Uncategorized

Monday assorted links

by on June 26, 2017 at 12:00 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

From Twitter I see this statistic:

Ratio of mean health care spending in richest quintile to mean health care spending in poorest quintile

For the United States, as reported, that ratio is 0.884 for ages 25-64, and for 65 and up the ratio has two varying estimates, from 0.87 to 0.9.

If I am understanding the numbers and presentation correctly, that indicates more health care spending on the poorest quintile than the wealthiest quintile (for below 25 however the ratio is 1.3, namely more spending on the wealthy).

I believe this comes as a surprise to many people, though it is arguably intuitive, since poor people become sick more often, and furthermore sick people are more likely to lose income.

I tracked down the source paper by Eric French and Elaine Kelly (pdf), and it does seem to be true, noting that the numbers exclude long-term care for the elderly.  By the way, that piece is full of fascinating, under-reported medical expenditure statistics, for other countries too.

A number of points suggest themselves:

1. You still might feel we are neglecting the health care of the poor, but I am not sure the majority of the American public would react that way, upon hearing these numbers.  Usually the poor get less of things, as measured by expenditures, even if they might “need” it more.  Health care is an exception to what is otherwise a pretty general rule.  I believe it should be such an exception, but to what degree?  I see a lot of pretty aggressive intuitions out there, mostly without serious justification or without any presentation of what the stopping point should be.

2. Those numbers don’t prove anything, least of all normatively.  Still, they do point my attention in the direction of wondering — yet again — if public health programs are not better than spending more on health care coverage of the poor.  Let’s stop or at least limit poor people from getting sick so many more times.

3. That poor people get sick more times, how much of this is a) poor environment including higher stress and exposure to crime, b) genes, c) inability to afford proper preventive care, d) bad decision-making, including diet, lifestyle, and exercise, and e) sickness causing poverty, and f) other factors.  I know of plenty of individual papers on these topics, but would it go over well to write an “apportionment” paper doling out the relative responsibilities?

4. How much should our decisions on the best health care policy depend on the answer to #3?  How many people are even willing to talk about this right now?

5. Why does the ratio flip so significantly toward the wealthy for younger people?  Can we use that fact to make any general inferences about the apportionment outlined in #3?  On the surface, it seems to suggest a significant possible role for d) and e), since those might affect children less.

6. What else?

The original pointer was from a retweet by Garett Jones, the tweet from Houston Euler, the Great Firewall is making direct links to them very costly right now.

Sunday assorted links

by on June 25, 2017 at 12:56 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. In one study, young children learn how to deceive in ten days.

2. “A new kind of elevator uses linear motors, similar to those in maglev trains and HyperLoop, to whiz its cabins through shafts, and will be able to move people up, down, left, or right.” Link here.

3. New Chinese movie stars Stephon Marbury as Stephon Marbury (NYT).  And this: “There is indeed a statue of Marbury in Beijing. “People say it doesn’t look like me,” Marbury said. “But I know it does, because I know the face I made when they made the statue.””

4. Boris Becker is now bankrupt (no Beijing statue).

5. Employees committed to family are more motivated and productive (WSJ).

6. Flying ability helps determine egg shape.

Saturday assorted links

by on June 24, 2017 at 12:10 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. Profile of jazz pianist Craig Taborn (NYT).

2. How to think about work-life balance.

3. Screen shot of less sex for American teenagers (safe for work, indeed too safe).

4. Burton Malkiel now believes in smart Beta.

5. Why don’t people buy electric guitars anymore?

6. Avik Roy defends the Senate health care bill.  I do recommend this piece.  It does not convince me to support the bill, but it does show how much of the other reporting on this debate is bad, highly selective, and also excessively mood-affiliated.

That is a new paper by Jonathan Berk and Jules H. van Binsbergen, here is the abstract:

We study a market for a skill that is in short supply and high demand, where the presence of charlatans (professionals who sell a service that they do not deliver on) is an equilibrium outcome. We use this model to evaluate the belief that reducing the number of charlatans through regulation increases consumer surplus. We show that this belief is false: both information disclosure as well as setting standards reduces consumer surplus. Although both standards and disclosure drive charlatans out of the market, consumers are worse off because of the resulting reduction in competition amongst producers. Producers, on the other hand, strictly benefit from the regulation, implying that the regulation we observe in these markets likely derives from producer interests. The model provides insights into the parameters that drive the cross-sectional variation in charlatans across professions. Professions with weak trade groups, skills in larger supply, shorter training periods and less informative signals regarding the professional’s skill, are more likely to feature charlatans. We conclude that the number of charlatans in equilibrium is positively related to the value added of that profession to consumers.

How does financial advising fit into this schema?  Economic consulting?  Blogging?

For the pointer I thank the excellent Kevin Lewis.

Friday assorted links

by on June 23, 2017 at 12:05 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

Here is a good summary and analysis from Megan McArdle, here is one key part:

But while there are a few things to like in this bill, overall, it’s a mess.  All of the problems created by Obamacare’s architecture remain, and some of the problems will get worse, because lower subsidies, higher deductibles and no mandate penalty probably means that a lot of people will exit the exchanges.  Those people are likely to be the folks we most need to stabilize those exchanges: healthy youngsters who don’t use much health care.  Which means that the exchanges will be at further risk from the death spirals we’ve already seen in some states.

I agree the bill is a bad idea.  That said, I do hope you keep in perspective some of the more, um, lurid critiques running around, including from health care economists (the Great Firewall won’t let me link to Twitter, and right now VPN is down).  You can read them as sociology, however, with a rather chilling effect.

There is a restaurant in New Jersey called Tina Louise.

It’s serves “a taste of Asia.” We were thinking tropical island fare. According to the website, it is temporarily closed due to a fire. But if you someday find yourself in Carlstadt, New Jersey…

Link here, the restaurant’s home page is here, menu here (pdf, yum), here are the Yelp reviews.

I thank an anonymous MR reader for the pointer.

Thursday assorted links

by on June 22, 2017 at 12:04 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

C. inquires:

Why do we live in the golden age of economic history? Was there something identifiable that caused the subfield to grow in esteem? Some new technology that changed the costs of research (not that I can see)? Something else?

Mark Koyama should write a Medium essay on this, but in the meantime here are my thoughts:

1. We now know much, much more about the earlier economic histories of China, India, and some other locales.  The rise of more and better graduate students from the emerging economies, or for that matter from Europe, has been essential here.

2. Some of the turn toward economic history came with the financial crisis, and the search for longer-term parallels, which meant looking back in history, most of all to the Great Depression.

3. Although the advance of cliometrics started a long time ago, we are now finally at intergenerational margins where economic historians are as quantitatively well-equipped as most parts of the applied micro spectrum.

4. The stranger the time period, the more people will have to look to broader stretches of history for understanding.  Yes, this one is an uh-oh.

5. Some applied micro fields have become a little more boring, so that has helped a partial shift of status to economic history.  Public data sets have been exhausted, and a lot of economic history data sets are “weird or idiosyncratic” data sets, which now are “in” and I predict will stay “in” for a long while to come because they offer the possibilities of both new discoveries and moats.

6. An academic trend that hasn’t yet been exploited usually ends up exploited, sooner or later, once the right nudge comes along.

5b, 6b. In chess, the top players are opting for the Giuoco Piano once again.

7. Competing economic models are more “allowed” in the subfield — not everything must be neoclassical — which has opened economic historians to more wide-ranging questions.  Economic history remains a good place to pursue the questions about economics that initially interested many people as undergraduates.

8. Academic attention is more media-driven these days, and good economic history papers usually have a story of some kind, and perhaps also a historical personage, event, or institution of broader interest.

Wednesday assorted links

by on June 21, 2017 at 1:47 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. 7 year olds solve coordination problems over 80% of time, 5 year olds less than 20% of time -finds Grueneisen

2. Claims about wages in southern Brazil.  (Better link here)

3. “”Socialists who think charter school success can’t be scaled” occupy an interesting ideological space” — Adam Ozimek.

4. NYT profile of CBO head Keith Hall.

5. WeChat vs. Apple, bet on WeChat.

Beijing notes

by on June 21, 2017 at 1:12 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

To consider the delta, for all the talk of lactose intolerance, dairy products are booming.  Taxi drivers seem to have lost their reluctance to pick up Westerners.  More and more hutongs have been removed from downtown (duh).  There is a street with three different outlets selling Mexican-style churros.  Overall it feels nicer and more normal.

I am the odd bird who prefers Beijing to Shanghai.  The food is more representative of China as a whole, the faces show more drama, you are more likely to see “weird random ****” driving around in a cab, and the core culture is less chi-chi.  It’s the most important city in the world.  Let’s hope Washington does nothing to reclaim that mantle, New York never will.

It was a forty-minute chat (podcast, no transcript), most of all about the decline of liberalism, based around Ed’s new and very well-received book The Retreat of Western Liberalism.  We also covered what a future liberalism will look like, to what extent current populism is an Anglo-American phenomenon, Modi’s India, whether Kubrick, Hitchcock, and John Lennon are overrated or underrated, and what it is like to be a speechwriter for Larry Summers, among other topics.  Here is the opening bit:

COWEN: Having a taste for the esoteric, I’d like to start with a question. If we go back to the 1680s and James II takes the throne, then, William of Orange comes over from what we now call the Netherlands and pushes him out — was that a liberal development or an illiberal development?

LUCE: At the time, it was very much a liberal development. Of course, we then get the bill of rights. We then get a further restriction of the power of the monarchy that comes with this new Dutch co-monarchy, William and Mary.

In retrospect, given the fact that this is very much the Protestant fundamentalist, the Battle of the Boyne, the victory of the Orange forces, William of Orange. In retrospect, I think it’s being celebrated in a pretty illiberal manner.

Of course, that’s very germane right now in Britain, given that Theresa May is trying to form a government in which the DUP, the Ulster Unionist Party are going to make up the difference between being a minority government and majority government.

It depends which bit of history you’re looking at it from is my answer.

And then I toss him this question:

COWEN: Let’s say we take the British election that was just held. So many people are calling it a mess, chaos, no-good results but, say, I offered you a revisionist view, how would you respond?

I would say it’s the first real election where voting by class has essentially fallen away. You even have Kensington in London going Labour for the first time since 1974.

Voting is now much more by age. You’ve more female representatives than ever before. You’ve 15 Muslims elected, 7 of those being female. More LGBT individuals. Maybe the new liberalism is reflected by that kind of elevation.

Then on top of that, the election definitely thwarted Scottish independence. It probably helped a soft border for Ireland. We hope it’s helping a soft Brexit.

No Corbyn, no UKIP. Wasn’t it exactly the vote we needed and the most liberal outcome you could have imagined, at least relative to all the initial constraints? Or not?

Ed is extremely interesting and articulate throughout.

Again, you can subscribe to the whole series here, we will be doing more bonus offerings of this nature.

Tuesday assorted links

by on June 20, 2017 at 12:00 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

*Little Soldiers*

by on June 20, 2017 at 2:24 am in Books, Education, Uncategorized | Permalink

The author is Lenora Chu and the subtitle is An American Boy, a Chinese School, and the Global Race to Achieve.  It’s about what the Shanghai public school system really is like, from an American/Chinese-American point of view.  Here is one bit:

“Self-esteem” doesn’t exist in the Chinese lexicon, at least not in the way Americans use it.  In China, a child’s regard for herself is rarely as important as a stark evaluation of performance.  Almost as if child-rearing were an Olympic sport, the Chinese rank children on everything from work ethic to Chinese character recognition and musical skill.

Comparisons can be informal and conversational.

“He’s not as smart as his brother, but he’s a better singer,” my acquaintance Ming said to me once, nodding at one of her boys, in earshot of the less-smart brother.  Sometimes the desire to rank is combined with a threat. “Does your father love your brother more?” a Chinese teacher once asked my friend Rebeca’s daughter.  The question came after the girl had a bad showing on an in-class assignment.

By the way, according to the author:

Nearly half of all children outside of China’s large cities are high school dropouts.

An interesting read.