The Marginal Revolution Irony
Under the title of Tyler Cowen’s and Alex Tabarrok’s blog, Marginal Revolution, is the saying “Small Steps Toward a Much Better World.”
By and large, Tyler and Alex deliver. I’m about to be critical about a recent item on which Tyler arguably doesn’t deliver, but it shouldn’t mislead you into thinking that I don’t learn a lot from their site. After EconLog, it is the first one I look at in my RSS feed every morning. Also both Tyler and Alex have been generous to me with their help. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics and, before that, The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics, would not have been nearly as good as they are without Tyler’s suggestions, for topics and authors, and for content. And Alex has been helpful in recent years in giving me quick feedback when I’m on deadline writing the Wall Street Journal article on the latest winner(s) of the Nobel Prize in economics.
So now to the critique. I’ve already given the background for my critique in my post challenging Tyler about his comments on cars. Recall that he had written that “most cars in operation today are not much better than cars from 1969, and they perform more or less the same functions, albeit more safely.”
I laid out why I disagree and commenters both on this blog and on Facebook gave more chapter and verse to support my view: cars have improved a great deal.
In fact, I’m convinced, based on commenters’ comments, that I’ve understated the improvement. Here are some of the better comments on my post.
Sarah Skwire:
I think something that both you and Tyler have overlooked is the importance of many of the changes to post 1969 cars for women who drive. Power steering has made driving much easier for small and slighter people–who are, in many cases, female drivers. (The first time I drove a car with no power steering I remember thinking, “I bet THIS is why there were so many jokes about bad women drivers! This takes a lot of strength!!) The ability to calibrate seat adjustments more finely means that I can make cars fit me properly. (The first cars I drove, in the 80s, put me dangerously close to the steering wheel in order to reach the pedals, and had seats so far off the ground I couldn’t put my heel down when I pressed the gas.) Many cars “remember” seat adjustments as well, which greatly reduces the aggravation and time cost when a taller person uses my car and I have to return the seat to where I like it. The back lift gate of my Subaru outback opens and closes at the touch of a button on the dash or on my key chain, which is helpful since when it’s open I can barely reach the handle to close it manually. And many mini-vans now have sliding passenger doors that open in similarly automated fashion–making life and errands easier for anyone who travels regularly with small kids and needs to open car doors, manage grocery bags, AND keep a hand on each kid in a busy parking lot.
So I’d add “serving the needs of a wider range of drivers” to the list of post 1969 improvements. We’ve certainly come a long way since the car salesman took care to point out the passenger side make up mirror to women as an incentive to buy!
RPLong:
In support of your third point, and contra Cowen’s semi-dismissal of the importance of entertainment and software, I’ll add this: I just spent three years living with an hour-each-way commute to work. Navigation, hands-free technology, and entertainment are enormously important for people making long commutes. I’d guess that these are strong enough incentives to affect the number of long-range commuters in the workforce. This improvement to the quality of modern automobiles has enabled a more mobile workforce, and thus likely has improved productivity, as people are now able to find better job matches further away from home.
My sometimes sparring partner Alan Goldhammer:
It is really difficult to point to any part of the current automobile that is not better than those of 50 years ago. One big area of improvement that I mentioned on Tyler’s blog is rust protection. You don’t see cars rusting through in our area where a lot of road salt is used (Washington DC). I don’t even know if Ziebart (after market rust protection company) is even in business these days. [DRH note: I checked and, surprisingly, they are. I bet, though, that their business is much smaller.]
Let’s also not forget that tire manufacturing is much better these days. Over that last 30 years I think we have had only a couple of flats and most of these occurred over night and not on the road while driving.
Charley Hooper:
I remember going on trips and searching for sources of water, such as creeks, to fill our ailing radiator. On another trip in the summer we drove with the heater on to prevent the car from overheating. A trip to Canada left us with a car that couldn’t travel at highway speeds and, due to the slower travel, we celebrated my mother’s birthday on the road.
Here’s what’s better: tires (radials vs. bias ply), brakes (disc vs. drum), cooling systems, emission controls, power, reliability, gas mileage, electrical systems, rust protection, paint, oil consumption, temperature control (heater and A/C), headlights, taillights, electronic entertainment, safety, weatherstripping, suspensions, remote entry/locking, transmissions, maintenance intervals, seating, drink holders, outside temperature readings, tire pressure sensors, and sound insulation. Whew!
S D:
I still remember the deep, hours-long discomfort of being stuck in the back of a 1986 Citroén with no air conditioning. My parents were taking a three-day trip through France in July in 33 degree heat and it was oppressive. (The car also broke down on the side of the road)
With air conditioning as standard in pretty much all cars now, it’s something I don’t have to inflict on my own children.
And, finally, buttressing the point about safety (and so this doesn’t contradict Tyler), J Scheppers:
The death prevention is not complete enumerated. Emissions reductions in saving years of life are significant. There is no more lead in your gas and look at these emission reductions as calculated by EPA since 1990. I remember the smell of cars in 1970 so imagine the clean up from 1960 when we are bench marking these. Cars are not the only source of improved air quality but it did play a key role.
Nationally, concentrations of air pollutants have dropped significantly since 1990:
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-Hour, 77%
Lead (Pb) 3-Month Average, 80%
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual, 56%
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-Hour, 50%
Ozone (O3) 8-Hour, 22%
Particulate Matter 10 microns (PM10) 24-Hour, 34%
Particulate Matter 2.5 microns (PM2.5) Annual, 41%
Particulate Matter 2.5 microns (PM2.5) 24-Hour, 40%
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1-Hour, 88%
Numerous air toxics have declined with percentages varying by pollutantDuring this same period, the U.S. economy continued to grow, Americans drove more miles and population and energy use increased.
Source: https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2018/#highlights
The irony is that a web site with “marginal” in the name and with “small steps” in the description of its goal misses out on some pretty thick margins.
READER COMMENTS
Jeff G.
Oct 24 2018 at 3:17pm
All of these comments pertain to passenger vehicles. My guess is that you could assemble an list of different improvements to commercial vehicles. Are there any commercial drivers out there?
Also, has anyone mentioned improvements in GPS? Not only has this made driving easier (and efficient) but it also led to ride-sharing apps. This isn’t an improvement on the car itself, but it certainly increased the usefulness of cars in our daily lives.
Benjamin Cole
Oct 24 2018 at 10:03pm
Ditto… And I think battery cars will be commercially viable within 10 years thanks to something known as solid-state batteries.
That said, if I were David Henderson and I wanted to learn something new, rather than merely confirm a bias, I would read something other than Econlog and Marginal Revolution.
Do the converted ever learn from preaching?
David Henderson
Oct 25 2018 at 12:28am
You wrote:
Since you gave me unsolicited advice, I’ll reciprocate:
If I were Benjamin Cole, I would learn to read more carefully and not make absurdly unfounded assumptions about someone I have never met or talked to, especially when it’s so easy to ask that person questions and get answers.
Benjamin Cole
Oct 25 2018 at 8:52pm
Apologies.
After EconLog, it is the first one I look at in my RSS feed every morning–DH
I meant to have the word “first” in my comment, but I guess I deleted it in editing.
Can you suggest some blogs or websites that deliver honest assessments on the macroeconomic scene, rather than narratives driven by agendas?
I will be happy to follow your lead…
David Henderson
Oct 26 2018 at 11:59am
I accept your apology.
You wrote:
I don’t see how that would have made a difference. In what sentence of yours did you delete “first” and in what part of the sentence?
You wrote:
No, but I can recommend a number of sites that both deliver honest assessments and narratives driven by agendas. The narrative can be driven by the agenda as long as when facts are found that don’t fit the agenda, they are reported. This site is one of them.
Joe Kristan
Oct 25 2018 at 8:14am
I’ll pile on. I took drivers’ ed in the summer of 1976. I took the 6 am class, the first of the day. One morning there was a new driver’s ed, car, a shiny Chevy Vega straight from the dealer with less than 10 miles. I sat down in the drivers’ seat with my instructor in the passenger seat. Leaving the high school parking lot, I try to stop to look both ways before entering the road – no brakes! The instructor had a brake pedal, we were both pressing as hard as we could, and — nothing.
Fortunately there isn’t much traffic at 6:00 am, the instructor found the emergency brake, and we got safely back to the parking lot.
After I got my license, I had an 11-year old Rambler American, in which I always kept a case of motor oil as I needed a new quart every tank of gas or so. My current car is 11 years old, and I have never had to add oil between changes.
Cars are much better now.
David Henderson
Oct 25 2018 at 9:38am
Wow, Joe! That’s scary. Fortunately, I had no experiences like that. I’m guessing that was a rare experience.
Scott Sumner
Oct 25 2018 at 11:21am
I think you are both right, depending on how we define “much”.
Tyler’s right in this sense:
By 1969 we could get in a car and drive somewhere quickly, and return home with 99% confidence that nothing would go wrong. That’s huge!
Today we can get in a car and drive somewhere at about the same speed, but with a higher level of comfort and safety, and be 99.9% sure we’ll get home with no problems.
The 1969 situation was a massive improvement over the horse and buggy era. The improvements since are very significant and worthwhile. But it could be argued they are a much lower order of magnitude. I think that’s what Tyler is saying. If so, he should have made that point clearer, as you are correct in claiming that cars have improved a lot since 1969.
Another way of putting it is that lower middle class Americans now drive cars that are better than the luxury cars of 1969. Mercedes for all!
One could do a similar debate for TVs, and many other goods. TVs are much better than in 1969. But just having a TV is arguably the quantum leap.
In contrast, AFAIK air travel quality is basically the same as 1969, except safer (and of course cheaper), but also more crowded and more hassles. And it was already pretty safe in 1969. The interior of the planes themselves aren’t much different. And they are slightly slower (to save fuel).
David Henderson
Oct 25 2018 at 4:01pm
That makes sense, Scott.
Still, I think it’s weird for a blog post named after marginalize and celebrating small steps not to put much weight on some pretty big steps.
Ryan Bourne
Oct 26 2018 at 10:44am
I agree with you. MR blog and this site are the two best Econ blogs online.
But maybe this is a more substantive recent change in Tyler’s worldview? Admittedly I read it quickly, but in Stubborn Attachments at one stage it felt as if he was almost dismissing our quest for marginal improvements because they take focus away from big game-changing innovations.
Larry L Wasem
Oct 25 2018 at 2:48pm
Now, if you want to look at transportation that is substantially unaltered in the last 50 years look at general aviation aircraft. In the last 10 years the avionics have been vastly improved, but a mechanic from 1940 would be able to look at particularly the engines on new piston aircraft and have no problems with repairs. They are essentially unchanged. And the reason for few important advancements in aircraft systems is the FAA. It is a lengthy, difficult and expensive process to get anything new approved. If you compare current certified aircraft, for which everything requires FAA approval, to current “experimental” aircraft, for which the rules are much more rational, all of the advancements in technology are in the experimental aircraft.
john hare
Oct 26 2018 at 7:47pm
This is one to point out to regulation proponents. If you see a light aircraft overhead, odds are good that it is either experimental or an antique. Production light aircraft are several decades behind automobiles technologically. Production of light aircraft is a small fraction of what it was decades ago as well. One wonders what light aircraft would be now if regulation and litigation hadn’t almost stopped it in its’ tracks.
David Seltzer
Oct 25 2018 at 5:19pm
David,
One of the most fundamental features is the switch from carburetors to factory fuel injection. No more heat soak or vapor lock issues. No more altitude issues and better fuel efficiency. I recently changed over to fuel injection in a collectible car. The problem, ethanol mandates caused myriad problems in hot weather. Of course the cost to me was another$4,000. Thanks Uncle Sammy! Lastly, all wheel drive makes for better road handling.
David Henderson
Oct 27 2018 at 10:46am
Good point, David.
Thomas Firey
Oct 27 2018 at 9:05am
I somehow missed your earlier post. Scanning it, this post, and the comments, I think one of the biggest innovations is being overlooked: the standardization and improved fuel efficiency of the automatic transmission.
Anyone who has ever taught someone to drive stick knows how challenging the manual transmission is–especially in hilly areas and urban and inner suburbs where gear changing is common. Mastering a manual transmission was an enormous barrier to driving and mobility for many people.
Yet the AT was a costly option on cars into the 1970s and practically unheard of on light trucks, let alone heavy trucks, and ATs took a heavy toll on fuel mileage.
Today, it’s very hard to find cars and light trucks without AT. They’ve also becoming common on many classes of heavy trucks. I was recently at a farm tractor factory that offered them as an option. And the difference in fuel economy between manual and AT has decreased significantly.
David Henderson
Oct 27 2018 at 10:46am
Really good points, Tom. Indeed, my first AT was my 2006 Honda Civic, which I loved. Before then I always bought manuals and I called them “standard transmission.” I was late to the game in noticing that that terminology had disappeared at least a decade before I changed my word usage. For an obvious reason: automatic had become standard.
I loved my manual, by the way, and got really good at climbing steep hills without stalling. That paid off in Tuscany in 2006 when we rented a manual Mercedes and had to go up a steep hill to the villa we rented.
john hare
Oct 27 2018 at 4:38pm
I wouldn’t have an automatic in one of my trucks until about 20 years ago. Too often we needed to push start or gear down for engine braking. Engine stall when rolling with manual was not a problem for restarting if you were on your game. At one time I could (of necessity) change out the clutch, pressure plate, and throwout bearing at night and still get to the job the next morning.
All that being said, now we have all automatics with no intention of going back. More reliable engines and brakes means no stalls or need for push starts or engine braking. I don’t miss working on a truck half the night and still getting up at 5:00. The last manual that I remember caused an argument with my ex. I had to get off the phone so I could drive safely in city traffic, she said I was being a jerk. At the moment I have a left knee problem and don’t know if I could have driven the old trucks at all.
I think manual was better back then and automatic is better now.
Pierre Lemieux
Oct 28 2018 at 10:37am
Just before I read your post and many of its comments, I had a similar thought while driving, and reading the owner’s manual of, my new pickup truck. It is as much a computer on wheels as a 1960 car or truck. To go from A to B with a near certainty of getting there, you must not get stuck in snow, or in mud or rocks if B is in the middle of nowhere. My run-of-the-Dearborn-MI-mill redneck truck (which lots of middle-class suburbanites also buy) has electronic “limited slip” (called “traction control”) which prevents the mechanical differential from being fooled by one wheel spinning on, say, a patch of ice. And I don’t mention the capacity of listening to Trump on satellite radio.
Comments are closed.