Guy S. Parcel, Ph.D has been appointed to a three-year term as dean of The University of Texas School of Public Health at Houston in the Texas Medical Center.
Dr. Parcel, who is currently executive dean, will take over the deanship when Dr. R. Palmer Beasley retires in December. Beasley has served as UT School of Public Health dean for more than 17 years and is now completing a two-year term as chairman of the Association of Schools of Public Health. The appointment makes Parcel only the third dean in the 35-year history of what is the oldest school of public health in Texas. Dr. Parcel, a John P. McGovern Professor in Health Promotion at UT School of Public Health, was appointed executive dean in February 2003 and had previously served as acting dean of the school on several occasions.
The UT School of Public Health is ranked as the fifth-largest in student enrollment and seventh in research funding. About 50 percent of the school’s more than 3,000 graduates work in Texas.
Daily Archives: July 6, 2004
The economic absurdity of light rail systems
Molly D. Castelazo is a research associate and Thomas A. Garrett is a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. They authored this article that analyzes the bad economics of the St. Louis light rail system and includes a devastating chart reflecting how it would have been much more economically prudent to buy a new Toyota Prius for all the light rail riders than to build and maintain the light rail system. The entire article is well worth reading, particularly for Houstonians who have funded a similar boondoggle, and the authors make the following concluding observation:
If light rail is not cost-efficient, nor an effective way to reduce pollution and traffic congestion, nor the least costly means of providing transportation to the poor, why do voters continue to approve new taxes for the construction and expansion of light-rail systems?
One economic reason is that the benefits of light rail are highly concentrated, while the costs are widely dispersed. The direct benefits of a light-rail project can be quite large for a relatively small group of people, such as elected officials, environmental groups, labor organizations, engineering and architectural firms, developers and regional businesses, which often campaign vigorously for the passage of light-rail funding. These groups would benefit from light rail, not from the subsidization of cars and money to all potential riders of light rail.
The costs of light rail, while large in aggregate, are often small when spread over the tax-paying population. (The cost of light rail in St. Louis totals about $6 per taxpayer annually). A large group of taxpayers facing relatively minimal costs can be persuaded to vote for light rail based on benefits shaped by the interested minority, such as helping the poor, reducing congestion and pollution, and fostering development. Even if these benefits are exaggerated and the taxpayer realizes the cost-ineffectiveness of light rail, it is probably not worth the $6 for that person to spend significant time lobbying against light rail.
Proponents of light rail argue that it will create jobs, foster economic development and boost property values. While there is some academic evidence of these benefits, it is important to realize that they are not free to society?light rail is kept afloat by taxpayer-funded subsidies that amount to hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
Concentrated benefits and dispersed costs are one economic reason for the existence of inefficient public projects. The many who stand to lose will lose only a little, whereas the few who stand to gain will gain a lot. Of course, if other public projects exist where overall costs outweigh benefits, then $6 a year per project could add up to quite a hefty boondoggler?s bill.
Dr. Barton Smith, University of Houston professor of economics and director of the UH Institute for Regional Forecasting, is the leading expert on the regional economics of the Houston metropolitan area and has prepared a similar analysis regarding the Houston Metro light rail system.
Alas, I do not expect the Houston Chronicle to address this issue anytime soon. Hat tip to Professor Gordon for the link to this study.
The shell game of college education finance
An oil play in Cuba
This NY Times article reports on Repsol, YPF‘s (Spain’s largest oil comany) hiring of a Norwegian drilling platform at a cost around $200,000 a day to search for oil in a narrow sector of the Gulf of Mexico off the northwestern coast of Cuba. The venture, which was established with the Cuban government-owned oil company CubapetrÛleo, is being watched closely in Houston’s oil and gas community.
If Repsol is successful in making a major find, that would be a boon for Cuba, which imports most of its fuel from Venezuela and struggles economically. It would also shake up the dynamics of oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, which has been dominated for decades by United States companies.
If there is a big oil find in Cuban waters, then that will also be an interesting test of the Bush Administration’s Cuba policy, which has been to maintain and even strengthen sanctions in hopes of isolating and weakening the Communist country’s economy. However, such sanctions might be rethought if Mr. Bush’s supporters in the oil and gas industry are faced with the prospect of sitting on the sidelines while foreign companies develop good oil and gas prospects in Cuban waters.
Stay tuned on this one.
The ugly reality of consumer credit
This Wall Street Journal ($) article reports on how the consumer credit industry is generating huge profits by charging exorbitant interest rates and penalties on credit cards that the industry provides to the riskiest consumer borrowers:
For consumers who pay off their credit-card balances each month, shop aggressively for interest rates as low as 0%, and take advantage of generous credit-card rewards programs, consumer credit has never been cheaper. But for others . . ., the trend is in the other direction.
Card users, consumer advocates and some industry experts complain that banks are attempting to squeeze more and more revenue from consumers struggling to make ends meet. Instead of cutting these people off as bad credit risks, banks are letting them spend — and then hitting them with larger and larger penalties for running up their credit, going over their credit limits, paying late and getting cash advances from their credit cards. The fees are also piling up for bounced checks and overdrawn accounts.
Many folks are surprised to learn that bad check fees are a lucrative profit center for many banks. Similarly, banks make a nice return on late payment fees to their consumer credit card holders:
. . . credit-card fees, including those from retailers, rose to 33.4% of total credit-card revenue in 2003. That was up from 27.9% in 2000 and just 16.1% in 1996. The average monthly late fee hit $32.01 in May, up from $30.29 a year earlier and $13.30 in May 1996, the company said. In 2003, the credit-card industry reaped $11.7 billion from penalty fees, up 9% from $10.7 billion a year earlier, according to Robert Hammer, an industry consultant.
Banks say that penalties and fees are a necessary component of new models for pricing financial services. Gone are the days when banks collected hefty annual fees on all credit cards and charged fat interest rates to all customers. Now, the banks say, they must rely on risk-based pricing models under which customers with the shakiest finances pay higher rates and more fees.
Oddly, the approach of gouging the riskiest customers is the result of competing for the best ones:
Until the early 1990s, most banks offered one main credit-card product. It typically carried an annual interest rate of about 18% and an annual fee of $25. Cardholders who paid late or strayed over their credit limit were charged modest fees. Profits from good customers covered losses from those who defaulted.
Then card issuers, in an effort to grab market share, began scrapping annual fees and vying to offer the lowest annual interest rates. They junked simple pricing models in favor of complex ones they say were tailored to cardholders’ risk and behavior. Eager to sustain growth in a market approaching saturation, they began offering more cards to consumers with spotty credit.
By the late 1990s, banks were attracting consumers with low introductory rates, then subjecting some of them to a myriad of “risk-related fees,” such as late fees and over-limit fees. A 2001 survey by the Federal Reserve showed that 30% of general-purpose credit-card holders had paid a late fee in the prior year.
In a survey of 140 credit cards this year, the advocacy group Consumer Action said 85% of the banks make it a practice to raise interest rates for customers who pay late — often after a single late payment. Nearly half raise rates if they find out that a customer is in arrears with another creditor.
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration’s response to the foregoing travesty is to support the ill-advised and consumer credit industry backed Bankruptcy “Reform” Act, which attempts to make it more difficult for consumers to discharge their personal liability for such consumer credit.
As with health care finance, income tax simplification, and overall government spending, this is another issue on which the Bush Administration has sadly dropped the ball.
Stros blow another one
The listless Stros’ hitters and Miceli blew another fine performance from the Rocket as the Pads scored the winning run in the bottom of the eighth to win Monday’s first game of the clubs’ three game series, 2-1.
Clemens was magnificent as usual, giving up only a run on three hits with four walks over seven innings. Miceli couldn’t match that brilliance in the eighth, as he gave up the game winning hit to Klesko (who is having an Ensberg-like bad year) and giving Astro-killer Trevor Hoffman the opportunity to close out the win in the ninth.
Meanwhile, the Stros’ hitters made Brian Lawrence look like the Rocket as they could manage only five hits, including Bidg‘s leadoff yak. Of course, Stros’ manager Jimy Williams inexplicably continues to bench Mike Lamb, Jason Lane, and Chris Burke while playing such futile hitters as Viz and Bags, whose slugging percentage has dropped to an embarrassing .442, fifth points below Biggio’s. Not an auspicious beginning for their first game in the Pads’ new Petco Field.
The Stros are now eight games behind the Cards in the NL Central as a division title has become a pipe dream. Absent an unforseen turnaround on the remainder of this West Coast swing, the Stros may not even be in contention for the wild card playoff spot by the All-Star break.
The Stros send Pete Munro to the hill on Tuesday night against the eminently hittable Ismael Valdez. At least the Stros can enjoy the wonderful weather while whiffing in the San Diego moonlight.