2
3

Weekly /r/economics Discussion Thread (self.Economics)

ocamlmycaml が 投稿 - stickied post

We are now back to our usual weekly discussion thread. Talk about economics amongst yourselves.

全 21 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Cutlasss 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Maybe we should have a sticky just for the presidential race?

[–]ocamlmycaml[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

We had some discussion about restricting all election content to the sticky thread, although that was perceived as somewhat draconian.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what a presidential race sticky would add that the current discussion threads lack.

[–]besttrousers [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Additionally, this isn't a subreddit for discussing politics. Its fine so long as it's ancillary to discussing economics - but I don't want to set aside space for it.

[–]BainCapitalist 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Is there any data about how much a reference pricing policy for Medicare/ Medicaid would save Americans in terms of the net decrease in health care expenditures? It baffles me how much prices vary in the health care industry, it just shows how much we've insulated the industry from market forces.

[–]mberre 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

My first instinct would be to look at OECD data, published in "healthcare at a glance".

Who currently uses reference pricing policy? We can compare the results those countries get to that of the US, for an idea of what sorts of results to expect.

[–]BainCapitalist 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hm I'm not actually sure. From what I've read about it, it seems like other counties would have no reason to implement it because their prices don't have nearly as much variance as US health care prices do. I think other countries "negotiate" the price paid by the government, but I still would prefer reference pricing because its more market based. Plus it would probably cut administration costs. Ill take a look at the OECD data.

[–]mberre 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Health-at-a-Glance-2013.pdf

2013 is the latest year I can find data for on short notice.

[–]HealthcareEconomist3Bureau Member 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is there any data about how much a reference pricing policy for Medicare/ Medicaid would save Americans in terms of the net decrease in health care expenditures?

Nothing, a similar system already exists. Part B uses ASP+6% and D either uses AWP+5% or rides on private negotiations depending on which type of plan they are using.

CMS doesn't negotiate but doesn't need to do so. Also FYI the per-unit costs of the drugs we buy are comparable with a number of other countries, we don't overpay for drugs.

[–]Stickonomics 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

A question I have is about inventories of companies and borrowing. So I've been reading that companies will borrow money to fund their inventories, even if they have lots of cash on hand. So even though by borrowing you have to pay interest, it's something to do with the opportunity cost of not being able to lend out that cash.

But who do companies lend out this cash to? How do they get a higher rate of interest on this cash then what they pay to borrow? Who would borrow from these companies, given of course that the rate of interest would have to be higher than what you would get at the bank?

And couldn't you basically make lots of profit where you borrow at a low rate but then lend out at a higher rate to others? And how corporate bonds etc fit into all this?

[–]say_wot_againBureau Member 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

And couldn't you basically make lots of profit where you borrow at a low rate but then lend out at a higher rate to others?

So... Become a bank?

And how corporate bonds etc fit into all this?

Commercial paper, which is corporate debt with durations under 270 days, fund short term inventory and cash flow concerns like you initially asked about. Corporate bonds typically have longer durations and are used to fund longer term investment projects, equity buybacks/dividends, and other bigger picture corporate finance stuff.

[–]Stickonomics 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah but why not pay with the cash you already have on hand? Who would borrow this cash from you so that you could actually earn a higher interest rate than what the bank charges for loans?

[–]shered7 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

Can someone give an economist's view of Bernie Sanders' economics?

[–]mberre 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Several other subs (politicaldiscussion, BE, etc) have had discussions about it, so you may want to search there, since we're intending to downplay the US elections on this sub.

Overall, I get the impression that the economists of reddit are a bit skeptical. But seen from Europe, all I ever hear him say is

  • Increase Minimum wages !! (which has definite poverty-gap alleviation effects, but non-definite employment effects, so probably a good policy. DOL certainly seems to think so)

  • Make the tax system more progressive !!!! (Robert Reich goes on about how past US economic policy gave better growth & equity outcomes. If that argument has any weight to it, then this sort of measure might restore american post WWII economic fundamentals. But past achievements are no guarantee of future performance, so there's always that)

  • "Scandinavia seems to do a good job, let's copy them". (Interestingly enough, I'm actually reading a european commission working paper talking about policy transmission channels. It's basically true that when a policy is seen as having worked in one country, it tends to get copied by neighbors, rivals, and trading partners.....so I guess here's an example of that)

But I don't know that many other specifics of what Bernie is actually standing for....so I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to fill in some details.

[–]say_wot_againBureau Member 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's also massive anti-trade populism and a desire to hike the heinously inefficient corporate income tax.

[–]HealthcareEconomist3Bureau Member 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Increase Minimum wages !! (which has definite poverty-gap alleviation effects, but non-definite employment effects, so probably a good policy.

Moderate != $15/h

[–]say_wot_againBureau Member [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I'm a lot less sure about that than I was a couple hours ago...

[–]besttrousers [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Most of this seems to about the meaning of 'substantially'.

I'd expect unemployment to increase, given a $15 MW. I'm not sure about whether it would increase substantially.

[–]say_wot_againBureau Member [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I was wondering how much of this was due to "substantially" and how much to "2020." It's like reading a Fed statement!

[–]say_wot_againBureau Member 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here's a nice breakdown of his stance on the TPP and free trade.

[–]RummedupPirate 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Over the past several decades, we have seen a decline in real wages. We have seen more and more households change from single income to multiple income households. Even with this shift, there is still a shrinking middle class as more families fall below the poverty line.

At the same time we have been seeing this, we are seeing a trend in the increase of executive compensations and capital gains. Corporations are becoming larger, with greater profits, and paying less in taxes.

To me, this system does not seem sustainable. If we are going to continue to prosper in this country, should we do something about this? Should corporations be investing more into the communities that they depend on for survival? Should our economic system work for the people as a whole, or the large corporations and their executives? Is there a way for everyone to prosper, or will we always work towards making sharper class distinctions?

[–]not_my_nom_de_guerre [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Real wages haven't really declined, they've been stagnant. Here are median real weekly earnings and here are average real wages. Over this time average hours worked have declined and, while it's true that the number in poverty has increased, the poverty rate has stayed relatively constant. It's also not immediately clear to me that more multiple income households is necessarily a bad thing--e.g. there's a difference between being forced to work for economic reasons and choosing to work where previously you'd not have the opportunity to (I'm thinking especially of women in the labor force).

 

It's certainly of interest that real wages have been stagnating (though there's a fairly significant increase in both average real hourly wages and median real weekly earnings since 1995 or so, the former is hard to see in the chart I linked to, but you can pull the data from FRED to see a roughly 15% increase). Some would argue that non-wage compensation takes up a larger amount of total compensation now. I'm just pointing out that there hasn't really been a decline in real wages.

 

The point about more families falling into poverty is also a bit misleading, since the proportion of families in poverty hasn't really changed. And some would argue that the official poverty measurements are sort of odd in the way they're measured e.g. this. And intergenerational income elasticity has been roughly constant over this period of time, too, so transitions between classes haven’t decreased (defining classes by income percentiles).

 

I haven’t even touched on your main point, just wanted to point out that things aren’t as bad as I got the feeling you were implying in your first paragraph--though I also don’t want to put words in your mouth if I’m misrepresenting you. On your main point, I don’t think the system is unsustainable. I don’t think it’s perfect, and it could certainly stand a few tweaks (for example, I’m not anti-tax), but it’s not all doom and gloom as it is, either.