The Circular Flow of Products, Resources, and Money

How do goods, money, and resources circulate between individuals, business, and government? Crash Course explains it and uses this graph to represent the circular flow:

Screen shot 2015-08-08 at 3.47.04 PM

Notice anything strange in this illustration?

Both households and businesses give and receive in the cycle, since people receive money (which are used to buy goods) for their labor, and businesses receive labor for the money the pay to their employees.

Government, however, only gives money in this graph.  Since government does not create wealth (it only takes and redistributes it), the graph is missing the arrows of money going from households and businesses to the government (i.e. taxes).

I’m not the only one who noticed the error in this graph.  Josh, a fan and commenter of CCC, mentioned this in the comments of the previous article:

Screen shot 2015-08-08 at 3.51.41 PM

Nice catch Josh.

To be fair, Crash Course does mention taxation when explaining the graph, however:

Screen shot 2015-08-08 at 4.11.00 PMWhere does the government get the money?  Well, they get some of it from taxing households and businesses, and they get some of it from borrowing, but we’ll talk about that later.

Maybe because the government gets its money from both taxation and borrowing, they did not want to include any representation of the inflow of money before explaining borrowing.  This is the only explanation I can think of.

While Crash Course’s illustration does contain a clear error, it is not as crude as economist Paul Krugman’s illustration, which he presented to his Econ 348 students at Princeton:

Screen shot 2015-08-08 at 3.49.51 PM

In Krugman’s example, people just pass money back and forth to each other.  The exchange element is completely missing.

Episode #3 – Economic Systems and Macroeconomics, Part 3

Do Markets Get Things Wrong?

In addition to the government’s role in providing services, the government also regulates sectors of the economy.  Crash Course explains the need for this because sometimes “Markets get things wrong”:

Screen shot 2015-08-04 at 9.26.42 AM

The government sometimes steps in when markets get things wrong…We consumers…are not worried about air pollution.  We don’t think much about who made our car, what they were paid, and what the conditions of the factory were like.

Here the audience is given examples of where the government intervenes, but less explanation into what it means for the market to get it wrong.  I assume that this means that without government regulation, companies would pollute more, people would be paid less, and working conditions would be worse.

A Note about Pollution: I don’t think any economist of any school would argue that businesses should be able to pollute as much as they want as a part of economics.  Pollution involves a party’s violation of property rights of the surrounding areas, and even if businesses weren’t specifically regulated, victims would still have legal tort claims for violation of their property rights.

Nonetheless, would factory pay conditions be worse without government regulation?  It’s hard to say, but we do know a few things.  For example, since the main business regulating agency, The Occupational and Health Administration, was created, workplace injuries have reduced, but let’s look at statistics from before OSHA was created:

Screen shot 2015-08-04 at 9.03.11 AM

Workplace standards increase over time even without regulation.  But still, what if the current workplace environment is not up to your personal standards?  You want to intervene in the contract between two consenting parties to make terms better for one side.  What is the cost?  Let’s quote Crash Course on this:

In the words of Thomas Sowell “There are no solutions, only trade offs.”  We’re going to have to give something up in order to do it. 

Mandatory higher wages and increased working conditions are no different.  Increased cost on the manufacturer will likely result in fewer jobs and higher prices.  Would you rather have two people working in conditions worse than you’d like, or would you rather have one person without the means to support herself?  This is a political question, not an economic one.

Crash Course eventually acknowledges these trade offs, although it is after they describe the need for government intervention to address when “markets get things wrong.”  Calling anything a “wrong” shows personal opinion, so I wouldn’t recommend using that terminology.  Instead, the market is the starting point, from which any legislator needs to understand the trade offs of government intervention.

Episode #3 – Economic Systems and Macroeconomics, Part 2

After a pretty great look at the differences between market and planned economies, Crash Course next addresses the necessary roles of government.

The Government’s Role

Mr. Clifford seems to be a fan of free markets, but only to a point:

Screen shot 2015-08-03 at 8.46.05 PM

There are a bunch of things that governments must do because free markets won’t.

This statement would be true, even to small-government types, if you deleted one word:

There are a bunch of things that governments must do because free markets won’t.

Using the word must implies a subjective perspective of the speaker, since telling any party what they must do involves making judgments about what the party’s goals are.  People often disagree about what they government must do, so to say that there’s anything that the government must do relies on your own political views.

Nonetheless, governments do do things that the free market wouldn’t do.  I doubt anyone would argue that the free market would give money to businesses in exchange for nothing, pay people to sit in a room and do nothing because they are bad at their jobs, or spend $24 million on high-end internet routers (that only serve four computers each).

Let’s look at Mr. Clifford’s examples of things the government must do that the free market will not:

Laws, Police, and the Courts

Screen shot 2015-08-03 at 8.44.49 PM

We need laws and police and contracts and courts to keep everything orderly.

This is probably the biggest and most essential role that defines what government is, and it is the subject of a number of books.  However, for law, there are also examples of polycentric law in different parts of the world. For police, I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of private security firms, especially where the police are inadequate.  And for the courts, private arbitration, mediation, and settlements already decide between 90-95% of lawsuits today.  Do free markets really refuse to provide these services?

Public Goods

Screen shot 2015-08-03 at 8.45.07 PM

We need public goods and services, like roads, bridges, education, and defense, because goods can’t get to consumers if bridges are falling down, because consumers can’t make good choices because they are not educated, and nobody really cares about the new iphone if there’s a bomb dropping on your head.

Private roads exist, and they are sometimes built where the government roads fail.  But what about the roads that we use everyday, including the highways and main roads in a city?  The free market does not provide for it, but would it not, as Mr. Clifford implied, if we lived in a purely free-market system?  This question is the subject of so much debate that arguments about free-market roads have its own wikipedia page.

The free market certainly provides for schooling currently, and many would argue better, than government-run schooling.  Education, however, does not need to cost anything.

Defense is something the free-market does not provide at all.  This might be because there is not a market for an alternative national defense system (Americans pay a lot for theirs already) or because it would be illegal to create one.  The free-market question to this has a complex answer (also with its own wikipedia page), but to say that the free market would not provide for this service absent a government seems dubious to me, considering a national defense would probably a highly-demanded service.

Mr. Clifford’s phrasing (these are the things the free market won’t provide) is unfortunately not supported with arguments for why the free market wouldn’t produce these things.  Instead, he lists services that the government provides, most of which are also provided in the free market.  The discussion of whether the free market would produce roads or defense would be a very interesting conversation, and one I hope he and Adriene delve into in future episodes.

Part 3 still to come!