survival of the fittest,fool. where do you idiot libs find this shit. you people really do suffer from a mental disorder.
On Jan 10, 3:23 pm, "M.A. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > FEATURED ARTICLE | JANUARY 5, 2009Should Government Reduce Inequality in Life > Spans?Dwight R. Lee* > The concern that so many people have over large inequality of income is > puzzling for two reasons. First, some of those most adamantly in favor of > reducing income inequality using government taxation and transfers also > dismiss the importance of additional income for most people.1They tell us > that money doesn't buy happiness once we have such basics as adequate > housing, food, clothing and access to health care (which is different than > having health insurance).2Because the vast majority of Americans have these > basics, the focus on income inequality does not make much sense. > The second reason this focus is puzzling is that there is a far more > important inequality: that is the inequality in life expectancy. Precisely > because income in excess of a fairly modest income (modest, at least, by U.S. > standards) is not very important, what matters more for happiness is the > amount of time we have on this earth to be happy. Few would deny that a few > additional years of life would be more precious to most Americans than the > extra money they might receive from government transfers. If inequality in > things that matter is important, there is a basic inequality that the > worriers about inequality should be paying attention to: the inequality in > life expectancy between men and women. > In 2005, life expectancy at birth was almost seven percent higher for > American women than for American men (80.4 years for women vs. 75.2 years for > men). Governments could certainly reduce this life-expectancy inequality by > redistributing medical research funding on women's health to research on > men's health, and general medical care funding from women to men. Consider > that men are more likely to die from prostate cancer than women are from > breast cancer. Yet in 2005 federal expenditures for prostate cancer research > were $390 million compared to $698 million for breast cancer research, and > the American Cancer Society contributed almost three times as much for breast > cancer research ($98 million) as for prostate cancer research ($36 million). > When I talk to people, I find that they generally agree with, and rarely > strongly oppose, forcible government transfers of income from the rich to the > poor to reduce income inequality. But when I suggest that the government > transfer medical expenditures from women to men to reduce life-expectancy > inequality, I get a very different reaction. Often, the listener will simply > give me a strange look and quickly depart. Those who do respond verbally, > however, typically say that I couldn't possibly be serious because my idea is > outrageously silly. I agree. It is silly. But I am completely serious in > suggesting it.For the definition of "gender gap, seeGender Gap,by Claudia > Goldin andDiscrimination,by Linda Gorman.Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. > For a podcast on inequality, seeWilliam Bernstein on Inequalitywith host Russ > Roberts on EconTalk. Oct. 6, 2008.When we seriously consider an attempt to > use government power to reduce the gender inequality in life expectancy, the > problems that we have always faced when government uses its power to reduce > income inequality suddenly become crystal clear. Government transfers to > reduce the gender gap in life expectancy would do little more than > reduceimprovementsin both women's and men's life expectancies. For similar > reasons, government transfers have done little more than reduce the income > growth ofboththe rich and the poor. So government attempts to reduce > life-expectancy inequality by transferring medical expenditures would be > silly, but no sillier than its attempts to reduce income inequality by > transferring money. > There are several reasons why redistributing medical expenditures to reduce > gender inequality in life expectancies would not work. And there are parallel > reasons for the failure of redistributing money to reduce income inequality. > First, the longevity of married men is positively related to the longevity of > their wives. Becoming widowed increases the death rate of both men and women, > but the increase is greater for men than for women.3So any policy that > retards increases in women's longevity in an effort to boost the increase in > men's longevity is likely to reduce the increase in both. Such a policy might > reduce the longevity gender gap, but would do so mainly by reducing the life > expectancy that both men and women would otherwise have experienced. > Similarly, the real incomes of the poor are greater in rich countries than in > poor countriesi.e., the poor are better off in countries in which people can > become wealthy by making more productive use of their human and physical > capital. A policy that retards the growth in the incomes of the wealthy to > increase transfers to the poor can be expected to reduce income growth for > both while doing little to reduce income inequality.For a definition of moral > hazard, seeInsurance,by Richard Zeckhauser.Concise Encyclopedia of > Economics.Second, if additional medical research and care are transferred > from women to men to increase male longevity, any increase would be at least > partially offset by the moral hazard problemthat is, as men receive more > medical care, they will engage in more-risky and less-healthy behavior. So > some, and maybe most, of any reduction in the gap in gender longevity would > result from slower growth in women's longevity. A similar moral hazard also > reduces the gain to recipients of income transfers. When government transfers > are made available to the poor, the poor will substitute government-provided > income for privately-earned income. So those receiving government transfers > typically gain less than those paying for the transfers lose, and any > reduction in income inequality results less from gains to the poor than from > losses to the non-poor.4For more on health insurance and health care, > seeHealth Care,by Michael A. Morrisey.Concise Encyclopedia of > Economics.Third, trying to force medical expenditure in directions that > reduce the gender inequality in life expectancies is not the best way to > realize the greatest gain in overall life expectancy. The > greatestaggregatebenefit is achieved by allocating medical resources so that > they create the best medical outcomes, irrespective of how a > politically-favored group might benefit from particular expenditures. There > is no evidence that better health and longer life expectancies in general > increases gender inequality in longevity. Similarly, transferring resources > in an attempt to reduce income inequality reduces an economy's productivity > growth, and productivity growth is the most effective way of helping the > poor. Who can deny that it is better to be poor in a prosperous country than > in a poor one?For historical readings on factors involving life expectancy, > longevity, and economic well-being by health and gender, see the biography > ofThomas Robert Malthus,Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, and hisEssay on > the Principle of Population(including, in the 2nd-6th editions, Malthus's > seminal in-the-field studies comparing records of births/deaths/longevity by > nationality, race, and gender across countries and political > processes).Finally, one can object that the political process is incapable of > reducing the longevity difference between men and women. There are so many > interacting factors involved in life expectancy outcomes that empowering > politicians to reduce the longevity gap would, given the voters' rational > ignorance, expand politicians' latitude to pursue unrelated political > objectives. Indeed, politicians could enact policies that increase the gap > and reduce increases in life expectancies without worry that the harm would > be noticed, let alone blamed on them. In comparison, it might seem > straightforward for politicians to reduce income inequality by increasing > taxes on the wealthy and transferring the money to the poor. But politicians > have demonstrated little ability to reduce income inequality despite the > enormous amounts of money they have been transferring, supposedly for this > purpose, for decades.5For more on these topics, seePoverty in America,by > Isabel V. Sawhill,Population,by Ronald Lee Demos, andStandards of Living and > Modern Economic Growth,by John V. C. Nye.Concise Encyclopedia of > Economics.Once voters express themselves in favor of allegedly noble > objectives, such as reducing income inequality with transfers, almost none of > them take the trouble to determine where the transfers actually go. This > allows politicians to improve their re-election prospects by largely ignoring > income inequality and directing most of the transfers to politically > influential interest groups (think farmers, exporters, university students, > small businesses, businesses too large to fail and now investment bankers) > and to large numbers of the general public (thinkSocial Securityand Medicare > recipients, and homeowners who receive tax breaks in the form of interest > deductibility on interest payments), few of whom are poor and almost none of > whom are chronically poor. Interestingly, politicians are not reluctant to > inform the public that income inequality has increased rather than decreased. > Indeed, they often exaggerate any increase.6Politicians have noticed that > they can blame the failure of existing transfer programs to reduce income > inequality on such things as corporate greed, failure to increase taxes, and > immigration. And they use that failure to justify yet more transfers that can > be used to increase their election prospects rather than to reduce income > inequality. > Gender inequality in life expectancy is something that government's forced > transfers can do little, if anything, to reduce. Fortunately, politicians > have not yet seen an electoral benefit from attempting to reduce this > inequality. Greater longevity for men is desirable independent of comparisons > with the longevity of women, and it is best achieved when government is > largely limited to enforcing the general rules of private property and > voluntary exchange that promote freedom and prosperity. By contrast, > politicians have found it politically advantageous to exaggerate income > inequality and convince the public that it is a serious problem demanding > more government transfers. The reality is that political attempts to reduce > income inequality with transfers are frustrated by the same considerations > that would frustrate an attempt to reduce gender inequality in life > expectancy with transfers. Helping the poor by reducing poverty is desirable > independent of comparisons with the wealth of the rich. And, as with greater > longevity for men, improving the income of the poor is best achieved by the > freedom and prosperity that result when government is restricted to enforcing > the general rules of private property and voluntary exchange.Further Reading > Frank, Robert H.,Falling Behind: How Rising Inequality Harms the Middle > Class.(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007). > Haveman, Robert,Starting Even: An Equal Opportunity Program to Combat the > Nation's New Poverty.1988. > Layard, Richard,Happiness: Lessons from a New Science.(New York: The Penguin > Press, 2005). > Lee, Dwight R. "Who Says Money Can't Buy Happiness,"The Independent > Review.Vol. 10, No. 3 (Winter 2006): 385-400. > Lee, Dwight R.,"Redistribution"in David R. Henderson (ed.)The Concise > Encyclopedia of Economics(2008). > Okun, Arthur M.,Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff.1975. > Reynolds, Alan, "Has U.S. Income Inequality Really Increased?"Policy > Analysis,No. 586 (Washington: Cato Institute, January 8, 2007). > Sawhill, Isabel V. "Poverty in the U.S.: Why Is It So Persistent?"Journal of > Economic Literature26 (September 1988): 1073-1119.Footnotes1. See Frank > (2007; Chapter 3) and Richard Layard"Setting Happiness as a National Goal."2. > See Layard (2005) for a thorough and sympathetic discussion of this view of > money and happiness.3. See"Married People and Widows Found to Outlive > Widowers."Joel Greenberg,NYTimes.July 31, 1981.4. This ignores the > dead-weight loss from taxation and the administrative cost of transferring > money from taxpayers to those receiving the transfers.5. One never knows for > sure what income inequality would be without the tremendous increase in > government spending in the name of helping the poor since the 1960s. But we > do know the income inequality has not declined much, if any, since the 1960s, > and those who want the government to transfer more to the poor claim that > income inequality has increased. For a discussion of some of the political > difficulties involved in attempts to transfer income to the poor from > economists who favor such transfers see Haveman (1988), Okun (1975) and > Sawhill (1988). For a short discussion of this difficulties from someone who > is not favorably to these transfers, see Lee (2008).6. See"Obama Addresses > Income Inequality"for aWashington Postarticle on Obama addressing the problem > of income inequality. For evidence that income inequality is exaggerated, see > Reynolds (2007).*I would like to thank the EarhartFoundation for supporting > my research on the economics of happiness that led to the idea for this > column.Dwight R. Lee is the William J. O'Neil Professor of Global Markets and > Freedom at the Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist > University.http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2009/Leelifeexpectancy.html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
