Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jane Flemming's avatar

I discovered this idea recently. Michael Rushton, an economist has a very interesting substack about funding for the arts. He also called it cost disease, which feels less neutral. It made a big impression on me, because it provided an economic justification ( we seem to require those for everything) for programs to ensure children get a good start in life, so they can take best advantage of expensive educational opportunities. Healthy diets, good education, recreational opportunities etc mean less need for expensive healthcare. Good health, good education, social supports and unions to support fair wages mean less crime and less need for expensive prisons. It’s a powerful idea.

Expand full comment
Matt Fulkerson's avatar

In the US, federal taxes go down and state and local taxes go up (at least here in Minnesota) over time. However, the rising cost of health care and higher education (which are private expenses for the most part) far exceeds income growth, and taxes don't cover those costs at all (except in the case of in state tuition, partially).

Also in the US, I'm wondering about your measurement of increased average hourly wages. Is this the mean wage, or the median wage? The growth in the median wage is much smaller in the US due to the increasing concentration of wealth at the top.

I think your arguments apply to Norway and Europe much better than to the US.

Finally, fully agreed on your take of economics. I admit I haven't studied much, but from studying physics and how hard it is for a theory to be accepted and correct, I've always felt economists who were sure of themselves were also full of it. I mean imagine where the medical field would be if it were influenced by politics to the degree that economics is.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts