Thursday, June 27, 2019

Medicare-for-all has a modeling problem Jeff Spross

Stephanie Kelton interviewed. Modeling this is a huge undertaking.


Calgacus said...

Somewhat misleading or confusing writing because of the distance of this counterfactual premise:

"Let's assume the economy is already at full capacity. (It's not, but assume it is.)"

followed by the question

"Then you pass Medicare-for-all, and you don't raise a cent in taxes to offset it. What happens?"

to from a conclusion drawn from the counterfactual:

"Almost certainly, you'd overheat the economy and get inflation."

So what is really bad are the final questions, which implicitly assume as reality the declared counterfactual assumption and counterfactual overheating and inflation conclusion:
"Exactly how much of Medicare-for-all's spending should be offset with taxes? Or what kind of taxes?"

In the real world, we are probably quite far enough from full capacity that the answer is "Absolutely None".

Sure, do some modeling, but it isn't essential; what is important is political logrolling. Just do it. Do people think plutocrats feel the need to accurately "model" when they demand and get for more corporate welfare, killtoys or tax cuts? Hah!

Greg said...

It also needs one more qualifier. Is it Medicare only for all or is it Medicare at minimum for all?