The Atlanta Fed's macroblog provides commentary on economic topics including monetary policy, macroeconomic developments, financial issues and Southeast regional trends.
- BLS Handbook of Methods
- Bureau of Economic Analysis
- Bureau of Labor Statistics
- Congressional Budget Office
- Economic Data - FRED® II, St. Louis Fed
- Office of Management and Budget
- Statistics: Releases and Historical Data, Board of Governors
- U.S. Census Bureau Economic Programs
- White House Economic Statistics Briefing Room
January 05, 2006
It Costs Less, Therefore We Spend
Several blogs -- EconLog, Prestopundit, and Club for Growth among them -- give us the heads up on Robert Kuttner's interview with Milton Friedman in the online edition of the American Prospect. It is indeed a joy to read, but this passage -- also noticed at Mediated -- caught my attention:
RK: Another question: In my own work I have argued that in most sectors of the economy markets work as advertised, but there are some sectors such as healthcare where for a variety of structural reasons, if you let the free market operate you will have socially unpleasant consequences and maybe even inefficient consequences...
MF: Wherever government is largely involved, inefficiencies result. Now let me ask you a question. Dentistry does not come under Medicare. Dentistry is operating well. You never had any of the problems in dentistry that you have in medicine. If markets work in dentistry why wouldn’t they work in medicine? They did work in medicine for many years. In 1945-46, total spending on medical care was about four of five percent. Now it’s gone up to 13 or 14. Something happened.
RK: Well, but part of that surely is because medicine has figured out more ways to treat people.
MF: Every other technological improvement lowers costs. What technological improvement raises costs? Government is now paying at least half the costs of medical care. Obviously, that’s why, whatever the technological improvement, it’s generating higher and higher costs.
Gee. It seems to me that Professor Friedman has it -- gulp! -- not quite right. It is certainly my impression that technological progress in medical care has lowered costs. My favorite example is the repair of torn knee cartilage. When my brother was a high school football player in the 1970s, he had the unfortunate need for such a procedure. It cost him several days in the hospital, and several weeks in a cast. A few years back, I had a similar need (occasioned by my demonstration that overweight, out-of-shape guys in their forties really shouldn't be playing basketball.) It cost me a morning in an outpatient clinic, and a couple of days on my couch.
The problem with the statement above is that is confounds cost -- the resources expended in delivering a product like "fixing a knee" -- with expenditure -- how many knees we choose to fix. One of the lessons many of you may remember from microeconomics is that total expenditure on a good can rise even as the price falls, if the demand for the product in question is "price-elastic". (For those who may be a little rusty, total expenditure equals price times quantity sold. If lowering the price of a good by 1% increases the demand for that good by more than 1%, total spending rises.) There is no inherent contradiction between falling costs of production and increasing expenditure.
It may indeed be the case, as Professor Friedman suggests, that government involvement in health care has resulted in inefficiencies that shouldn't be. And it may be that third-party payer systems have lowered the incremental price of health care services to levels that result in socially suboptimal levels of spending. But I don't think we have a case where technological improvement raises costs.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to blogs that reference It Costs Less, Therefore We Spend:
- Labor Report Silver Lining? ZPOP Ratio Continued to Rise in September
- The ZPOP Ratio: A Simple Take on a Complicated Labor Market
- What Do U.S. Businesses Know that New Zealand Businesses Don't? A Lot (Apparently).
- 5-Year Deflation Probability Moves Off Zero
- Should I Stay or Should I Go Now?
- No Wage Change?
- Getting to the Core of Goods and Services Prices
- Different Strokes for Different Folks
- Have Changing Job and Worker Characteristics Restrained Wage Growth?
- Far Away Yet Close to Home: Discussing the Global Economy's Effects
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- Business Cycles
- Business Inflation Expectations
- Capital and Investment
- Capital Markets
- Data Releases
- Economic conditions
- Economic Growth and Development
- Exchange Rates and the Dollar
- Fed Funds Futures
- Federal Debt and Deficits
- Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy
- Financial System
- Fiscal Policy
- Health Care
- Inflation Expectations
- Interest Rates
- Labor Markets
- Latin America/South America
- Monetary Policy
- Money Markets
- Real Estate
- Saving, Capital, and Investment
- Small Business
- Social Security
- This, That, and the Other
- Trade Deficit
- Wage Growth