Saturday, January 11, 2003

Putting Prostitution Back On the Street Where It Belongs

According to a news story I heard on the radio (I couldn't find any articles about it online), the Royal Viking Hotel in Los Angeles is in trouble for allegedly "facilitating" prostitution and other criminal activities. The city council has decided it's time to crack down on the hotel, so they are forcing it - by means of a court to injunction - to stop selling condoms, stop renting rooms for fewer than 12 hours at a time, and stop renting rooms for less than $25 a day.

Wow. Just for the fun of it, let's even suppose you think that outlawing sex between consenting adults when money is involved is a good idea. Let's count how many different ways this injunction gets it wrong.

1. The injunction against condoms punishes only those prostitutes and clients who want to have *safe* sex. This might deter some prostitutes and clients from having sex, but only by encouraging the rest to have sex more dangerously. At best, this part of the injunction will have no effect because prostitutes will just bring their condoms with them. Meanwhile, the regular customers who just want to have sex (with no money involved) will also be deprived of the convenience of buying condoms at the hotel.

2. The prohibition on renting rooms for fewer than 12 hours at a time punishes plenty of people who aren't prostitutes or their clients, such as truck drivers who just need a few hours sleep, or young couples who'd rather not have sex in their parents' homes. Similarly, the prohibition on renting rooms for less than $25 per day is just a price floor, which hurts anyone looking for a cheap place to spend the night.

3. The last two restrictions combined raise the cost of doing business in private - but not the cost of doing so in back alleys, parking lots, and other public places. One of the main arguments that people have against legal prostitution is the potential exposure of children and other sensitive persons to seedy sexual transactions in public places. In that case, does it make sense to discourage prostitutes from taking their business indoors?

I can't think of a more foolhardy approach to fighting prostitution. It encourages exactly those aspects of the business that people finds most objectionable - specifically, spreading disease and conducting private affairs in public spaces. And it does this while punishing law-abiding citizens who want a cheap place to sleep or (why not?) have sex.

Read More...

Thursday, January 09, 2003

"Ha Ha, Made You Look" Advertising

When TV networks started putting a nearly transparent network logo in the lower righthand corner during programs, I was actually in favor of it. When I'm channel surfing, I like to know what channel I've surfed onto. And if I'm catching the end of a previous show before the show I intend to watch, it's nice to know I'm in the right place.

But then, as anyone who's watched TV in the last two years knows, the logos started growing, traded their transparency for vivid colors, acquired moving graphics, and began adding advertisements for other shows. I figure it won't be long before they develop intelligence and apply for membership in the UN.

The latest travesty: I was watching Law & Order on TNT, and the whole bottom fifth of the screen suddenly turned blue. The words "STORM WARNING!" scrolled across the screen from right to left, and I stopped what I was doing to find out if we were in for another windstorm like the one we had last week, which caused numerous homes to lose power for more than 48 hours. "Friday, Saturday, and Sunday night," it continued, "the TNT broadcast of THE PERFECT STORM, starring George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg!" What's next - using the Emergency Broadcast System to alert us about changes in the primetime line-up?

Read More...

Wednesday, January 08, 2003

It's Creepy and It's Kooky, Macro Economy!

With respect to the proposals in GWB's new economic "stimulus" plan, some critics have commented on the oddness of proposing long-term solutions to short-term problems. Senator Ted Kennedy's reaction (quoted in this Reuters story) is typical: "To use the need for an immediate economic stimulus as an excuse to enact costly new permanent tax breaks for the wealthy is a cynical and disheartening ploy," said Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts.

The critics are correct from the perspective of old-school Keynesian fiscal policy. The recommended fiscal policy response to a slumping economy usually involves one-time spending increases or tax deductions, not "permanent" changes in the tax code. But guess what: using fiscal policy to deal with macroeconomic cycles is a poor idea anyway. It is incredibly, almost insurmountably difficult to get the size and timing of legislative responses to correspond to the ups and downs of the economy. By the time it's apparent that a fiscal policy response would have been helpful, the window has most likely closed. Current spending increases and tax reductions will have little or no impact on current unemployment rates. Their primary impact will likely be months down the road, when the economy might already have recovered on its own.

So if you want to judge the wisdom of new tax and spending proposals, short-run economic performance is not the correct measure. The appropriate criterion is the probable effect on *long-run* economic growth. And in that regard, GWB's proposals move us in pretty much the right direction, as some Cato scholars argue here, *assuming* they are eventually accompanied by spending cuts. That's a big assumption, unfortunately. Of course, most of GWB's supporters are casting their praise of his proposals in terms of the slumping economy because that's what people are concerned about right now. (But note that all the real praise from the Cato scholars is in terms of "growth," despite the misleading headline about "stimulus.")

As an aside, it's worth noting that the word "permanent" doesn't really mean much in this context anyway. In what sense is any legislation really permanent? Unless there is some kind of supermajority requirement for changing it, as is the case with constitutional provisions, all it takes to reverse a "permanent" law passed by a majority is another law passed by another majority. Short of passing a constitutional amendment, the 2003 Congress and president are utterly incapable of placing binding constraints on any future Congress and president - even if they are the very same people. Calling a tax cut or another change in the law "permanent" has all the power of making a wish with your fingers crossed. Those of us who favor tax cuts will just have to hope that future legislators are willing to stick with them.

Read More...

Tuesday, January 07, 2003

Agora2K

I just noticed that my blog has now gotten over 2000 hits! Very exciting. I just wish I could celebrate by posting a monster-sized blurb on something either really important or incredibly obscure. But blast it, I just couldn't get inspired today. I kept getting distracted by, you know, work.

Read More...

Monday, January 06, 2003

Movable Type

While driving home today, I saw an SUV with two huge stickers in its back window, both in huge Gothic type. The one on the left read, "Holy Spirit Fueled," and the other read, "Powered by Jesus." I couldn't help wondering what kind of mileage they were getting, and whether they were using 87, 89, or 93 octane Jesus. And then I wondered if there might be a more spiritual interpretation, like a modern-day version of the Hanukkah story: while driving home from Vegas a few years ago, they realized they had only enough gasoline left for one more mile, and yet that gasoline miraculously allowed the car to travel the eight miles down the interstate to the nearest gas station.

Seriously, though, I'm curious as to the motivation behind these and most other bumper stickers. Are there people whose political and religious viewpoints are influenced by the messages they see plastered on strangers' vehicles? I'm reminded of an article in The Onion's _Our Dumb Century_ from 1973: "Bumper Sticker Industry Applauds Roe v. Wade Decision." The final paragraph of the article pretty much says it all: "The historic ruling means bumper-sticker creators will dictate the terms of America's abortion dialogue in the coming years. Said [Bumper-Sticker Manufacturers of America President Karl] Steinholz, 'This debate has now moved out of the courts and onto the bumpers of cars, where it belongs.'"

I suspect, as my sister suggested to me, that no one really thinks they'll change anyone's mind with a bumper sticker, and therefore most bumper stickers are just expressions of belief - commonly, the belief that "I'm better than you." Still, there are some bumper stickers I do enjoy, typically ones designed for the entertainment (as opposed to moral and political education) of other drivers. Many of these make fun of other bumper stickers, "Jeez if you love Honkus" being the classic. "Nuke the whales" was funny once, but is now tired. That's the problem, of course; the humor may be gone, but the bumper sticker lingers on.

Read More...

Sunday, January 05, 2003

The Origin of Theses

In the process of researching the alcohol industry, I unexpectedly ran across the origin of the economics profession's favorite proverb, "There's no such thing as a free lunch." It began in the pre-Prohibition days, when manufacturers of alcohol could, and often did, sell their wares directly to customers. This practice is now forbidden by post-Prohibition federal and state laws that effectively mandate a three-tier alcohol industry in which distributors must stand between manufacturers and retailers. According to a 1997 story (not available online without payment) from the Orange County Register,
The purpose of these laws was to eliminate predatory turn-of-the-century marketing such as that practiced by "tied houses" - distiller-owned taverns that offered salt pork or free sandwiches to induce working men to visit and drink. The sobriety and wages lost to this "tied-house evil" spawned the phrase, "There's no such thing as a free lunch. "
An interesting story, despite the highly questionable use of the word "predatory."

Read More...