Wednesday, December 12, 2018

More Random Critical Analysis of Helathcare

More Random Critical Analysis of Helathcare

He is again arguing that USA healthcare spending is in line with other USA spending and we are not an outlier.

Tuesday, December 11, 2018

Healthcare Spending VS Length of Life in Countries Selected by Me to Highlight a Point


                             Healthcare spending   GDP Per    Life                  Per Capita Healthcare
Country                as % of GDP                 Capita       Expectancy     Spending
Costa Rica          8.15%                             17,200      79.6                  1,401
Denmark             10.33%                           49,600      80.6                  5,124
USA                     16.84%                           59,500      79.3                 10,020
Italy                       9.0%                               38,000      82.7                  3,420


People in Costa Rica life a much rougher life. The murder rate in Costa Rica is 10/100,00, 2x times as high as the USA and 10x as high as Denmark. If you back out murders, and one reasonably might, the USA will get close to Denmark and Costa Rica will be way ahead. Italy, famous for corrupt government is as far ahead Denmark in length of life as Denmark is ahead of the USA, and Costa Rica beats the USA and is close to Denmark!

I would expect spending as a percent of GDP and total spending on healthcare to be a factor in health.  GDP for the costs of staff and total spending to be for the costs of equipment much of it being imported.  But as for the differences in the countries about we see little of either.

The healthcare is Switzerland and Germany seem reasonably close the system in the USA post PPACA.

So healthcare spending beyond some low level does not seem to have that much effect on health.

I got the data from:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Bang for the Effort in Education

A Review of “The Case Against Education”


I think that I have a better way to put Bryan Caplan's hypothesis here it is:

  • My grandfather went to school for 1 years. He successfully ran a barber shop and speculated in real-estate (though he lost most of it in the great depression). He could read, write and do arithmetic, so it looks like the marginal value of an addition year of education falls off fast. 
  • Did you ever notice that people like Bernie Sanders seldom talk about ways of educating at lower cost?
  • Did you ever notice that we talk a lot about more about how to teach students more but little about what knowledge and skills will yield the most bang for the effort?
 From the review:

So what do we actually do in these courses? Push through hard problems, endure boredom, write, follow instructions, coordinate and communicate. Those are all job-relevant.

Would we learn those better another way like working or playing or while learning useful skills/knowledge? And BTW Bryan does address that saying you could learn that better working a job.

Friday, November 9, 2018

CO2 tax Fails in Highly Demoratic Washinton State


And one striking result from Tuesday’s election is that voters in Washington state, a Democratic stronghold, soundly rejected a proposed carbon tax by a margin of 56 to 44 percent. This raises the prospect that the carbon tax may be dead as a policy for the time being, including at the state level. As my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Liam Denning writes: “We can debate the magnitude of the vaunted blue wave, but there was definitely no green wave.”



It seems that each Democrat only wants to tax people who are richer than them. I democrat who makes the enormous sum of $150,000/year only wants to tax people make $200,000/year or more.

Republicans on the other hand only want to tax those who make less them (i'm just kidding), or a per person tax. One of my GOP friends actually says now and then, that the only fair tax  is a per person tax.

So politicians have become masters at hiding taxes and showing benefits. For example CAFE standards are not seen as a tax but cost 6x as much per unit of CO2 saved than a CO2 tax. See:
I and other scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimate that the new standards will cost the economy on the whole — for the same reduction in gas use — at least six times more than a federal gas tax of roughly 45 cents per dollar of gasoline. That is because a gas tax provides immediate, direct incentives for drivers to reduce gasoline use, while the efficiency standards must squeeze the reduction out of new vehicles only. The new standards also encourage more driving, not less.

Nevertheless, it is hard to address a problem before harm is obvious, especially by raising taxes.

AGW doesn't scare me because the solutions seem adequate to the problem and when the harms get obvious it will be addressed and I would bet that solution will not be too costly.
Solar, wind, batteries and nuclear basic research is mostly done, we'll need businesses to reduce costs incrementally and that look promising. I think nuclear, along with solar might be a very good way to reduce emissions in the developed countries and India and china?

But I think removal from the air might turn out to be less costly than abatement and it can be done latter. (Enhanced weathering, deep ocean iron fertilization and biochar might have potential.) 

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

More Money More Children

At any given education level the richer people have more children.

Once school is completed educated women have children at the same rate as uneducated women but they have fewer years at it.

Most women still say that they want to have 2 or 3 children but educated women are more likely to fall short of their own stated desire.

So it looks like it is the time that school takes up is what makes more educated women end up having fewer children and more educated women tend to be richer. Colleges might want to cater more to married with children students.

Links:

https://un-thought.blogspot.com/2018/09/fertility.html
http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/05/education-impacts-fertility-or-is-it-the-other-way-around/
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/06/the-rich-have-more-kids.htmlhttp://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/kids_are_normal.html
https://medium.com/migration-issues/the-great-baby-bust-of-2017-2f63907402fc
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-07/ru-nso063011.php

A New Kind of Federalism

Me responding to a comment here.

The comment included the following:
For Democrats who hate having their money sent out of state, the centuries-old solution staring them right in the face is decentralization and federalism

The obvious problem with federalism for Democrats is that states do not have enough ability to tax because it is not hard enough for people to move to another states. It is the same adverse selection problem that caused communist limit emigration.

Since the Federal Government's main comparative advantages are collection tax and defense, I think it would be interesting in they collected the taxes as they do today but sent the SS, Medicare and most of the other non-defense money that they currently spend to states on a per capita basis and write laws demanding (amend the constitution to allow that) that the states provide for the elderly (SS, Medicare) and poor in some reasonable way. The states and locals could still have there small taxes or not. Some states might even pay a dividend or return of some of the taxes.

Low Skill Workers and the Supply Side of Employment

Tyler Cowen points to  a study that looks at low skill workers in rich vs poor societies look at the propensity to work. The finding was that low skilled people are more likely to work in poorer societies.

He writes:
An alternative view, not mutually exclusive, is that in poor societies low-education workers simply have to take jobs, due to extreme need.

Recently, I was listening to The Glen Show, and the guest said that unemployment in some majority black parts of Chicago was over 30%!

Also according to Feakonomics illegal drug industry workers make less than minimum wage

Considering the above, is it plausible that the old conservative idea that welfare and minimum wage laws have had harmful effects on black Americans? That would be by blacks not working and gaining skills and by pushing them into the illegal sector.

This would be true for low skilled whites also but might be more damaging to blacks because of people propensity to use statistical discrimination.