Must-Read: Judd Cramer and Alan B. Krueger: Disruptive Change in the Taxi Business: The Case of Uber

Must-Read: Judd Cramer and Alan B. Krueger: Disruptive Change in the Taxi Business: The Case of Uber: “This paper… compar[es] the capacity utilization rate of UberX drivers…

…with that of traditional taxi drivers in five cities…. UberX drivers spend a significantly higher fraction of their time, and drive a substantially higher share of miles, with a passenger in their car than do taxi drivers…. 1) Uber’s more efficient driver-passenger matching technology; 2) the larger scale of Uber than taxi companies; 3) inefficient taxi regulations; and 4) Uber’s flexible labor supply model and surge pricing more closely match supply with demand throughout the day.

Must-Read: Michael Hiltzik: Mergers in the Healthcare Sector: Why You’ll Pay More

Must-Read: Because people must purchase health insurance under ObamaCare, the demand curve has a steeper slope–and thus oligopoly and monopoly are even more dangerous and destructive than they typically are:

Michael Hiltzik: Mergers in the Healthcare Sector: Why You’ll Pay More: “Aetna is seeking to merge with Humana in one of the two proposed health insurance mega-mergers facing state and federal scrutiny…

…the other deal would combine Anthem and Cigna. Lower prices. More efficient healthcare. More innovation. Better customer service. That’s what hospital and insurance companies say, anyway.  But here’s what the data say: Hospital and insurance mergers almost always lead to higher costs, lower efficiencies and less innovation. The reason is simple: Mergers reduce competition–and it’s competition that drives down prices and encourages more efficiency and innovation. Some healthcare mergers have been outright disasters for consumers; studies of mergers that took place in the 1990s and early 2000s showed price increases of as much as 40% in communities that lost competition. These findings are important because we are deep into a new era of healthcare consolidation. In 2015, 112 hospital mergers were announced nationwide; that’s 18% more than a year earlier, and a 70% increase over 2010…

Must-Read: James Bessen: Lobbyists Are Behind the Rise in Corporate Profits

Must-Read: James Bessen: Lobbyists Are Behind the Rise in Corporate Profits: “I tease apart the factors associated with the growth in corporate valuations relative to assets (Tobin’s Q) and the growth in operating margins…

…the roles of R&D, spending on advertising and marketing, and on administrative costs, including IT. I also consider investments in lobbying, political campaign spending, and regulation; and I look for links between rising profits and industry concentration and stock volatility. I find that investments in conventional capital assets like machinery and spending on R&D together account for a substantial part of the rise in valuations and profits, especially during the 1990s. However, since 2000, political activity and regulation account for a surprisingly large share of the increase…. Lobbying and political campaign spending can result in favorable regulatory changes, and several studies find the returns to these investments can be quite large. For example, one study finds that for each dollar spent lobbying for a tax break, firms received returns in excess of $220.

It is less obvious, however, that regulation in general should be associated with higher profits. Indeed, critics of the regulatory state regularly decry the costs imposed by regulations. Yet even regulations that impose costs might raise profits indirectly, since costs to incumbents are also entry barriers for prospective entrants…. The pattern around the 1992 Cable Act is representative: I find that firms experiencing major regulatory change see their valuations rise 12% compared to closely matched control groups. Smaller regulatory changes are also associated with a subsequent rise in firm market values and profits. This research supports the view that political rent seeking is responsible for a significant portion of the rise in profits….

Two characteristics make these changes particularly worrisome. First, the link between regulation and profits is highly concentrated in a small number of politically influential industries. Among non-financial corporations, most of the effect is accounted for by just five industries: pharmaceuticals/chemicals, petroleum refining, transportation equipment/defense, utilities, and communications. These industries comprise, in effect, a ‘rent seeking sector.’… Those firms may skew policy for the entire economy. For example, the pharmaceutical industry has actively stymied efforts to address problems of patent trolls that affect many other industries. Second, while political rent seeking is nothing new, the outsize effect of political rent seeking on profits and firm values is a recent development, largely occurring since 2000…

Must-read: Marshall Steinbaum: “Uber’s Antitrust Problem”

Must-Read: Are Uber and companies like it anti-rent seeking plays? Yes. Are they regulatory arbitrage plays? Yes. Are they behavioral economics plays–exploiting their workers who don’t properly calculate depreciation? Plausibly. What’s the proper balance? Allowing Uber to claim that its workers are in no sense its employees is surely wrong. Shielding existing rent-seeking monopolies created by regulatory capture from competition from Uber and its ilk is also surely wrong:

Marshall Steinbaum: Uber’s Antitrust Problem: “The Uber lawsuit captures the key question facing policymakers struggling to regulate the ‘gig’ and ‘platform’ economies…

…Are the new behemoths of the tech sector innovators that make the economy more efficient by ‘disrupting’ antiquated business models? Or are they just the trusts of a second Gilded Age, their new-fangled apps the equivalent of the railroad networks that monopolized commerce and access to markets 126 years ago, when the Sherman Act first took effect?

Until now, Uber and its fellow tech giants have managed to mystify policymakers and judges with double-speak regarding their relationship with employees. But in his decision allowing the case to move forward, Judge Rakoff wrote: ‘The advancement of technological means for the orchestration of large-scale price-fixing conspiracies need not leave antitrust law behind.’ Now one court has the chance to decide whether Uber can continue to have it both ways.

Must-read: Cory Doctorow: “Supreme Court sends Authors Guild packing, won’t hear Google Books case”

Must-Read: A defeat for the rent-seekers!

Cory Doctorow: Supreme Court sends Authors Guild packing, won’t hear Google Books case: “The Authors Guild has been trying to get a court to shut down…

…Google’s book-scanning/book-search program for more than a decade. Last October, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals — the most publisher-friendly court in America — ruled that the program was legal. Today, the Supreme Court settled the question forever, by declining to hear the Authors Guild’s appeal. I’ve written a lot about this, but here’s the tl;dr: if making a copy in order to create a search index violates copyright, then all search engines are illegal….

Unlike other forms of Google search, Google does not display advertising to book searchers, nor does it receive payment if a searcher uses Google’s link to buy a copy. Google’s book scanning project started in 2004. Working with major libraries like Stanford, Columbia, the University of California, and the New York Public Library, Google has scanned and made machine-readable more than 20 million books. Many of them are nonfiction and out of print.

Must-read: Noah Smith: “Your Landlord Is a Drag on Growth”

Must-Read: Noah Smith: Your Landlord Is a Drag on Growth: “After many decades of essentially ignoring the role of land…

…economists are starting to reconsider. Some are worried that landlords are hurting growth by making it too expensive to live in highly productive cities. Now, some are starting to think about how land figures in the rise in inequality. The basic idea is that landlords use their local political power to stack the deck…. That unpleasant narrative might now be playing out in the U.S. Jason Furman, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers…. According to Furman, some of the change may be due to more zoning. Since the late 1970s, land-use regulation has skyrocketed in the U.S….

The new spotlight on zoning is causing even traditional proponents of government intervention to call for regulatory reform. Paul Krugman… “[T]his is an issue on which you don’t have to be a conservative to believe that we have too much regulation. … New York City can’t do much if anything about soaring inequality of incomes, but it could do a lot to increase the supply of housing, and thereby ensure that the inward migration of the elite doesn’t drive out everyone else.”… [But] existing landlords have lots of power in local politics, while potential landlords and tenants, because they are still living elsewhere, have zero…

Must-Read: Paul Krugman: TPP Take Two

Paul Krugman: TPP Take Two: “What I know so far: pharma is mad because the extension of property rights in biologics is… shorter than it wanted…

…tobacco is mad because it has been carved out of the dispute settlement deal, and Rs in general are mad because the labor protection stuff is stronger than expected. All of these are good things…. I’ll need to do much more homework…. But it’s interesting that what we’re seeing so far is a harsh backlash from the right against these improvements. I find myself thinking of Grossman and Helpman’s work on the political economy of free trade agreements, in which they conclude, based on a highly stylized but nonetheless interesting model of special interest politics, that: “An FTA is most likely to politically viable exactly when it would be socially harmful.” The TPP looks better than it did, which infuriates much of Congress.