Kinross

Can I recomend Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy by Thomas Sowell

Its a very good intro to economics. Highly recommended at Amazon

theyeti

Sowell is an ideologue more than an academic. Do you know if any non-libertarian types take him seriously? (For example, Milton Friedman is taken seriously (except when it comes to monatarism) by most economists.) That's not meant to be a rhetorical question, it's just that I know little about him.

theyeti

Loren Pechtel

The Depression was basically the result of not realizing the instability that can result from too-liberal lending rules.

The bursting of the dotcom bubble was a shock of similar size to our economy, but with the lending rules being more sane it wasn't a catastrophe.

Kinross

I didn't realize he wasn't taken seriously I just liked his book. Can you recommend a different book on basic economics?

theyeti

I guess any college level mainstream economics text would do. Paul Krugman co-authors a very popular one.

For all I know, Sowell probably espouses a mainstream economic POV. But many on the hard right espouse pseudo-theories like supply-side economics, which most economists (or any unbiased observer) consider to be without any legitimacy.

theyeti

ohwilleke

I agree that New Hampshire, rivaled only perhaps by Nevada, is one of the most libertarian states in the Union.

I would disagree about libertarianism being the driving force behind New Hampshires characteristics. It is an effect of its unique characteristics, more than it is a cause.

Most pertinent is that the majority of New Hampshire residents (60% according to the census bureau) live in the Boston metropolitan area. In other words, the majority of the people in New Hampshire are simply suburban Bostonians. New Hampshire is mostly properous for the same reason that suburbs everywhere are prosperous. Rich people move there, and poor people don't. New Hampshire's anti-tax policies are essentially incentives to get the rich to locate there rather than neighboring states. Why live in Massachusetts and pay a 12% tax on interest and dividends when you can commute a few minutes more each day and get interest and dividends tax free, yet still receive the benefits of services provided by Massachusetts taxpayers?

Similarly, its weak government programs compared to neighboring states discourage the poor in the Boston metro area from locating there. Why live in New Hampshire if you're poor when you can live in Massachusetts which has more affordable housing, better low cost health care, etc.? To take a concrete example, since New Hampshire school districts are completely locally funded and have no support in the state constitution, low income people get better schools outside New Hampshire than they do in New Hampshire, and hence vote with their feet.

Also, because New Hampshire has no significant economy of its own, outside agriculture, few immigrants of any kind have ever been attracted to the state. The agricultural population of New Hampshire, like the rest of agriculture in the U.S. has been in a steady, slow decline for the last 200 years (the percentage of people engaged in agriculture in the U.S. has declined almost every year since its founding). Being a suburb does not create a residential job magnet. The New Hampshire did not see immigration during the mid-20th century great migration of blacks from the South, not during the late 20th century migration of Latin American immigrants. New Hampshire has the sixth lowest percentage of black residents at 0.7% compared to 12.3% for the nation as a whole (the others are Montana, Idaho, Maine, North Dakota, and South Dakota). It similarly has a very low Hispanic population at 1.7%, compared to 12.5% for the nation as a whole. These demographics are typical of rural American (40% of New Hampshire residents are rural) and of suburban American (60% of New Hampshire residents are Boston suburbanites). New Hampshire is 4.4% foreign born compared to 11.1% of the nation as a whole, and has the fourth lowest percentage of foreign born persons who arrived in the U.S. within the last decade (again because there are few jobs to fill in New Hampshire).

Certainly, New Hampshire, is a good example of the fact that poverty and demographics have a bigger impact on crime than gun control laws do. Its crime rates are typical of much of the rural North and of suburbs in metropolitian areas.

Unemployment is low in New Hampshire because people who need jobs in the region relocate to Boston where the jobs are even for most New Hampshire residents, rather than New Hampshire which is far from jobs. What person in his right mind would look for jobs in a decaying agricultural sector or in a bedroom community?

The "urban" part of New Hampshire, which helps drive its economic engine, lives in central Boston (which is 25% black and 14.4% Hispanic) and thus isn't counted statistically as part of New Hampshire. Until we learn to build cities without ghettos, New Hampshire is a state that simply exports its poverty next door.

Another reason that New Hampshire is so libertarian, is that liberals don't have to go far to relocate to more congenial Vermont or Massachusetts, while conservatives unhappy in these two liberal states don't have to go far to go to New Hampshire. There is self-segregation politically.

Kinross

Uh, supply side economics is well recognized in the economics community. The Laffer Curve was bogus but market deregulation, liberalization, privitization, free trade, and tax cuts are well recognized as effective economic policy.

Colander of Truth

Not so fast. New Hampshire exports its tax burden to wealthy Massachusetts weekenders via property taxes. Take that away, and it doesn't work.

Kinross

NH has lower housing costs and is seeing a housing boom because of it.

NH does very well. Funny that the article gripes that it is "under funded" yet does very well.

Really, Looks like quite a few companies are moving from Boston to NH.

ohwilleke

I missed a couple of points. Traffic deaths and energy use.

A big factor in traffic deaths is that New Hampshire doesn't have much traffic. It doesn't have a dense traffic urban core. Highway traffic is modest, since there isn't much need to ship goods in commercial trucks from Boston to Maine, compared to more urbanized areas. The only state in the U.S. with lower speed limits than New Hampshire for cars is Hawaii and only a handful of states prohibit you from getting a regular driver's license until age 18 as New Hampshire does. Because the state is small, the average number of vehicle miles per licensed driver is labout 2,000 less than the national average (about 14% less than the national average).

Source: World Alamanc and Book of Facts 2002.

Why does New Hampshire have low energy consumption?

1. It has very little industrial use (39% less than the national average per capita), consistent with its suburban nature.
2. It has below average motor vehicle use since it is small (13% less than the national average per capita in close step with its reduced vehicle miles per capita).
3. New Hampshire also has few offices and stores since it is a suburb without a central city (commercial use is 15% less than the national average per capita).
4. You don't need air conditioning in New Hampshire which prevents extraordinary residential or commercial use levels. Residential energy use in New Hampshire is 1-2% more than the national average per capita.

In short New Hampshire is not more efficient. It simply has less need to travel (a product of geography, not politics) and has less business activity than neighboring states like Massachusetts.

Lack of industry also probably goes far to explain other purported environmental benefits of New Hampshire. But, crossing the state line before you choose to pollute does not make libertarianism better environmentally.


[i] Source: Statistical Abstract of the U.S. 2002 Table 880)