Uncategorized

Economia da defesa, versão macacos me mordam

O uso eleitoral do pré-sal – já na TV como se fosse algo assim, digamos, definitivo – não pára nos atos do presidente. Até os burocratas já fazem seu dever de casa.

Robert Higgs e Nordhaus nunca foram tão atuais…

p.s. alguém se lembra da história brasileira? II PND, Brasil-potência, estas coisas? Não?

Uncategorized

Economia, preços de alimentos, obesidade…

Art Carden tem um artigo sobre capitalismo aqui e um mais científico – e interessante – que cito a seguir.

The Skinny on Big Box Retailing: Wal-Mart, Warehouse Clubs, and Obesity

Charles Courtemanche
University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Art Carden
Rhodes College

Abstract:
We estimate the impacts of county-level Walmart Discount Store, Walmart Supercenter, and warehouse club presence on individual body weight, obesity status, food consumption, and exercise. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that cheap food causes weight gain, we find no evidence that any of these stores increase weight or lead to less healthy eating habits. Warehouse club entry is actually associated with reductions in weight, obesity, junk food intake, and eating at restaurants as well as increases in fruit and vegetable consumption. These results suggest that bulk buying is a more important determinant of body weight than food prices, at least in this context. Buying groceries in bulk may lead to healthier eating by allowing individuals to counteract self-control problems by constraining future choices.

Para os alunos de microeconomia:

Conventional wisdom suggests that Walmarts and warehouse clubs sell cheap food, so their entry
should cause people to eat more and gain weight. However, a more careful analysis reveals that
these stores could potentially impact weight through a number of mechanisms – including
substitution effects, income effects, bulk buying effects, and effects on exercise – and that the
direction of the net effect is unclear a priori.
Consider an individual with a fixed food budget who divides this budget between unhealthy
grocery food (such as processed snacks), healthy grocery food (such as fresh fruits and
vegetables), and restaurant food. Assume that Discount Stores, Supercenters, and warehouse
clubs all sell unhealthy food, while Supercenters and warehouse clubs also sell healthy food and
none of the stores sell restaurant food. Assume further that the foods sold at these stores are
cheaper than the same foods at conventional grocery stores.
9
If the individual’s preferences are separable, then the conventional wisdom holds. The entry of a
nearby Walmart Discount Store would increase unhealthy food consumption while leaving
healthy food consumption and restaurant eating unchanged. The overall effect would be higher
caloric intake and weight gain. Supercenters and warehouse clubs would increase consumption
of both unhealthy and healthy foods while leaving restaurant eating unchanged, again leading to
higher caloric intake and weight gain.
However, in reality the three types of food are likely substitutes, in which case the net effects of
the discount retailers are more complex.

Conventional wisdom suggests that Walmarts and warehouse clubs sell cheap food, so their entry should cause people to eat more and gain weight. However, a more careful analysis reveals that these stores could potentially impact weight through a number of mechanisms – including substitution effects, income effects, bulk buying effects, and effects on exercise – and that the direction of the net effect is unclear a priori.

Consider an individual with a fixed food budget who divides this budget between unhealthy grocery food (such as processed snacks), healthy grocery food (such as fresh fruits and vegetables), and restaurant food. Assume that Discount Stores, Supercenters, and warehouse clubs all sell unhealthy food, while Supercenters and warehouse clubs also sell healthy food and none of the stores sell restaurant food. Assume further that the foods sold at these stores are cheaper than the same foods at conventional grocery stores.

If the individual’s preferences are separable, then the conventional wisdom holds. The entry of a nearby Walmart Discount Store would increase unhealthy food consumption while leaving healthy food consumption and restaurant eating unchanged. The overall effect would be higher caloric intake and weight gain. Supercenters and warehouse clubs would increase consumption of both unhealthy and healthy foods while leaving restaurant eating unchanged, again leading to higher caloric intake and weight gain.

However, in reality the three types of food are likely substitutes, in which case the net effects of the discount retailers are more complex.

Preferências separáveis? Efeitos-renda? Substitutos? Bem, acho que um bom aluno poderá fazer as conexões necessárias com alguns exercícios rapidamente…

Uncategorized

Evidência n.3452.23 de que o presidente da Silva não entendeu as lições básicas da economia

O mais engraçado é que o discurso de muito economista chapa-branca (correlação elevada entre pterodoxia heterodoxa e esquerdismo político) sempre foi o de que “a teoria econômica neoclássica (“mein-in-strim”, burguesa, não-marxista, etc) não considerava as economias de escopo. Bem, o ídolo desta galera também não entende.

Como já disse aqui várias vezes sobre Bush ou da Silva ou qualquer outro presidente: não tem problema se o sujeito come grama achando que é strogonoff desde que ele tenha bons assessores e os ouça atentamente (e siga o que eles lhe aconselham).

Pensando bem, se o sujeito come grama, como é que ele poderia prestar atenção e entender o que se lhe aconselha? Humm…

Uncategorized

O que o governo brasileiro tem feito de errado com nossa reforma agrária?

Quer pensar sobre a pergunta? Leia o texto abaixo:

De Facto and De Jure Property Rights: Land Settlement and Land Conflict on the Australian, Brazilian and U.S. Frontiers – Lee J. Alston, Edwyna Harris, Bernardo Mueller

—- Abstract —–

We present a conceptual framework to better understand the interaction between settlement and the emergence of de facto property rights on frontiers prior to governments establishing and enforcing de jure property rights. In this framework, potential rents associated with more exclusivity drives “demand” for commons arrangements but demand is not a sufficient explanation; norms and politics matter. At some point enhanced scarcity will drive demand for more exclusivity beyond which can be sustained with commons arrangements. Claimants will therefore petition government for de jure property rights to their claims – formal titles. Land conflict will be minimal when governments supply property rights to first possessors. But, governments may not allocate de jure rights to these claimants because they face differing political constituencies. Moreover, governments may assign de jure rights but be unwilling to enforce the right. This generates potential or actual conflict over land depending on the violence potentials of de facto and de jure claimants. We examine land settlement and conflict on the frontiers of Australia, the U.S. and Brazil. We are interested in examining the emergence, sustainability, and collapse of commons arrangements in specific historical contexts. Our analysis indicates the emergence of de facto property rights arrangements will be relatively peaceful where claimants have reasons to organize collectively (Australia and the U.S.). The settlement process will be more prone to conflict when fewer collective activities are required. Consequently, claimants resort to periodic violent self-enforcement or third party enforcement (Brazil). In all three cases the movement from de facto to de jure property rights led to potential or actual conflict because of insufficient government enforcement.

Entender corretamente os incentivos é o primeiro passo. Depois você propõe algo. No caso brasileiro, pelo visto, a história ainda não nos permite muito otimismo.