Article Artículo
Donald Trump’s Plan for Winning the China Trade War: LyingDean Baker / September 23, 2019
Article Artículo
Latin America and the Caribbean
Venezuela’s Oil Production Fell Precipitously After the Enactment of New US Sanctions in February 2019Kevin Cashman and Dan Beeton / September 23, 2019
Article Artículo
تحریم های آمریکا برای مرگ طراحی شده اندKevin Cashman and / September 18, 2019
report informe
The Productivity to Paycheck Gap: 2019 UpdateDean Baker / September 18, 2019
report informe
Historically Slow Productivity Growth Since 2005 Hampers Wages, ProfitsSeptember 17, 2019
Article Artículo
The Official U.S. Poverty Rate is Based on a Hopelessly Out-of-Date MetricShawn Fremstad / September 16, 2019
Article Artículo
Latin America and the Caribbean
Las reformas del FMI pueden empeorar la situación: el caso de EcuadorMark Weisbrot / September 16, 2019
report informe
The Rollback of Worker Protections and the Culture of Long Hours Leave Our Economy More Vulnerable to the Next RecessionDean Baker / September 16, 2019
Article Artículo
The Crazy in Economic DataDean Baker / September 16, 2019
Article Artículo
Health Care Premiums and TaxesThere's an old joke about a lawyer who is questioning a doctor on an autopsy they had done on someone who was allegedly a murder victim.
The lawyer asked the doctor, "did you check whether the patient was breathing?"
The doctor answers "no."
The lawyer then asks "did you check whether the patient had a pulse?"
The doctor again answers "no."
The lawyer then asks, "so how did you know that the patient was dead," to which the doctor responds, "because his brains were sitting in a jar on my desk."
The lawyer then triumphantly asks, "so he could have still been alive?" To which the doctor responds, "I suppose he could have been practicing law somewhere."
Our doctor may want to amend their answer to allow for the possibility that the patient could be a political pundit for a leading news outlet.
Our pundit class have to decided to make a crusade out of forcing Senators Warren and Sanders into saying that their proposals for universal Medicare will require a tax increase. Both have repeatedly responded by saying that total costs for the vast majority of people will fall, since Medicare for All will lead to a large reduction in costs by all accounts, because it reduces waste in the health care system.
Our pundit class have insisted that this is some sort of dodge. While there may be no hope in addressing arguments to people who have their brains in a jar on a doctor's desk, there is a simple point that everyone else should understand.
CEPR / September 14, 2019
Article Artículo
Patents and Copyright: Protection Racket for IntellectualsLast week I was asked on Twitter why proposals for replacing patent monopoly financing of prescription drugs with direct public financing have gained so little traction. After all, this would mean that drugs would be cheap; no one would have to struggle with paying tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for drugs that are needed for their health or to save their life. (This is discussed in chapter 5 of Rigged [it’s free].)
Public funding would also eliminate the incentive to misrepresent the safety and effectiveness of drugs in order to maximize sales at the patent monopoly price. Without patent monopolies, the drug companies would not have had the same incentive to push opioids, as well as many other drugs of questionable safety and effectiveness.
The idea of direct funding of biomedical research also should not seem strange to people. We currently spend close to $45 billion a year on research through the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies. The idea of doubling or tripling this funding to replace the roughly $70 billion of patent supported research now done by the pharmaceutical industry, should not appear outlandish, especially since the potential savings from free-market drugs would be close to $400 billion annually (1.9 percent of GDP).
So why is there so little interest in reforming the prescription drug industry along these lines? I can think of two plausible answers. The first is a self-serving one for the elites who dominate policy debates. They don’t like to have questions raised about the basic underpinnings of the distribution of income.
The second is perhaps a more simple proposition. Intellectuals have a hard time dealing with new ideas and paying for innovation outside of the patent system or creative work outside of the copyright system is a new idea that most intellectual types would rather not wrestle with.
CEPR / September 13, 2019
Article Artículo
Housing Continues to be the Major Factor Driving InflationSeptember 12, 2019
CEPR and / September 12, 2019
Prices Byte Artículo
Rising Health Insurance Costs Push Core CPI HigherSeptember 12, 2019 (Prices Byte)
Dean Baker / September 12, 2019
Article Artículo
WSJ Thinks Higher Social Security Taxes Are a Bigger Deal to Workers than Losing Ten Times as Much Money to Upward RedistributionCEPR / September 11, 2019
report informe
Private Equity Tries to Protect Another Profit CenterEileen Appelbaum and / September 10, 2019
Article Artículo
Private Equity Tries to Protect Another Profit CenterEileen Appelbaum and Rosemary Batt / September 09, 2019
Article Artículo
The Official Poverty Measure Has Defined Deprivation DownShawn Fremstad / September 09, 2019