Monday, 24 November 2014 / TRUTH-OUT.ORG
  • The Craving for Democracy

    Craving real democracy, many people are unwilling to participate in an electoral game that does not provide any form of genuine popular control over decisions that affect people's well-being and freedom.

  • Tough Lessons for Rahm

    The number of black educators in Chicago's public schools dropped precipitously. With actions that disproportionately affected black teachers, that pattern continued under Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Free Markets Are Not Always the Best Medicine

Tuesday, 27 May 2014 16:53 By Paul Krugman, Krugman & Co. | Op-Ed

Dr. Marian Bednar looks over some notes in the emergency room at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas. (Photo: Mark Graham for The New York Times) Dr. Marian Bednar looks over some notes in the emergency room at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas. (Photo: Mark Graham for The New York Times)

Steven Levitt, in his new book, Think Like a Freak, with Stephen Dubner, thinks he was being smart by telling British Prime Minister David Cameron that he should scrap the National Health Service and let the magic of the marketplace deal with health care. Strangely, Mr. Cameron wasn't impressed.

I think there are several things going on here. One is a Levitt-specific, or maybe Freakonomics-specific, effect: the belief that a smart guy can waltz into any subject and that his shoot-from-the-hip assertions are as good as those of the experts. Remember, Mr. Levitt did this on climate in his last book, Super Freakonomics, delivering such brilliant judgments as the assertion that because solar panels are black (which they actually aren't), they'll absorb heat and make global warming worse.

So it's true to form that he would consider it unnecessary to pay attention to the work of lots of health economists, or for that matter the insights of the economist Ken Arrow, and assert: hey, I don't see any reason not to trust markets here. There's also the resurgence of faith-based free-market fundamentalism.

I'll write more on this soon, but I'm seeing on multiple fronts signs of an attempt to wave away everything that happened to the world these past seven years and go back to the notion that the market always knows best. Hey, the solution was always about allocating scarce resources (never mind all those unemployed workers and zero interest rates). And why would anyone ever imagine that market prices are wrong (don't mention the bubble)?

Underlying all of this is a problem of methodology. How should you use the perfectly competitive model, so beloved of economists? It is, of course, only a model, and we know that its underlying assumptions are untrue. There's the Milton Friedman dictum that this doesn't matter as long as the model makes good predictions; that's actually quite problematic, and there are good reasons to argue that the realism of the assumptions matters too.

But one thing people surely shouldn't do - one thing that even Friedman would have said, or at least should have said, people shouldn't do - is cling to the idealized free-market model when it makes lousy predictions.

In the case of health care, we know that all the assumptions behind free market optimality are grossly violated. Maybe, maybe, you could still justify treating health as a normal market if free markets in health care seemed, in practice, to work well. But they don't! In the United States, our uniquely privatized system is uniquely expensive, while overall indicators of the quality of care don't point to any American superiority. On the face of it, the evidence strongly suggests that the proposition that health is an area where private markets work badly is borne out by experience.

If one chooses to reject that evidence, if one insists that markets must work just as well for surgery as for shoes, one has to ask: is there anything at all that would make people question free-market fundamentalism? If not, then you're just selling pure faith.

© 2014 The New York Times Company
Truthout has licensed this content. It may not be reproduced by any other source and is not covered by our Creative Commons license.
Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed page and continues as a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. He was awarded the Nobel in economic science in 2008. Mr Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes, including "The Return of Depression Economics" (2008) and "The Conscience of a Liberal" (2007).
Copyright 2014 The New York Times.

Hide Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus
GET DAILY TRUTHOUT UPDATES

FOLLOW togtorsstottofb


Free Markets Are Not Always the Best Medicine

Tuesday, 27 May 2014 16:53 By Paul Krugman, Krugman & Co. | Op-Ed

Dr. Marian Bednar looks over some notes in the emergency room at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas. (Photo: Mark Graham for The New York Times) Dr. Marian Bednar looks over some notes in the emergency room at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas. (Photo: Mark Graham for The New York Times)

Steven Levitt, in his new book, Think Like a Freak, with Stephen Dubner, thinks he was being smart by telling British Prime Minister David Cameron that he should scrap the National Health Service and let the magic of the marketplace deal with health care. Strangely, Mr. Cameron wasn't impressed.

I think there are several things going on here. One is a Levitt-specific, or maybe Freakonomics-specific, effect: the belief that a smart guy can waltz into any subject and that his shoot-from-the-hip assertions are as good as those of the experts. Remember, Mr. Levitt did this on climate in his last book, Super Freakonomics, delivering such brilliant judgments as the assertion that because solar panels are black (which they actually aren't), they'll absorb heat and make global warming worse.

So it's true to form that he would consider it unnecessary to pay attention to the work of lots of health economists, or for that matter the insights of the economist Ken Arrow, and assert: hey, I don't see any reason not to trust markets here. There's also the resurgence of faith-based free-market fundamentalism.

I'll write more on this soon, but I'm seeing on multiple fronts signs of an attempt to wave away everything that happened to the world these past seven years and go back to the notion that the market always knows best. Hey, the solution was always about allocating scarce resources (never mind all those unemployed workers and zero interest rates). And why would anyone ever imagine that market prices are wrong (don't mention the bubble)?

Underlying all of this is a problem of methodology. How should you use the perfectly competitive model, so beloved of economists? It is, of course, only a model, and we know that its underlying assumptions are untrue. There's the Milton Friedman dictum that this doesn't matter as long as the model makes good predictions; that's actually quite problematic, and there are good reasons to argue that the realism of the assumptions matters too.

But one thing people surely shouldn't do - one thing that even Friedman would have said, or at least should have said, people shouldn't do - is cling to the idealized free-market model when it makes lousy predictions.

In the case of health care, we know that all the assumptions behind free market optimality are grossly violated. Maybe, maybe, you could still justify treating health as a normal market if free markets in health care seemed, in practice, to work well. But they don't! In the United States, our uniquely privatized system is uniquely expensive, while overall indicators of the quality of care don't point to any American superiority. On the face of it, the evidence strongly suggests that the proposition that health is an area where private markets work badly is borne out by experience.

If one chooses to reject that evidence, if one insists that markets must work just as well for surgery as for shoes, one has to ask: is there anything at all that would make people question free-market fundamentalism? If not, then you're just selling pure faith.

© 2014 The New York Times Company
Truthout has licensed this content. It may not be reproduced by any other source and is not covered by our Creative Commons license.
Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed page and continues as a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. He was awarded the Nobel in economic science in 2008. Mr Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes, including "The Return of Depression Economics" (2008) and "The Conscience of a Liberal" (2007).
Copyright 2014 The New York Times.

Hide Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus