rcafdm

9 ms·

31.
by rcafdm 9y ago
Except the rich and poor spend pretty similarly in the US and elsewhere. The income elasticity > 1 occurs at a national level.... http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/EC496/SOURCES/LUXURY.PDF And the better da
32.
by rcafdm 9y ago
Right, it's just a coincidence that disposable income correlates nearly perfectly with health expenditures at a national level in the long run (and quite well at a subnational level) and that when disposable income falls NHE tracks it
33.
by rcafdm 9y ago
That was mentioned at the very start of the 2nd link (see "superior good") and it's true virtually everywhere in the long run (especially in developed countries with reasonably reliable growth in disposable incomes and where
34.
by rcafdm 10y ago
1) I was responding in large part to cross-country plots and regressions, e.g., https://randomcriticalanalysis.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/a... 2) It's not sensible to run regressions when observations consis
35.
by rcafdm 10y ago
I wrote the blog post. Some of these broader patterns do relate to Baumol's cost disease, i.e., health and other service typically do not see productivity increases at the same rate as manufactured products, agricultural produce, and
36.
by rcafdm 10y ago
Sure, it'd be great of someone invented some kind of mental effort multiplier. We might even call these devices "computers" ;-) In all honesty though, (1) I don't know where to begin here (2) I'm not sure somethi
37.
by rcafdm 10y ago
"Genetic inferiors" is your phrase, not mine, pal. I do not quite think of it in those terms and I am not advocating that we end the welfare state in its entirety. Quite the contrary actually, realistically assessing the evidenc
38.
by rcafdm 10y ago
1: We have very limited ability to change educational outcomes in this country and the differences between schools have little to do with external inputs (systematic differences in per pupil funding, teacher quality, etc). https:/&#x
39.
by rcafdm 10y ago
1: There were several concrete suggestions there. It's not mere "concern trolling". 2: Ending wasteful or very low value-add spending vis-a-vis "better outcomes for the poor" is useful regardless. Whatever your pr
40.
by rcafdm 10y ago
I'd recommend focusing on policy that is actually informed by a realistic assessment of the evidence regardless of your personal views/preferences. In my view, we spend a tremendous amount of money on schools (over-funding -> f
41.
by rcafdm 10y ago
I created the blog post. That post was largely focused on academic outcomes, especially variation in various test scores and related measures of general cognitive ability (aka "intelligence"), but: 1) there is also good direct