I learn, I think and then I write. I believe in intellectual sophistication. I am Apollonian. I am an anationalist or what many call a Digital Nomad. Please subscribe to my Newsletter to stay in touch.
Pages describe my original work.
The Bible grants 70 years of life to a person (80 years if one is particularly energetic). That was written at a time when most people did not live to anything close to that age. The statement was intended as an expression of ultimate lifespan, achievable only if one circumvented the many threats presented to one's quest for longevity. As we will see, until the 20th Century, while an increasing number of people reached that age, 70 or 80 was still the age reached by most 'healthy' or 'energetic' people. After about 1970, that started to change and did so dramatically. As we will see in this article, 100+ year lifespans should no longer be considered an extreme rarity, but rather a reasonable, common, even expected, outcome. So far, ultimate lifespans have increased due to substantial and progressive improvements in treating the two primary causes of death in the elderly, heart disease and cancer. We will see why this surge in life expectancy is likely asymptotic at around 100 years with an approximate standard deviation of about 5 years. At the end of the article, we will briefly consider a few of the 'radical life extension' technologies currently under research. From a CDC table we see that the remaining life expectancy of a 65 year old U.S. citizen has increased as follows: 1950 13.9, 1960 14.3, 1970 15.2, 1980 16.4 1990 17.2, 2000 17.6, 2010 19.1 2020 19.6. That places us currently at about an average life expectancy for a 65 y.o. of 84.6 years. This life expectancy has been increasing at the rate of about .8 years per decade over the last 70 years. We see that it has come in fits and starts with the 1970s seeing an increase of 1.2 years and the 2000s seeing an increase of 1.5 years and other decades substantially less. While these statistics appear to be forward looking, they are actually historical. In other words, a more accurate way of putting this is that for the person born 85 years ago, or in 1935, of those who reached the age of 65, half of them are dead and half of them are still alive. In reality, the 65 year old of today, assuming the current trend continues, has a life expectancy that will be 2 decades X .8 years or 1.6 years longer. Furthermore, we might conclude that in another (100-(84.6+1.6))/.8=17.25 decades, the mean life expectancy of a 65 y.o. will reach 100.
However, these statistics do not differentiate between race, sex or income, all of which have an effect on lifespan. Of these, income has the greatest effect and it is increasing over time, as well. At age 65, the sex difference has decreased from 4.2 to 2.4 years. The difference between white and black has decreased from 1.4 years to 1.1. However, during the same time, as we see below, for white 50 year old males, the difference between the lowest and highest quintile has increased from around 6 years to 12.7 years. Furthermore, the upper 40% of 50 year old males are experiencing an increase in lifespan of about 2.25 years per decade compared to 1.6 years per decade for males in total.
Because of this, not surprisingly, U.S. Presidents, who are primarily white males and well into the upper quintile of income are now living well into their 90s. Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, died at 93, George H.W. Bush lived to 94 and Jimmy Carter has already managed 95. This, however, as would be expected, is a new phenomenon. Prior to these four, only John Adams made it past 90 and he died at precisely 90. So, the last three Presidents to die have also been the three oldest Presidents and Jimmy Carter will exceed all those. The break-point seems to be for those born around 1910. The four Presidents before Ford, Bush, Reagan and Carter (not including Kennedy) lived to an average of 78 or 15 years less. These are small data sets and, consequently, not very trustworthy. Since the break point seems to be around 1910, I decided to look at lists of other prominent people in government and see if the trend continues. Vice Presidents are problematical because they often become President. So, I looked at Secretaries of State. There are nine born after 1910 that I counted, three of whom are still alive, but in their 90s. The data set averages 88, compared to the preceding nine who lived, on average, to 76. This is not as exaggerated, but it still is a 12 year difference. Three of the nine are still alive, so ultimately, this could approach the age of the last four Presidents.
https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2016/retrieve.php?pdfid=1025 The men who were 50 38.8 years prior to 2010 are now dying at aged 88.8. To clarify, the subject men were born in 1921. However, if you are 50 now you were born 1969 or 48 years later. As we see, the life expectancy has been increased by .225 years per year or 48X.225=10.8 years. That means the 50 year old of today, in the target group has a life expectancy of 88.8+10.8=99.6. So, if you are a man, around 50 years old and in the upper two quintiles in income, you should expect to live well into your 90s and quite possibly into your 100s. That is without any extraordinary medical breakthroughs. That is just based upon current trends. Oddly, that expectation doesn't change much with your age. That is because, if you are under 50, you have a non-zero chance of dying before you reach 50 and if you are over 50, you have a higher life expectancy because you survived to an age over 50. So, for example, a 70 year old man who was in the top two quintiles when he was 50, still has a life expectancy of 98.3 or only 1.3 years less than the 50 year old even though he is twenty years older.
********************
The Polymath will publish analysis and commentary at the highest level of intellectual sophistication, focusing on articles that challenge the conventional wisdoms of both the Left and the Right or provide new insights into poorly investigated topics. Consider this article an example. Subscribe here. Email Address
But, that is not the end of it. There are reasons to believe that the linear increase in life expectancy of .225 years per year could start to level out. Admittedly, it includes all men and is just a 7 year trend but the CDC chart appears to be leveling off at about 87 years. A growing percentage of people in their 90s are reaching the end of the road with technologies reducing early death from cancer and heart disease. Additional increases may require dealing with what appear to be the most common causes of death for people over 100. These are frailty, Alzheimer's Disease and Disseminated Amyloidosis. The success in treating these diseases and extending life expectancy past the mid-90s or so may result in a different trajectory in life expectancy increase. Of course, it could be faster or slower. It is now understood that progressive resistance strength training substantially postpones frailty. However, the loss of mitochondria, cell senescence and sarcopenia, the underlying causes of frailty can be delayed through exercise but, ultimately, increasing age will overcome the benefit. More needs to be done in order to decrease frailty over the age of 100. Part of the cause of mitochondrial malfunction has to do with the failure of autophagy especially mitophagy. There is strong evidence that cellular senescence contributes to mitochondrial dysfunction and may be a primary contributor to gerontological frailty. Fortunately, the health problems associated with aging due to the accumulation of senescent cells appear to be on the verge of a solution. Over the last decade research has demonstrated that clearing senescent cells from aged mice dramatically returned them to a more youthful phenotype. Of course, the mechanisms may be useful in short lived animals but not in humans. However, there is an accumulating body of evidence that cellular senescence may be the cause of much of the elder phenotype in humans. However, senolytics, while eliminating senescent cells, also eliminate healthy ones and further research is needed. Two FDA approved drugs, Metformin and Rapamycin also appear to extend lifespan. Metformin, prescribed to treat type 2 diabetes was found in a retrospective study to extend life expectancy in T2DM patients, over time, to above that of the general population. With typical scientific conservatism, trials were started with mouse models and have now progressed to human trials. Initial results suggest that it probably does slow aging. It is being speculated that it stimulates the same physiological responses as calorie restriction, a long known technique for life extension. There are also suggestions that it may improve the energy pathways. Rapamycin, an immunological suppressant used in organ transplants, also appears to have, in lower doses, anti-aging effects. In middle aged mice, a 90 day course of rapamycin increased median life expectancy by 60%. However, genetically heterogenous mice, while still experiencing a statistically significant increase in lifespan, had substantially less increase. Of course, as is the case with virtually all research using mouse models, the response is far more dramatic than it is in humans. The use and positive results of a 90 day course of treatment confounds the generally accepted assumption that Rapamycin extends lifespan by reducing the incidence of cancer. Of these three regimens, two of which are deliverable in 90 day chemotherapy treatments, the senolytics seem to be the most effective in modifying the elderly phenotype, while Metformin and Rapamycin extend life but not necessary healthspan. As stated earlier there are reasons to believe that, in the absence of fundamental breakthroughs, life expectancy may be asymptotic just above 100. One study that applied the Gompertz law to human senescence rate found an asymptote at 104. However, since senolytics clear accumulated senescent cells, that technology, if successful, may lift or even eliminate that limit to lifespan. A University of Michigan postmortem study of 7 supercentarians found that 6 of them died of amyloidosis, a disease closely related to Alzheimer's. In combination with a senolytic therapy, this could result in much longer lifespans. How much longer is difficult to determine because, until people routinely exceed 115, we cannot be sure what further medical challenges may surface. It is only in the last decade that amyloidosis has surfaced as a problem to be solved. We see that extending current trends for the top 40% of the population in income leads to life expectancy of just under 100 for men and just over for women. This life expectancy only increases slightly for young people (~30) compared to older people (~70). We hope that this lifespan will be driven down to lower income levels until they are routine for everyone. Healthspans also are likely to increase, partially from an understanding that exercise slows ageing and partially from senolytics. While life expectancy over 100 and possibly over 115 is possible, it will rely upon medical breakthroughs that, while currently under study and promising, are not yet demonstrated.
So, my current assessment is that people today should plan on living to about 100 (with the understanding that there is a wide distribution) and, if so inclined, realistically hope for 115 or more.
Here, I propose that Medicare, with all parts, A, B, C, and D, has its age of coverage fall at the rate of ten years per year and, as those workers newly covered by it cease their use of employer based health coverage, the employer portion of the Medicare tax will increase to compensate. Because Medicare fee schedules are below those on nearly all corporate health plans, industry wide, this would cause no increase in total employee health care costs to businesses. As well, because the corporations will be funding the added rolls of Medicare recipients, there will be no added cost to the taxpayer. This is not a 'government takeover of healthcare' because Part C, commonly referred to as Medicare Advantage is a set of, mostly, PPO and HMO private health insurance plans. Of course, there are many devils in the many details, but they do not change the overall conclusion that this plan is superior to any current plans or any proposals.
It would also be an improvement over the socialized medicine that dominates most of the developed world. This means that as it implements it will likely stimulate discussion over all of Europe and the Americas. It is important to discriminate between this Medicare Advantage for All proposal and the many Medicare for All proposals. They are not Medicare for all but rather standard European style nationalized healthcare systems. They are not putting for radical new ideas but rather using a political slogan that merely rebrands a very old idea. My proposal of being currently floated by U.S. Presidential candidates. Medicare Advantage for All is a blend of public and private healthcare systems, taking the best from both. It will be close to revenue neutral and, over time, will probably result in a sustained inflation adjusted reduction of total national healthcare costs. It needs to gain exposure and it will likely need to do so against a not insignificant degree of political headwind. The Republicans and Democrats have both staked out their positions and pledged fealty to the special interests that those proposals benefit. The Republicans will like the retention of private insurance, but will dislike that the government or a quasi-government agency is inserted into the funding. Democrats will like that the government will be involved in fee setting ad funding mechanism but will not like that the insurance companies will continue to exist. However, if adopted, this Medicare Advantage for All not only could start the U.S. down the road toward a more sustainable and cost effective health care system, it may also prove to be better than the European style health care systems and, therefore, could positively impact a large population outside the U.S. Medicare Advantage Basics In order to understand what I am advocating, since it is a true Medicare for All proposal, we first need to consider how Medicare actually works and how it could be modified to cover everyone. Retired Americans generally understand how Medicare Advantage works, though they erroneously think that Part A is retained by the government rather than being 'capitated' to the insurance company of their choice. However, most younger Americans and nearly all people outside the U.S. do not understand it. They believe that people over 65 in the U.S. have socialized medicine and people younger than 65 either have employer paid healthcare, are affluent enough to buy insurance 'retail' or go without. None of these statements are actually correct. Medicare has a centralized, governmental funding mechanism but Medicare Advantage policies are administered, in total, by private health insurance companies that, within the Medicare fee structure, negotiate with and then pay healthcare providers. In the U.S., at age 65, citizens are automatically enrolled in Medicare Part A. It is a hospitalization program that covers some of hospital bills but covers neither doctor's visits nor prescription medicine. However, unless you jump through a whole bunch of hoops, the Social Security Administration will also automatically enroll you in Part B and deduct the fee from your Social Security payment. In that portion, you will pay 135.50USD per month (in 2019) and coverage is 80% of doctor's visits. Prescription drugs are still not covered and is dealt with in Part D which is fully funded by the beneficiary. However, an increasing number of Medicare beneficiaries do not keep Part A and B. Instead, they select a Medicare Advantage program (Part C) from a private health insurance company and they will receive better benefits, sometimes substantially better, than they would with the government program. For example, when I was diagnosed with cancer, I went through 18 months of hormone treatment, radiation treatment and chemotherapy, and my total out-of-pocket cost was $130. I paid $95 per month for this coverage because Humana refunded me a portion of my Part B premium. Also, unlike the Medicare program Part B, prescription drugs are covered, usually with no copay.
********************
In the 2020 Presidential race, the Republicans want to stay with an unworkable Employer Based healthcare plan. The Democrats want to turn the ACA (Obamacare) into various forms of a socialized system. If you are a U.S. citizen, this affects you directly, but if you are a citizen of anywhere else, it still affects you indirectly. If you do not share this article, you run a very real risk of getting stuck with an expensive, unworkable healthcare system. So, please, share this throughout your social media Universe. Ideas, not people, change the world.
********************
The Medicare system is, actually, relatively cost effective, because doctors get paid based on a very aggressive fee schedule. However, with Medicare Advantage, the insurance companies also negotiate with health providers to gain even more cost advantages. Medicare Advantage almost always is either an HMO or PPO which, while cheaper, places some additional restrictions on providers. For example, patients may be required to get their MRI at an imaging facility, which might charge $400 instead of at a hospital that charges $3,000 or more. It also makes wiser decisions on drugs. For example, my insurance company required my hormone therapy drug, 'Trelstar' to come from them, because they saved money by making bulk purchases and they had negotiated a substantial reduction in the price. It was a different drug than the more expensive and commonly prescribed drug, 'Lupron' even though research does not show any difference in efficacy.
What really makes Medicare Advantage different than other healthcare schemes being advocated is that when a beneficiary selects Medicare Advantage, the insurance company not only receives the Part B payment from the beneficiary, it also receives a capitation fee, or the Part A budget. This means that Medicare Advantage is funded by and promulgated by the Federal government, but is administered by the insurance provider of the beneficiary's choosing. The government does what it does best and the private plans provide choice, service and competitive pricing. If this seems like the best of both worlds, that is because it is.
Some Benefits Medicare Advantage has no 'waiting lines' as there are in European systems and presumably would in the proposed Medicare for All proposals. When I needed cancer treatment, I got it immediately. The only delay was on deciding the precise therapy to be undertaken and during that short time, I was given Casodex a drug that temporarily slows or stops the progression of my type of cancer. It also minimizes the negative effects of the primary hormone drug if administered for the first couple months of treatment. So, I took Casodex for three months and it, unlike most medications which are free, did have a $10 per month copay. The absence of lines is because, unlike, socialized medicine, Medicare Advantage is sensitive to market forces. If a particular plan has delays in treatment, it must charge less or it will go out of business as beneficiaries change to policies that have no waiting lines. However, consistent with free markets, one can buy a less expensive insurance policy with lower levels of benefits if that is deemed suitable. In that case, if there are lines, it is a cost/benefit decision made by the patient. According to one study, Canadian patients wait an average of about 19.8 weeks for a non-critical appointment. The triage of socialized medical programs are often medically inferior to immediate treatment. In other words, there is no downside to immediate treatment, but medical professionals can make mistakes and determining the urgency required. I read a horrendous story about an American in Paris who collapsed due to internal bleeding. He laid on a gurney in the hospital for 8 hours waiting for surgery because it was considered to not be 'urgent'. It wasn't until he actually died, that he was taken into an operating theater, revived and sewed up. According to WHO, France has the best health care system in the world. I'm skeptical. And I certainly doubt that this man would agree with their assessment. The point is, even if they routinely get it right, any mistakes are more risk than immediate treatment.
******************** The Mainstream Media has lost all semblance of objectivity. Leonardo and The Polymath is dedicated to intellectual sophistication. It will be intelligent, erudite, objective and disciplined. We need your participation and your support. Subscribe to The Polymath by entering your preferred e-mail address:
********************
Right now, some health care providers don't accept Medicare because they get paid less than through the employer provided insurance that their working age patients receive. This is a concern about any government program. However, if it was 'Medicare Advantage for All', they would either accept the fee schedule or find a different line of work. In fact, Medicare Advantage already exists and most providers accept most of the available plans despite the lower prices that they can charge. However, they are PPOs and HMOs so there are some restrictions. I needed to change my primary care physician when I switched to an Advantage policy with better cancer coverage. But, that can happen, as well, for employer programs, especially if one changes jobs. A significant illness does not bury you in paperwork. When my father was in his early 70s, he suffered a significant stroke. He spent three days in an ICU and then about a week in a regular hospital room. Then he was transferred to a long term care facility where he underwent rehab. It was an obvious strain on the family. Also, because Medicare paid only a portion of the hospital bill and other medical expenses were only covered 80%, there were substantial expenses. Fortunately, my parents had the financial resources to cover those costs. But, still, my mother had a significant part-time job for over 18 months dealing with the avalanche of paperwork coming from hospitals, labs, doctors, physical therapists, etc. It was a paper work nightmare. On the other hand, when I was diagnosed with cancer I was on Medicare Advantage. I saw two bills, one, for a $100 copay on my biopsy and one, for $100 on the insertion of gold balls used to guide the radiation treatment. They were both very simple with just one line saying copay for surgery. The only other bureaucratic problem I had was getting my 'Trelstar' shipped from Humana which my Oncology Clinic didn't seem to know how to do. It did require three phone calls over 18 months, simply verifying that I approved of the treatment. It was not anything like the nightmare my mother went through with my father. Simply put, a person with a serious illness really doesn't need the added stress of dealing with mountains of paperwork and, often, contentious discussions with billing departments. The best way to deal with that is to choose a Medicare Advantage plan where nearly everything is covered. In Medicare advantage, there are literally dozens of plans to choose from. That is a disadvantage, in that it takes more time to decide which plan is most appropriate. But it is also an advantage because you can choose a plan that best fits your medical profile. I chose a Human plan that had particularly good coverage for my kind of cancer. I do not have any symptoms of heart disease, so I didn't care if the coverage was not as good there. There has been much concern that a 'public option' would crowd out 'private options'. Whether or not that is a justified concern, we have extensive experience with Medicare and, in fact, the 'private option' or Part C is actually growing rapidly. In the past decade, the percent of Medicare Beneficiaries that are enrolled in an Advantage plan has doubled. This should be ample evidence that the system works.
********************
The Polymath needs to reach a large percent of the thought leaders of today in order to succeed in its mission to create more intellectually sophisticated and unbiased public discourse. That is why it will be totally ad supported. We will need start up capital. At present you can contribute as little as 50USD and, when and if doing so is legal where transacted, the ad you purchase will be converted into equity. Whether retained as an ad or converted to equity, you will have the opportunity to help in an important project and reap typical start-up capital appreciation upon success. Learn more here.
********************
Some Objections Discussed Medicare Advantage plans get too much in capitation. The argument being made is that as people get sick, they drop Medicare Advantage. Because of this, it is argued that Medicare Advantage has healthier enrollees and are being unjustly rewarded through the capitation rate. This seems counter intuitive since Advantage programs are almost universally better coverage than Part A & B. If I had done so, I would have paid over $16,000 for my cancer treatment. Instead I paid $130. Having said that, it may not always be the case that Medicare recipients act rationally. One of the reasons that one of my six points is to 'spin off' Medicare is because politically motivated manipulation of the capitation rates, either way, will always be a temptation. This is not so much a criticism of the concept of Medicare Advantage as it is a criticism of its implementation. However, in all fairness, every solution has the potential to be 'gamed'. The Medicare Fee Schedule is not sustainable if implemented nation wide. I read one hospital administrator who claimed that if all his patients were Medicare patients, the hospital would go out of business. As a former Budget Director of a large natural gas distributor (a regulated monopoly) where I was attempting to squeeze efficiency out of the organization, I heard this a lot when I started. That just wasn't what happened. What really happened was that they sharpened their pencils and found more cost efficient ways to get the job done. If a service really can't be delivered profitably, the regulator, in this case Medicare, needs to adjust the fee. However, if they are unjustified in that price increase, the insurance companies will negotiate a lower price to gain a competitive advantage. No plan can completely wring bureaucratic waste out of a system. However, at least, with Medicare Advantage, the incentives work in the proper direction. The fact is that the U.S. pays about twice as much as Western Europe. It is far from clear not clear that it is buying a better healthcare system. The World Healthcare Organization ranks it 37th. The explanation for the very high cost of medical care in the U.S. is not simple. Virtually every category of medical expense, from doctor's visits, to lab costs, to hospital costs, to medicine to long term care, is far higher in the U.S. than anywhere else. Even when considering any one line item, there are many factors contributing to the higher costs. While Medicare Advantage for All is easy to implement, lowering the cost of healthcare in the U.S. is a complex goal. For example, why high volume drugs, such as insulin and epi-pens, cost up to 10X as much as in other developed countries. This will require a deep dive that may be undertaken by Congress, NIH or the insurance companies. However, the discourse won't turn strongly toward cost control until the insurance issue is solved. Medicare Advantage for All would not solve all U.S. health care problems, but it would be a very good start. Once in place, because it runs primarily on PPOs, the insurance companies will still hold significant power over how medical services are delivered. Some of that may be seen as bad, but mostly, it is good. Competition will cause them to deliver good services and the profit motive will cause them to do it at a low cost. There have been two trends in health care that are significant. First, much less expensive Physician's Assistants are handling more of the routine doctor's visits. A mid-six figure doctor with eight years of training probably is not required to handle an ear infection in a child or diagnose that the person who presents with 'what's going around'. Second, IBM's Watson is now being marketed as Dr. Watson, an AI program that is, according to IBM, better and more efficient at both Dx and Rx than any human. That is being questioned by some in the industry. However, if IBM is overstating its case at present, it will be true in the end. These two trends are not progressing as quickly as they should partially because there is currently little incentive. The national fee schedule portion can promulgate the use of Physician's Assistants as primary care, assisted by Dr. Watson with likely no degradation and perhaps an improvement in the quality of care. Cost Opponents of 'Medicare for All' throw around really frightening cost estimates, often into the tens of trillions. These numbers are disingenuous. We're going to do a bit of 8th grade math to clarify this issue. Total U.S. healthcare costs i 2017 was about 3.5 trillion USD or about 18.9% of total GDP. Average 2017 population was 325,719,000 for an expenditure per capita of 10,745 USD. We know that there were 58.5 million medicare recipients in 2017 with an average cost per beneficiary of 12,347 USD, for a total expenditure of $722,299,500,000. We know that of the 325,719,000 population, 9.1% or about 29,640,000 were not covered, 58,500,000 were medicare covered and 237,579,000 USD were covered by other than Medicare. So, we know that (3,500,000,000,000-722,299,500,000)/237,579,000 = 11,700 USD per capita. That means that, in order to cover (hence the part 'for all') the 29,640,000 currently not covered might cost about 347,788,000,000 USD per year. While that is a large expenditure, it is less than 10% of the amount being quoted for the Medicare for All plans being considered. It is, however, not clear that covering everyone under a Medicare Advantage for All program would actually cost that much more than is currently being spent. The reason is because the difference between the Medicare costs of 12,347 USD and the non-Medicare costs of 11,700 USD is too small. For example, this study states that 84% of the population under the age of 65 cost just 64% of total health care. This suggests that that group should cost 64/84 X 12,347=9,400 USD each, implying that covering the 23,579,000 should cost an additional 221,642,600,000 USD per year. Clearly, there are some discrepancies and a very careful scoring of Medicare Advantage for All should be done. But estimates into the trillions are clearly wrong on their face. The U.S healthcare system, by the studies we found costs 10,379 USD per capita in 2017. According to the OECD, the U.S. expended 9,872 USD per capita on healthcare in 2016. Some of the difference is because of a different year and some is due to the use of nominal, not inflation adjusted dollars. The next most expensive country was Switzerland at 7,919 USD or 19.8% lower. So, if the Medicare Advantage for All program could just reduce costs to the second most expensive nation in the world, it would not only eliminate any cost associated with covering the more than 23 million people currently not covered, it would lower everyone's cost by over 10%. In other words, the argument that 'we can't afford it', which is valid for the Socialized Healthcare masquerading as Medicare for All, is not valid for this, Medicare Advantage for All, proposal.
Implementation: One of the very big benefits of a Medicare Advantage for All program is that nothing new will need to be created. It is simply a decision to lower the age of qualification from its current 65. It may be done incrementally, increasing taxes and lowering qualification, say, by five or ten years every year. This is particularly important because 'keeping my doctor' and 'keeping my plan' are very important politically. As insurance companies lose insured through the corporate route, they will find it profitable to also offer the same plan through Medicare Advantage. That means that for most people, it will be a seamless transition. One year they will lose corporate coverage and find that essentially the same insurance will be offered through Medicare Advantage, they will very often find the exact same plan on the Medicare Advantage. In fact, the insurance company will likely contact all of the enrolled who are scheduled to convert to Medicare Advantage and extend an invitation to transfer their current coverage to their Medicare program. By using current systems and by lowering the entitlement age each year, the problems of transition can be minimized, thereby avoiding the kind of problems that were experienced by ACA (Obamacare) during its implementation and would almost surely be experienced by an institution of socialized healthcare. Also, this will allow the tax and capitation rates to be analyzed and tweaked as needed, involving a relatively small percent of the population. Another advantage over ACA is that enrolling does not need to be done through a government website. U.S. residents may have noticed that every year during the enrollment period, insurance companies set up booths near the pharmacies and provide Medicare recipients with an easy way to consider and enroll in their Medicare Advantage program. This is critical because, despite the very clear benefits, over 60% of Medicare beneficiaries are still not enrolled in a Advantage program. Yes, some people will want a government program for ideological reasons. However, most people just want the best plan for the least money which portends well for the growing Advantage enrollment. At present, Medicare collects 2.9% of payroll of which half is paid by the employee and half is paid by the employer. The year that Medicare age falls to 55, total expenditures will increase by 55.6%, so that the Employer portion of Medicare will need to increase from 1.45% to about 3.1%. However, about 30% of their employees will stop participating in their employer subsidized health insurance. Obviously, some employers will pay more and some will pay less depending on the age profile of their employees and the quality of their insurance subsidy. Every year, their Medicare tax will go up and their employee health insurance subsidy will go down. This will continue until they will no longer have any employee health insurance and the Medicare portion of their FICA tax will increase to, perhaps, 6%. Most companies pay more than 4.5% of payrolls on health insurance subsidies, so, surprisingly, over the five years of transition, everyone (the 'for all; part) will become covered and net expense for most companies will fall. The reason is that many small companies today pay little or nothing in employee health care coverage. Now, they must. I realize that many of them will object strenuously to this plan, but they do so, not from a position of equity, but rather from a position of self-interest. Medicaid: Presently, a little less than 600 billion USD is being spent, by States and Federally, each year on Medicaid. This has proven to be an extremely inefficient program, especially since ACA forced the eligibility upward for Medicaid upward in most states. However, most of this goes away when a Medicare Advantage for All is fully implemented. The FICA tax will cover all expenses save for the Part B. It is reasonable to assume that the government may choose to cover Part B for individuals and families below the poverty level. However, that will likely total less than 100 billion USD for nearly a half trillion USD savings. Dependents: As the qualification age for Medicare Advantage for All begins to fall, there will become a need for 'family coverage' that will include children. Obviously, the capitation rate will change to recognize much lower medical costs for children and, very likely, a 'family coverage' option for Part B will likely be instituted. This is a wrinkle, but not a stumbling block. Much is made about poverty and children and this will represent a complete and permanent elimination of this part of the problem. Putting it at Arm's Length The BBC is not a government media outlet, at least in theory. It is funded through a 'tax' on television sales, but is operated separately from the government. While that is true by the letter of the law, Parliament still sets the amount of the license fee, which does result in some leverage that the government has over the BBC. Still, it is a good idea. Medicare should also be done at an arm's length. Medicare is primarily a non-partisan activity. However, as long as there are multiple insurance policies that include one or more public options, the details of the capitation formula could be manipulated to benefit one or more of the policies. Consequently, the capitation formula needs to be approved annually by the Congress and signed by the President, after a period of public commentary during which the insurance companies and other interested parties can file pro or con briefs. I suspect that, because of the size of the matter, public Congressional hearings will likely be held. Additionally, the Medicare program should have a substantial trust fund that is invested for a proper, diversified low risk rate of return. It may not be possible, practically, to have the fund fully funded in the short term. However, the Congress should consider, if it promotes the use of QE to manipulate M2, whether the proceeds should be, at least in part, allocated to strengthen both the Medicare and Social Secuirity trust funds. Lastly, employees should share, as they do now, in the funding of Medicare retirement benefits. However, Medicare beneficiaries use half the 18% of GDP that is spent on healthcare. So, the 2.9% of payroll is insufficient to cover the remaining 9% of GDP of expenses. Consequently, and this is the case whether Medicare Advantage for All is adopted or not, both the Medicare employee and employee shares will need to go up, probably by about 3%. Undoubtedly, opponents of Medicare Advantage for All will try to saddle the plan with this 3% payroll tax increase. That, however, is disingenuous. As stated, Medicare is currently 'going broke' and the adjustment will be required either way. Summary: Medicare Advantage for All is actually relatively simple. It just involves a few minor changes to Healthcare programs. They are:
Each year, the qualifying age for Medicare drops by 10 years. As people qualify, if they are already covered through their employers, the insurance companies will contact them to offer continuation of coverage.
This will reduce the corporate subsidy of healthcare as employees fall off of the list of the corporately insured and Medicare taxes will increase to cover the cost of the newly insured. In this way, with cost lowering, Medicare Advantage for All will be revenue neutral. In other words, nobody's taxes are raised to 'pay for it'.
Part C, 'Advantage' will remain and since the insurance companies will offer to cover them as they qualify, the Advantage participation rate will likely increase, over five or ten years, from its current 35% to 70% or more.
Part A & B will represent the 'public option' and, by law, will be limited to the same capitation formula that is applied to the Advantage insurance companies. For those who still have a preference for a government operated healthcare program, it will be available to them.
As the eligibility age falls, an increasing amount of Medicaid budget will be replaced by Medicare. This will eliminate the differential in healthcare availability that currently exists with the State by State administration.
Medicare will be sequestered as a semi-independent entity with a separate revenue stream and budget. This is similar to how the BBC is funded and operated in the U.K. and, consequently, is not a new, untested concept. Also, a 'Chinese Wall' will be placed between the Medicare administration and the 'public option' to assure fairness in competition.
In this short, six point, description that takes no more than a minute or two to read, we see a sane, equitable and sensible program that will assure that everyone is receiving healthcare with costs that are contained and will not financially debilitate the lower income brackets.
Sadly, however, everyone involved is playing games with U.S. Healthcare in order to obtain political advantage. As consumers and voters, we can only keep this from happening by becoming directly involved in the dialog. We can do that by spreading this idea. I'm sure that with sufficient exposure, either the Democratic candidate or Donald Trump will embrace Medicare Advantage for all in the 2020 election cycle. I am convinced that it is the best way to provide the U.S. and, eventually, the world with quality and affordable healthcare. However, it will only happen if it becomes widely known and that is up to you, the reader, to assure that it does. IF this obtains a few thousand reads, nothing will change and people will likely get stuck with a politically expedient, but costly and unworkable system. If, however, it reaches millions, we will have a chance to put this issue to bed and have a system that is efficient, inexpensive and sustainable. Please, do share this article throughout your social media and do so quickly. The utility of this idea decreases substantially after November 2020.
The issue of National Debt comes and goes, but will definitely show its ugly head again before November 2020. So, how do you determine what, if any, amount of deficit is acceptible? I address this issue in my article 'What is an Acceptable National Deficit'.
Note: The West no longer has non-partisan news coverage, though small sites (including this one) can be found on the IDW. This is the sort of article that will be found in The Polymath, a intellectually sophisticated weekly pdf magazine presenting general news analysis and commentary. Please support our effort by subscribing and considering the purchase of a prepaid ad. There is such a thing as Conservative virtue signaling and much of it revolves around statements of 'fiscal responsibility'. In the U.S., the periodic calls for a balanced budget amendment is an example. It is, in fact, a really bad idea. As the economy grows, one can accept an increased amount of national debt. However, while some deficit spending is OK, how do we determine how much is prudent and how much is too much? That is actually not as hard to compute as it may initially seem. It does require some basic competence in Economics, but, if you don't have it, you really should 'bite the bullet' and acquire it. It will be a basic InfoAge survival skill. This article will do two things. First, we will demonstrate that deficit spending is OK and that there is a way to calculate how much is appropriate. Second, we will see how increasing money supply creates wealth out of thin air and that distributing it through 'general welfare' (a constitutional term) expenditures has both practical and ethical advantages. Debt as a Percent of Income We will begin with the well established and easily understood fact that wealthy people tend to owe more than poor people. That is because of simple principles such as the usual requirement that one's total house payment should be no more than 28% of one's gross income. So, the more you earn, the more debt you can take on in order to buy a larger house. The notion also applies to auto loans. Bond rating agencies that assess the creditworthiness of corporations and municipalities also rely heavily on the ratio between debt and equity and 'times interest earned' measures. What applies to households, local governments and corporations also applies to nations. This is why international Economists pay close attention to Public Debt as a percent of nominal GDP. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the world, in total, is at about 60%, with the U.S at slightly over 82% and the EU at 86.9%. While there is not an agreed upon guideline, we may assume that 50% would be a reasonable and achievable ideal goal. As an example, nominal GDP in the U.S. grew by about $1,060 billion in 2018. This would 'earn' $530 billion of deficit spending and the related additional borrowing. Adhering to this guideline would result, both in the U.S. and EU, in the rapid decrease in Debt as a percent of nominal GDP, with a slowing of the annual reduction with an asymptote at 50%. This actually happened in the U.S. between WWII, when Public Debt skyrocketed and around 2000 when it had fallen well below 50%. It did so, while there was deficit spending in almost all years. However, the deficits were less than 50% of the nominal increase in GDP. In other words, this level of deficit spending and increase in Public Debt would not be worrisome. Starting with the crisis that began in 2008, Federal Deficits far exceeded nominal GDP growth and the Federal debt started expanding. Furthermore, the deficit far exceeded 50% of nominal GDP growth. For example, the economy 'earned' $530 billion of deficit spending, but the deficit was $719 billion. 2019, between lower nominal GDP growth and higher deficit to be much worse. So, while there is an acceptible degree of deficit spending, at present, the U.S. seems to be exceeding it. This is also true of the EU. Before we proceed, there are two important considerations where changes in governmental accounting and, perhaps, structure are needed. These are in Social Security and Medicare. In both cases, surpluses or deficits should be segregated from Federal expenditures and serious consideration should be given to treating them as the U.K. does the BBC and as the U.S. has from time to time done with the U.S. Postal Service, as quasi-governmental programs. Right now is a good time for the U.S. to do this because the Social Security Fund has a close to zero surplus, and, if, as we suggest, Medicare Advantage is made universal it, too, can transition easily to being a discrete entity. Right now, these programs do not contribute to the deficit, but later they will and it will be more difficult, politically, to segregate them from actual Federal spending. Intra-governmental Borrowing Thus far, there does appear to be a legitimate concern since the U.S. Federal deficit spending is exceeding the reasonable guidelines of 530 billion USD. However, there is another source of funding for deficit financing that is not considered to be Public Debt. specifically Treasury debt purchased by government agencies. Since it is essentially the government lending to itself, it is typically eliminated from reported Federal Debt. In the U.S., the borrowing has historically been undertaken primarily by the Social Security Administration, followed by other pension programs. For now, because of growing populations, these funds are generally buying more than selling, thereby creating budget funding that is being transferred to the general fund. In this way, deficits are decreased without increasing debt. This will not last forever and will eventually add to the deficit when withdrawals from the pension funds exceeds the contribution. This became a hot political topic in the U.S. at one point and was referred to as a 'lockbox' approach. The argument seemed to confuse most voters and so it was dropped as a political issue. However, it is a disguised ticking time bomb that will be discussed in an article on Social Security. This is defused as a problem if the Social Security Administration is turned into a self-financing quasi-governmental organization. However, of course, doing so will raise other issues. Quantitative Easing There is a third, critical consideration for calculating acceptable deficits which is referred to as Quantitative Easing or QE. Central Banks must increase the money supply each year to accommodate the cash requirements of a growing GDP and to force their targeted inflation rate. If nominal GDP is 20 trillion, about the sum of both the U.S. and the EU, and M2 is 14 trillion (approximately correct in the U.S.), it means that for every trillion USD that the nominal GDP increases, M2 needs to increase by 700 billion. Historically, this has been done by the Fed lowering interest rates which, in theory, should increase loan demand. Member banks lend out 100 USD, supplying 10 USD from their own funds. This 10USD out of every 100 USD is called a reserve requirement. This 90 USD is essentially created out of thin air. Eurozone Central Banks have different reserve requirements but nearly always less than the U.S. 10%. Also, they are inclined to change the reserve percentage in order to stimulate or depress borrowing while the U.S. tends to leave it constant.
This is something that is widely misunderstood. Banks print money, not the government. The currency is printed in the U.S. by the U.S. Treasury, but the bills themselves are actually owned by the Federal Reserve. But, of course, today most 'money' is electronic and is not really printed. There is, however, an alternative way to create money supply. This is for the Federal Reserve to purchase Treasury debt using 'created money'. This puts the needed 700 billion USD in the hands of the Federal government which can either increase spending or decrease taxes or some combination thereof. In one round of QE, the Federal Reserve bought mortgage backed securities from the large securitizers, which lowered mortgage rates and increase availability of mortgages. This demonstrates that QE can provide the Fed with the ability to better target its stimulus. The Fed prefers using the reserve lending approach to managing money supply. However, from time to time, it does engage in QE. It was heavily relied upon during the financial crisis of 2008, when businesses would not borrow money at any interest rate. The Fed lowered the discount rate to near 0% and still had not 'rescued' the monetary system. Then Quantitative Easing was used and it was effective. The Federal Reserve Bank bought Treasury debt, mortgage backed debt and some bank debt using created money. While the Fed has done some 'run off' which is lowering the total debt purchased, it still holds about 4 trillion USD of Treasury debt and the has not ruled out increasing that over time. The member banks like fractional reserve because they only commit 10% of their reserves to lending but collect interest on all 100%. This allows them to enjoy a very high return on their investment. There is more than a little question about the ethics of it. Simply put, should the 700 billion USD that must be printed to avoid deflation be a benefit that enriches the banks or should it enrich the population as a whole? While it seems obvious that the latter is more easily justified, ethically, it is the former that is supported by nearly the whole business community. They usually just state that QE is inflationary. That is a duplicitous claim, because it is to be discussed about the 700 billion USD of M2 that needs to be created. If they are pushed beyond that they will claim that it will do irreparable harm to the banking industry. The real reason, however, is that the prime interest rate is currently 5.5% and big businesses believe that if the banks had their reserve requirements increased from 10% to something higher, that their 5.5% would increase, too. It is, in reality, not that simple. In addition, many in the investment community are concerned that without a 10% reserve requirement, the banking industry would collapse. It is true that if the reserve requirement was raised so fast that the banking industry could not secure replacement financing they would see a substantial reduction in the market capitalization. In reality, an expert and unbiased analysis would conclude that a mixture of increased quantitative easing and a measured increase in the reserve requirement would give the Central Bank the greatest flexibility and tools to manage the components of the domestic economy that have been charged to them. This means that the Federal Government could spend 700 billion USD more than it takes in by issuing debt to the Federal Reserve. However, this debt is not counted in the National Debt, and correctly so. The principle will never be paid back. It is where M2 comes from and must remain or M2 shrinks and deflation would result. Even the interest is invisible. That is because while the Treasury will pay the Federal Reserve interest, that interest, by law is paid back to the Treasury as a dividend of excess earnings. The expense is directly offset by the interest income. If it seems as if it means that it is free money, you are correct. But it is not a shell game. It is, in reality, a dividend related to economic growth. There literally is no downside. If the reserve lending percent is 100% all increases in M2 would be done in the form of quantitative easing. However, there would certainly be value in retaining interest rate manipulation as a tool in monetary policy. So, although 700 billion USD is theoretically available for QE, it is more likely to fall between 50% to 75% depending upon the Economic measures at any point in time. So, in the above example, the Federal Government can have 530 billion USD + 350 billion USD = 880 billion USD deficit spending with no deleterious effects. It could be as much 530 billion USD + 525 billion USD = 1,055 billion USD. The 530 billion USD will carry real interest and be counted in the Public Debt. However, the 350 billion USD to 525 billion USD is completely invisible. With proper structure, amounts similar as a percent of nominal GDP is available to nearly all nations.
********************
The Polymath will provide its readers with analysis and commentary at the highest level of intellectual sophistication. It will do so without partisan nor confirmation bias. In this way, it will be a powerful disruptive force for the common good. Subscribe today by clicking here.
********************
There is a fundamental, theoretical difference between this 1.055 trillion USD (or equivalent for EU countries) and the rest of the national budget. Most of the budget is funded through taxes which are taken from citizens. However, this 1.055 trillion USD is simply the result of the economic operation of the nation and, theoretically, is a dividend shared by every citizen equally. One could simply provide a dividend to every adult in the country. That has advantages and disadvantages over just lowering taxes. Income taxes are progressive and somewhere between 40% and 50% of U.S. households pay no taxes at the Federal level. Consequently, their taxes would not be lowered and they would get none of the dividend. The remainder of taxes are related to purchases, either directly or indirectly, which would also cause the tax reduction to be regressive.
One could place it in the Medicare and Social Security funds, if, as is the case in the U.S., the program is underfunded. While better than reduced income taxes, this would help with Social Security liquidity, it would tend to favor the elderly, often more affluent, and, therefore, would also be regressive. So, it seems appropriate that the funds simply be given to each adult equally. This would be neither progressive nor regressive. Also, one can make a fairly strong ethical argument for the practice. In the U.S. by the above example, each adult would receive about 4,200 USD per year. One could make it progressive by taxing it away from the more affluent and use the additional funds for social safety net expenditures. However, I believe that this will likely be a question that will be more relevant after it is used to deal with the coming wave of technological unemployment. As that hits, it all will likely be needed for extended unemployment and retraining costs.
Once this is properly understood, most politicians will support it, because the voters will support it. The traditional Conservative objection made over 'safety net' expenditures that they are funded with money earned by others doesn't apply. This money is not being taken from other taxpayers; it is being created by the monetary requirements of a growing economy. Conservatives will likely still be against this use, because Conservatives are generally pro business and will react to financial interests that will not support taking this windfall away from the banking industry.
Specifically, the creation of money has nearly a 100% profit and right now, with interest rate manipulation, that ends up on the balance sheets of banks. The banking industry has been very vocal about not supporting QE and has been actively pressuring the Federal Reserve to divest of Treasury instruments. They understand that this will lower M2 and require the Fed to increase it through lowering interest rates, thus increasing banking profits. Their argument is that it is inflationary. However, the above calculations are specifically driven by nominal GDP targets that are set to the optimal inflation rate. It is a spurious argument.
The 'Balanced Budget' argument has been primarily a political battle line in the U.S. However, because the U.S. constitutes over 40% of the EuroCulture GDP, how it handles its fiscal and monetary policy will affect the whole. I advocate that the U.S. fiscal policy be trifurcated and sequestered into General Funds, Social Security and Medicare Funds and Monetary and GDP Dividend Funds. On a long term basis, the total should not create a deficit larger than the Monetary and GDP Dividend Fund. Rather than a per capita dividend, at this point, I advocate that this last fund be dedicated to dealing with the impending wave of Technological Unemployment. While a 'political' assessment, I do believe that it is one grounded in valid political and ethical principles.
********************
The Polymath needs to reach a large percent of the thought leaders of today in order to succeed in its mission to create more intellectually sophisticated and unbiased public discourse. That is why it will be totally ad supported. We will need start up capital. At present you can contribute as little as 50USD and, when and if doing so is legal where transacted, the ad you purchase will be converted into equity. Whether retained as an ad or converted to equity, you will have the opportunity to help in an important project and reap typical start-up capital appreciation upon success. Learn more here.
Sadly, ideology has invaded research activities, not surprisingly, with the Social Sciences being the central battle front. An increasing percentage of funded research is being directed at proving such dubious claims as 'gender is a social construct', 'there are no differences between male and female brains', 'there is no such thing as race, and, even if there were, there are no cognitive differences between them', to name just a few. Essentially, Academia has become an ideological monolith that assures that its viewpoint is well supported through a process of funding research that is likely to support it and defund research that would likely refute it. So, herein, I advocate that we create an 'Objectivity Research Fund' whose purpose is to fund research that could challenge the current Progressive paradigm and then to disseminate the findings. If nothing else, the disruption will be fun.
Recently, knowledge of the general 'greening' of the planet, primarily due to increased atmospheric CO2, but also due to lengthening growing seasons, higher rainfall, etc., has become fairly widespread. However, the ideologically driven media quickly mobilized with articles such as this one in the NYT, 'Global Greening' Sounds Good. In the Long Run, It's Terrible. Clearly, it is well established that more CO2, warmer temperatures and higher rainfall leads to more plant growth, which gets eaten by more herbivores, which, in turn, feeds more carnivores. This is not controversial; it is why greenhouses increase all three. So, it takes more than a little bit of journalistic legerdemain to turn it into 'terrible'.
I will briefly review the four points that the article makes to demonstrate just how disengenuous the news coverage is when reporting or commenting upon ideologically charged subject matter. The first point is that "More photosynthesis does not mean more food". That is true if we are speaking just about human food. The point that the vast increase in yield per acre over the last century was not the result of more CO2 in the atmosphere. It was due to better cultivars, better agricultural practices such as crop rotation. However, all things being equal, with higher CO2, less land needs to be dedicated to agriculture at the same level of agricultural technology. In other words, the 'greening' means that Mankind's 'footprint' is smaller. That is good.
********************
The Polymath, a weekly PDF magazine of intellectually sophisticated, analysis and commentary, will grow out of my blog and then out of a network of blogs. You can stay connected to all that we are doing to bring intelligence, erudition, objectivity and discipline to the public discourse. Just Subscribe to the Polymath by clicking here.
********************
The article states that a 30% increase in CO2 does not create a 30% increase in food production. That is true. However, a doubling of CO2 does create approximately a 40% increase in food production. The notion that, because the increases do not correspond precisely, the whole idea of increased CO2 can increase food production can be dismissed is ridiculous. One can calculate a ratio and estimate that a 2^.5 increase in CO2 will create a 1.4^.5 increase in food production. An 18.3% increase in food production simply from the increasing CO2 level of 41% is very significant. By the way, the 41% is close to the amount of CO2 increase expected by 2100. So, we see that 'reason one' is absent any value whatsoever.
The second claim is that vegetables grown in higher CO2 concentrations can be less nutritious. That is true to a degree, but it certainly hasn't been brought up with regard to hydroponic vegetables that all are grown at multiples of atmospheric CO2 levels. The article correctly states that all the reasons why higher CO2 grown plants may be less nutritious are not known. The word may is critical. It is not the case that all plants grown at higher CO2 concentrations are less nutritious. As CO2 levels, temperatures, growing seasons, rainfall change, farmers change cultivars based upon the research done and provided by the seed manufacturers. In other words, the seed suppliers and farmers naturally compensate for this factor, since they want to bring the best product to market in order to command the highest prices.
The third item is that the greening of the planet won't stop climate change. This is a complete straw man since absolutely nobody claimed that it would. It is rather that the scientific community and the Progressive media wishes to advance a narrative that climate change is a wind that will blow everyone ill in every way. The greening of the planet is an example of a good thing that comes from increased CO2 and a warmer climate. The title of the article says that the greening of the planet is terrible and this argument doesn't support that statement in the slightest.
The fourth item is that the greening may not last forever. That a good thing may not be permanent doesn't make it terrible while it lasts. Furthermore, the article doesn't actually present any evidence that the greening will end. It simply asserts that one cannot prove that it will last forever. Of course, that is possible due to unforeseen interactions of the climate with the biosphere. However, that is an unlikely result for which there is no support.
So, here we see one of the most prestigious, if not the most prestigious, newspapers in the world publishing a piece of propaganda, simply to blunt any objection to the narrative that CO2 emissions are anything other than an unmitigated negative. It makes the blatant statement in its headline that, in the long run, global greening is terrible and then provides not even a little bit of support. If it was the only example, we could ignore it, but it is the prevailing treatment of global warming issues. It needs to be nullified and that can't just be done with YouTube videos and obscure articles. Hard research is required. Several things in the article are not well known, primarily because it is not well studied. Nearly 5 billion USD is being spent on climate research directed at finding out 'how bad is it?' and virtually nothing is being funded to find out 'how good is it?' In fact, when good impacts of AGW are inadvertently found, effort is expended specifically to neutralize it. That needs to be fixed.
Economics is an area where politics and ideology constantly invades the science. There are many examples, but here I will consider the war between Supply Side and Demand Side Economics. Sadly, the vast majority of the research is targeted at proving one side correct and the other side wrong. In truth, it is a false dichotomy that intelligent lay people can grasp. Supply Side says that money made available to enterprises will cause them to produce more, hire more people, who will then have more money to spend and will buy the extra production. The Demand Side argues that if you put more money in the hands of the consumer, they will go out and spend it which will create more production and more hiring, etc.
Even a naive analysis makes it patently obvious that in order for the Economy to grow, consumers must have more disposable income and enterprises must have the capital to buy more equipment and finance increased working capital needs. If consumers have more money, but enterprises can't produce more, the extra money will simply cause inflation. If the enterprises have more money, but consumers do not, the enterprises will likely buy back their own stock, since producing more will simply result in inventory surpluses. Clearly, an enlightened attempt at increasing Economic growth will attempt to increase both. It will also, as is the case right now, stimulate automation and fund education if there is a labor shortage in the needed jobs. This 'hypothesis' is not being researched and disseminated because politics has taken over the discourse.
We understand that right now, the developed world is likely to go through an explosion of unemployment as driverless cars and trucks, automated restaurant kitchens, AI replacement of clerical and low level professionals, takes out literally millions and millions of jobs. Sadly, the current research is designed based upon an acceptance that the Technological Unemployment is not a Luddite Fallacy. While this isn't actually supported by solid research, it is being substantiated with research that is intended to justify a UBI (universal basic income). In other words, this is Social Engineering masquerading as science.
My purpose is not to make a comprehensive argument for junk science being used to forward a Progressive agenda, but rather just to give a couple of examples. It is everywhere, especially, but not entirely within the Social Sciences. The problem is that literally billions USD is being funneled to Academia for this purpose and almost none is being provided to researchers who will likely weaken the Progressive arguments. I am suggesting that those who are not Progressive, either by virtue of being a Conservative or neither Progressive nor Conservative, but dedicated to good science, create a research fund for that purpose. I have no illusions that anything even close to the billions of research dollars that are being commandeered to this end can be matched by such a fund. However, at least the practice will not go unchallenged.
The research funding will fall into two broad categories. The first is research areas where only research likely to support a political or ideological position is being funded. Someone should be funding research that may draw an opposite conclusion. The other is research areas that are not funded at all because the resultant research may produce politically or ideologically uncomfortable results. It is important that the latter is chosen for its scientific merit, not simply to add to the ammunition available to the anti-Progressive side. The purpose is to blunt the effect of ideology on science. I, for one, would contribute to such a fund.
