Unintended Consequences

“The supply of government exceeds demand.”- Lewis H. Lapham

My latest commuting lecture series on CD has been on the Fundamentals of Economics. With all the problems in the economy and odd government behavior, I decided to brush up on my Micro & Macro Economics that I learned so long ago in college. As the instructor points out, it would be a good thing for ALL government leaders to brush up on the basics.

For example: Supply & Demand. You don’t have to like it but it’s a “force of nature” that cannot be denied. It explains behavior in all kinds of economies – capitalism and socialism - around the world. It results in all manner of unintended consequences in “well-meaning” legislation.

Case in point – the economics professor says one should NOT use prices to bring about social change. The setting of price caps or wage floors upsets the balance of Supply & Demand and nature will not be denied. It will find ways to compensate.

Consider rent control laws. Landlords have no desire to support apartments that return less than market rates. They will let the place run down, or charge high fees (like key deposits) to make up the balance. New landlords stay out of an unprofitable market resulting in fewer “low-cost” places to live. There are also consequences for the renter. When supply of rent-controlled apartments diminishes, those that have them hold on to what they have, no matter what. They become reluctant to move or “trade up” because they have a great below-market deal. The apartments become family assets that are passed on to children or (illegally) subleased, sometimes at higher rates. Because the rent is fixed for everyone, there is little to stop the rich from getting great deals. A congressman from NY has 4 rent-controlled apartments in the same building that he combined into a nice living space.

What are the alternatives to rent-control? If the government wants to help low-income families to find affordable living, then target these families directly (not indirectly with prices that affect everyone). Give them an apartment check that is similar to food stamps – payable only towards rent. Or a tax rebate if rent exceeds x% of your budget for households earning less than $Y.

Or consider tax-cuts & other programs to simulate the economy. Sounds good at first glance – more money in peoples pockets. But what are the unintended consequences?

- More money chasing the limited goods can result in inflation that erodes away the new dollars available. So no one is better off afterwards.
- The extra money may be spent on foreign imports, improving the economies of other nations at the expense of US taxpayers. The “Cash for Clunkers” helped Japanese car makers more than US companies.
- Less tax means the government debt will increase (at least short term until the economy recovers). Government borrowing drains money from investors making it more costly for companies to borrow money or issue bonds/stocks for improvements. Instead of stimulating, the resulting debt can slow down the economy. This happened under FDR, Regan and looks to be happening again under Obama.

The alternative: government spending should focus on long-term improvements that lift up the nation, not handouts to “shovel-ready” jobs for frivolous projects. We could instead build a new Internet super-highway to bring network speeds up to levels enjoyed by nations like Japan. Or build wireless access across the nation. Or fix old roads and bridges and public waterworks. Strengthen our nation’s electricity grid against failure.

Bottom Line

The science of economics is not perfect; it’s not called the “dismal” science for nothing. Just look at the debate of Keynesian vs. Supply-Side vs. other theories on how to “fix” a recession. But an awareness of economic principles and history can teach us that there ain’t no such no such thing as a free lunch. Someone always pays though it may be quite hidden or indirect.

So the next time a politician promises to fix some ill via a law or spending, ask yourself – who will indirectly benefit from this? What will be the long-term consequences and who will suffer? Can this new law/spending be exploited by the rich and powerful [Example: a law was passed requiring government to spend X% of contract dollars on companies with female or minority ownership. What happened – big white-male companies set up dummy companies led by a woman or minority that would subcontract everything back to the big white-male company. There are always loopholes.]