(no subject)
watching the news these days makes me really wish i wasn't so ridiculously knowledgeable about public policy and economics. that way, it wouldn't be so frustrating seeing everybody missing the point or being stupid. let's see what i'm talking about by looking at three stories getting a lot of play these days.
1. the flu vaccine. this is always one of the examples professors use when teaching the schelling diagram. as well it should be. unfortunately, it seems that the people on tv missed those classes. even slate, normally the main influencer of my opinions, fell into the trap with this article. my point is that, as any economist knows, my incentive to get the shot decreases as more and more other people get it. the fact that the vaccine is quickly running out (and is being rationed in some places) means that i have very little reason to get the shot myself. i think the slate article acknowledges that, but then cancels that out with some shit about responsibility to others. which is just silly. the idea that my getting the shot will help other people to not get sick is preposterous. the marginal benefit to society from me getting a shot is negligible (as is the benefit to me if other people are getting shots), whereas the cost to me is significant. so the people getting the shots are idiots, but at least their mass idiocy is making me safer.
2. canadian prescription drugs. this one's a little more complicated. the problem i see is that both sides have bad arguments. the fda's claim that over-the-border meds are dangerous is laughable. old people's claim that they should be able to afford all the meds they want is also laughable. most of the drugs people buy in canada are made by the same companies who sell drugs here - why should they be less safe? as for the oldsters, they already suck the life out of future generations (http://slate.msn.com/id/2092302/) and now they want to deprive the world of medical advances. the high prices americans pay for prescription drugs essentially subsidize the low-cost meds of the rest of the world. without americans footing the bill, drug companies lose the incentive to undertake the mind-bogglingly expensive development process. now i hate old people as much as the next guy, but i find it hard to believe that even their shriveled souls can justify passing the costs on to 3rd or 4th world countries. in this case, it's easier to point out the stupidity of both sides than to come up with an alternative solution. on the one hand, free trade can clearly benefit all countries involved, and i'm generally for it. on the other, that could lead to higher drug prices for people who already can't afford them (i.e., not americans). maybe the safety issue is the answer: it's clearly false, but provides a good excuse for maintaining the most economically optimal situation.
3. reconstruction contracts. bush et al earn points here for appearing to be fair. why should other countries benefit when they paid none of the costs? but on further reflection, this, like many bush ideas, is horrendously ill-advised. first, why is the u.s. even involved in granting contracts? shouldn't that be the responsibility of the fake iraqi government that'll somehow exist by april? whatever, that's not an economics question. what is is that this provides an incentive for countries to foment and become involved in wars. i think the u.s. had this figured out a while ago, but it's just asking for trouble to bring other countries on board. at the risk of being country-centric, it seems like this could "teach" other nations a very disturbing lesson: start/support wars or suffer financially.
i'm spent.
1. the flu vaccine. this is always one of the examples professors use when teaching the schelling diagram. as well it should be. unfortunately, it seems that the people on tv missed those classes. even slate, normally the main influencer of my opinions, fell into the trap with this article. my point is that, as any economist knows, my incentive to get the shot decreases as more and more other people get it. the fact that the vaccine is quickly running out (and is being rationed in some places) means that i have very little reason to get the shot myself. i think the slate article acknowledges that, but then cancels that out with some shit about responsibility to others. which is just silly. the idea that my getting the shot will help other people to not get sick is preposterous. the marginal benefit to society from me getting a shot is negligible (as is the benefit to me if other people are getting shots), whereas the cost to me is significant. so the people getting the shots are idiots, but at least their mass idiocy is making me safer.
2. canadian prescription drugs. this one's a little more complicated. the problem i see is that both sides have bad arguments. the fda's claim that over-the-border meds are dangerous is laughable. old people's claim that they should be able to afford all the meds they want is also laughable. most of the drugs people buy in canada are made by the same companies who sell drugs here - why should they be less safe? as for the oldsters, they already suck the life out of future generations (http://slate.msn.com/id/2092302/) and now they want to deprive the world of medical advances. the high prices americans pay for prescription drugs essentially subsidize the low-cost meds of the rest of the world. without americans footing the bill, drug companies lose the incentive to undertake the mind-bogglingly expensive development process. now i hate old people as much as the next guy, but i find it hard to believe that even their shriveled souls can justify passing the costs on to 3rd or 4th world countries. in this case, it's easier to point out the stupidity of both sides than to come up with an alternative solution. on the one hand, free trade can clearly benefit all countries involved, and i'm generally for it. on the other, that could lead to higher drug prices for people who already can't afford them (i.e., not americans). maybe the safety issue is the answer: it's clearly false, but provides a good excuse for maintaining the most economically optimal situation.
3. reconstruction contracts. bush et al earn points here for appearing to be fair. why should other countries benefit when they paid none of the costs? but on further reflection, this, like many bush ideas, is horrendously ill-advised. first, why is the u.s. even involved in granting contracts? shouldn't that be the responsibility of the fake iraqi government that'll somehow exist by april? whatever, that's not an economics question. what is is that this provides an incentive for countries to foment and become involved in wars. i think the u.s. had this figured out a while ago, but it's just asking for trouble to bring other countries on board. at the risk of being country-centric, it seems like this could "teach" other nations a very disturbing lesson: start/support wars or suffer financially.
i'm spent.