The answer is less insurance, not more, and private insurance, not public. In the long run, those health savings accounts are probably the best solution. In the interim, the single most effective way to cut health care costs in a hurry would be to eliminate the tax deduction for employer supplied health insurance. That deduction leads to immense overuse of health care resources, especially by rich people. That’s one good reason to eliminate the deduction, and here’s another: People would start shopping for insurance on their own instead of taking whatever their employers offer, which would make the insurance companies more responsive to consumer demands.
It saddens me that support for universal coverage and a public option has become, in many circles, a sort of litmus test for compassion and caring about the poor. It particularly saddens me to hear the president say that “What we face is a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles.” It’s the details of policy that change people’s lives. The moral imperative is to get them right.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Adam Smith: Moral Philosopher
This 2000 piece by James R. Otteson is worth a read.
Otteson observes about The Theory of Moral Sentiments:
Smith’s analysis of the way in which people and communities come to have common moral standards is intriguing—and, indeed, may in large part be true. This alone would recommend it for serious consideration. But Smith’s examination of human morality reveals a model for explaining the development and maintenance of large-scale human institutions generally—which would mean that the book’s import is yet greater than initially thought. I call Smith’s model a “marketplace model.” Let me sketch it briefly, drawing on the discussion so far.
First, Smith argues that moral judgments, along with the rules by which we render them, develop in the way I have described, without an overall, pre-arranged plan. They arise and grow into a shared, common system of morality—a general consensus regarding the nature of virtue, or what Smith calls propriety and merit—on the basis of countless individual judgments made in countless particular situations.
Second, Smith argues that as we grow from infants to children to adults we develop increasingly sophisticated principles of action and judgment, which enable us to assess and judge an increasingly diverse range of actions and motivations.
Third, what seem when we are children to be isolated and haphazard interactions with others lead as we grow older to habits of behavior; as adults the habits solidify into principles that guide what we call our “conscience.”
Fourth, people’s interests, experiences, and environments change slowly enough to allow long-standing associations and institutions to arise, which give a firm foundation to the rules, standards, and protocols that both set the parameters for the initial creation of these associations and in turn are supported by them. (These “associations” would today include everything from Elks clubs, YMCAs, and Boy Scouts, to the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and even the Catholic Church.)
Smith next argues that the development of personal moral standards, of a conscience and the impartial spectator procedure, and of the accepted moral standards of a community all depend on the regular associations people make with one another.
Otteson observes about The Theory of Moral Sentiments:
Smith’s analysis of the way in which people and communities come to have common moral standards is intriguing—and, indeed, may in large part be true. This alone would recommend it for serious consideration. But Smith’s examination of human morality reveals a model for explaining the development and maintenance of large-scale human institutions generally—which would mean that the book’s import is yet greater than initially thought. I call Smith’s model a “marketplace model.” Let me sketch it briefly, drawing on the discussion so far.
First, Smith argues that moral judgments, along with the rules by which we render them, develop in the way I have described, without an overall, pre-arranged plan. They arise and grow into a shared, common system of morality—a general consensus regarding the nature of virtue, or what Smith calls propriety and merit—on the basis of countless individual judgments made in countless particular situations.
Second, Smith argues that as we grow from infants to children to adults we develop increasingly sophisticated principles of action and judgment, which enable us to assess and judge an increasingly diverse range of actions and motivations.
Third, what seem when we are children to be isolated and haphazard interactions with others lead as we grow older to habits of behavior; as adults the habits solidify into principles that guide what we call our “conscience.”
Fourth, people’s interests, experiences, and environments change slowly enough to allow long-standing associations and institutions to arise, which give a firm foundation to the rules, standards, and protocols that both set the parameters for the initial creation of these associations and in turn are supported by them. (These “associations” would today include everything from Elks clubs, YMCAs, and Boy Scouts, to the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and even the Catholic Church.)
Smith next argues that the development of personal moral standards, of a conscience and the impartial spectator procedure, and of the accepted moral standards of a community all depend on the regular associations people make with one another.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Student For Liberty Challenges Michael Moore
On Monday, Sept 28, Michael Moore spoke at George Washington University about his new film, Capitalism: A Love Story. One of the leaders of the GWU Liberty Society, Chad Swarthout (who is an active member of Students For Liberty, formerly a leader in the London School of Economics Hayek Society while studying abroad, leader in the DC Forum for Freedom, and all around great guy), managed to get up and question Michael Moore.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
What's an Apology Worth?
I'm sorry, I really am. Here's the economics of apologies:
Saying sorry really does cost nothing, EurekAlert: Economists have finally proved what most of us have suspected for a long time – when it comes to apologizing, talk is cheap.
According to new research, firms that simply say sorry to disgruntled customers fare better than those that offer financial compensation. The ploy works even though the recipient of the apology seldom gets it from the person who made it necessary in the first place.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Greg Mankiw on Health Care
The push for universal coverage is based on the appealing premise that everyone should have access to the best health care possible whenever they need it. That soft-hearted aspiration, however, runs into the hardheaded reality that state-of-the-art health care is increasingly expensive. At some point, someone in the system has to say there are some things we will not pay for. The big question is, who? The government? Insurance companies? Or consumers themselves? And should the answer necessarily be the same for everyone?
Inequality in economic resources is a natural but not altogether attractive feature of a free society. As health care becomes an ever larger share of the economy, we will have no choice but to struggle with the questions of how far we should allow such inequality to extend and what restrictions on our liberty we should endure in the name of fairness.Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Progressive Claptrap
Vintage Robert Higgs, important to examine his point in the day of Michael Moore.
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/117604.html
Thinking about Boyes' post of Oct. 13th I would recommend a read of Bob Higgs posting over on HNN. Higgs is really getting at the importance of rhetoric in the "discourse" about the role of liberty and freedom in society. Samuel Gregg argues that civil discourse is a natural outcome of a commercial society, while Higgs implies that as the state expands in scope and scale in society civility is a casualty.
Both of these complimentary views are key to an appreciation of the importance of the media in the economic change of society. This change, to paraphrase North, is gradual and incremental and both formal and informal institutions shape this change. The institution of information diffusion is a key one as it shapes informal norms and beliefs and is shaped by these informal norms and beliefs.
I am thinking of a conversation with my brother, who considers himself a believer in liberty. I had given him Higg's classic - Crisis and Leviathan, my brother read the book and said that Higgs was a nut job. I had a similar conversation with a brother in law during the last election - he said that Ron Paul was a nut job.
Why does this happen? I think part of the answer might be in rhetorical choices by advocates of liberty. Higgs and, to a lesser extent Paul, seem to be to be reasonable, civil and accurate in their articulation of the importance of liberty and the consequences of its loss. However, an audience that is not convinced of these two issues (in my limited sample) finds them to be extremists. Oddly enough, one of these relatives applauds Michael Moore's latest film while the other condemns it.
In a previous post, I mentioned my reading of Samuel Gregg's The Commercial Society in which he models civil discourse. Perhaps advocates of liberty would benefit from a consideration of Gregg's rhetoric.
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/117604.html
Thinking about Boyes' post of Oct. 13th I would recommend a read of Bob Higgs posting over on HNN. Higgs is really getting at the importance of rhetoric in the "discourse" about the role of liberty and freedom in society. Samuel Gregg argues that civil discourse is a natural outcome of a commercial society, while Higgs implies that as the state expands in scope and scale in society civility is a casualty.
Both of these complimentary views are key to an appreciation of the importance of the media in the economic change of society. This change, to paraphrase North, is gradual and incremental and both formal and informal institutions shape this change. The institution of information diffusion is a key one as it shapes informal norms and beliefs and is shaped by these informal norms and beliefs.
I am thinking of a conversation with my brother, who considers himself a believer in liberty. I had given him Higg's classic - Crisis and Leviathan, my brother read the book and said that Higgs was a nut job. I had a similar conversation with a brother in law during the last election - he said that Ron Paul was a nut job.
Why does this happen? I think part of the answer might be in rhetorical choices by advocates of liberty. Higgs and, to a lesser extent Paul, seem to be to be reasonable, civil and accurate in their articulation of the importance of liberty and the consequences of its loss. However, an audience that is not convinced of these two issues (in my limited sample) finds them to be extremists. Oddly enough, one of these relatives applauds Michael Moore's latest film while the other condemns it.
In a previous post, I mentioned my reading of Samuel Gregg's The Commercial Society in which he models civil discourse. Perhaps advocates of liberty would benefit from a consideration of Gregg's rhetoric.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Another masterful post by Bill Easterly
The Perils of not knowing that you don't know.
The moral of the story is that knowing how much uncertainty there is about a projection – that is, knowing how much the projector DOESN’T KNOW – is often more important than the projection.
The moral of the story is that knowing how much uncertainty there is about a projection – that is, knowing how much the projector DOESN’T KNOW – is often more important than the projection.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Education - off the rails
Two contrasting views of education prompt me to think about Douglass North's analysis of the role of learning in economic change. The two posts deal with education - the process, while North is thinking of both the process and the outcome. The role of learning in economic growth is one that deserves serious reflection - while it is unclear what that relationship may be, the impact of learning seems significant. Moreover, the formal and informal institutional context of learning (and by implication education) serves as the constrain that limits the impact of learning.
With all that said, the 2008 Nobel winner in economics sees command systems as the mode to optimize education. It is no clear the Krugman believes that education and learning are closely related, but he is clear that education cannot take place without the state.
With all that said, the 2008 Nobel winner in economics sees command systems as the mode to optimize education. It is no clear the Krugman believes that education and learning are closely related, but he is clear that education cannot take place without the state.
Paul Krugman: The Uneducated American
The Uneducated American, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: If you had to explain America’s economic success with one word, that word would be “education.” In the 19th century, America led the way in universal basic education. Then, as other nations followed suit, the “high school revolution” of the early 20th century took us to a whole new level. And in the years after World War II, America established a commanding position in higher education.
But that was then. The rise of American education was, overwhelmingly, the rise of public education — and for the past 30 years our political scene has been dominated by the view that any and all government spending is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Education, as one of the largest components of public spending, has inevitably suffered.
My reading is that Krugman has this partially correct - if education in the 17-19th centuries in the US was "successful" it is in large part due to the emergent path that education was allowed to follow. And, while the state dictated "universal" (a misnomer of course) education - the responsibility for learning rested with the institutions of the family and church.
I also agree with Krugman that the crisis in education is a pressing one - a result of the altogether predictable consequences of the perverse incentives of the institution of public education. The second post which is well worth a read is by a parent who writes of a public school teacher in a highly rated school who lacked knowledge of the emergent concepts in the field (computer science). The post is titled - Beware Book Learning and the parent writes:
"This example supports the claim that it is mostly the students not the teachers who makes good schools good, and that even in computer science signaling takes precedence over learning."
Krugman and this parent have unintentionally opened a dialogue - they both work from the premise that education in the US is in crisis. As a public school teacher I would agree, and the crisis is deepening. The two offer drastically differing perspectives on the course of action to take. Krugman is confident that the state can resolve the problem - it is merely a matter of resources. More money, spent correctly will rectify the problem. Our parent, on the other hand, with direct knowledge of education on his child offers a more penetrating critique by pointing out the result of the institutional constraints of a state owned and directed enterprise. He observes of this public school teacher:
"Yes it makes sense for this teacher to ignore modularity if the AP exam ignores it. And perhaps it even makes sense for the exam to ignore it since modularity tests might take lots longer than other tests. But for someone with five years experience teaching computing at the nation’s best public high school to not even know that modularity goes way beyond objects – that seems a sad example of off-the-rails book learning."
Off the rails . . . I can't help but think of Bastiat's railroad and the recent discussion in the press of Bentham v Hume. The David Brooks article generated a great deal of discussion, and this posting (planners v doers) does a nice job of contextualizing the planner v searcher dichotomy. Planners like Krugman are confident that they have the answer, searchers such as the parent in Virginia engage in a process that can evolve in emergent responses - but only in the context of liberty.
So, the debate in education is a great way to view the debate over liberty - on one hand those who wish take away choice and liberty and coerce a solution or plan to be part of the expansive state and on the other hand those of us who stand for liberty and fear that it is leaving the station.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Walmart Med Is Better
Wanna cut some med costs 30+% without sacrificing quality? Just have patients rely more on CVS, Walmart, etc. for care. From the Post:
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Capitalism v socialism
This is an excellent editorial by Russian émigré, Svetlana Kunin.
In the USSR, economic equality was achieved by redistributing wealth, ensuring that everyone remained poor, with the exception of those doing the redistributing. Only the ruling class of communist leaders had access to special stores, medicine and accommodations that could compare to those in the West.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Just When Africa’s Luck Was Changing
Published: August 2, 2009
Africa is being affected greatly by the global recession as foreign investment funds are drying up.
Africa is being affected greatly by the global recession as foreign investment funds are drying up.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
An Open Letter By Kenneth Rogoff,
This letter is well worth a read as it identifies clearly one of the costs to the fatal conceit of centralization.
The letter is address to Joseph Stiglitz and, while the topic is his book Globalization and Its Discontents, the message is broader and more relevant today than when Rogoff wrote:
"you betray an unrelenting belief in the pervasiveness of market failures, and a staunch conviction that governments can and will make things better. You call us "market fundamentalists."
The letter is address to Joseph Stiglitz and, while the topic is his book Globalization and Its Discontents, the message is broader and more relevant today than when Rogoff wrote:
"you betray an unrelenting belief in the pervasiveness of market failures, and a staunch conviction that governments can and will make things better. You call us "market fundamentalists."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
