Author: Zachary Bartsch

Keeping Receipts

Zachary Bartsch1 Comment

Online shopping is convenient and even the norm for many items. Going to the store sounds like a time-consuming labor or an exceptional outing. My family, for example, lives in a suburban location that doesn’t have well-priced grocery home delivery. Shipping only works for some non-perishables. So, for many items we order online and do ‘drive-up pick-up’. We don’t even need to go into the store for many items. And reordering the same items repeatedly is a breeze.

We are also accustomed to the ability to return things. If your blender breaks on your first smoothie, then no worries – you can return it. If the chocolate cookies don’t taste like chocolate? Return it – satisfaction guaranteed. You can buy three pairs of shoes in different sizes and then keep the ones you want at the original sale price. Return the others.

For me, besides the time saved and convenience, a major factor in my decision to make purchases online is the documentation. I don’t need to save the receipt in a shoe box, Ziploc, or file drawer – the online retailer keeps an archive of all my purchases. Often this includes the date, amount, and shipping details including delivery date. There’s a super convenient digital paper trail.

If I need to contact a seller in order to exercise a warranty, then I have their contact information. I don’t need to retain the product packaging or investigate the brand at a future inopportune time. For example, I recently bought a Little Tykes water table for my kids. As I was assembling it on Christmas Eve I realized that I was missing a small part. I was able to work around it. But I was also able to immediately contact the manufacturer with a copy of my invoice. I emailed the date of purchase, the product model number, and the instruction manual had conveniently included part numbers. They were able to ship me the parts after a single email. Online shopping, and the resulting trail of evidence, makes the process much more practical than keeping paper records in a likely unorganized fashion.

There are other benefits to the paper trail. Back before widespread online shopping, retailers would often offer rebates as a sales strategy. In the year 2004, I bought a computer hard drive for $120 before a $40 mail-in rebate. The retailer (or manufacturer, I can’t remember) was hoping that people saw the post-rebate price and then failed to redeem it. And that often happened.  You needed to fill out a rebate form on an index card, cut the UPC bar code of the product packaging, and then mail them with your receipt to the company rebate department in a stamped envelope. If you dragged your feet, then you’d probably lose an important piece of the crucial combination and lose out on your $40 rebate. If the items were lost in the mail, then you were shucks-out-of-luck. Now, rebates have gone the way of the dodo since receipts are automatically retained and retrievable.

Continue reading →

¡Hedonic Frijoles! …And Televisions!

Zachary Bartsch1 Comment

You may have seen on your social media recently that the price of TVs has fallen 98% since 2020. That’s certainly what the data from the BLS says. This would seem to imply that a one-thousand dollar TV in the year 2000 would now be priced at $20. While we have seen amazing things in the market for TVs, we’re not seeing $20 TVs.  One take away might be that the data is just wrong. But that data is always wrong. The question is how the data is wrong and whether it’s a problem.

The reason for the disagreement between the data and the price on the shelves is due to something called ‘Hedonic Adjustment’. The idea is that some goods have quality features that change over time, even if the price doesn’t change so much. In the case of TVs, we might see higher resolution, flatter screens, larger screen sizes, smart features, etc. TVs are not a stable set of qualities. They are a bundle of characteristics, and those characteristics have some wiggle room while still satisfying some sensible criteria for being a TV. In theory, every single good is a bundle of services that we value. The reason that the some CPI categories have fallen so much is not only because the price has fallen necessarily. Rather, the amount of services that we get from a TV has increased so that each dollar that we spend can purchase more of those TV features.

Continue reading for the gif.

Continue reading →

Tariffs: Bad for Revenue

Zachary Bartsch3 Comments

Economists are pretty united against tariffs. There are lots of complicated arguments. Keeping things simple, one reason is that they are bad for welfare. President-elect Trump seems to imply that tariffs can raise a lot of government revenue. But in lieu of what? The Tax Foundation estimates that there is absolutely no way that tariffs can replace all revenue from income taxes. The primary reason that they cite is that imports compose a tiny portion of the potential tax base. There are plenty of goods and services produced domestically that wouldn’t be subject to the tariffs. Any time we add a tax exemption, we’re adding complication, higher compliance costs, and distorting consumption patterns, etc.

For this post I singularly focus on the tax revenue.  In fact, let’s demonstrate what *maximizing* tax revenue looks like under three cases: 1) Closed economy with a tax, 2) Open economy with a tax, & 3) Open economy with a tariff. I’ll use some simple math to demonstrate my point. None of the particulars affect the logic. You’ll reach the same general results with different intercepts, slopes, etc. Let’s start with a domestic demand and domestic supply.

Closed Economy with a Tax

Whenever tax revenue is raised, there is a difference between the price paid by demanders and the price received by suppliers. In a closed economy a tax might be imposed on all goods. In these examples, I treat the tax as some dollar per-unit of output tax. But it’s a short jump to percent of spending taxes, and then another short jump to percent of income taxes. With this in mind, demanders pay more than the suppliers receive by the amount of the tax. Tax revenue is the tax rate times the number of units of output that are subject to the tax. That’s the thing we want to maximize.

Continue reading →

Excel’s Weird (In)Convenience: COUNTIF, AVERAGEIF, & STDEVIF

Zachary Bartsch1 Comment

Excel is an attractive tool for those who consider themselves ‘not a math person’.  In particular, it visually organizes information and has many built-in functions that can make your life easier. You can use math if you want, but there are functions that can help even the non-math folks

If you are a moderate Excel user, then you likely already know about the AVERAGE and COUNT functions. If you’re a little but statistically inclined, then you might also know about the STDEV.S function (STDEV is deprecated). All of these functions are super easy and only have one argument. You just enter the cells (array) that you want to describe, and you’re done. Below is an example with the ‘code’ for convenience.

=COUNT(A2:A21)
=AVERAGE(A2:A21)
=STDEV.S(A2:A21)

If you do some slightly more sophisticated data analysis, then you may know about the “IF” function. It’s relatively simple; if a proposition is true (such as a cell value condition), then it returns a value. If the proposition is false, then it returns another value. You can even create nested “IF”s in which a condition being satisfied results in another tested proposition. Back when excel had more limited functions, we had to think creatively because there was a limit to the number of nested “IF” functions that were permitted in a single cell. Prior to 2007, a maximum of seven “IF” functions were permitted. Now the maximum is 64 nested “IF”s. If you’re using that many “IF”s, then you might have bigger problems than the “IF” limitations.

Another improvement that Excel introduced in 2019 was easier array arguments. In prior versions of Excel, there was some mild complication in how array functions must be entered (curly brackets: {}). But now, Excel is usually smart enough to handle the arrays without special instructions.  Subsequently, Excel has introduced functions that combine the array features with the “IF” functions to save people keystrokes and brainpower.

Looking at the example data we see that there is an identifier that marks the values as “A” or “B”. Say that you want to describe these subgroups. Historically, if you weren’t already a sophisticated user, then you’d need to sort the data and then calculate the functions for each subgroup’s array. That’s no big deal for small sets of data and two possible ID values, but it’s a more time-consuming task for many possible ID values and multiple ID categories.

The early “IF” statements allowed users to analyze certain values of the data, such as those that were greater than, less than, or equal to a particular value. But, what if you want to describe the data according to criteria in another column (such as ID)? That’s where Excel has some more sophisticated functions for convenience. However, as a general matter of user interface, it will be clear why these are somewhat… awkward.

Continue reading →

The Mythology of Rice and Beans

Zachary Bartsch3 Comments

I’ve written about proteins twice before. Once concerning protein content generally and then another concerning amino acid content of animal proteins. The reason that I stuck to animal proteins initially was because I held a common and false belief: Singular vegetarian foods aren’t complete proteins. The meat-eaters gotchya claim is that meats contain complete proteins. After all, we’ve heard a million times that beans and grains are often eaten together because they form a complete protein. The native North Americans? Corn and beans. Subcontinent Indians? Rice and Lentils or chickpeas. Japan? Rice and soy. Choose your poor or vegetarian population in the world, and they combine beans and grains. We’ve always been told that it’s because the combination constitutes a ‘complete protein’.

But you know what else constitutes a complete protein? Any of those foods all by themselves. What the heck. I haven’t been lied to. But I’ve certainly been misled. Let me briefly tell you my research journey. My recommended daily intake (RDI) are from the World Health Organization and the amino acid data is from the US Department of Agriculture. Prices are harder to pin down in a representative way, but I cite those too.  

Continue reading →

The Price of a Complete [Animal] Protein

Zachary Bartsch2 Comments

I wrote about the protein content of different foods previously. I summarized how much beef versus pea and wheat flour one would need to eat in order to consume the recommended daily intake (RDI) of ‘complete proteins’ – foods that contain all of the essential amino acids that compose protein. These amino acids are called ‘essential’ because, unlike the conditionally essential or non-essential amino acids, your body can’t produce them from other inputs. Here, I want to expand more on complete proteins when eating on a budget.

Step 1: What We Need

To start, there are nine essential amino acids with hard to remember names for non-specialists, so I’ll just use the abbreviations (H, I, L, K, M, F, T, W, V). The presence of all nine essential amino acids is what makes a protein complete. But, having some of each protein is not the same as having enough of each protein. Here, I’ll use the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guidelines for essential amino acid RDI for a 70kg person. See the table below.

Step 2: What We Need to Eat

What foods are considered ‘complete proteins’? There are many, but I will focus on a few animal sources: Eggs, Pork Chops, Ground Beef, Chicken, & Tuna. Non-animal proteins will have to wait for another time. Below are the essential amino acid content per 100 grams expressed as a percent of the RDI for each amino acid. What does that mean? That means, for example, that eating 100 grams of egg provides 85% of the RDI for M, but only 37% of the RDI for H.

Continue reading →

Lump Sum Taxes: Never by Popular Demand

Zachary BartschLeave a comment

The tax code is complex. That’s not news. The US federal tax code is also very progressive. Apart from that, the tax code pushes social or other policy goals. The Earned Income Tax Credit, for example, acts as a negative income tax and increases after-tax wages for those who can claim it. The idea is to incentivize earnings.

Economists tend to really like lump-sum taxes (in theory). But, despite the profession’s influence, almost nobody supports them. First, what is a lump-sum tax? It’s a tax that ignores any activities of the target. A per capita lump-sum tax would target the young, the old, the indigent, the working, the rich, the disabled… everyone. The idea is that no behaviors, aside from breathing, incur or disqualify a person from owing the tax.

Economists like them because they don’t change the relative price of labor and leisure. Whereas a marginal tax rate reduces a worker’s effective wage, a lump sum tax leaves it unaffected. People aren’t disincentivized from working/earning. Using jargon, we say that a lump-sum tax is non-distortionary.

In the simple two-good model of consumption and leisure, marginal tax rates reduce the amount of consumption that one can afford with each hour of work, making leisure relatively more attractive. Lump-sum taxes reduce the affordable amount of both leisure and consumption. Affording less leisure is the same as saying that people work more hours. It happens for two reasons. 1) Poorer people must work enough to pay the inevitable tax bill and also reach an income level of sustenance. However much work sustenance entails, it’s surely more when there is a tax. 2) Since working and earning itself is not taxed, people at all levels of income decide to work more because their after-tax wage is higher relative to the case of a marginal income tax.

At this point someone gets what I call the “French” idea. The French idea is that if we provide a lump-sum subsidy, then we can all leisure more and consume less – the opposite of a lump sum tax. What a life! We can avoid the prisoner dilemma problem where we can’t credibly commit to shirking together or actually taking a lunch. By forcing a lump-sum subsidy on everyone, we’d work a little less and do it voluntarily. We can sit outside a cafe, enjoying our coffee, baguette, and cigarette without having to worry about our neighbor with their “go get’em” attitude making us look bad.

Continue reading →

More Productive than “Smart”

Zachary BartschLeave a comment

Public choice economists emphasize the process by which we select political leaders. Electoral and voting rules influence the type of leaders we get. Institutional economists agree and go one step further. Who we choose matters less than the environment we place them in. Leaders, regardless of their personal qualities, respond to the incentives that surround them. The ultimate policies, therefore, largely conform to those incentives. From this perspective, it’s important to adopt institutional incentives for leaders to promote policies oriented toward economic growth and provide the option to flourish.

The same principle applies to the private economy. Productivity is crucial, and higher IQ often correlates with greater productivity. Yet, genetic endowment—including IQ—is beyond individual control. Many other determinants of productivity are not exogenous when we can affect policy. Let’s adopt policies that allow individuals with lower IQ to act productively as if they had higher IQ. Protecting the freedom to contract and private property rights creates conditions whereby even those at the lower end of the cognitive ability distribution can thrive. These principles expand their opportunities. Market signals give them valuable feedback on their activities and enable them to contribute to the economy.

Continue reading →

Post-Pandemic Lumber Market

Zachary Bartsch4 Comments

Remember that one time, back when we had a global pandemic, when interest rates fell really low and everyone was borrowing and refinancing? Good times. But they were also times of surging demand for durable goods, supply chain disruptions, and shortages. Specifically, the price of lumber surged by 54% between 2019 and 2022. There were stories of contractors who were unable to do their jobs at their typical prices. Some of them went without work. Others did much less work. Theft of precious lumber was in the news.

As we know, sudden price spikes often make the front pages and the social media rounds. But they peter out and the subsequent decline in prices hardly ever gets coverage in the same way. People used to talk about higher gasoline prices all the time, but never discussed with the same enthusiasm when prices fell. The same is true for lumber. We heard hysterical stories of record high prices, alleged shortages, and the sawmills that lacked adequate capacity to keep up with demand.

What’s going on in the lumber market?

Continue reading →

Protein, Protein Everywhere

Zachary Bartsch8 Comments

If you’ve ever been vegetarian or if you have ever spoken to a vegetarian about their diet, then you have probably heard or asked “How do you get enough protein?”.  While it’s important for health and economic achievement to get adequate protein, not too long after comes the questions about types and sources of protein. This question is relevant for vegetarians and vegans, but also people with meat allergies and people with religious dietary guidelines that prohibit meat always or seasonally. Let’s break it down.

Some omnivores are incredulous that vegetarianism can provide adequate protein or protein quality. But protein itself is relatively easy to get and any judgmental attitudes on both sides are mostly just vibes. Legumes and nuts tend to have a lot of protein. But relative to what?

The World Health Organization recommends that an 80-kilogram (176 lb) adult should get 66.4 grams of protein per day (0.83g per kg). That’s the protein content of about a 9oz of peanuts. Protein is super important and it’s luckily not that hard to get if you eat a variety of foods. Even if you’re trying to consume double the WHO recommended daily intake (RDI), it’s an easy feat.

Below is a table of some popular protein sources. The table includes the grams of protein per 100 grams of food, which makes the protein content a percent. The table also includes the number of grams needed in order to achieve the WHO protein RDI of 66.4 grams. The last column is for our American readers who need the serving to be in ounces.

Continue reading →