Tyler Cowen's Blog, page 490

Privatization in Sandy Springs, Georgia

Cities have dabbled for years with privatization, but few have taken the idea as far as Sandy Springs. Since the day it incorporated, Dec. 1, 2005, it has handed off to private enterprise just about every service that can be evaluated through metrics and inked into a contract.

To grasp how unusual this is, consider what Sandy Springs does not have. It does not have a fleet of vehicles for road repair, or a yard where the fleet is parked. It does not have long-term debt. It has no pension obligations. It does not have a city hall, for that matter, if your idea of a city hall is a building owned by the city. Sandy Springs rents.

The town does have a conventional police force and fire department, in part because the insurance premiums for a private company providing those services were deemed prohibitively high. But its 911 dispatch center is operated by a private company, iXP, with headquarters in Cranbury, N.J.

And:

Applying for a business license? Speak to a woman with Severn Trent, a multinational company based in Coventry, England. Want to build a new deck on your house? Chat with an employee of Collaborative Consulting, based in Burlington, Mass. Need a word with people who oversee trash collection? That would be the URS Corporation, based in San Francisco.

Even the city’s court, which is in session on this May afternoon, next to the revenue division, is handled by a private company, the Jacobs Engineering Group of Pasadena, Calif. The company’s staff is in charge of all administrative work, though the judge, Lawrence Young, is essentially a legal temp, paid a flat rate of $100 an hour.

The full story is here.  The article has many interesting points, such as this:

Town leaders say race had nothing to do with it. Mayor Galambos said, “A 94 percent vote in favor of incorporation speaks to the broad community support for self-government and a desire to have local dollars remain local.”

And this:

To dissuade companies from raising prices or reducing the quality of service, the town awarded contracts to a couple of losing bidders for every winner it hired. The contracts do not come with any pay or any work — unless the winning bidder that prevailed fails to deliver. It’s a bit like the Miss America pageant anointing the runner-up as the one who will fulfill the winner’s duties if, for some reason, Miss America cannot.

In a stand-alone sense, the town seems to be working quite well.

Moneyball 2.0

Or should that be 3.0?:

The technology was originally developed to track missiles. Now, SportVU systems hang from the catwalks of 10 NBA arenas, tiny webcams that silently track each player as they shoot, pass, and run across the court, recording each and every move 25 times a second. SportVU can tell you not just Kevin Durant’s shooting average, but his shooting average after dribbling one vs. two times, or his shooting average with a defender three feet away vs. five feet away. SportVU can actually consider both factors at once, plus take into account who passed him the ball, how many minutes he’d been on the court, and how many miles he’d run that game already.

It’s big data in a relatively small pool, and it has the potential to impact everything about basketball, from how it’s coached, to how it’s recruited–even to how we calculate a player’s worth. Sportvision, another sports data collection system based on the same underlying big data idea, has already massively impacted baseball since it came into play in 2006. Now SportVU is generating more basketball data than anyone ever has. And its potential has only begun to be tapped–health care researcher Kirk Goldsberry, who recently wowed the stats geeks at MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference with his spatial analysis to determine the best shooters, has begun mining SportVU’s data for new insights. But only 10 teams in the NBA are currently using SportVU. Four of them made the playoffs. One even made it to the finals: The Oklahoma City Thunder.

Here is more, and for the pointer I thank Jim Olds.

Posner throws out Apple-Motorola Case

As suggested by earlier rulings, Posner has thrown out the entire Apple-Motorola case. As I argued in Launching the Innovation Renaissance our patent system has became a weapon wielded by large corporations against competitor innovations. Posner’s ruling is complex but one point is clear he thinks that the courts should not act as a second in these corporate battles:

…The danger that Apple’s goal in obtaining an injunction is harassment of its bitter rival, requiring particularly watchful supervision by the court should it issue the in junction, is suggested by the fact that while a delayed injunction would in principle render no benefit to Apple besides harming its competitor by forcing it to waste time and money finding a new way of performing the functions now performed in an allegedly infringing manner, an ongoing royalty would yield significant income to Apple—yet which it wants to forgo in favor of imposing costs and litigation burdens on its adversary.

The notion that these minor-seeming infringements have cost Apple market share and consumer goodwill is implausible, has virtually no support in the record, and so fails to indicate that the benefits to Apple from an injunction would exceed the costs to Motorola. An injunction that imposes greater costs on the defendant than it confers benefits on the plaintiff reduces net social welfare. That is the insight behind the “balance of hard-ships” component of the eBay standard for injunctive relief in patent cases.

Hat tip: @postlibertarian.

Assorted links

1. On-line survey as to what freedom means, connected to a draft paper as to whether progressives, conservatives, and libertarians understand the concept differently.

2. Big data and informed consent.

3. Public sector vs. private sector health care in developing nations.

4. Kevin Drum’s scenario for a mandate strike-down.

5. The fork as latecomer, and is there too much trust in the Senate?

Markets in everything

If you, like me, sometimes wander around Sephora and find that all the perfumes seem to smell the same, I bring you the odor of change.

It’s called Money. It’s the nosechild of Microsoft VP of Sales Patrick McCarthy. And it gives off a fragrance of brand new bills.

His Money Cologne and Her Money Eau de Parfum are, quite clearly, what the material world has needed for a long time.

Here is more, and for the pointer I thank Chris F. Masse.

Yana reviews the new John Goodman book

You can buy Priceless: Curing the Health Care Crisis here, her comments are under the fold…

Goodman’s *Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis* is an excellent treatise on the healthcare industry and how our political solutions are making that world increasingly perverse, ineffective, and stagnant. Tyler has written before about how healthcare is one of the few remaining industries with low-hanging fruit for innovation. In my work I am consistently struck by how many great healthcare delivery ideas are illegal and Goodman showcases many examples of healthcare entrepreneurship which aren’t allowed to take off because of the regulatory environment and the entrenchment of major players.

Goodman at once lays a strong foundation for healthcare as a system “too complex for any single individual (or group of individuals) to grasp or understand” and makes a strong case for how much hubris policy has had in trying to address the problems of the industry. Herein lies the most powerful lesson of the book: while it is impossible that any entrepreneur will devise an overarching solution for our healthcare problems we have forgotten how to let process innovators test solutions and chip away at problems the way they do to roaring success in other industries.

Goodman pinpoints various turns the US has taken to bring existing private coverage and provision of services under the government umbrella. Woven together, these examples provide a vivid picture of systematically government payers have crowded out private sector solutions. This has led to stagnation while propagating the myth that the government is the only capable provider of services for everything from prescription drug coverage (with the passage of Medicare Part D) to comparative-effectiveness research ($1.1 billion allocated under the stimulus bill alone). This has led to a price system so broken that it does not exist. Goodman’s discussion of time prices exposes that we cannot simply push prices down without shifting the costs to other means of rationing. Similarly, his comparison of Medicaid to food stamps showcases how ridiculous Medicaid’s prohibitions on supplementing care with cash are, even within the internal logic of a robust welfare state.

Goodman is not shy about exposing the politics of healthcare and how it stands in the way of treating those who need care the most, including the poor and elderly, but this book is no exercise in partisanship. Rather, he homes in on one of the biggest insurmountable obstacles that the political debate brings to bear:

“Normally I do not comment on the motives of people I disagree with…Yet through the years I have discovered that the most important differences people have over health policy have little to do with facts, reasoning or logical argument. The most important differences stem from differences in fundamental world views. There are a very large number of people in this field who find the price system distasteful – at least for medical care…For well-intentioned reasons perhaps, they are emotionally predisposed to favor the suppression of normal market processes.”

Goodman has a strong grasp of realities such as the fact that many acute care services will always be sticky to being provided locally but that ambulatory and elective procedures make up the majority of the market and have the potential for reinventing how healthcare is delivered. Many will disagree with the ideas presented but the book will push the thinking of anyone involved in healthcare. This is especially true since Goodman has a thoroughgoing understanding of healthcare as an industry, a quality which most of the loudest voices in policy sorely lack.

Quotation to ponder

“The law, though, is stupid (we know this because it’s named after a person).”

The article is here, and for the pointer I thank Marc Roston.

European Vacation

From the NYTimes:

For most Europeans, almost nothing is more prized than their four to six weeks of guaranteed annual vacation leave. But it was not clear just how sacrosanct that time off was until Thursday, when Europe’s highest court ruled that workers who happened to get sick on vacation were legally entitled to take another vacation.

I predict more people will be getting sick during their vacations.

The case originated in Spain but applies to all the European Union.

Hat tip to the author, Paul Geitner, who ends with this line, “The ruling does not apply to the 25 percent of the Spanish labor force that is currently unemployed.”

Will Uruguay legalize marijuana?

Uruguay is showing a novel approach to Latin America’s growing fatigue with the war on drugs with a new proposal: normalize marijuana use and hand over its distribution and marketing to the government.

Under a plan Defense Minister Eleuterio Fernández Huidobro announced late Wednesday, which the leftist government will soon present to lawmakers, the state will oversee sales, which would be allowed only to adults 18 and older.

The article is here, here is more, hat tip goes to @EndeavoringE.

*The Hour Between Dog and Wolf*

This new and interesting book focuses on the hormones and neuroeconomics behind market trading and traders.  It also has a good passage on the illusion of free will:

In fact our conscious brain has surprisingly little grasp of what makes us decide to do one thing rather than another.  A telling example of this ignorance has been provided by Joe LeDoux and Michael Gazzaniga, two neuroscientists who conducted a study of patients with a severed corpus callosum, the bundle of nerve fibers connecting the two hemispheres of the brain, leaving the two sides of the brain unable to communicate with each other.  LeDoux and Gazzaniga gave instructions to these patients, via their right hemisphere (hemispheres can be targeted with instructions shown to either the left or right visual field), to giggle or wave a hand, then asked them, via the left hemisphere, why they were laughing or waving.  The patients’ left hemisphere had no knowledge of the instructions given to their right hemisphere, but the patients would nonetheless venture an explanation, saying that they were laughing because the doctors looked so funny or waving because they thought they saw a friend.  However implausible the answer, the patients were convinced they knew why they were acting in the way they were; but they were deluded in thinking so.  Their self-understanding was pure confabulation.

The author is John Coates and you can buy the book here.