In this episode, I explore the following questions: What are claimed market failures? Do they exist? Can government intervention correct them? Is there such thing as government failure? It's important to ask these questions to determine whether or not market failure or government failure are the bigger problem in society. Much of this has do with the differences between Mainline Economics (my preference) and Mainstream Economics. 

This enters controversial territory in economics and politics by discussing the myths of "market failure." Supposed market failures usually include problems with markets because of asymmetric information (occupational licensing and healthcare), monopolies (utilities and EpiPen), and externalities (pollutants) that can theoretically be corrected by government intervention.  

However, I make the case that these issues in markets are generated by government intervention, not unhampered markets, and the introduction of government intrusion to attempt to correct these potential issues only expand government and make the problem worse.

Moreover, there are no free-market government solutions, which is why toxic pollutants should be dealt with by letting markets sufficiently price them or alternatively, though not recommended, by regulation. Policy solutions such as a carbon tax indirectly price externalities and the price will always be wrong because of the "knowledge problem" taught by economist Friedrich Hayek and the poor modeling that's done by so-called experts (see William Easterly's book The Tyranny of Experts). In general, the institutional structure of an economy should be supported by the government through upholding contracts, protecting people, and providing very few public goods. 

Instead of resorting to government intervention to solve supposed market failures, we should first understand that the government is likely the problem and Let People Prosper by promoting institutions with strong private property rights and fewer barriers to entry and exit markets. 

​#LetPeopleProsper

In this episode, I talk with Jonathan Williams, Chief Economist of the American Legislative Exchange Council (see full bio here), about the positive economic effects of the recent Tax Cuts & Jobs Act along with how the Texas Model works well but should be improved. 

Don't miss his latest Rich States, Poor States publication that gives an economic outlook for each state and then ranks them. Here is the recent commentary I co-authored with Jonathon on not believing the hype about a carbon tax.

Check out more of his work and more of the fantastic information at ALEC at the website www.alec.org. 

I recently posted a commentary with economist Bob Murphy on the failures of a carbon tax at TribTalk. Today, TribTalk posted not just one commentary by my good friend Josiah but another commentary on the need for a carbon tax.

While they claim a need for a carbon tax and that it is a free market tool, the need is highly questionable and a tax isn't free market. Fortunately, there's no political will to pass a carbon tax in Texas or in D.C., but the discussion will continue.

Instead of government intrusion and possibly making the situation worse, we should do what's been proven to work is let prices reflect whatever values determined in exchange along with technological innovation that has made us more prosperous in terms of wealth and environmental quality. 

Here's my quote in TPPF's The Cannon (read and sign-up for daily newsletter here): "While proponents of a carbon tax continue to push variations of it, there's no hiding how a carbon tax is a tool to control people in their daily lives, especially given U.S. energy-related carbon emissions are already down to 1992 levels."

​Finally, check out my recent paper on the flawed assumptions and high costs of a carbon tax.

Congress and state legislatures shouldn't shackle prosperity with a carbon tax because it's based on flawed assumptions and results in costly economic and environmental effects. 

You can read my work on this at TPPF research paper here, TribTalk op-ed with Bob Murphy here, and Real Clear Energy op-ed with Jonathan Williams here. 

Stay tuned for the next episode! 

Find this full post with charts here.

Proponents of a U.S. carbon tax have been coming out of the woodworks for years, but even more recently, shouting about the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions primarily from the use of fossil fuels to save the environment. But is it worth it? According to a recently published paper by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, the answer is no.

A carbon tax is often called a free-market approach to reducing the negative externalities, or social costs, of CO2 emissions while causing consumers little harm. In reality, a carbon tax would drastically increase the price of every good or service that requires the use of energy…so, all of them.

A free market is, by definition, a marketplace where consumers and suppliers mutually benefit through voluntarily exchange for goods or services. The proposed carbon tax is most definitely not a free market tax because a tax of any kind interferes in the market.

The Australian carbon tax, one of the most commonly cited examples of a “success,” caused the largest-ever quarterly increase in consumer energy prices. The initial cost was $23 per ton of CO2 equivalent emitted into the air and was increased to $24.15 per ton a year later. The program was so unpopular that the program was formerly ended in July 2014, just two years after it was implemented.

Estimates for the U.S. of a tax of $49 per ton of CO2 emissions indicate there could be an increase of $21 per barrel of oil and could increase the price of natural gas by $2.60/mcf, nearly doubling the current price. There’s no doubt about it: price increases that massive will cause consumer electricity prices and gasoline prices to spike, harming Americans, especially those least able to afford it, in the process.

Additionally, there’s little conclusive evidence to prove that carbon dioxide emissions cause environmental harm. Dr. John Christy, a leading atmospheric scientist, says that our current environmental models are too inaccurate to provide any reliable data. For example, Figure 1 shows 102 environmental model runs in 32 groups of global temperatures compared to the actual observed data.

All one has to do is take a cursory glance at this comparison to call the scientific community’s “consensus” into question, with the facts showing the estimated average increases were more than 2.5 higher than actual temperatures. In contrast, there is significant empirical data showing carbon dioxide emissions are associated with improved quality of life.

Figure 2 shows the massive increase in GDP per capita, population, and life expectancy that is associated with increased CO2 emissions.

Other research finds that there is a 95 percent correlation between increasing use of fossil fuels and rising economic growth over time. There is also an 83 percent correlation between rising CO2 emission levels and average life expectancy at birth.

In summary, the proposed “free-market” carbon tax is, by definition, not a free market solution. The tax would unduly burden American consumers with increased electricity and gas prices.

One of the most prominent examples of an implemented carbon tax was so unpopular that it was scrapped after just two years.

​Finally, perhaps most importantly, there is little to no evidence that there is a need to reduce carbon emissions in this country. For all of these reasons, and many more, the proposed carbon tax should be whole-heartedly rejected.