Results for “from the comments” 1938 found
From the comments
Steve S writes:
Steve Entin at the National Center for Policy Analysis has written on the very issue of the subsidies vs the tax exclusion. His conclusion:
Adding the subsidies for premiums and cost sharing, the family getting the health exchange policy would receive a total subsidy of $17,400, while the family receiving employer-based insurance would receive a total subsidy of $4,143.
That is a huge differential. The whole piece is here: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Health-Insurance-Exchange-Subsidies-Create-Inequities.pdf
File under "Not a political equilibrium."
From the comments
It seems to me that the American political system is simply broken. Canada could reduce the size of government and keep health care spending in check because in a parliamentary system with strong party loyalty, individual politicans are given 'cover' by their parties and are not held personally responsible for the taxes and benefits of their constituents. If the party in power makes a decision to cut benefits which will harm an individual politician's district, that politician isn't necessarily on the hook for it. The voters know that he has to vote the party line even if he disagrees with the legislation. He gets re-elected so long as the public feels his party in general is better than the opposition.
In the U.S. system, where every vote is a free vote, each member of Congress has to answer for his/her votes, and this drives NIMBY-ism and ever-increasing benefits without the tax hikes to pay for them, and it also causes wheeling and dealing which ultimately makes large regulatory packages like health care reform incoherent and bloated with pork.
I think American government works well when it's strictly limited. When Americans try to implement Euro-style social democracy, they fail due to the nature of American government. It is uniquely unsuited to centralized technocratic governance.
That's from Dan H. and he has more to say at the link.
From the comments (at EconLog)
From the comments
People are not always eager to lay down good vs. evil thinking. I don't mean to pick on any single commentator but here is one example:
…E T Jaynes is spinning in his grave that you used Bayes to justify an increase[d] belief in AGW based on scientist's personal beliefs when they lacked the to support their own conclusion.
They believed something so strongly they faked data? A scientist should only believe something so strongly because they have the data to support their belief!
This was perhaps the most misunderstood blog post (including by other bloggers) I've written, yet the original text is quite literally clear, though perhaps it confuses people by not offering up the emotional valence they are expecting. I did not try to justify any absolute level of belief in AGW, or government spending for that matter. I'll repeat my main point about our broader Bayesian calculations:
I am only saying that #2 [scientists behaving badly because they think the future of the world is at stake] deserves more than p = 0.
Nor is my point that p is large, but rather if you don't consider this p at all your reasoning is incomplete. People simply do not wish to hear that sometimes they should pay heed — incomplete heed at that — to the opinions of evil others. It's remarkable how many people responded to this blog post by attacking either the scientists or, in some cases, me.
From the comments
Isn't it only fair that if companies can bribe and threaten politicians
(by contribution to them or their opponents), politicians should be
able to bribe and threaten companies?
The source is here, from comments on the last post. Arnold Kling comments on related matters.
From the comments
I'm out of my depth in economics here, but perhaps one reason it's
different when there's a bubble inflating rather than bursting is
*information*. When the housing bubble or the dot.com bubble is
inflating, it's fairly easy for people to know that it's inflating, and
thus where the new jobs are. People from hundreds of other parts of the
economy know that there are jobs to be had (and pretty good investment
opportunities to be had) in housing (real estate, construction, selling
mortgages) or in dot.coms (software, selling development tools,
investing in startups).
When the bubble pops, the information about where jobs are is much
more diffuse. It's not "go west (to the Bay Area) young man," but
rather "go back wherever you came from and see what's available."
And here is comment by Russ Roberts.
From the comments
MR commentator Liberalarts offered up this insight:
To other professors of economics, I might add that it is a bit shocking
for past undergraduate students to explain their memories of your class
to you!
I would request that MR readers offer up examples, either from their time as teachers or, more aptly, from their time as students, of what they remember from a particular class.
From the comments, and a bleg for Baucus information
This is from Bill:
I am worried that the insurance companies will dump bad risks in the
public pool. They can do this by designing plans that have no value to
sick people, the way the do for Medicare Advantage programs. Here's how
you do it: have a high sticker price, but offer discounts for the use
of a gym or health club. (Non-ambulatory need not apply). Or, offer
special benefits to new mothers and well baby programs (over 50 persons
need not apply–unless you're pregnant)
I've been worrying about that for a while and of course there are many more dimensions of quality competition beyond what Bill mentions. It's possible I don't understand the plan well enough and this isn't a real risk. If so, I'd like someone to explain it all to me. (Here is a related post by Matt.) But as it stands I've soaked up all the lessons about how private insurers want to dump the high-risk individuals. Under the reform, if you can't ever cut them off or "resciss" them (is that the verb?), won't you try much harder to avoid them in the first place? Is there some provision in the bill which actually prevents this by regulating quality competition in just the right way? Given that heterogeneous consumers, and employers, choose across plans on the basis of what they want, is such regulation even possible? Right now I'm still worried. Oddly, this is perhaps less of a problem in the states with more concentrated insurance markets.
Of course if there is no public plan these people end up somewhere in the private sector, they just are treated very badly in terms of quality of service. Which makes the mandate an even less good deal for many of them.
From the comments
And since I'm rambling and have the floor, every man needs a daughter. ALL of my male friends who had children were changed for the better by having at least one daughter. It is not a wife who socializes a husband, it is a daughter.
The link is here.
From the comments: who lives longer?
Adam reports:
At birth, someone living in the Netherlands can expect to live 2.35
years longer than someone born in the US, but at age 65, the difference
is reversed, and someone living in the US can expect to live 0.4 years
longer than someone living in the Netherlands. This difference can be
explained by assuming that semi-socialized health care is better for
young and worse for old people, or, at least as likely, different
policies are not the main cause of the difference
Sources: CDC national vital statistics 2004,
www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_09.pdf and RIVM 2007
levensverwachting, www.rivm.nl/vtv/object_document/o2309n18838.html (in
Dutch)
One interesting feature of this data is that it can be used to argue for a number of different points of view.
From the comments, at Effect Measure
It surprises me that no one has mentioned this, so i'll end years of
quietly lurking and say it myself: a possible explanation for the
difference in clinical picture here vs Mexico lies in the sample size
here. 8 of 8 confirmed "swine flu" cases here have not involved serious
lower respiratory infection or death. But about 60 of about 1,000
generally unconfirmed cases of "swine flu" in Mexico have. If those all
confirm, that's about a 6% CFR. From what i've read, we don't have data
yet on the CFR of confirmed cases in Mexico, and we don't have a
satistically significant sample here for measuring phenomena in the
single percentage digits.
This tells me that there is no confirmed or statistically
significant difference in the clinical picture between US & Mexico.
Of course Mexico is where most of the data points lie. That's Suzanne Bunton. Read the other comments too. If the Obama administration believes in competent government, it would be nice if they would meet the public health standards currently practiced by the government in Mexico. Even a completed fence would not stop a virus and there is otherwise no reason to wait. Should we in the meantime count on a more favorable mutation to protect us?
From the comments
Mr. Econotarian, a loyal MR reader, offers the following insight:
I believe this gentleman was responsible for the best theory on CEO pay I have heard – the top guy has to make a lot of money, even in bad times, so he doesn't seem "weak and sh*t". I call this the "W&S" theory.
From the comments: “America the Beautiful”?
I’m always one for airing grievances:
Tyler, Common among economists and some among the autisitic spectrum is the tenedency to belive the map is more real than the landscape, the model complete and accurate and that everything you were taught in econ seminars came donw on tablets. The Candide, America love it or leave it attitude is a tad tiresome. There are problems out there big guy and the Solow model or the Romer Model don’t mean shit.
Here is a compendium of my anti-American attitudes:
1. The number of Americans in prison remains an underreported scandal, as well as the conditions they face.
2. Problems of race relations are underestimated, to this very day.
3. For whatever reasons, smart American women seem to be more insecure than are Western European women. Yes that’s a vulnerable overgeneralization and I will take some lumps for it in the comments but I still think it’s basically true.
4. I could not live in rural America and be happy.
5. America faces a massive current and future problem resulting from the apparent uneducability of a large chunk of its citizens. While I do favor school choice, it’s not just government education which is at fault; many better school systems around the world are government-run.
6. Gun owners may well be happy, but it is not a culture I relate to.
7. The American culture of individual freedom is closely linked to the prevalence of mental illness and gun-based violence in this country. We can’t seem to get only the brighter side of non-conformity.
8. America is the worst offender when it comes to factory farming and the treatment of animals.
On the brighter side, America has a decent economic track record, the Solow model does matter (try living and earning in countries with poor Solow indicators), America remains the world’s leading innovator, and most Americans — at least those not in prison or on drugs — can expect a bright future. It’s not as if I’m pushing the future economic prospects of Suriname.
I also believe (contra the blogging progressives) that America is fated (for better or worse, but in my view not worse) to remain predominantly captured by corporate interests and that America does a better job absorbing and elevating immigrants than perhaps any other country.
Many Europeans fear deep down that America will have a permanently higher growth rate and that the European way of life will, sooner or later, be forced to disappear. Right now I would bet against this proposition, as I see a new Europe revitalized by intra-EU immigration. But there is still, say, a 30 percent chance it is true and polemics against Uncle Sam are in part a reflection of that deep insecurity.
From the comments
Do relative status and income matter more than absolute?
If this were true, then most immigration would be from rich countries to poor countries.
From the comments
After graduating with a BBA Econ in 1999 I made a play at the CS
world. Realizing I was not willing to learn any real programing I went
to get my PhD in Econ. Now I sit all day… programming.Funny world.
You’ll find it here.
The wise man expunges "positive v. normative" from his vocabulary. Ises and oughts are easily and naturally translated into one another, based on the purposes of the interlocutors and the discourse situation.
The words "positive" and "normative" do not mean nothing, but what they mean can always be expressed in better terms. "Normative" often means outspoken, unconventional, strident, etc. It can also mean loose, vague, and indeterminate.
Tell me "positive" or "normative" for each of the following:
(1) The minimum wage ought to be repealed.
(2) I think the minimum wage ought to be repealed.
(3) The minimum wage reduces social welfare.
(4) Wise people oppose the minimum wage.
The primary verb of (1) is an ought, while the primary verbs of (2), (3), and (4) are ises. But all four statements are really the same.
Coase used the term "affectation" for posing as "positive" and not "normative."