You are currently browsing the Armchair Economist weblog archives for the day January 9, 2008.
- General post (802)
- April 3, 2008: Armchair Economist gets a much-needed update
- April 3, 2008: Ghost of Herbert Hoover
- April 3, 2008: Are you smarter than a high-schooler?
- April 3, 2008: Katrina hero: Wal-Mart
- April 2, 2008: No Child Left Behind
- April 2, 2008: The poverty hype
- April 2, 2008: Oil profits
- April 2, 2008: Don's response
- April 2, 2008: Oil refinements
- April 1, 2008: My profile
Archive for January 9, 2008
Salience and taxation
January 9, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.
This is worth reading–Salience and Taxation: Theory and Evidence. The summary is here.
Posted in General post | No Comments »
Links to Armchair Economist
January 9, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.
Who’s linking to Armchair Economist?
Posted in General post | No Comments »
French economics
January 9, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.
According to the French, economic growth is bad. From a French textbook:
“Economic growth imposes a hectic form of life, producing overwork, stress, nervous depression, cardiovascular disease and, according to some, even the development of cancer.”
(HT: Mankiw)
Posted in General post | No Comments »
Interstate commerce
January 9, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.
Yesterday I wrote about my state, Tennessee, prohibiting people from buying cheaper smokes in neighboring states. Actually, people are permitted two cartons. This is to prohibit smuggling from low-tax states to high-tax Tennessee (in regard to our cigarette taxes).
My problem with this is my Constitution includes the following in Article I, Section 10:
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
In other words, the founders recognized that trade was beneficial to the economy, so they prohibited the states from erecting trade barriers. Laws such as the one in Tennessee (and they exist in other states, I’m sure) seem to violate this principle. It is a major barrier to trade. I am prohibited from engaging in commerce in other states. I am forced to purchase high-priced goods in Tennessee. If they can do this with cigarettes, what’s to stop them from including other goods? They are creating their own little tax monopoly.
My question is: Does anyone know if this has ever been tested in court? It seems to clearly be an impediment to interstate commerce.
Posted in General post | 1 Comment »
NBER Research
January 9, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.
Jan. 2008 NBER Research Digest.
Posted in General post | 1 Comment »