« New money does not have to enter the loanable funds market | Main | San Agustin Oapan, update »
How well do they feed the Marines?
I do not know. Or how about the Army, Navy, or Air Force?
But my suspicion is this: if you are in the Armed Services, you have the chance to eat better than the average American. Not at gourmet levels, but better than the median. Better taste and better nutrition. The median person in the United States eats some pretty bad food.
And how much does this food cost our government and thus our taxpayers? Again, I am curious to hear what you know. But I've read lots of stories about thousand dollar hammers and toilet seats, but I have never heard a peep about the Pentagon paying $70 for a Brussels Sprout.
So, I'll also predict that this food comes at reasonable cost. We therefore seem to have above-average food service at OK prices.
Given that possibility (fact?), how many of you would advocate government provision of food for the entire economy? How many of you would advocate government-run food finance for everyone, and not just for the poor?
Show of hands?
How many of you know what I am really talking about in this post?
Don't forget this post either.
Addendum: The successes of the VA system stem most of all from avoiding the cost-escalating features of "fee-for-service" for medical suppliers, and not from its single-payer features. Not so many people are willing to advocate abolishing fee-for-service for most of the medical sector; here is further discussion. But unless you abolish fee-for-service, the successes of the VA system are not a replicable model on a larger scale. And it is much easier to workably abolish fee-for-service within the Armed Services than across the entire U.S. medical sector.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 3, 2008 at 06:13 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
As the son of a son of a sailor, and Naval Reservist myself,
I feel more attention should be paid the VA health system,
as it is an instructive prototype for any of these various
universal health programs.
It's a mixed bag at best. You really can argue it any way
you want in the freedom/cost/value tradespace: the answer
ends up being subjective.
My contention is that, unless
a proposal is an unambiguous win, then the less gubmint, the better.
Posted by: c smith at Jan 3, 2008 7:00:51 AM
And what if you make Army-level food available as a basic provision for all Americans, but allow people to opt out if they like - what then?
Posted by: Ray at Jan 3, 2008 7:08:14 AM
While I am not cognizant of the economics of food purchasing done by the armed services, I can definitely vouch that the food served there (at least as of eight years ago, when my service ended) is usually well-prepared, seemingly nutritious, and I had no complaints about it all. I was stationed on Fort Bragg for most of my term, but the food in Egypt, at the MFO dining facility in South Camp, is some of the best food I've ever eaten in anywhere, even better than in some so-called high-end restaurants. They had broiled, fresh fish there that was to die for.
Posted by: Mike at Jan 3, 2008 7:08:55 AM
When I was stateside in the Army, I ate food prepared by contractors which I would rate as average cafeteria food-- better than I got in dorms in college, not as good as most for-profit cafeterias.
In Germany the grub was made by fellow soldiers who were cooks by trade. Lunch and dinner were about the same, but breakfast was pretty good. Made to order omelets made with fresh local eggs (I think-- the yolks were red).
Cook was a pretty bad MOS to have. Bad hours. More hazardous than you'd think (one of ours set himself on fire in the field with a portable mo-gas heater.) Not surprisingly, it was one of the easiest jobs to get. When I signed up I had my pick of jobs based on my ASVAB, but when I insisted on limiting my enlistment to 2 years, the list of possibilities was cut to 6. I chose combat engineer, but I could have been a cook, and cook was the only job on that list where I could've chosen my duty station. I probably would've been dumb enough to have stayed in Oklahoma and missed out on Europe, so I'm glad I went the route I did.
Posted by: burger flipper at Jan 3, 2008 7:57:43 AM
You are also given little to no choice in what food you eat. Trying being a vegetarian or other restrictive style diet in the Army. When I was in most guys would still go out for dinner, if they could, despite it being free, just to eat something different.
Also the quality of food could vary significantly from Dining Facility to Dining Facility. You quickly learned which ones were better and then went to those (even though you really weren't supposed to).
Posted by: apostate at Jan 3, 2008 8:07:11 AM
Specious analogy alert!
Posted by: neil at Jan 3, 2008 8:26:00 AM
The VA doesn't supply medical care to the armed services. It supplies it to veterans. That isn't the same thing.
Posted by: matt wilbert at Jan 3, 2008 8:27:11 AM
It's the military health care system (not VA) that brought us Walter Reed.
Posted by: Chris at Jan 3, 2008 8:50:16 AM
One of my students was recently assigned to a base in kuwait and is now in southern iraq; he informs me that the kuwait base was almost like a US-style shopping mall with a wide-variety of private firms and fast-food choices, like pizza hut, taco bell, and even starbucks. So it looks like with regard to tyler's posting, it's the other way around!
Posted by: enrique at Jan 3, 2008 9:16:28 AM
There's also the pesky fact that if one considers a military to be a legitimate public good (current military endeavors notwithstanding) then one must also, as a corollary, consider medical care for veterans a public good to the extent that the care is required subsequent to military service (e.g., combat injuries).
Which has absolutely nothing to do with universal health care -- which is an altogether different policy based on an altogether different worldview about the proper scope of government and individual rights.
Stated differently, the VA is nothing but an insolent non sequitur illegitimately invoked by health care socialists.
Posted by: KipEsquire at Jan 3, 2008 9:39:33 AM
The VA has improved, but it would not be a good model for anything but... the VA.
And with the chuckleheads in the Bush administration failing to provide more downstream resources to account for Iraq casualties, the VA is going to be in trouble soon.
Of course the war is only gonna cost $40B because it will be over in a few months and we will get the oil dividend - per Dick Cheney.
Posted by: save_the_rustbelt at Jan 3, 2008 10:04:40 AM
The capitation-based argument makes a lot of sense. Why does this work for the VA, but not for HMOs? I'd always assumed (I've never belonged to one) that they were supposed to keep costs down through capitation.
Posted by: MostlyAPragmatist at Jan 3, 2008 10:16:10 AM
My military experience ended three decades ago, so I'm not sure how relevant it is. Food at my three Air Force bases was much more nutritious than what I ate as a child or as a college student. My unit was detached to an Army post for months, and the food was nowhere near as tasty.
Over the past 35 years, Navy veteran friends have frequently praised the quality of food on board ships. They explained that living in close quarters was a strain on morale, and the Navy wanted to ensure that meals enhanced rather than detracted from the experience.
Similarly, oil companies generally hire quality chefs for offshore oil platforms. My relatives who worked offshore all gained weight.
Posted by: John Dewey at Jan 3, 2008 10:54:35 AM
The fact that medical care is better (and less expensive) in the VA system than in the rest of the U.S. does NOT mean that government provided health care is necessarily better for everyone.
However, it is an "existence proof" that government health care is NOT necessarily worse. Some idealogues assume that anything done by the gov't must, automatically, be worse than the private sector. This is provable false.
There are lots of reasons for and against single payer medical care. When people refer to the VA system, they don't intend that example to be the entire argument. Rather, it is an empirical refutation of the mistaken claim that gov't health care must be worse.
As for food, when I took my first economics course, I was taught that giving cash was always better than giving in-kind benefits. This is standard libertarian/neoclassical reasoning.
Now I believe that view to be mistaken. If it's my money I'm spending or directing, and my own utility is increased by seeing it spent on food instead of liquor or drugs, then why not insist that the money be spent that way, even if the recipient has different preferences? So yes, I could imagine funding gov't soup kitchens as an option for the very poor.
Posted by: A student of economics at Jan 3, 2008 10:57:51 AM
Another huge advantage of the VA is that it is almost 100% utilized--that's why it is so hard to get into the system. Spare capacity is expensive; the VA deals with the issue by letting acute care be done by non-VA providers.
Posted by: SamChevre at Jan 3, 2008 11:23:27 AM
The VA knows that its customers/patients are patients for life. For the VA is worth tracking and preventing issues that may be more expensive to deal with later on. Other insurers may prefer to pay zero now, punt and hope the consumer changes jobs/insurance/whatever before the expensive shit hits the fan.
Posted by: rms at Jan 3, 2008 11:32:00 AM
A favorite memory of mine from Parris Island boot camp 15+ years ago was the senior drill instructor's contempt for the re-modeling of the chow hall: "it'll probably be some Arby's-looking bullshit."
Posted by: Parris_Island at Jan 3, 2008 11:53:12 AM
Typical base chow hall food was not disgusting nor was it absolutely appetizing either. It was just good enough to eat. Although, as a Marine, we always looked forward to backyard operations that took place on an airbase since the Airmen had the best chow halls we had ever seen.
On a typical Marine Corp base, the chow hall was outsourced to sodexho, the same company at Mason's Ciao Hall. The food was never outstanding unless it was seafood. Most foods are cooked by steam as they can make a lot through small amount of work. Steaming a steak that has marks as if it is grilled isn't too appetizing, but steaming/boiling crab legs is delicious.
In the field, the food is cooked similarly. There isnt any real cooking. The eggs are in containers that are slid through a machine that uses steam to heat it up. It was edible and better to eat than MRE's(Meal Ready to Eat packages) so we always enjoyed it when the Mess tent was finally built.
By the way, there are so many fast food restaurants outside military bases because chow halls close too early. By late evening the Marines are still hungry and always make a run to the border. Chow hall isn't free as it is taking out of our paychecks before we see it. I would have rather kept the money and purchased my own food. Also note that some Marines got married just so they didn't have to live by the rules of the barracks and have to eat from the Chow Hall.
Posted by: Ian Dunois at Jan 3, 2008 12:20:17 PM
"Now I believe that view to be mistaken. If it's my money I'm spending or directing, and my own utility is increased by seeing it spent on food instead of liquor or drugs, then why not insist that the money be spent that way, even if the recipient has different preferences?"
1. Infantizing a population can have long term negative social effects.
2. It is far easier to insert pork into services vs. cash payouts. For example, a national soup kitchen program could lead food suppliers to bribe politicians in order to get overpriced contracts.
3. Government services are destructive to diversity. Is this soup kitchen going to accomidate Kosher diets? Hallal? Vegetarians and Vegans? People with peanut alergies? People on the Atkins diet? If you don't accomidate my religious restrictions against eating noodles because it is an affront to the flying spaggeti monster, add a hundred million dollar class-action lawsuit for violating the religious freedoms of pastafarians.
Posted by: Rex Rhino at Jan 3, 2008 12:57:03 PM
The VA does its magic through what can best be described as "line shifting". Let's say you are a WWII veteran who is entitled to some VA support and care because of a disease like Parkinson's. You, your spouse, your extended family and any attorneys you might have at your disposal will not be able to find, complete, or file the correct forms. So you contract with an outside care provider that skims 30% off the top in administrative fees to get you through the VA application and then hire in-home care you need. Or, you go to the county veteran's affairs liaison and wait for a day in line at his office for help figuring out the process. I've seen it first hand. All the inefficiencies are pushed to the line to get in the door. Today, veterans with common sense who have the means to access private insurance and care do just that, but try to keep the door open to the VA in case they contract an illness that the VA pays special attention to. Giant PITA. Any politician who touts the VA as a model for anything is smoking crack.
Posted by: Brad Hutchings at Jan 3, 2008 1:33:38 PM
As Matt said, the VA does NOT provide health care to active duty armed services.
And from what I've heard, while the VA has world-class information systems, the armed forces have pretty bad health information systems. So just having "government" run the system doesn't ensure good management. My guess is the VA just got lucky and had some extraordinarily good leaders for a while.
Posted by: ed at Jan 3, 2008 1:36:57 PM
But my suspicion is this: if you are in the Armed Services, you have the chance to eat better than the average American. Not at gourmet levels, but better than the median. Better taste and better nutrition. The median person in the United States eats some pretty bad food.
Why would you presume this? Isn't it unlikely that one centralised authority could choose food more effectively free people with free choices? For nutrition, yes it's possible. But, of course, for many people food is about much more than nutrition. If you start from this premise, I think you need to explain why people are failing to select well for themselves. Otherwise its a weak basis for an argument.
Posted by: Simon at Jan 3, 2008 2:21:09 PM
All I know is...
"The Navy gets the gravy but the Army gets the beans!"
Posted by: DG at Jan 3, 2008 2:31:56 PM
There are a couple of comments above that when combined generate significant insight into the nature of state run health care.
SamChevre points out that the VA is very efficient in large part because it operates at very high utilization rates. There are two possible explanations for how this is achieved.
(1) The government provides just the right level of capacity required to exactly meet demand.
(2) Demand exceeds capacity and access is rationed
As Brad Hutchings observes the correct explanation is option 2. The VA practices rationing by severely restricting access to the system.
Efficiency and access are desirable but mutually exclusive goals.
I grew up in New Zealand which has a universal access "socialized medicine" system. The New Zealand health care system is also very efficient due to very high utilization rates. However, since access is universal the inevitable rationing occurs through the use of waiting lists.
People without direct experience of waiting for health care do not tend to consider this a big concern. However, access to health care is a huge political issue in New Zealand. The following data gives some indication of why.
Cancer Radiation Treatment Wait Times September 07:
(http://www.moh.govt.nz/cancerwaitingtimes)
Category A = Urgent
Category B = Curative
Category C = Palliative and other radical
Category D = Combined chemotherapy and radiation treatment
100% of Category A patients waited less than 4 weeks
69% of Category B patients waited less than 4 weeks
28% of Category B patients waited less than 8 weeks
3% of Category B patients waited less than 12 weeks
81% of Category C patients waited less than 4 weeks
15% of Category C patients waited less than 8 weeks
3% of Category C patients waited less than 12 weeks
1% of Category C patients waited more than 12 weeks
35% of Category D patients waited less than 4 weeks
24% of Category D patients waited less than 8 weeks
12% of Category D patients waited less than 12 weeks
30% of Category D patients waited more than 12 weeks
There are certain points that should be highlighted about this data:
- In New Zealand, if you are in urgent need of radiation treatment for your imminently lethal cancer 4 weeks is considered an acceptable waiting time.
- Waiting times for category D patients aren't considered overly important because they are receiving some form of treatment (chemotherapy) even though the optimum treatment would include radiation.
- Category C patients are considered important because they have a nasty habit of turning into Category A & B patients while waiting for treatment.
- These figures represent the state of affairs after a major scandal forced the government to pour resources into reducing radiation treatment waiting times.
- Radiation treatment centers in New Zealand are very efficient due to 100% utilization rates.
Efficiency has a very steep price.
Posted by: Deepish Thinker at Jan 3, 2008 2:44:07 PM
How much of the VA's positive perception has to do with the fact that the VA measures itself against the private sector? In other words, without the private health care system, as an example and as a force for medical and logistic innovation, just how good would the VA be? Would it even have attracted administrators who are interested in maintaining a positive perception?
Posted by: Rimfax at Jan 3, 2008 4:02:31 PM
You wrote "But my suspicion is this: if you are in the Armed Services, you have the chance to eat better than the average American. Not at gourmet levels, but better than the median. Better taste and better nutrition. The median person in the United States eats some pretty bad food."
I know you're trying to make a point here about health-care, but I had trouble getting past "The median person eats some pretty bad food." I split my residence between a middle class suburb of DC and one of the poorer counties of rural West Virginia, and if I had to guess I would say that the median person in America eats pretty well - if they choose to. I'm not sure at what percentile of income level three decent nutritious meals is simply too expensive, I don't know but I'm pretty sure its below the median.
Okay, I'm past that, now on to health care. Fortunately there are many, many different models for providing basic health care to a nation's citizens out there available for study. The hard part is defining what our ultimate goal is. Do we want a plan that covers everyone? What should be included in the plan? Should there be co-pays? How much? etc., etc. This should be our very first step in the discussion. But we know it won't be.
Posted by: Trakker at Jan 3, 2008 4:13:37 PM
You wrote "But my suspicion is this: if you are in the Armed Services, you have the chance to eat better than the average American. Not at gourmet levels, but better than the median. Better taste and better nutrition. The median person in the United States eats some pretty bad food."
I know you're trying to make a point here about health-care, but I had trouble getting past "The median person eats some pretty bad food." I split my residence between a middle class suburb of DC and one of the poorer counties of rural West Virginia, and if I had to guess I would say that the median person in America eats pretty well - if they choose to. I'm not sure at what percentile of income level three decent nutritious meals is simply too expensive, I don't know but I'm pretty sure its below the median.
Okay, I'm past that, now on to health care. Fortunately there are many, many different models for providing basic health care to a nation's citizens out there available for study. The hard part is defining what our ultimate goal is. Do we want a plan that covers everyone? What should be included in the plan? Should there be co-pays? How much? etc., etc. This should be our very first step in the discussion. But we know it won't be.
Posted by: Trakker at Jan 3, 2008 4:14:27 PM
You wrote "But my suspicion is this: if you are in the Armed Services, you have the chance to eat better than the average American. Not at gourmet levels, but better than the median. Better taste and better nutrition. The median person in the United States eats some pretty bad food."
I know you're trying to make a point here about health-care, but I had trouble getting past "The median person eats some pretty bad food." I split my residence between a middle class suburb of DC and one of the poorer counties of rural West Virginia, and if I had to guess I would say that the median person in America eats pretty well - if they choose to. I'm not sure at what percentile of income level three decent nutritious meals is simply too expensive, I don't know but I'm pretty sure its below the median.
Okay, I'm past that, now on to health care. Fortunately there are many, many different models for providing basic health care to a nation's citizens out there available for study. The hard part is defining what our ultimate goal is. Do we want a plan that covers everyone? What should be included in the plan? Should there be co-pays? How much? etc., etc. This should be our very first step in the discussion. But we know it won't be.
Posted by: Trakker at Jan 3, 2008 4:14:46 PM
You wrote "But my suspicion is this: if you are in the Armed Services, you have the chance to eat better than the average American. Not at gourmet levels, but better than the median. Better taste and better nutrition. The median person in the United States eats some pretty bad food."
I know you're trying to make a point here about health-care, but I had trouble getting past "The median person eats some pretty bad food." I split my residence between a middle class suburb of DC and one of the poorer counties of rural West Virginia, and if I had to guess I would say that the median person in America eats pretty well - if they choose to. I'm not sure at what percentile of income level three decent nutritious meals is simply too expensive, I don't know but I'm pretty sure its below the median.
Okay, I'm past that, now on to health care. Fortunately there are many, many different models for providing basic health care to a nation's citizens out there available for study. The hard part is defining what our ultimate goal is. Do we want a plan that covers everyone? What should be included in the plan? Should there be co-pays? How much? etc., etc. This should be our very first step in the discussion. But we know it won't be.
Posted by: Trakker at Jan 3, 2008 4:15:02 PM
You keep trying to draw analogies and make comparisons that may or may not apply.
Why?
We already have a system of government health care in the US. It is called Medicare.
Why don't you just go directly to that and demonstrate how it is so much worse than the private health care system?
Could it be that such a direct comparison does not reach the conclusions that you would like it to reach?
Posted by: spencer at Jan 3, 2008 4:16:01 PM
A student of economics...I think you misunderstand what economists mean by "utility". By definition, utility is a function that maps preference relations onto the real line, along with some very basic assumptions (i.e., if A is preferred to B, then B is not preferred to A). A preference is a relation that (in its strict form) implies that A is preferred to B by an agent if A R B.
If an agent can decide whether she prefers A to B for all feasible bundles of goods, and the agent has a utility function, then it's not possible, under the very simplest economics assumptions, to have the agent "prefer" some bundle when it lowers their utility.
"Notes on Choice" is a fairly straightforward work that delves into these topics, but you can also check out Ariel Rubinstein's free micro textbook (the first few chapters in particular).
Posted by: cure at Jan 3, 2008 5:06:10 PM
Of course the US army is well fed. It's an all-volunteer army and its military performance can still make or break an administration. The US government has every incentive to provide food and health care for the soldiers at a level that keeps them reasonably healthy.
Has the US government (or any government, for that matter) an incentive to feed the entire population? Probably to some extent, some of the time; but the evidence from communist countries isn't encouraging. Well-fed people are assertive.
As are people in good health, but the connection between access to health care and health isn't as obvious, so there is no direct disincentive for the government to provide adequate health care. Quite on the contrary: Providing health care can raise approval ratings, but only if the quality of care that is provided is deemed satisfactory. If it's not, the government will be held responsible for any shortcoming presently attributed to the market. People's capacity to place demands on the state is unlimited, while their willingness to pay taxes is not, so rationing is a question of when and how much, not if, and the government would be held responsible.
Any government-run health care system is a political headache waiting to happen, and the existence of such systems can mostly be traced to times when medical technology was far less advanced than today and/or there were serious social and political tensions to defuse. Neither of which seems to describe the situation in the US as of 2008.
So no, neither army food nor army health care can likely be extended to the general population.
Posted by: Dagmar Alpen at Jan 3, 2008 5:07:03 PM
DoD contracts out almost all of their dining facilities nowadays. It is very rare to have actual uniformed cooks except for special situations like naval vessels. If you are on an Army base and eating in a dining facility chances are that a major defense contractor is the one cooking your meals.
You might also be interested to know that the military also provides cash in lieu of services/food to some servicemembers. Officers receive on or about $180/mo tax free as a food allowance while enlisted receive somewhat more, around $250+ I think. Officers receive this amount as a flat ration, however for enlisted servicemembers when government provided meals are not available they are given the tax free food allowance instead.
Posted by: Jon at Jan 3, 2008 5:29:44 PM
"Why does this work for the VA, but not for HMOs? I'd always assumed (I've never belonged to one) that they were supposed to keep costs down through capitation."
As somebody already mentioned, the HMO has no assurance you'll be around long enough for their investment to pay off. In fact, in my case, I've been in 2 HMOs, 2 PPOs, and one PPO-like high-deductible plan, just in the last 6 years. (only 4 jobs during that time; but twice the job changed insurance plans - and the most recent job change was the direct result of such a medical change).
Posted by: M1EK at Jan 3, 2008 5:50:40 PM
The median person in the United States eats some pretty bad food.
I'm guessing this isn't the final draft for a new paper.
Posted by: David Andersen at Jan 3, 2008 5:56:37 PM
"But my suspicion is this: if you are in the Armed Services, you have the chance to eat better than the average American."
Feh. If you are the average American, you also have the chance to eat better than the average American. You'd just rather eat stuff that average Americans like.
Posted by: mobile at Jan 3, 2008 6:24:38 PM
cure at 5:06pm
I do understand utility, but I must not have written my comment clearly. What I mean is that I (the provider of funds, e.g. the taxpayer) prefer that the recipient have food. It increases MY utility to see him eat. Meanwhile, the recipient may prefer to have liquor or cocaine. That would increase HIS utility. The traditional neoclassical argument that intro economics courses often make is that we should give poor people money, not food, if we want to maximize their utility. That is what they prefer. Supposedly it is a pareto improvement to give money instead of, say, food or healthcare: seemingly the same cost to donor, potentially greater value to recipient. That's typically where the argument triumphantly ends, with the implication that programs that provide in-kind services are at odds with economics.
What I am saying is that MY utility is not maximized if recipients spend charity on liquor or cocaine. Thus, there is no conflict with utility maximization, or economics generally, to give benefits in-kind. Giving money may make the donor worse-off than giving food or healthcare.
Does that make sense to you?
Incidentally, this is all using standard neoclassical reasoning, except the common, if often hidden, assumption that people don't care about other people (no altruism or envy makes the math much easier). Although I don't do so to make my case, one could add behavorial economic arguments as well, e.g. recipient may actually wish they could avoid alcohol and would "prefer" not to have the choice (that is, they have time-inconsistent preferences, which has been well-documented and which, regrettably, conflicts with neo-classsical frameworks such as Ariel Rubinstein's).
Similarly, some people, outside the military at least, may become "infantilized" by getting certain goods, instead of getting cash, etc. There might also be various incentive and control costs and benefits of limiting spending to predefined categories instead of completely fungible cash. But that's a different argument.
Posted by: A student of economics at Jan 3, 2008 7:37:17 PM
I can understand why you may not want to respond to some of the...snarkier comments, but I - and I'm sure many others - are still curious. When you wrote this post, were you under the impression that the VA provides medical care to active duty soldiers?
Posted by: J at Jan 3, 2008 10:16:37 PM
Yeah and the average american views 6 hours of TV per day, is overweight, believes TV preachers and calls heating up packaged food cookin......The great food for the army comes from Sodexo for the most part and other contractors. Nope not $60.00 bucks for brussels sprouts but about $13 per meal on average..........
Posted by: Robert C at Jan 4, 2008 12:14:13 AM
What I am saying is that MY utility is not maximized if recipients spend charity on liquor or cocaine. Thus, there is no conflict with utility maximization, or economics generally, to give benefits in-kind. Giving money may make the donor worse-off than giving food or healthcare.
I'm impressed that you are willing to own up to valuing smug self-satisfaction of the donor over the utility of the recipient.
This reminds me of the time I was out on a scavenger hunt at 3 in the morning and ran into a guy asking for money so he could buy a hot dog because he hadn't eaten in a couple of days. Since one of the items on my scavenger hunt list was to buy dinner for a stranger, I eagerly agreed and asked where we might go that I could buy him the hot dog. Taken aback, he quickly said that it was too late and everything was closed, so I should just give him cash so he could buy it later. Knowing that this was a lie, I called the referee of the scavenger hunt to see if my provision of cash for the later obtainment of a meal would satisfy the rules. He gave me the OK, and I handed the stranger $5 and my teammates took a polaroid of us to prove the interaction had occurred. We both left the exchange with our utilities' fully maximised.
Posted by: Christina at Jan 4, 2008 12:46:30 PM
"I'm impressed that you are willing to own up to valuing smug self-satisfaction..."
Gee, you almost make me feel like I should be ashamed about preferring to help other people to eat instead of to do cocaine.
Almost.
Posted by: A student of economics at Jan 4, 2008 2:40:28 PM
I'm also impressed Student, no snark, If people were more honest about their objectives my job (I'm a govt. policy analyst) would be much easier.
The difference between the economics view and yours, as I think you have grasped, is that you are trying to solve different problems. An economist is asked "how best to help the poor?" and suggests giving them cash. If you ask "how best to make me feel good while helping the poor in some way?" you get something more like your answer. Different answer, different solution. If you don't want to feel bad about it, don't. You still want to help the poor and I see no moral failing in wanting to feel good.
I also wanted to echo the thoughts of deepish thinker above. To add a NZ anecdote to the data offered above, last year my great-Uncle was diagnosed with a heart condition that necessitated a quadruple bypass. The public hospital waiting time was 12-18 months. The odds of him surviving this long were not so good. Lucky for us he was insured. A poorer New Zealander in the same circumstances would probably have died waiting for their "universal" health care. I would also like to reiterate that health waiting times are becomming an area of major public attention here so this appears to be the best they can do. We also get poorer services - for instance you can't get an MRI in a public hospital.
In all fairness I would expect a government funded system to be more efficient than a government run one like ours, but some part of this problem will remain: government funded healthcare will either be prohibatively expensive or come with limitations that I suspect Americans will find intolerable. Reform is needed, but the answer lies elsewhere.
Posted by: JWK at Jan 4, 2008 4:20:19 PM
JWK: with all do respect, I think it is an insult to economics to suggest that the "economics view" necessarily rules out altruism as a perfectly legitimate preference that people have, and one that enters into the social welfare function.
It's true that introductory models often assume that an individual's utility is unaffected by consumption by other people (i.e. there is zero altruism or envy). This is done in order to make the mathematics of general equilibrium tractable, not because it is an accurate description of the world. Starting with this assumption, one can come to conclusions such as "money transfers to the poor are better than in kind transfers" that you reference. As you note, this frames the question too narrowly by assuming there are no effects on other's utility.
Unfortunately, I've noticed that far too many people think that the assumption that their is no altruism is a positive description of what it means to be "rational", or worse yet, a normative implication about how people should behave.
IMHO, a proper understanding of economics certainly encompasses all types of preferences. In particular, it's manifestly obvious that people do care about other people's consumption. Indeed, that's a primary rationale for giving even money transfers. But if that's the case, and maximizing utility is the goal, then it would be internally inconsistent to ignore the utility of some of the population (i.e. the donors) when assessing social welfare. Their altruism is just as legitimate as any other component of utility.
One of the weaknesses of the way economics is often taught is that many people never get past the intro economics course with its simplifying assumption (made for mathematical convenience) and erroneously come away with the impression that those assumption are meant to be descriptions of rational behavior or even recommendations for policy.
Bottom line: there is no difference between my view and the "economics view", properly understood. This is true even if one defines economics narrowly to include only the neoclassical framework, let alone if one opens the door to behavioral economics.
Posted by: A student of economics at Jan 4, 2008 5:17:05 PM
As Jon stated earlier, all military members who do NOT eat at "Dining Facilities" on post/base/ship (including those deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan) receive a monthly flat-fee "allowance" for food (BAS, or Basic Allowance for Subsistence, "designed to continue the military tradition of providing room and board for service members as part of their pay...As of January 1, 2002, all enlisted military members in a good status draw a full BAS monthly rate Officers - $187.49 and Enlisted-$272.26). One thing he did NOT mention is the Commissary, the on-base supermarket run by DECA. This facility usually sells items at cost, without markup or taxes, and buys DoD-wide for a large savings from US food vendors. This benefit is open to all Active-Duty service-members and their direct family members, as well as retired military and their family. Prices are at least equivalent to almost all supermarkets in the US, and a wide variety of national brands of food are usually available at below cost (15-45%, from my experience). This is also available at posts/bases in Europe and Asia (Germany, Japan, etc). SO, those who utilize this supermarket can eat as well as (or as bad as) anyone else in America.
Just one more point; every military member is first screened MEDICALLY before being allowed to join the service. Those are the individuals who are eventually seen in the VA system; their family members, who are NOT pre-screened, are not eligible for medical care from the VA.
Posted by: cas at Jan 5, 2008 2:26:10 PM
Student: I essentially agree with what you just said, my point is that the best course of action depends on whether we consider "pure" altruism (just care about the poor person's utility) or a more qualified altruism where your ultility (including your preferences over their consumption) and their utitility is considered. I don't think there is anything wrong with the latter, though I personally think that sort of thing is better suited to charity than to government programmes, YMMV. Preferences over other people's consumption can be very hard to pin down.
Posted by: JWK at Jan 5, 2008 3:01:50 PM
When in the navy, we ate healthy foods, but with little taste and lots of repetition. The cooks could not use a lot of spices that would have made the food MUCH better because the food is prepared uniformly for 350 sailors (I was on a destroyer). This means food has to be cooked so that it is palatable to 350 mouths, which means bland and boring. The repetition was even worse. On my last six month deployment, lunch was chicken and rice Monday through Thursday. On Friday it was cheeseburgers. I didn't eat chicken or rice for about a year after that cruise (I got out a few months after this deployment). Dinner was usually left over chicken and rice and maybe something else. Probably once a week we had something different, but nothing so good that I remember what.
As a result, I ate a lot of food from the vending machines (as you can imagine, not healthy) and I bought storable foods whenever possible as replacements for the crushing repetition of the food. I bought things like canned soup, microwavable mac and cheese, chips, etc.
Providing food for large numbers of people presents strong challenges. The biggest being allergies. Food must be prepared uniformly to maximize cost savings. To avoid allergy problems the food that will be made is stuff that will be boring and bland reminding me of The Matrix with its goup of "single cell protein and essential vitamins and minerals... Everything the body needs" type of mentality. Nothing tasty, no variety, just a menu that no one will want to eat from.
The people that desparately need something to eat will show up in the lines to eat this stuff, but as soon as anyone can get together the $5 needed to get a happy meal you'll see them at McDonalds.
Posted by: Ken at Jan 7, 2008 11:25:03 PM
提供钢管无缝钢管数据恢复心理咨询心理辅导与心理治疗bjxlzx.cn等服务
Posted by: baom at Feb 9, 2008 1:36:22 AM
Very nice article! Thanks for this!
Posted by: 二宮沙樹 at Jul 28, 2008 7:35:34 AM
