Tuesday, January 29, 2019

The economic Tale of two imaginary Islands

In vogue these days are people who accuse others of being economic ignoramuses, and yet do not explain the theories they pretend to espouse. Or if they take the trouble to explain; they sound like a caveman trying to explain rocket science.

And so, in the interest of having a more meaningful debate on economics, we should start with the most fundamental of principles. That is, let's not start with Economics 101 but Economics 001. To this end, we imagine two adjacent islands in the middle of the ocean; each inhabited by a hundred thousand people or so. They lived for generations on fishing, hunting small animals, catching birds and doing a limited amount of farming.

Given that these activities require the effort of every able-bodied individual to lend a hand, both economies remained stagnant during all that time. But then one day a small tsunami hit one of the islands, causing some damage to the meager installations on which the people depended for their survival. This forced the labor force that used to go fishing at sea, to stay home and work on fixing the resulting damage. The force also worked on constructing a barrier made with blocks of granite, to prevent future tsunamis from causing a similar damage.

But in building that structure, the workers unintentionally created an estuary that would fill up with seawater and fish at high tide. Hours later, when the low tide happened, the water would escape through the small spaces between the blocks, while the fish would remain trapped in the estuary, ready to be scooped up with the minimum of effort, and taken to market.

The resulting effect has been to provide the island with three times more fish than when the fishermen used to go out to sea. In addition, the island found itself blessed with a surplus of labor that can be deployed in other sectors of the economy. This prompted the island elders to get together and discuss the ways by which to distribute the freed labor force. When all was said and done, they had planned for the improvement of the housing situation, and for expanding the hunting and farming industries.

A year later, a delegation from the island that was spared the tsunami went to visit the island that was stricken. Instead of seeing devastation, members of the delegation witnessed the marked rise in the standard of living of an island that used to look like their own, but now looks distinctly wealthier. And so, the members wanted to know how this was achieved. They asked questions, and the elders of the now wealthy island explained it to them. What follows is a summary of what they said:

To create additional wealth for your society, you must have three ingredients: A need for goods or services, the knowledge to make them, and the manpower to produce them. When you have all these in place, the way you manage them will determine how much growth, if any, will be added to your standard of living.

We now turn our attention to the Americans who debate economics. The lesson they should draw from the story of the two islands, is that when the three ingredients for economic expansion exist, what counts as relevant is the discussion about how to manage those ingredients. And what's irrelevant would be arguments concerning how to pay for a given project. In fact, this question is such a bogus and destructive consideration, it must never be allowed to enter the discussion.

In America, like everywhere else in the world, there is a need for healthcare. No one doubts that the country has the knowledge and the manpower to provide that service. With these ingredients available, what keeps the project from being implemented, is the fake question as to how it will be paid for. The reality is that it is paid for right now ... in fact, it is paid for at a rate that is higher than necessary for the simple reason that the project is badly managed. How so?

What is painful for the debaters to admit, is that at the root of many contemporary American problems, lies a fundamental transformation of the culture. It happened in every profession, form the basest kind such as crass politics to the loftiest kind such as the medical arts. In the old days, people were guided by morality, and driven by a sense of duty as well as pride in their profession. What drives them today is greed, which they satisfy by shamelessly and openly coercing and milking those with whom they do business.

These people know that to succeed, they must have — here is the big word — leverage. And there is no leverage more powerful than what's in the hand of the healthcare practitioners and the middlemen who insure the practice. They are the people that have the means to hold as hostage the lives and well-being of the entire nation. The sad part is that they are using that leverage to make unreasonable and greedy demands.

Thus, for a debate on the subject of healthcare in America to be meaningful and bear fruit, it must begin with the search for ways to nullify the effect of the leverage that's in the hands of the insurers, and the few practitioners who play the immoral game of greed, along with them.