« San Agustin Oapan, update | Main | The Candidate Doesn't Matter »
What I think I am nearly certain about
My apologies if this list sounds dogmatic or polemic. I'm not trying to persuade you (now), I'm simply listing the inner contents of my mind, so you may compare this with my post on what I am uncertain about. Here is an incomplete and desultory list of what I (think I) am nearly certain about:
1. Polarizing America won't make interest group politics go away, no matter how hard either the right-wingers or progressives wish it so. It may even make interest group politics worse, and in the meantime the polarizer is simply demonstrating a lack of meta-rationality on the part of the polarizer.
2. We cannot do economic policy as we might arrange pieces on a chessboard. What you ask for is rarely what you get, and your recommendations had better be prepared for this discrepancy.
3. Government-dominated health systems, insofar as they work well (a number of them do), succeed simply by lowering costs. Health care has a murky relationship to human health, pharmaceuticals and broken limbs aside. A version of the single-payer system, as might be adopted in the United States, would not lower costs. We would be raising taxes and lowering medical innovation to give poor people a good deal more financial security and a slight bit more health; that is the relevant trade-off.
4. Overall, despite its many flaws, America is a force for liberty in the greater global community.
5. We are programmed to respond to the "us vs. them" mentality and highly intelligent people are no less captive to this framing. We should try very hard to get away from this framing.
6. America is a beacon of innovation for the world, and it is critically important that we allow the preconditions for American innovation to continue.
7. It would be a disaster if American taxation ever reached 55 percent of gdp.
8. Which institutions work well is often country-specific.
9. The West European way of life is a marvel, unprecedented in human history. That said, I am not sure that the degree of economic security to date can persist in a more mobile and more diverse future (this second sentence retreats to what I am uncertain about).
10. No one has a good idea what the equilibrium looks like for nuclear proliferation. This is very worrying.
11. The possibility of pandemics receives insufficient attention. The world sleepwalked through AIDS for a long time, mostly because "it doesn't affect people like you and me." The next time around could be much worse.
12. It is a big mistake -- even in rhetoric -- to conflate concern for the poor with comparative egalitarian intuitions. The left ought to turn its back on this mistake, although it would mean losing one of their most effective rhetorical tools.
13. Most people are sincere in their views (even if wrong), and polemic attacks on them signal a weakness of the attacker, not the attackee.
14. The chance that a protectionism will be an economically rational form of protectionism is very low.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 4, 2008 at 06:07 AM in Data Source | Permalink
Comments
Could you explain what you are referring to in 1.? It is formulated in general terms, but you probably have specific cases in mind. What interest groups might or might not go away? Who are the people that promote polarization as a an antidote to those interest groups?
Posted by: GreatZamfir at Jan 4, 2008 6:53:19 AM
And on 14.: what about East-Asian style protectionism for developing industries?
Posted by: GreatZamfir at Jan 4, 2008 7:29:48 AM
The benefit of socialized medicine should be certainty that you (and your child) are covered. I'd pay a little more for "coverage denied" horror stories to go away.
Posted by: odograph at Jan 4, 2008 7:47:46 AM
odograph... would you pay for the horror stories to go away or to go out of sight? I mean the Bastiat's 'What is not seen' horror stories that are not seen...because lack of innovation just didn't create the means to cure some diseases?
I would add: most people think that if the problem is in the 'what is not seen' area, it doesn't exist. Be prepared for people pushing for solutions that change problem that is seen into a problem that is not seen. And considering that most people don't understand basic economics, nobody persuades the majority that the problem was not solved....
Posted by: andy at Jan 4, 2008 8:04:16 AM
Anyone seen the illustrated Road to Serfdom?
Posted by: jon at Jan 4, 2008 8:22:13 AM
andy, I think they are largely out of sight and out of mind now, and that is the problem. Most people pay their health insurance through their employer, and since they seldom file a (large) claim, they seldom run into red tape. When they do they may be shocked. They may need to do 4 phone calls or even 4 letters ... but do their peers really want to hear about it?
No, they want to pay their premiums and believe that they, at least, are safe.
Posted by: odograph at Jan 4, 2008 8:26:29 AM
BTW, my short story is that in simply extending my COBRA coverage my insurance company told me X. I was lucky that I called California's health insurance hotline. They told me to call them back and say that I knew X was illegal.
This is a system?
No, but most people don't want to believe it is our system.
Posted by: odograph at Jan 4, 2008 8:31:38 AM
6. America is a beacon of innovation for the world, and it is critically important that we allow the preconditions for American innovation to continue.
Well said! I am certain that both sides of almost every issue can get behind that statement. Both RIAA and the pirates. Both the free traders and the protectionists. Both the hawks and the doves. Both the supporters and opponents of No Child Left Behind and the like. All of the supporters of increased state independence, the supporters of increased federal power and the supporters of smaller government all over. And so on.
Posted by: monkey think, monkey write at Jan 4, 2008 8:36:04 AM
The benefit of socialized medicine should be certainty that you (and your child) are covered. I'd pay a little more for "coverage denied" horror stories to go away.
But I do not want to trade that benefit for treatment denied or delayed, or the outlawing of the freedom to purchase private insurance or seek private care.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1118315110253_28/?hub=TopStories
Posted by: Mcwop at Jan 4, 2008 8:51:51 AM
6. America is a beacon of innovation for the world, and it is critically important that we allow the preconditions for American innovation to continue.
Do those preconditions include:
1) increasing the length of copyright
2) suing existing and future customers instead of changing your business model (see RIAA)
3) allowing patent trolls to sue companies that actually create products (ie NTP vs RIM)
4) allowing patents on software and business processes
5) implementing laws such as the DMCA that essentially kill fair use
6) demanding other countries to adopt laws such as the DMCA as a condition of free trade (who knew that promoting monopolistic powers is something that should be included in a free trade agreement)
I think that beacon of innovation is in danger of being extinguished.
Posted by: Vincent Clement at Jan 4, 2008 9:02:28 AM
There was "employee", then "payee" and now finally "attackee"! Aaaah! *keels over and dies*
Jokes aside, I didn't get the 12. point at all. How can one conflate concern with institutions?
PS: Orwell was right when he predicted the evolution of English in the direction of isolating languages.
Posted by: A Tykhyy at Jan 4, 2008 9:07:34 AM
That's a terrific list and I agree with almost every point.
Number 5: "We are programmed to respond to the "us vs. them" mentality and highly intelligent people are no less captive to this framing. We should try very hard to get away from this framing."
That is one that I see doing lot's of damage in the world and the nation. It's a pity that we evolved to have such strong tribal instincts and so many leaders quite willfully seek to tap into them. Perhaps they can be re-directed redefining "us" as humans and them as problems that make humans worse off. (Or failing that, sports rivalries.)
Posted by: A student of economics at Jan 4, 2008 9:13:08 AM
Wow, this is the kind of inane doctrinaire bullshit that has made me unsubscribe to carpe diem, and now your incessant barking. Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iraq, etc. all thank you for your unflinching support of liberty.
Posted by: Theodore Scroatsky at Jan 4, 2008 9:28:28 AM
a Tyler--
Could you state #1 and #12 more directly? I don't understand the mechanism you're disagreeing with in #1--the one that is supposed to lead to a reduction in interest group politics. And I don't understand what you're referring to with "comparative egalitarian intuitions".
We are programmed to respond to the "us vs. them" mentality and highly intelligent people are no less captive to this framing. We should try very hard to get away from this framing.
I agree with this and the vast majority of the posts on this blog are obviously written with this in mind. That's one of the things that makes this blog so valuable. My one reservation about this point is that I wish we could just get the rest of them to use less "us vs. them" thinking. :-)
Posted by: MostlyAPragmatist at Jan 4, 2008 9:46:39 AM
Mcwop, I suppose it is unavoidable that any health care system have an adversarial barrier to care. We want, and they pay, with private or national health.
I think though, that I'm more comfortable with the barrier being with a nurse or doctor across the table from me, rather than a traditional insurer at the end of a phone.
Maybe that's why I'm in an HMO now. My card always gets me in the door, and a doctor or nurse tells me if I need anything.
That can be abused, HMO horror stories are similar to Canadian horror stories ... but I honestly think there is less pure BS in that kind of barrier.
No "you said your shoulder was sore last year, so we are denying you for pre-existing condition, even though you never sought treatment of any kind."
Posted by: odograph at Jan 4, 2008 9:48:35 AM
The world sleepwalked through AIDS for a long time, mostly because "it doesn't affect people like you and me."
Mostly, yes. Also several other reasons contributed:
1) Some gay groups strongly believed that bathhouses and casual sex were an important, hard-won part of their culture, and that efforts to close them down were based on intolerance (indeed, partially true);
2) AIDS is a relatively hard to get STD (unlike airborne or even waterborne pathogens), fairly slow to kill but still virulent and deadly, which makes it quite different from the point of view of epidemiology from most pandemics. It's not clear how much the AIDS experience translates to, e.g., bird flu;
3) Due to reason 2, quarantining is thankfully not necessary like in other pandemics-- and if the different response were simply because it affects "others," then more people would have been like Huckabee and proposed quarantining (or like Castro, who implemented it);
4) Also due to reason 2, activists have pushed for much less notification of positive tests (such as to sexual partners who could catch the disease) than with other pandemics, and have been successful in places like NY;
5) Understandable efforts to prevent discrimination because it affects "others" led to contradictory and in some case plain false messages about AIDS being hard to get, or easy to get for anyone regardless of demographics or behavior, and the prevalence in various groups. A public health campaign predicated on ignoring or obscuring some facts for political reasons will eventually have problems, because people will find out and will discount the health campaign's true and useful messages.
AIDS is not like a normal pandemic. Treating it like one would be unduly harsh on those living with AIDS; treating other pandemics like AIDS would be disastrous.
Posted by: John Thacker at Jan 4, 2008 10:24:05 AM
We cannot do economic policy as we might arrange pieces on a chessboard. What you ask for is rarely what you get, and your recommendations had better be prepared for this discrepancy
Probably true for all types of policy, not just economic policy.
Posted by: Peter at Jan 4, 2008 10:30:41 AM
I hate it that people think that the "coverage denied" problem exists only in private (or quasi-private as exists in the United States) medical systems.
People in Canada (where I live) are denied medical care all the time. There is no garantee whatsoever that you will get the medical care you need. When there is a shortage of care (which is common), the government simply denies some people medical care. You can't legislate away scarcity.
The thing that systems like Canada garantee is that you will not be billed for health care. People still go without health care as much or more than the U.S., but no-one is going to lose their home, or their automobile, or not get a job, because of their health problems. No one has to make the decision not to go on vacation or forego buying that big plasma TV in order to pay for their health insurance.
If you want to argue that modern medical treatments like Chemotherapy, MRIs, etc., have very little effect on life expectancy (most of our increased life expectancy comes from immunizations, antibiotics, plentiful food, and floride / dental care), and that finacial security should be the overriding concern when comparing medical systems, then we can have a rational discussion. Maybe state-run health care IS better at providing people a feeling of financial security. Perhaps state-run health care can make better decisions on who should be denied health care than the market (i.e. state-run systems tend to let older citizens die off without a bunch of expensive treatments... perhaps it is more "ethical" to deny old people care instead of people who have less money).
However, as long as people keep presenting the myth that poor people in Canada or the UK or wherever have greater access to medical treatment, that they aren't just as likely to be outright denied coverage, then there can't be any sort of rational discussion.
The discussion isn't about "making sure everyone has access to healthcare", because there has yet to be a system that provided everyone access to healthcare. What we should be discussing is how hard we should protect people from the choice of bankrupting themselves in order to pay for expensive treatments.
Posted by: Rex Rhino at Jan 4, 2008 10:42:06 AM
Would someone be kind enough to explain what "12. It is a big mistake -- even in rhetoric -- to conflate concern for the poor with comparative egalitarian intuitions" means?
In particular, it is not obvious to me what the meaning of "comparative egalitarian intuitions" is. Thanks.
Posted by: Gerard D. at Jan 4, 2008 10:48:01 AM
Tyler, please say more about rhetorical tacks like avoiding us-versus-them framing (#5) and polemic (#13). What else are you (not) doing?
I ask because MR gets favorable citation on Crooked Timber and other quality left-blogs---something noteworthy for a libertarian blog. Also, I notice I'm never tempted to leave snarky comments on your posts---why is that?
Posted by: Lee at Jan 4, 2008 10:49:31 AM
11. The possibility of pandemics receives insufficient attention. The world sleepwalked through AIDS for a long time, mostly because "it doesn't affect people like you and me." The next time around could be much worse.
What about the slow drip of car deaths over a long period of time is a pandemic worse?
Posted by: Floccina at Jan 4, 2008 10:50:58 AM
Okay a slight bone to pick with #5.
There is a level at which we all have to define things intellectually by their contrast class. Things are not only defined by what they are, but also by what they are not.
How can a capitalist (Austrian, Neo-classical, or otherwise) deal with someone that preaches socialism, redistribution, etc. and NOT look at it as an 'us vs. them'?!
It seems to be that when you stop identifying with ideals and figureheads to oppose you lose part of the very nature of what you are and what you believe.
This isn't to say that in ALL things we should be out for blood, winner take all. But at some point you have to view some things as right vs wrong.
Just my .02
Posted by: Jon at Jan 4, 2008 10:51:11 AM
@Jon: Given that basically every developed country in the world has both redistribution and capitalism, seeing them in another light then us vs them can't be that hard.
Posted by: GreatZamfir at Jan 4, 2008 11:06:24 AM
Gerard, I think Tyler is urging the Left to attend to making the poor better off in absolute terms and to change its political rhetoric accordingly. This might include a greater emphasis on concrete measures of poverty, like ability to afford energy bills. Compare this to the now prevailing concern on the left (for example, in Paul Krugman's columns) with income inequality per se. That, I think, is what Tyler calls an appeal to our "comparative egalitarian intuitions."
Posted by: Lee at Jan 4, 2008 11:08:14 AM
What you ask for is rarely what you get, and your recommendations had better be prepared for this discrepancy.
The reason is seldom given, namely that all the problems that can be fixed by direct action have already been fixed. What remains are problems that respond to fixes with perverse results.
Which is why conservatives are mostly always right today.
The fallacy of composition (``If everybody stands on their toes, everybody can see better'') eventually stands alone.
Posted by: Ron Hardin at Jan 4, 2008 11:27:59 AM
