Doing the rounds on Mises circuit I am usually identified as a liberal or a person from the left. I don’t really much care so I take that ID.
However, I think its interesting to note that Reihan Salam lays out a conservative vision for what ails America that I agree with.
(1) . . .a series of federal (subsidies for mortgage debt) and local (zoning restrictions, rent regulations, etc.) interventions have made affordable, high-quality housing scarce in many of the countries most productive and regions regions . . .
(2) Resistance to HOT lanes, private toll roads, etc., exacerbates the accessibility problem by forcing us to rely on slow-moving public bureaucracies that face a number of political imperatives that compel them to, among other things, deploy labor inefficiently, devote resources to projects that aren’t cost-effective, etc.
(3) Allowing for more specialized educational providers and providing parents with flexible K-12 Spending Accounts (KSAs) could help drive down the cost and quality of education.
(4) By transitioning to competitive pricing in Medicare and catastrophic insurance for all but the sickest and poorest under-65s, we would in theory encourage the emergence of low-cost business models for the provision of medical care,
(5) Per the Chen and Chevalier research, we could take a number of steps to attack the supply constraints on the number of licensed medical providers,. . . More aggressively, we could further empower nurse practitioners and physician assistants to undertake work that is currently the province of physicians.
(6) Reform of the FDA could drive down the cost of developing new drug therapies, making them more accessible.
(7) And I imagine that patent reform would have a salutary impact on middle class in all kinds of unpredictable ways.
I think number (4) is more or less a waste of time but I am not really against it. Perhaps ironically, I think people focus way too much on the demand side in health care. The demand side is too dominated by signaling and emotionality to get any traction. The supply side is where all the action is.
Now I am largely in favor of redistribution, but as always I ask – what’s wrong with cash?
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
Thursday ~ September 15th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Curt Doolittle
Karl.
??? Why is that important (other than by engaging the Misesians, that you position yourself well). The Rothbardian wing of the Libertarians are radicals – anarchists. And from the extreme right, everyone else looks left.
But you’re a moderate. You’re a classical liberal. In current labels, if you were a little less comfortable with totalitarianism, you’d be part of the Neo-Classical Liberal movement. (See “Bleeding heart libertarians”.) And your belief that we should overthrow the electorate in order to ‘do what’s good for them’ simply proves that you’re a totalitarian. If people prefer what’s bad for them, then that’s OK. RIght now, they prefer to punish their government. You seem to think that’s stupid. But it’s not. It’s just a choice. And that’s what makes the difference between a libertarian and a totalitarian. So, for example, it’s pretty clear that a muslim political majority is economically disastrous for any society that was previously christian. Do you feel that the people have the right then, to demand a mulsim government if empirically, it would be bad for them? Likewise, the economic movements in asia that have succeed have been lead by their Christian minorities. So, if Americans want to limit their government if it imposes upon them a cost, then why shouldn’t they?
That set of questions illustrates the difference between reason and scientism. Scientism being a pejorative.
Democratic socialists have co-opted the term ‘liberal’ from Classical Liberalism. Hayek also used the term Libertarian. Rothbard created the Libertarian Manifesto and effectively co-opted the term. Leaving those of us that are neo-classical liberals (bleeding hearts so to speak) without a name.
In the end, in any calculation, from the most numeric to the most heuristic, we must solve for *something*. Some people solve for more freedom over longer periods of time, and others for less freedom and more consumption in the near term. You’re part of the latter group. But I suspect that you’re from the latter group only because you’re enamored of your methods, and ignorant of the long term consequences of the policies you advocate.
I don’t advocate redistribution out of an arbitrary sense of empathy – empathy is a weak means of perception in an economy. I do so because propertarian theory helps me understand that redistribution is necessary simply because the system of property rights imposes a cost on individuals and if they respect property rights then should have dividends on their investment. The problem is that these investments must be calculable. This is not something you are familiar with most likely, (the socialist calculation debate) but pooling of money, and general liquidity are both means of creating incalculable relationships between ends and means. And as such they partly destroy the patterns of information needed for an economy. So, if you want to get money into an economy, then do so in a way that is calculable – by low interest loans in areas of the economy that will provide people with what they desire AND need.
Cheers.
Thursday ~ September 15th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Lord
About as “liberal” as Gregg Mankiw, Scott Sumner, or Bruce Bartlett, which is to say conservative until rational became a dirty word to the right.
Thursday ~ September 15th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
teageegeepea
I haven’t observed as much right-wing enmity toward Sumner or Mankiw as Bartlett. And I’m someone who has defended Bartlett a couple times at Tino’s blog.
I agree with Curt though. The standards at Mises are going to be different. I’d say you fall in the broad neoliberal camp, in many ways resembling the median economist that Bryan Caplan suggests should be the guide to economic policy. I suggest you bring up your closer agreement with the median economist whenever possible in discussion with him. Not that he’d find it at all persuasive or embarrassing (his post “Am I Ouroboros?” discusses that), it would just be amusing.
Saturday ~ September 17th, 2011 at 9:34 am
Lord
Sumner isn’t on their radar screens and Mankiw turns silent when anything he might say might get him rejected from the next administration post while Bartlett loves the fight.
Thursday ~ September 15th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Justin
What’s wrong with cash?
Hyperbolic time discounting.
Thursday ~ September 15th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Rick Russell
> people focus way too much on the demand side in health care
I’m so glad somebody else sees this. People go to the doctor when they are sick or injured, or for routine preventative reasons. Aside from that, if you take away the incredibly lucrative incentives that doctors have to refer their patients for tests and procedures of limited health benefit, there is every rational reason to believe that the demand side of health care will heal itself.
People say that medical costs are the result of the demographic disaster, an aging population supported by a lean younger generation. But even the most basic statistical analysis shows that this is not so; for example on a state-by-state basis there is almost no correlation between average medical costs and fraction of population over 65:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/a-_wsv2e4tDsFr33rcrnlA?feat=directlink
Heck, the correlation between health care costs and latitude is *vastly* greater than the correlation between health care costs and fraction of older population.
Some tiny fraction of US citizens might be clinically pathological hypochondriacs that really do absorb far more health care than they need, but we can’t drive policy with rare exception cases.
Friday ~ September 16th, 2011 at 7:17 am
Benny Lava
I am not a liberal but when I disagree with the Mises folks they call me that. I am not a Keynesian but when I disagree with the Austrians they call me that. Why do you think that is?