I Almost Cannot Believe How Bad the Questioning was in this Interview of Bernie Sanders by Joe Rogan

Here's what I object to.

Let's start with the drug stuff:

First, I am a patent skeptic. It seems me that the patent system might not be worth the costs and especially now in pharmaceuticals, but I found the discussions of pharmaceuticals to be one sided.

The people who invested in developing pharmaceuticals (and that includes those who invested in stock of pharmaceutical companies and pharmaceutical companies in research and marketing) with the understanding that they would be allowed to charge what the market would bear, get no mention. And it real does not matter how much or how little they I put into development, the agreement was what it was. But no questions in that direction form Rogan.

Now I believe that we should discuss ending patents, that would be no more giving of patents after some date but no questions about that either.

Sanders says that the new drugs are mostly me too drugs. If the new drugs are mostly me too drugs, as he says, then people should buy the generics that are off patent, and the current system is fine. That's somewhat contradictory, you'd think an interviewer would ask about that.

BTW Drug prices usually fall when drugs go off patent. Over 84% of drugs that Americans buy today are off patent.The prices often fall 80% or 90% when the drug goes off patent.

Deaths of Despair

Sanders talks about deaths of despair due to low earning opportunities.

New Hampshire was the highest earning state in 2016 AND number 2 in opioid OD deaths. Dear Angus Deaton with all due respect you might consider reassessing your deaths of despair theory. It never made much sense to me, there is in fact some evidence that people drink and drug more when they have more income and therefore access to booze and drugs, which is BTW a problem for my advocacy of legalization but I think the positives would out weigh the negatives.  

New Hampshire is one of the wealthiest sates and low in inequality too, if it's deaths of despair, how is New Hampshire is number two. You would think an interviewer would ask about that gaping hole in Sanders' story.

College Debt

Sanders goes on about college debt.

College debt is federal Government created problem. As far as college debt if you treated college loans like other, loans dischargeable in bankruptcy, have the Government stop guaranteeing them:

• Then no one will lend eighteen year olds so much money
• Then colleges will reduce spending and lower tuition
• Then fewer marginal students will go to college
• Then culture will change and students will live four to a room. 

But none of that in the line of questioning. 

US Schools

Because the selection effect is so powerful in education we don't see it but a stron rational argument could made that the USA has best education in the world (See: The Amazing Truth About PISA Scores: USA Beats Western Europe, Ties with Asia) and BTW Florida has the best education among the USA states (Florida Number One in School Measure).

Rogan let's Sanders say just clearly wrong stuff through the interview almost everything else Bernie says is wrong and no follow up. Rogan kisses up to Sanders like he wants to the next Barbara Walters, who got interview powerful people because she would not ask though question except those that the powerful people knew that they needed to answer.

Bernie used to be a communist, now he is just a guy trying to get elected. He is one of the few national level politicians who are worse than Trump. 

Student Debt

To address student debt we need to move toward a point where we treat college loans like other loans. That is make them dischargeable in bankruptcy and stop Government from guaranteeing them. Then no one will lend students so much money, then colleges would reduce spending and lower tuition, then fewer marginal students would go to college, then culture will change and students would live 4 to a room (oh the horror).


Colleges could spend much less per student , some already do, and would if the money was not there.

In 2015–16, total expenses per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student were higher at private nonprofit 4-year postsecondary institutions ($56,401) than at public 4-year institutions ($44,009) and private for-profit 4-year institutions ($16,208).

They Have Always Lived Longer than Us

Advocates of single payer heath insurance for the USA often tell us that life expectancy is greater in the Scandinavian countries where they have universal health insurance but some of those countries had higher life expectancy that the USA before they had universal health insurance. The evidence that I've seen indicate that non-medical factors contribute much more to life expectancy that do medical care above the cheap basics of vaccinations and antibiotics and trauma care.

The global average life expectancy today is 71 years. In 1950 the global life expectancy was 46 years. And only two countries had a life expectancy higher than today’s average (Iceland and Norway with 72). My post:

Life Expectancy Globally

Link to tweet
https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1072974251051896832
https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1072974251051896832
https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1072974251051896832https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1072974251051896832

Could Salt Spray Prove Feasible Geoengineering

Salt Spray May Prove Most Feasible Geoengineering 

There are many ways to try and climate engineer the planet, but many of them are so far-fetched that scientists aren't sure if they would even be physically possible, let alone physically successful. Sea-salt climate engineering (SSCE) might be the most low-tech, and plausible, possibility.
In such a situation, specially designed unmanned boats would plow the seas, spraying salt water into the air. The water would evaporate and leave behind sea-salt particles, which may be lifted into the clouds, increasing their albedo, or reflecting power.

 Maybe it would work.

More Baumol Effect in Schooling and Healthcare

Alex by  Alex Tabarrok answers his critics: 

SlateStarCodex and Caplan on ‘Why Are the Prices So D*mn High?’

I think that the Baumol effect is big but you also need an increase in demand to make it explain the gerat majority (95%+) of the increase in spending on healthcare and schooling.  That is were Governments subsidizing demand contributes. Government does not subsidize demand for cars nearly as much as for schooling and healthcare.

If 95% of spending rise is dues to all the Baumol effect, we should ask what percent of the healthcare cost is direct labor? To look at a non the Baumol effect part of healthcare, drugs, drugs use very little direct labor, are drug prices are falling but very slowly.

So, I think it takes both rising demand and the Baumol effect to explain the increase in spedning.

BUT:

If it is 95%+ Baumol effect, since a lot of schooling healthcare seems to have such low bang for the buck. how do we lower demand AND increase efficiency.

Direct instruction and tutoring seems to work in schooling but there is little move in that direction AND is it totally irrational for a person to increase his life time consumption of non- healthcare stuff by say 12% and only use the most effective healthcare? I don't think that is irrational at all, the UK provides something like that though the NHS, though it provides much more than the one third that would save use 12% of spending. 

BTW there have also been a sharp rise in costs of road/subway construction which is mechanizing fast.

Am I Reading This Right?

Am I reading this right?

 In 2015–16, total expenses per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student were higher at private nonprofit 4-year postsecondary institutions ($56,401) than at public 4-year institutions ($44,009) and private for-profit 4-year institutions ($16,208).

Is the average expenditure per student in US state universities  $44,009/year? That seems so high.

The Baumol Effect on Schooling and Medicine

Alex Tabarrok with colleagues has done some research on the rising costs of healthcare and schooling and written a book available free online. Why Are the Prices so D*mn High.

He also did a blog post on the The Baumol Effect on Schooling and Medicine.

My comments:

What he says and seems correct to me is that the marginal cost of healthcare and schooling has gone up, and yes Government subsidies have made it worse. I think he is saying is that we are buying more healthcare beyond the growth in productivity. Some people assume that there is no productivity growth but there is, but we are spending more because we have more to spend and we desire to spend more so total spending is rising.

This hypothesis merges nicely with Robin Hanson's idea that we buy more healthcare in part to show how much we care, so we are now buying healthcare beyond the point where it even improves health, just because we want to spend more to show how much we care.

So in schooling, today we have youtube and easily available educational videos with great teachers available for free, which is great productivity growth, but if a live teacher helps even a tiny bit over an online lecture we are willing to pay for it and so spending is rising.

A few examples of this in action is:

The great economist Alan Bennett Krueger's research showed no benefit of Ivy league schools over state schools but parents are willing to pay big bucks to get there child in and through Ivy league schools. (I think so they can get a little more to brag about.)

Even in k-12 people spend more to get a home in a good school district even though it seems to make little difference in measurable educational attainment. 

In healthcare we'll pay a lot to get the MD we want, and if a live MD is perceived as giving any benefit at all over telemedicine we will pay for it.

Also they will screen fragile 85 year old women for breast cancer etc. even though any treatment is likely to kill the patient.

If you wanted to improve poor people's health there are much better places to do that more and better police, safer cars, than access to healthcare yet there is a big push for more healthcare.