tax rates by the formula.

For the poverty level, I suggest we use the highest 2-household poverty level set by the Department of Health and Human Services: Because of Alaska’s high prices, that’s the Alaska poverty level, and the resulting figure is $20,290—let’s round to $20,000.

I would actually prefer to calculate taxes on an individual basis—I see no reason to incentivize particular household arrangements—but as current taxes are calculated on a household basis, I’m going to use that for now.

The metarate can be varied, and in the plans below I will compare different options for the metarate.

I will compare six different tax plans:

Our existing tax plan, set under the Obama administration
Trump’s proposed tax plan
A flat rate of 30% with a basic income of $12,000, replacing welfare programs and Medicaid
A flat rate of 40% with a basic income of $15,000, replacing welfare programs and Medicaid
A logtax with a metarate of 20%, all spending intact
A logtax with a metarate of 25% and a basic income of $12,000, replacing welfare programs and Medicaid
A logtax with a metarate of 35% and a basic income of $15,000, cutting military spending by 50% and expanding Medicare to the entire population while eliminating Medicare payroll taxes

To do a proper comparison, I need estimates of the income distribution in the United States, in order to properly estimate the revenue from each type of tax. For that I used US Census data for most of the income data, supplementing with the World Top Incomes database for the very highest income brackets. The household data is broken up into brackets of $5,000 and only goes up to $250,000, so it’s a rough approximation to use the average household income for each bracket, but it’s all I’ve got.

The current brackets are 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%, and 39.6%. These are actually marginal rates, not average rates, which makes the calculation a lot more complicated. I did it properly though; for example, when you start paying the marginal rate of 28%, your average rate is really only 20.4%.

Worst of all, I used static scoring—that is, I ignored the Laffer Effect by which increasing taxes changes incentives and can change pre-tax incomes. To really do this analysis properly, one should use dynamic scoring, taking these effects into account—but proper dynamic scoring is an enormous undertaking, and this is a blog post, not my dissertation.

Still, I was able to get pretty close to the true figures. The actual federal budget shows total revenue net of payroll taxes to be $2.397 trillion, whereas I estimated $2.326 trillion; the true deficit is $608 billion and I estimated $682 billion.

Under Trump’s tax plan, almost all rates are cut. He also plans to remove some deductions, but all reports I could find on the plan were vague as to which ones, and with data this coarse it’s very hard to get any good figures on deduction amounts anyway. I also want to give him credit where it’s due: It was a lot easier to calculate the tax rates under Trump’s plan (but still harder than under mine…). But in general what I found was the following:

Almost everyone pays less income tax under Trump’s plan, by generally about 4-5% of their income. The poor benefit less or are slightly harmed; the rich benefit a bit more.

For example, a household in poverty making $12,300 would pay $1,384 currently, but $1,478 under Trump’s plan, losing $94 or 0.8% of their income. An average household making $52,000 would pay $8,768 currently but only $6,238 under Trump’s plan, saving $2,530 or about 4.8% of their income. A household making $152,000 would pay $35,580 currently but only $28,235 under Trump’s plan, saving $7,345 or again about 4.8%. A top 1% household making $781,000 would pay $265,625 currently, but only $230,158 under Trump’s plan, saving $35,467 or about 4.5%. A top 0.1% household making $2,037,000 would pay $762,656 currently, but only $644,350 under Trump’s plan, saving $118,306 or 5.8% of their income. A top 0.01% household making $9,936,000 would pay $3,890,736 currently, but only $3,251,083 under Trump’s plan, saving $639,653 or 6.4% of their income.

Because taxes are cut across the board, Trump’s plan would raise less revenue. My static scoring will exaggerate this effect, but only moderately; my estimate says we would lose over $470 billion in annual revenue, while the true figure might be $300 billion. In any case, Trump will definitely increase the deficit substantially unless he finds a way to cut an awful lot of spending elsewhere—and his pet $54 billion increase to the military isn’t helping in that regard. My estimate of the new deficit under Trump’s plan is $1.155 trillion—definitely not the sort of deficit you should be running during a peacetime economic expansion.

Let’s see what we might have done instead.

If we value simplicity and ease of calculation, it’s hard to beat a flat tax plus basic income. With a flat tax of 30% and a basic income of $12,000 per household, the poor do much better off because of the basic income, while the rich do a little better because of the flat tax, and the middle class feels about the same because the two effects largely cancel. Calculating your tax liability now couldn’t be easier; multiply your income by 3, remove a zero—that’s what you owe in taxes. And how much do you get in basic income? The same as everyone else, $12,000.

Using the same comparison households: The poor household making $12,300 would now receive $8,305—increasing their income by $9,689 or 78.8% relative to the current system. The middle-class household making $52,000 would pay $3,596, saving $5,172 or 10% of their income. The upper-middle-class household making $152,000 would now pay $33,582, saving only $1998 or 1.3% of their income. The top 1% household making $782,000 would pay $234,461, saving $31,164 or 4.0%. The top 0.1% household making $2,037,000 would pay $611,000, saving $151,656 or 7.4%. Finally, the top 0.01% household making $9,936,000 would pay $2,980,757, saving $910,000 or 9.1%.

Thus, like Trump’s plan, the tax cut almost across the board results in less revenue. However, because of the basic income, we can now justify cutting a lot of spending on social welfare programs. I estimated we could reasonably save about $630 billion by cutting Medicaid and other social welfare programs, while still not making poor people worse off because of the basic income. The resulting estimated deficit comes in at $1.085 trillion, which is still too large—but less than what Trump is proposing.

If I raise the flat rate to 40%—just as easy to calculate—I can bring that deficit down, even if I raise the basic income to $15,000 to compensate. The poverty household now receives $10,073, and the other representative households pay $5,974; $45,776; $297,615; $799,666; and $3,959,343 respectively. This means that the poor are again much better off, the middle class are about the same, and the rich are now substantially worse off. But what’s our deficit now? $180 billion—that’s about 1% of GDP, the sort of thing you can maintain indefinitely with a strong currency.

Can we do better than this? I think we can, with my logtax.

I confess that the logtax is not quite as easy to calculate as the flat tax. It does require taking exponents, and you can’t do it in your head. But it’s actually still easier than the current system, because there are no brackets to keep track of, no discontinuous shifts in the marginal rate. It is continuously progressive for all incomes, and the same formula can be used for all incomes from zero to infinity.
The simplest plan just replaces the income tax with a logtax of 20%. The poor household now receives $1,254, just from the automatic calculation of the tax—no basic income was added. The middle-class household pays $9,041, slightly more than what they are currently paying. Above that, people start paying more for sure: $50,655; $406,076; $1,228,795; and $7,065,274 respectively.

This system is obviously more progressive, but does it raise sufficient revenue? Why, as a matter of fact it removes the deficit entirely. The model estimates that the budget would now be at surplus of $110 billion. This is probably too optimistic; under dynamic scoring the distortions are probably going to cut the revenue a little. But it would almost certainly reduce the deficit, and very likely eliminate it altogether—without any changes in spending.

The next logtax plan adds a basic income of $12,000. To cover this, I raised the metarate to 25%. Now the poor household is receiving $11,413, the middle-class household is paying a mere $1,115, and the other households are paying $50,144; $458,140; $1,384,475; and $7,819,932 respectively. That top 0.01% household isn’t going to be happy, as they are now paying 78% of their income where in our current system they would pay only 39%. But their after-tax income is still over $2 million.

How does the budget look now? As with the flat tax plan, we can save about $630 billion by cutting redundant social welfare programs. So we are once again looking at a surplus, this time of about $63 billion. Again, the dynamic scoring might show some deficit, but definitely not a large one.

Finally, what if I raise the basic income to $15,000 and raise the metarate to 35%? The poor household now receives $14,186, while the median household pays $2,383. The richer households of course foot the bill, paying $64,180; $551,031; $1,618,703; and $8,790,124 respectively. Oh no, the top 0.01% household will have to make do with only $1.2 million; how will they survive!?

This raises enough revenue that it allows me to do some even more exciting things. With a $15,000 basic income, I can eliminate social welfare programs for sure. But then I can also cut military spending, say in half—still leaving us the largest military in the world. I can move funds around to give Medicare to every single American, an additional cost of about twice what we currently pay for Medicare. Then Medicaid doesn’t just get cut; it can be eliminated entirely, folded into Medicare. Assuming that the net effect on total spending is zero, the resulting deficit is estimated at only $168 billion, well within the range of what can be sustained indefinitely.

And really, that’s only the start. Once you consider all the savings on healthcare spending—an average of $4000 per person per year, if switching to single-payer brings us down to the average of other highly-developed countries. This is more than what the majority of the population would be paying in taxes under this plan—meaning that once you include the healthcare benefits, the majority of Americans would net receive money from the government. Compared to our current system, everyone making under about $80,000 would be better off. That is what we could be doing right now—free healthcare for everyone, a balanced budget (or close enough), and the majority of Americans receiving more from the government than they pay in taxes.

These results are summarized in the table below. (I also added several more rows of representative households—though still not all the brackets I used!) I’ve color-coded who would be paying less in tax in green and who would be more in tax in red under each plan, compared to our current system. This color-coding is overly generous to Trump’s plan and the 30% flat tax plan, because it doesn’t account for the increased government deficit (though I did color-code those as well, again relative to the current system). And yet, over 50% of households make less than $51,986, putting the poorest half of Americans in the green zone for every plan except Trump’s. For the last plan, I also color-coded those between $52,000 and $82,000 who would pay additional taxes, but less than they save on healthcare, thus net saving money in blue. Including those folks, we’re benefiting over 69% of Americans.

Household pre-tax income	Current tax system	Trump’s tax plan	Flat 30% tax with $12k basic income	Flat 40% tax with $15k basic income	Logtax 20%	Logtax 25% with $12k basic income	Logtax 35% with $15k basic income, single-payer healthcare
$1,080	$108	$130	-$11,676	-$14,568	-$856	-$12,121	-$15,173
$12,317	$1,384	$1,478	-$8,305	-$10,073	-$1,254	-$11,413	-$14,186
$22,162	$2,861	$2,659	-$5,351	-$6,135	$450	-$9,224	-$11,213
$32,058	$4,345	$3,847	-$2,383	-$2,177	$2,887	-$6,256	-$7,258
$51,986	$8,768	$6,238	$3,596	$5,794	$9,041	$1,115	$2,383
$77,023	$15,027	$9,506	$11,107	$15,809	$18,206	$11,995	$16,350
$81,966	$16,263	$10,742	$12,590	$17,786	$20,148	$14,292	$17,786
$97,161	$20,242	$14,540	$17,148	$23,864	$26,334	$21,594	$28,516
$101,921	$21,575	$15,730	$18,576	$27,875	$30,571	$23,947	$31,482
$151,940	$35,580	$28,235	$33,582	$45,776	$50,655	$50,144	$64,180
$781,538	$265,625	$230,158	$222,461	$297,615	$406,076	$458,140	$551,031
$2,036,666	$762,656	$644,350	$599,000	$799,666	$1,228,795	$1,384,475	$1,618,703
$9,935,858	$3,890,736	$3,251,083	$2,968,757	$3,959,343	$7,065,274	$7,819,932	$8,790,124
Change in federal spending	$0	$0	-$630 billion	-$630 billion	$0	-$630 billion	$0
Estimated federal surplus	-$682 billion	-$1,155 billion	-$822 billion	-$180 billion	$110 billion	$63 billion	-$168 billion

Why are movies so expensive? Did they used to be? Do they need to be?

2016-08-102016-08-03 PNRJ ethics, market failure, public policy Avatar, budget, copyright, film, Gone with the Wind, inflation, intellectual property, Michele Boldrin, monopoly, movie, patent, pizzaright, porn, trademark

August 10, JDN 2457611

One of the better arguments in favor of copyright involves film production. Films are extraordinarily expensive to produce; without copyright, how would they recover their costs? $100 million is a common budget these days.

It is commonly thought that film budgets used to be much smaller, so I looked at some data from The Numbers on over 5,000 films going back to 1915, and inflation-adjusted the budgets using the CPI. (I learned some interesting LibreOffice Calc functions in the process of merging the data; also LibreOffice crashed a few times trying to make the graphs, so that’s fun. I finally realized it had copied over all the 10,000 hyperlinks from the HTML data set.)

If you just look at the nominal figures, there does seem to be some sort of upward trend:

But once you do the proper inflation adjustment, this trend basically disappears:

In real terms, the grosses of some early movies are quite large. Adjusted to 2015 dollars, Gone with the Wind grossed $6.659 billion—still the highest ever. In 1937, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs grossed over $3.043 billion in 2015 dollars. In 1950, Cinderella made it to $2.592 billion in today’s money. (Horrifyingly, The Birth of a Nation grossed $258 million in today’s money.)

Nor is there any evidence that movie production has gotten more expensive. The linear trend is actually negative, though with a very small slope that is not statistically significant. On average, the real budget of a movie falls by $1752 per year.

While the two most expensive movies came out recently (Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End and Avatar), the third most expensive was released in 1963 (Cleopatra). The really hugely expensive movies do seem to cluster relatively recently—but then so do the really cheap films, some of which have budgets under $10,000. It may just be that more movies are produced in general, and overall the cost of producing a film doesn’t seem to have changed in real terms. The best return on investment is My Date with Drew, released in 2005, which had a budget of $1,100 but grossed $181,000, giving it an ROI of 16,358%. The highest real profit was of course Gone with the Wind, which made an astonishing $6.592 billion, though Titanic, Avatar, Aliens and Terminator 2 combined actually beat it with a total profit of $6.651 billion, which may explain why James Cameron can now basically make any movie he wants and already has four sequels lined up for Avatar.

The biggest real loss was 1970’s Waterloo, which made back only $18 million of its $153 million budget, losing $135 million and having an ROI of -87.7%. This was not quite as bad an ROI as 2002’s The Adventures of Pluto Nash, which had an ROI of -92.91%.

But making movies has always been expensive, at least for big blockbusters. (The $8,900 budget of Primer is something I could probably put on credit cards if I had to.) It’s nothing new to spend $100 million in today’s money.

When considering the ethics and economics of copyright, it’s useful to think about what Michele Boldrin calls “pizzaright”: you can’t copy my pizza, or you are guilty of pizzaright infringement. Many of the arguments for copyright are so general—this is a valuable service, it carries some risk of failure, it wouldn’t be as profitable without the monopoly, so fewer companies might enter the business—that they would also apply to pizza. Yet somehow nobody thinks that pizzaright should be a thing. If there is a justification for copyrights, it must come from the special circumstances of works of art (broadly conceived, including writing, film, music, etc.), and the only one that really seems strong enough is the high upfront cost of certain types of art—and indeed, the only ones that really seem to fit that are films and video games.

Painting, writing, and music just aren’t that expensive. People are willing to create these things for very little money, and can do so more or less on their own, especially nowadays. If the prices are reasonable, people will still want to buy from the creators directly—and sure enough, widespread music piracy hasn’t killed music, it has only killed the corporate record industry. But movies and video games really can easily cost $100 million to make, so there’s a serious concern of what might happen if they couldn’t use copyright to recover their costs.

The question for me is, did we really need copyright to fund these budgets?

Let’s take a look at how Star Wars made its money. $6.249 billion came from box office revenue, while $873 million came from VHS and DVD sales; those would probably be substantially reduced if not for copyright. But even before The Force Awakens was released, the Star Wars franchise had already made some $12 billion in toy sales alone. “Merchandizing, merchandizing, where the real money from the movie is made!”

Did they need intellectual property to do that? Well, yes—but all they needed was trademark. Defenders of “intellectual property” like to use that term because it elides fundamental distinctions between the three types: trademark, copyright, and patent.
Trademark is unproblematic. You can’t lie about who you are or where you products came from when you’re selling something. So if you are claiming to sell official Star Wars merchandise, you’d better be selling official Star Wars merchandise, and trademark protects that.

Copyright is problematic, but may be necessary in some cases. Copyright protects the content of the movies from being copied or modified without Lucasfilm’s permission. So now rather than simply protecting against the claim that you represent Lucasfilm, we are protecting against people buying the movie, copying it, and reselling the copies—even though that is a real economic service they are providing, and is in no way fraudulent as long as they are clear about the fact that they made the copies.

Patent is, frankly, ridiculous. The concept of “owning” ideas is absurd. You came up with a good way to do something? Great! Go do it then. But don’t expect other people to pay you simply for the privilege of hearing your good idea. Of course I want to financially support researchers, but there are much, much better ways of doing that, like government grants and universities. Patents only raise revenue for research that sells, first of all—so vaccines and basic research can’t be funded that way, even though they are the most important research by far. Furthermore, there’s nothing to guarantee that the person who actually invented the idea is the one who makes the profit from it—and in our current system where corporations can own patents (and do own almost 90% of patents), it typically isn’t. Even if it were, the whole concept of owning ideas is nonsensical, and it has driven us to the insane extremes of corporations owning patents on human DNA. The best argument I’ve heard for patents is that they are a second-best solution that incentivizes transparency and avoids trade secrets from becoming commonplace; but in that case they should definitely be short, and we should never extend them. Companies should not be able to make basically cosmetic modifications and renew the patent, and expiring patents should be a cause for celebration.

Hollywood actually formed in Los Angeles precisely to escape patents, but of course they love copyright and trademark. So do they like “intellectual property”?

Could blockbuster films be produced profitably using only trademark, in the absence of copyright?

Clearly Star Wars would have still turned a profit. But not every movie can do such merchandizing, and when movies start getting written purely for merchandizing it can be painful to watch.

The real question is whether a film like Gone with the Wind or Avatar could still be made, and make a reasonable profit (if a much smaller one).

Well, there’s always porn. Porn raises over $400 million per year in revenue, despite having essentially unenforceable copyright. They too are outraged over piracy, yet somehow I don’t think porn will ever cease to exist. A top porn star can make over $200,000 per year.Then there are of course independent films that never turn a profit at all, yet people keep making them.

So clearly it is possible to make some films without copyright protection, and something like Gone with the Wind needn’t cost $100 million to make. The only reason it cost as much as it did (about $66 million in today’s money) was that movie stars could command huge winner-takes-all salaries, which would no longer be true if copyright went away. And don’t tell me people wouldn’t be willing to be movie stars for $200,000 a year instead of $1.8 million (what Clark Gable made for Gone with the Wind, adjusted for inflation).

Yet some Hollywood blockbuster budgets are genuinely necessary. The real question is whether we could have Avatar without copyright. Not having films like Avatar is something I would count as a substantial loss to our society; we would lose important pieces of our art and culture.

So, where did all that money go? I don’t have a breakdown for Avatar in particular, but I do have a full budget breakdown for The Village. Of its $71.7 million, $33.5 million was “above the line”, which basically means the winner-takes-all superstar salaries for the director, producer, and cast. That amount could be dramatically reduced with no real cost to society—let’s drop it to say $3 million. Shooting costs were $28.8 million, post-production was $8.4 million, and miscellaneous expenses added about $1 million; all of those would be much harder to reduce (they mainly go to technical staff who make reasonable salaries, not to superstars), so let’s assume the full amount is necessary. That’s about $38 million in real cost to produce. Avatar had a lot more (and better) post-production, so let’s go ahead and multiply the post-production budget by an order of magnitude to $84 million. Our new total budget is $113.8 million.
That sounds like a lot, and it is; but this could be made back without copyright. Avatar sold over 14.5 million DVDs and over 8 million Blu-Rays. Conservatively assuming that the price elasticity of demand is zero (which is ridiculous—assuming the monopoly pricing is optimal it should be -1), if those DVDs were sold for $2 each and the Blu-Rays were sold for $5 each, with 50% of those prices being profit, this would yield a total profit of $14.5 million from DVDs and $20 million from Blu-Rays. That’s already $34.5 million. With realistic assumptions about elasticity of demand, cutting the prices this much (DVDs down from an average of $16, Blu-Rays down from an average of $20) would multiply the number of DVDs sold by at least 5 and the number of Blu-Rays sold by at least 3, which would get us all the way up to $132 million—enough to cover our new budget. (Of course this is much less than they actually made, which is why they set the prices they did—but that doesn’t mean it’s optimal from society’s perspective.)

But okay, suppose I’m wrong about the elasticity, and dropping the price from $16 to $2 for a DVD somehow wouldn’t actually increase the number purchased. What other sources of revenue would they have? Well, box office tickets would still be a thing. They’d have to come down in price, but given the high-quality high-fidelity versions that cinemas require—making them quite hard to pirate—they would still get decent money from each cinema. Let’s say the price drops by 90%—all cinemas are now $1 cinemas!—and the sales again somehow remain exactly the same (rather than dramatically increasing as they actually would). What would Avatar’s worldwide box office gross be then? $278 million. They could give the DVDs away for free and still turn a profit.

And that’s Avatar, one of the most expensive movies ever made. By cutting out the winner-takes-all salaries and huge corporate profits, the budget can be substantially reduced, and then what real costs remain can be quite well covered by box office and DVD sales at reasonable prices. If you imagine that piracy somehow undercuts everything until you have to give away things for free, you might think this is impossible; but in reality pirated versions are of unreliable quality, people do want to support artists and they are willing to pay something for their entertainment. They’re just tired of paying monopoly prices to benefit the shareholders of Viacom.

Would this end the era of the multi-millionaire movie star? Yes, I suppose it might. But it would also put about $10 billion per year back in the pockets of American consumers—and there’s little reason to think it would take away future Avatars, much less future Gone with the Winds.

	What we still have t… on The CBO report on Trump’…
	What we still have t… on What is the cost of all t…
	What we still have t… on Reflections on the Index of Ne…
	What we still have t… on Ancient plagues, modern p…
	You call this a hobb… on In defense of slacktivism

Human Economics

Cognitive development economics: Understanding the mind in order to feed the world

budget