For this topic discussion, we have four readings, two of which are from my blog.  If you listen to major new media and politicians today, you’d think that healthcare and intergenerational economics would be pretty pessimistic or depressing.  In this case, these readings aren’t! You will find some good news.

First has to do with Social Security, the US government intergenerational transfer program that provides the foundation for our senior citizen’s ability to live past their retirement age. It also provides support for those that are disabled and their dependents.  While politicians and the media often claim Social Security is going “bankrupt” (actually an impossibility), the truth is quite different. There is no economic, financial, or demographic reason why Social Security won’t be around for you when you retire. The only threat is if politicians choose to eliminate it.

Next, Our World in Data site reports how life is getting longer around the world.  Which then leads into an article about how spending on healthcare is related to life expectancy.

And that leads to the last reading: why the US healthcare system is so much more expensive than any other developed nation’s system.  It’s insurance forms.

NOTE:  If you’re interested in the Social Security topic or Medicare, an analysis of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, or Trumpcare (if it happens), you might want to come to the LCC Centre for Engaged Inclusion in Gannon 2nd floor on April 25.  I’ll be giving an hour lecture with half-hour discussion of these topics. It’s open to the campus.

As usual, please read. We are interested in your thoughts and reactions to these readings/video. You may participate by blogging on your own blog (remember to categorize it as ECON 260), creating a new post on the front page of this site, or reply/comment here.

Topic 12 – Intergenerational & Healthcare
Thursday, April 13, 2017

• Why Students and Young People Should Care About Social Security https://econproph.com/2011/06/18/why-students-and-young-people-should-care-about-social-security/
• Long Term Trends in Life Expectancy – the good news from Our World In Data
  https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy?country=ETH+DEU+IND+JPN+KOR+GBR+USA
• Link between health spending and life expectancy: US is an outlier  from OurWorldInData.org  https://ourworldindata.org/the-link-between-life-expectancy-and-health-spending-us-focus
• One Reason US Heatlhcare is So Expensive – Too Many Insurance Companies https://econproph.com/2011/08/13/one-reason-u-s-healthcare-is-so-expensive-too-many-insurance-companies/

For this topic discussion, there are two readings.  We are trying to take a step back here and get a big-picture perspective of the modern US economy.  In particular, these two posts take a look at things that don’t show up in everyday reporting or discussion of the economy or the economic system.

In the first, Umair Haque explores the importance of trust in an economy. He asserts that trust has seriously deteriorated in the US with the result that the US has moved from a constructive capitalism to an extractive capitalism that is essentially devouring itself:

You might think: trust isn’t that important. It’s just soft stuff! You can’t touch it or taste it or smell it, like, say, fresh money, a gleaming new car, apps. But trust precedes all those. Without it, the money doesn’t get spent, the goods don’t get made, the investments don’t happen. Do you spend much of yourself on what and who you don’t trust? Your money, at stores? Your time, with coworkers, Your love, with people? Perhaps you see the point. Trust is a kind of capital that precedes money and effort and ideas, financial and human and intellectual capital.

So there is a link. Somehow, suspicious of each other to the last, the American economy has turned extractive: GDP “grows”, while life expectancy falls. Think about that for a moment — it means that extreme capitalism is eating itself, you, me, democracy, the planet, society as we know it.

Why? What is the link between a loss of trust, an extractive economy, and a collapsing society — one where the government itself is turning authoritarian?

In the other reading, Anil Dash, a software startup CEO, claims that tech in the past 20 years hasn’t actually improved the functioning of markets. Instead it has brought about the appearance of markets that are actually rigged.  To the degree he is right, it means that all the promises of efficiency, growth, and the magic of free market capitalism is an illusion. It means that we’re really just being taken by the tech capitalists for their riches and we don’t become better off.

As usual, please read and watch. We are interested in your thoughts and reactions to these readings/video. You may participate by blogging on your own blog (remember to categorize it as ECON 260), creating a new post on the front page of this site, or reply/comment here.

Topic 11 – Drugs, Social Norms, & Individual Behavior

• The Five Letter Word That Spells the End of Societies https://umairhaque.com/the-five-letter-word-that-spells-the-end-of-societies-8c554f9489c7#.kjci9y80v
• Tech and The Fake Market Tactic https://medium.com/humane-tech/tech-and-the-fake-market-tactic-8bd386e3d382#.vvh7z3n82
  
• Optional readings for anyone particularly interested in this topic of society, the economy, and drugs. These two are primarily resources for research. They’re long or rich websites

• Assessing Alternative Drug Control Regimes  http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reprints/2005/RP555.pdf
• Data, Facts, Policies and Trends from various nationshttp://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/1112#sthash.WGiekBnz.dpbs

In this next Topic we discuss the environment and the issues it presents for an economic system. This is not a science course, it’s a social science course. So I’m not so interested here in questions such as how badly polluted the environment is or how much/how fast global climate change is happening. For our purposes here, it is sufficient that we just know pollution or a wrecked environment is indeed possible from economic activity. Our concern here is: in what ways does the economic system contribute to or hinder the maintenance of a healthy environment for humans?

So I will not spend your time with trying to raise your awareness of environmental issues. There is plenty of information available about environmental issues. We may disagree about specific issues such as global warming, the availability of natural resources such as oil or coal, or the specifics of any particular environmental issue.  But what is well established is that the production methods of the 20th century need to change. The technologies and processes that produced the high standards of living for the fortunate 10-15% of the world’s population in the first world industrialized nations cannot and will not produce the same living standards for the entire world. There simply aren’t enough resources. We must make a change to more sustainable methods of production, be it energy production, agriculture, industry or waste disposal.

At it’s core, the environmental issues about sustainability are economic system issues. The economic system and its’ institutions determine what costs are considered when deciding how and what to produce. The economic system determines what the “externalities” are that should be ignored or remedied by government regulation. How, when and whether we move to sustainable production or “green” energy will ultimately be determined by how we change our economic system.

A major issue that is always brought up when environment and the economic system is discussed is the commons. The commons is the term used by economists to describe things or property that are not exclusively private property but may be used by all or many.  The historical example of a commons in the literature (and a source of much poor generalizations about commons) is that of English villages before the 18th century. Villages back then tended to have a pasture that was shared in common by all. In other words, all farmers could graze their animals there since no one farmer controlled it. The question arose as to whether farmers would attempt to graze too many sheep and thus over-graze the commons, ruining it for all. The issue of the commons is whether this lack of private property combined with self-interested behavior by individuals leads to over-use and non-sustainability or not.  As you’ll see in the first reading, the popular conception of the commons as being unsustainable is not really in line with empirical evidence.

The other two readings have to do with whether the goals of growth in an economy conflict with environmental sustainability and how.

After the readings, I’ve embedded a video below about sustainable fish farming that offers another perspective and raises questions of how we organize our food supply.

As usual, please read and watch. We are interested in your thoughts and reactions to these readings/video. You may participate by blogging on your own blog (remember to categorize it as ECON 260), creating a new post on the front page of this site, or reply/comment here.

Topic 10 – Environment & the Commons

• The Tragedy of “The Tragedy of the Commons”
  http://theminskys.org/tragedy/
• Bad Growth vs Good Growth: How to Protect the Earth and Have a Vibrant, More Equitable Market Economy – Peter Barnes on Evonomics http://evonomics.com/growth-protect-earth-market-economy-peter-barnes/
• The Ideology of Exponential Growth Devours and Corrupts by Davide Heinemeier Hansson on Evonomics http://evonomics.com/growth-protect-earth-market-economy-peter-barnes/

Video to Watch:
TED Talk: Dan Barber – How I Fell in Love With A Fish

What It Is About

Chef Dan Barber squares off with a dilemma facing many chefs today: how to keep fish on the menu. With impeccable research and deadpan humor, he chronicles his pursuit of a sustainable fish he could love, and the foodie’s honeymoon he’s enjoyed since discovering an outrageously delicious fish raised using a revolutionary farming method in Spain.

I am not an ecologist or biologist. Dan Barber may or may not be correct in his assessment of sustainability of the particular farm he talks about. But that is not the point here. The point I want you to pay attention to is how Barber describes a different approach to agriculture. Think about that. Think about how we do current agriculture (if you’re not really aware of current agriculture practices you may want to watch Food Inc.). How will these changes affect our economic systems? Will our economic systems produce sustainable production?

How I Fell In Love With A Fish (alt link if embedded video doesn’t display)