Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

Macro Roundup


Wednesday, January 30, 2019

AI Summary. Income inequality is associated with expected health expenditures, with mean household disposable income by decile far more unequal in the US than in Northern Europe. The wider US gap between top and bottom deciles is argued to produce unequal healthcare access and higher health costs for lower-income groups.

R.C.A. Random Critical Analysis
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Income inequality significantly impacts health expenditures, with disparities in mean household disposable income by decile evident btw the US and Northern Europe. @R.C.A.

Does income inequality raise expected health expenditures?

Core argument: Mean household disposable income by decile diverges between the United States and Northern Europe, with the U.S. top decile's income substantially higher than its bottom decile's.

Income inequality significantly impacts health expenditures, with disparities in mean household disposable income by decile evident between the US and Northern Europe. In the US, the top decile's income is substantially higher than the bottom decile, leading to unequal access to healthcare and higher health costs for lower-income groups. Conversely, Northern Europe exhibits a more equitable income distribution, resulting in more uniform health expenditure across deciles. This disparity suggests that countries with greater income inequality may face higher overall health expenditures due to increased demand for public health interventions and support for lower-income households. Policymakers must consider these economic data when designing healthcare systems to ensure equitable access and manage costs effectively.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Mean household disposable income by decile diverges between the United States and Northern Europe, with the U.S. top decile's income substantially higher than its bottom decile's.
  2. Northern Europe's more equitable income distribution corresponds to more uniform health expenditure across income deciles, while in the United States unequal access to healthcare accompanies higher health costs for lower-income groups.
  3. Countries with greater income inequality may face higher overall health expenditures through increased demand for public health interventions and support for lower-income households, a consideration for policymakers designing healthcare systems.

Ed, It's from a Random Critical Analysis healthcare post: R.C.A. "On the relevance of the income inequality to expected health expenditures.,"Random Critical Analysis, January 20, 2018, https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2018/01/20/on-the-relevance-of-the-income-inequality-to-expected-health-expenditures/

On the relevance of the income inequality to expected health expenditures.: Extended Excerpt Image 1


On the relevance of the income inequality to expected health expenditures.: Extended Excerpt Image 2

I’m still looking for the source of this chart but have not had success so far reverse image searching on Google as well as other reverse search pages. I’ve also done a more traditional search for the chart using the info that appears on it.

Friday, February 1, 2019

AI Summary. More than 1bn people have moved out of extreme poverty since 1990, cutting the global share from 36% to 10%, while child mortality has fallen 58%, undernourishment 41%, and maternal deaths 43%. The author attributes these gains to market-friendly policies in countries such as China, India, and Ethiopia, aided by Western market access and humanitarian aid.

Fareed Zakaria Washington Post
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

@FareedZakaria, Washington Post: Despite widespread pessimism, global poverty has seen a remarkable decline, supporting the current world order. Since 1990, 1bn people have moved out of extreme poverty, reducing the global share from 36% to 10%.

Has the world made real progress against poverty since 1990?

Core argument: More than 1bn people have moved out of extreme poverty since 1990, cutting the global share from 36% to 10%, the lowest in recorded history.

Despite widespread pessimism, global poverty has seen a remarkable decline, supporting the current world order. Since 1990, over 1bn people have moved out of extreme poverty, reducing the global share from 36% to 10%, the lowest in recorded history. Child mortality has decreased by 58%, undernourishment by 41%, and maternal deaths by 43%. These improvements are largely due to market-friendly policies adopted by countries like China, India, and Ethiopia, with support from Western nations through market access and humanitarian aid. This progress highlights the effectiveness of the current global economic system, even as inequality within countries remains a challenge. The data underscores that while challenges persist, the world is making significant strides in improving living conditions for billions, offering a robust defense of the existing global order.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. More than 1bn people have moved out of extreme poverty since 1990, cutting the global share from 36% to 10%, the lowest in recorded history.
  2. Child mortality has fallen 58%, undernourishment 41%, and maternal deaths 43%, improvements attributed largely to market-friendly policies in countries including China, India and Ethiopia.
  3. Western nations contributed to these gains through market access and humanitarian aid, which the article offers in defence of the existing global economic order, even as inequality within countries persists.

Fareed Zakaria, “We have a bleak view of modern life. But the world is making real progress,” Wshington Post, January 31, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-have-a-bleak-view-of-modern-life-but-the-world-is-making-real-progress/2019/01/31/6ee30432-25a8-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html

After 400 years of slavery, segregation and discrimination in the United States, blacks have been moving up. After thousands of years of being treated as structurally subordinate, women are now gaining genuine equality. Once considered criminals or deviants, gays can finally live and love freely in many countries. The fact that these changes might cause discomfort to some is not a reason to pause, nor to forget that it represents deep and lasting human progress that we should celebrate.

I understand that important segments of the Western working class are under great pressure, and that they often feel ignored and left behind by this progress. We must find ways to give them greater economic support and moral dignity. But extensive research shows that some of their discomfort comes from watching a society in which these other groups are rising, changing the nature of the world in which they’d enjoyed a comfortable status.

But there have been monumental improvements in access and opportunity for large segments of the population that were locked out and pushed down. In the United States, the gap between black and white high school completion has almost disappeared. The poverty gap between blacks and whites has shrunk (but remains distressingly large). Hispanic college enrollment has soared. The gender gap between wages for men and women has narrowed. The number of female chief executives at Fortune 500 companies has gone from one to 24 over the past 20 years. Female membership in national legislatures of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development member countries has almost doubled in the same period. No countries allowed same-sex marriage two decades ago, but more than 20 countries do today. In all these areas, much remains to be done. But in each of them, there has been striking progress.

Even in the West, it is easy to take for granted the astounding progress. We live longer, the air and water are cleaner, crime has plunged, and information and communication are virtually free. Economically, there have been gains, though crucially, they have not been distributed equally.

When criticizing the current state of affairs, it’s easy to hark back to some nostalgic old order, the modern world before the current elites “broke” it. But when was that golden age? In the 1950s, when Jim Crow reigned in the United States and women could barely work as anything more than seamstresses and secretaries? The 1980s, when two-thirds of the globe stagnated under state socialism, repression and isolation? What group of elites — kings, commissars, mandarins — ran the world better than our current hodgepodge of politicians and business executives?

I know the response that some will have to these statistics. The figures pertain to the world in general, not the United States. Things might have improved for the Chinese, but not for the denizens of rich countries. That sense of “unfairness” is what is surely fueling Trump’s “America First” agenda and much of the anger on the right at the international system. (More bewilderingly, the left, traditionally concerned about the poorest of the poor, has become critical of a process that has improved the lives of at least 1 billion of the world’s most impoverished people.)

Look at any measure from a global perspective and the numbers are staggering. The child mortality rate is down 58 percent since 1990. Undernourishment has fallen 41 percent, and maternal deaths (women dying because of childbirth) have dropped by 43 percent over roughly the same period.

And all this has happened chiefly because countries — from China to India to Ethiopia — have adopted more market-friendly policies, and Western countries have helped them with access to markets, humanitarian assistance and loan forgiveness. In other words, policies supported by these very elites.

On the simplest and most important measure, income, the story is actually one of astonishing progress. Since 1990, more than 1 billion people have moved out of extreme poverty. The share of the global population living in these dire conditions has gone from 36 percent to 10 percent, the lowest in recorded history. This is, as the World Bank president, Jim Yong Kim, notes, “one of the greatest achievements of our time.” Inequality, from a global perspective, has declined dramatically.

Underlying these twin critiques is a bleak view of modern life — seen as a dysfunctional global order, producing stagnant incomes, rising insecurity and environmental degradation. But is this depiction, in fact, true? Are we doing so very badly that we need to bring back the guillotines?

This year’s World Economic Forum, more than usual, prompted a spirited round of elite-bashing, which has now become the trendy political posture on both the right and left. On one side, President Trump and Fox News hosts slam the out-of-touch establishment that, according to them, has run things into the ground. On the other side, left-wingers decry the millionaires and billionaires who, in one author’s phrase, “broke the modern world.”

We have a bleak view of modern life. But the world is making real progress