Showing posts with label How the economist got it wrong.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label How the economist got it wrong.. Show all posts

24 January 2011

Thoughts on Economics: Coke Index & the free market

Perhaps living in the city of Adam Smith, who wrote the Wealth of Nations in 1776, the year my forefathers signed their names to a declaration to King George III declaring their intentions to sever ties with the colonizing power, has sparked an interest in economics and the interaction with law. Prior to Christmas 2010 I was in Marrakesh, Morocco and met four students from Malaysia, who, were finishing their degrees in London, respectfully in medicine, economics and international trade. Our conversation on a train ride to Rabat sparked my interest in the Coke Index, which was promulgated in the affirmative by two of the four. First, I will explain the index and then contemplate UK tax law with a comparison to the health care. This latter point was prompted by recent discussions with fellow course mates about the Republicans in the US House of Representatives voting last week to repeal “Obamacare” (US National Health Care Act (H.R. 676)), which is the American version of socialized medicine, signed into law by President Obama in 2010 and set to take effect in 2014.

The Coke Index is a variation of PPP (purchasing power parity), an economic theory of long term equilibrium exchange rates is based on the relative price levels in two different countries. The theory has an absolute and a relative model. In the former, the purchasing power of different currencies is equalized for a given good. Whereas the latter is the difference between the prices, in say a can of Coke, between country A and B. The difference in the inflation rates will be more or less equal to the percentage of appreciation or depreciation in the exchange rate. The Coke Index can therefore give you an on-the-ground indication of the “real exchange rate”, because you know that a can of Coke costs $0.50 in Denver and 5dirhams in Marrakesh. According to XE.com the exchange rate is $1.00 = 0.12149 Moroccan dirham, so the “real exchange rate” is actually a little worse than quoted, as the can of Coke actually cost $0.61. Where the Coke Index breaks-down and becomes subject to volatility is in the arena of non-traded goods and services, in other words, I could have purchased a haircut for the same value as a can of Coke or hired a driver for a similar price. The Economist popularized the “Big Mac Index”, which I personally reject as the magazine is a bit too pretentious and arrogant for my tastes, though it is the exact same principle. Both the Coke and Big Mac Index are criticised in developing countries because those two goods are seen as luxury items. Coke is less so, as it is found even in the most rural of regions – according to Jessica Stern’s book, Terror in the Name of God, members of al-Qaida and the Taliban always served Coke as an aperitif. All this said, a 1,5 litre bottle of water in Marrakesh cost me the equivalent of £0.04 – a bit shocking since a similar bottle would cost between £0.34 and £0.65 in Edinburgh! I still drank a lot of Coke, because a medical doctor (single & female) I befriended said Coke kills any bugs which might have been on the Moroccan food – good advice – I didn’t get sick!

In regards to tax law in the UK, I have been reaking Tolley's Yellow Tax Handbook 2010-11 and Revenue Law: Principles and Practice. These books, along with lectures indicate the UK-US comparison is actually not that much differnt as far as revenue collected per capita, The US still has over-all lower taxes, but not by as great a differnce as existed in the 1980s. The textbook authors seem to insinuate Americans perceive themselves as paying fewer taxes and receiving fewer benefits, though the lecturer of the course commented that Americans contribute slightly less (when considering federal and state income tax, plus sales tax and property taxes), but receive tremendously fewer benefits. I almost stood up and said, “I’d gladly pay minimal taxes and receive limited equivalents.” Though I can tell my Republican ideology doesn’t exactly flow with the average Brit. The largest tax increase in American history was signed into law by President Obama in 2010 - the National Health Care Act - which binds all citizens into a single federal scheme (in my opinion usurping the concept of dual-federalism and the autonomy of the states) Europeans love the concept of 'free health care' (though if they thought about it, they are paying for it and even if it is less than most American insurance plans, the quality of service, expertise and facilities are considerably behind the US). Take all the factor which create value and Americans have BMW plans compared (using the auto analogy) Vespas in the UK. Cost wise, there should be a more affordable plan, but it should also carry a linear equivalence as far as value. I wouldn’t expect to buy a real BMW at a Vespa price, nor would I suspect the showrooms look similar. Yet both should take me from point A to B. I also dared to say that the free market should guide these prices and services, not the government – I was called a few cute and short names for what seem to be rather reasonable ideas. Much of my reasoning comes from observing how my fellow law students act at an “open-bar”, as opposed to a “cash-bar”. They’re sloshed in the former instance and reasonable in the latter (mind you, they’re British, students and in the faculty of law – all of which have high drinking propensities).

02 April 2009

Freedom "of" religion vs. Freedom "from" religion

The 2 April 2009 issue of the Economist had a very interesting article, regarding the UN Human Rights Council's Resolution A/HRC/10/L.2/Rev.1, however, I have to criticize the author for not following the topic of his arguement. Instead of talking about the UN Human Rights Council March 26th adopted resolution, he attacks the US concept of religious liberty in the end. America has a continually balancing system for religious liberty, which is entrenched in the Bill of Rights and to criticize the American system when that wasn't even the article's premise seems like a cheap shot. It is the difference between freedom "of" religion vs. freedom "from" religion. The US has adopted the latter, but the former seems to be the final thought of the author. His argument breaks down by not having a conclusion which reflexes what it is he is actually arguing, which should be the resolutions undermining of the Universal Declaration of Human Right.
_______________________________________________________
From The Economist print edition
Apr 2nd 2009
Why freedom of speech must include the right to “defame” religions

AT FIRST glance, the resolution on “religious defamation” adopted by the UN’s Human Rights Council on March 26th, mainly at the behest of Islamic countries, reads like another piece of harmless verbiage churned out by a toothless international bureaucracy. What is wrong with saying, as the resolution does, that some Muslims faced prejudice in the aftermath of September 2001? But a closer look at the resolution’s language, and the context in which it was adopted (with an unholy trio of Pakistan, Belarus and Venezuela acting as sponsors), makes clear that bigger issues are at stake.

The resolution says “defamation of religions” is a “serious affront to human dignity” which can “restrict the freedom” of those who are defamed, and may also lead to the incitement of violence. But there is an insidious blurring of categories here, which becomes plain when you compare this resolution with the more rigorous language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 in a spirit of revulsion over the evils of fascism. This asserts the right of human beings in ways that are now entrenched in the theory and (most of the time) the practice of liberal democracy. It upholds the right of people to live in freedom from persecution and arbitrary arrest; to hold any faith or none; to change religion; and to enjoy freedom of expression, which by any fair definition includes freedom to agree or disagree with the tenets of any religion.

In other words, it protects individuals—not religions, or any other set of beliefs. And this is a vital distinction. For it is not possible systematically to protect religions or their followers from offence without infringing the right of individuals.

What exactly is it the drafters of the council resolution are trying to outlaw? To judge from what happens in the countries that lobbied for the vote—like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan—they use the word “defamation” to mean something close to the crime of blasphemy, which is in turn defined as voicing dissent from the official reading of Islam. In many of the 56 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which has led the drive to outlaw “defamation”, both non-Muslims and Muslims who voice dissent (even in technical matters of Koranic interpretation) are often victims of just the sort of persecution the 1948 declaration sought to outlaw. That is a real human-rights problem. And in the spirit of fairness, laws against blasphemy that remain on the statute books of some Western countries should also be struck off; only real, not imaginary, incitement of violence should be outlawed.

In much of the Muslim world, the West’s reaction to the attacks of September 2001, including the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, has been misread as an attack on Islam itself. This is more than regrettable; it is dangerous. Western governments, and decent people everywhere, should try to ensure that the things they say do not entrench religious prejudice or incite acts of violence; being free to give offence does not mean you are wise to give offence. But no state, and certainly no body that calls itself a Human Rights Council, should trample on the right to free speech enshrined in the Universal Declaration. And in the end, given that all faiths have undergone persecution at some time, few people have more to gain from the protection of free speech than sincere religious believers.

The United States, with its tradition of combining strong religious beliefs and religious freedom, is well placed to make that case. Having taken a politically risky decision (see article) to re-engage with the Human Rights Council and seek election as one of its 47 members, America should now make the defence of real religious liberty one of its highest priorities.