Catallaxy Files

Australia's leading libertarian and centre-right blog

Archive for January 21st, 2010

Did Keynes Kill JAL?

106 comments

Japan Airlines has just gone into bankruptcy. Joe Sternberg at the WSJ wonders if this is a legacy of Japanese stimulus spending. He’s got a good point – the idea of stimulus is to spend a dollar on any project without worrying if that is a good or bad project.

During the lost decade of the 1990s, airport construction popped up in many stimulus plans. National and local politicians, not to mention the politically powerful construction lobby, wanted to put an airport in every prefecture. And ordinary airports wouldn’t do. Because Japan’s relatively small flat surface area is in such high demand, one airport after another was built on reclaimed land in the middle of the ocean at enormous expense. Despite periodic public fulminations about out-of-control costs, in practice “expensive” seemed to be viewed as a net positive.

Boosters touted airports as creators of short-term construction jobs and longer-term boons to their areas. This airport binge has continued right up to today. Japan’s 98th airport opened last year: Shizuoka-Mt. Fuji, roughly 50 miles from the famous mountain. California, with a larger land area, has around one-third as many airports in regular commercial service, with another 35 or so “reliever airports” to handle business jets and general aviation.

Japan’s strategy hasn’t worked for the airlines or the airports. Those half-empty JAL flights helped push the carrier to bankruptcy. They also translate to less revenue for airports.

To my mind there are two take-home messages.

For everyone else, there’s a lesson here about the costs of Keynesian stimulus. While political debates on infrastructure spending so often focus on how much government will have to pay for a project today, businesses can end up stuck paying the price for inefficient infrastructure tomorrow—and the day after. It was just JAL’s bad luck to have to work with or around Japan’s airport Keynesianism.

The second message being the more interesting.

Meanwhile, one irony is that while Tokyo was busy dotting the countryside with “airports to nowhere,” it lagged on beefing up air-transport infrastructure at places that actually need it. A third runway at Narita, the country’s main international gateway, remains mired in political wrangling.

Stimulus packages don’t just crowd-out the private sector, they can also crowd-out otherwise legitimate infrastructure spending that needs to be undertaken. We saw this in Australia last year where the government were so busy building (new) school halls that they neglected or delayed building proper schools and classroom upgrades.

Written by Sinclair Davidson

January 21st, 2010 at 11:30 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Republican crap

146 comments

I’m planning a longer post on Republicanism based on a paper I wrote with some of my colleagues a few years ago. In the meantime, I couldn’t let a rather silly op-ed in the Australian pass without an immediate raspberry.

It contains the usual litany of whining. The Prince is a fine fellow but won’t be elected, the monarchy doesn’t reward merit and so is unAustralian (I’m paraphrasing) (does Chris Kenny know anything about the income tax system?) and so on. But its always about the children.

We explain to them that we have a democratic system that strives to ensure the will of the people is expressed through their parliaments and their governments. Political power is acquired through the ballot box and other positions of authority are appointed by our democratically elected representatives, again on merit.

We have numerous legislative devices to protect these values of democracy and merit.

Yet at the very pinnacle of our system of government, we place a person who wins their position as a family heirloom.

But our Republican friends are never able to explain why if Ausralian democracy has such a fundamental flaw at ‘the very pinnacle of our system of government’ why our democracy works so well. We have ballot boxes, we have the will of the people being expressed through parliament, and all those good things that Kenny suggests. The other problem that he has is that, unlike in the UK*, we have had an election and the monachy won. At the time the Republicans proposed replacing one unelected individual with another unelected individual whose only redeeming feature was that they would be an Australian. The will of the people at the ballot box was otherwise.

* Of course in the UK the Parliament (reflecting, perhaps, the will of the people) choose the restore the monarchy and later choose to rehabilitate the monarchy and could, if it wanted, to abolish the monarchy. I don’t know the relative strength of the republican movement in the UK, but I suspect it is a small constituency at the ballot.

Written by Sinclair Davidson

January 21st, 2010 at 7:26 am

Posted in Uncategorized