I've got an NYT oped out today on what I believe should be the direction of travel re affordability policy. Also, though markets are way up on the news, I wouldn't bet the farm on Venezuelan oil.
Agree that Job #1 is understanding how markets work — or don’t work. Kenneth Arrow needs to be re-discovered if health care is ever to become “affordable”. As for day care, be wary of mission drift: are we talking about baby sitters or early childhood development?
Information asymmetry — the vendor knows more than the customer (patient) — means the vendor is acting as the customer’s agent. This can give rise to supplier induced demand. The term “market failure” might be a tad strong, but the upshot is that the health care market cannot be expected to operate by the same rules as the markets for breakfast cereals or used cars. And insurers, for their part, may be more inclined to minimize costs than to act as a surrogate for the patient.
Nothing to do with the impossibility theorem, then!
(I know the term "information asymmetry", and know about it in healthcare, and can see intuitively the caused induced demand and I think other issues that may arise.)
One thing I've noted around that area, that besides between patient and provider, say you're picking a health insurance plan, say on the ACA exchange or a Medicare Advantage.
A key thing to know is what the insurer will approve if you get pretty sick. The potential purchaser has no access to the insurer's "approval algorithm", and even if they did, good luck figuring out which plan to choose based on that.
Way back in the mid-70s, we all gave 20% of one of our two-income households to a woman in the neighborhood to watch 5 of our neighborhood kids. Her husband worked, and then her income was the same as if she worked at a full-time job. The State of Colorado allowed a person to "watch" about 7 or 8 kids at a "day-care facility". Put our 5 with her 1 or 2, and the 7-limit was hit.
This all worked for some years until folks started getting divorced, then it sort of disintegrated...
NYC is going to be an affordability lab, “Freeze the rent,” “ Fast free buses”and “Free childcare for All,” will determine the success/failure of our new mayor. Since our governor has jumped on the free childcare for all bandwagon you’ll have tons of data 😊 , and as far as the oil, fracking currently provides about half of our oil and the oil companies don’t want to flood the market and negatively impact prices, … that old supply and demand 😈
Oil is but one of trump's shiny objects. However, even oil's future is anything but shiny. The world - with or without the U.S. during trump's tenure - is moving inexorably to clean, abundant, very cheap non-emission energy - solar, wind, batteries, EVs and more to come. This is happening now and trump is either too stupid, ignorant or just a moron with a clown car of sycophants to understand this. He is handing China global energy dominance to the detriment of every American.
The long term price of oil is heading down - how far, who knows - but don't be surprised at $30-$40 per barrel or even less in a few years.
The EPSTEIN files are core to attacking Venezuela - a huge distraction from trump's fear of the EPSTEIN truths rising above the madness. The EPSTEIN victims with hunt trump down - with the help of upstanding members of Congress - and expose the TRUTH.
Trump is now saying we (we taxpayers) will pay the oil companies to go into Venezuela. We should be subsidizing the installation of solar panels so we can meet the electricity demand of all those data centers being built. Maybe Trump thinks they will be fueled by oil?
Thanks for alerting us about your op-ed. I read the Times every morning, but somehow never saw it and had to go dig it up. It was excellent! Focused and realistic. I would love to see it turn into policy.
On avoiding deficit financing of childcare because of inflationary concerns - would not increased access to childcare increase labor force participation and thus generate a significant counter inflationary effect?
Is there no criminality in your assessment of the recent kidnapping?
And in fact the whole regime of sanctions that has forced millions out of Venezuela?
The claim that the 2024 presidential election was stolen has never been clearly proven, and it's a long shot that fraud here can be proven.
Evidently the 2025 election of the V. parliament resulted in 23 of the 24 states choosing a governor who supports the Chavistas, with only a slight decline in voter turnout for an off-term election. The claim that there is no support for the Chavistas is unsustainable.
All that aside, I think the reduction of prices would be a good strategy. Nonfinancial corporate profits grew from $1.105 trillion in Q4 2019 to $3.041 trillion in Q2 2025, adjusting for inflation, by about 115%. Nonfinancial profits were 6.0% of national income in 2019, and were 11.9% in 2025. (Data found at Fed's Flow of Funds, page 10, line 10) How did this happen? Does that show that "Profit Inflation Is Real", the title of an essay by Servaas Storm at INET Economics. There is a basic foundational flaw if corporate price competition is broken.
Is there other evidence that it is broken? The study "Prices, Profits and Power" by Mike Konczal at Roosevelt Institute says, " While markups averaged 1.26 between 1960 and 1980,
they have been on a slow and consistent rise since then, averaging 1.56 during the 2010s. In 2021, markups suddenly increased to 1.72—that is, the average markup charged in 2021 was 72 percent above marginal cost. In other words, in 2021, we see a sharp increase in the 30-year trend of firms in the aggregate decoupling their prices from their underlying costs."
Your other recommendations are still to be desired.
On the subsidy for childcare, note I am completely unfamiliar with the issue.
Still, I can see that by subsidizing childcare for a two-parent family, without an equivalent subsidy being available to a two-parent family where one parent stays home, you might be encouraging a parent to work, when a more efficient (and possibly even healthier--sounding Republican!) solution is available with one parent staying home.
The analysis of this seems not that complex, and must be something standard, that is around. (I see that a family that has both parents working, in a situation where working is "more efficient" in the sense that, without income and payroll taxes, the family would be ahead with the second parent working, could be worse off after taxes, so you might try to counter the taxation with a subsidy. (But why not have childcare be treated equivalently to a business expense?)
Also, I am not suggesting no subsidy for a family in a tight situation, due to the time and economic cost of raising children, gets no subsidy. There could be a subsidy. The question is should the subsidy favor a second parent working?
--
Again, this must be old ground and pretty-much solved. Anyone who wants to chime in with the solution, etc., that would be nice.
Chevron, and the rest of the fossil gang, needs Venezuelan gunk like it needs a hole in its capital. Energy companies everywhere are working to reduce their exposure to carbon pricing. Chevron is demonstrably doing so. So in addition to being expensive to both transport (it competes with Chevron's pipeline-supported Gulf resources) and refine (if "gunk" isn't a technical term in the refining business, it should be), it worsens Chevron's exposure to successful climate policy.
I wonder if Chevron can admit to running a carbon book without exposure to tobacco-style judgements for knowingly covering up the science of climate change.
"I argue that there are two criteria, both of which must be met for items to be part of the agenda:"
May I add a third? We need to restore some common sense notion of equity, fair play and progressive taxation so that we are not headed precipitously toward stark oligarchy/plutocracy.
I wonder what the legal risks are to oil companies signing contracts with a Venezuelan government that is being forced to sign arrangements made under the threat of military action. Could a new government declare the contracts null and void? Personally, I'd steer clear until an stable, independent, legitimate government wants to develop the resources and the threat of US military invention is gone.
Agree that Job #1 is understanding how markets work — or don’t work. Kenneth Arrow needs to be re-discovered if health care is ever to become “affordable”. As for day care, be wary of mission drift: are we talking about baby sitters or early childhood development?
Bearing in mind that I am not an economist, I am still interested to enquire are you talking of the "Arrow Impossibility Theorem", or something else.
Information asymmetry — the vendor knows more than the customer (patient) — means the vendor is acting as the customer’s agent. This can give rise to supplier induced demand. The term “market failure” might be a tad strong, but the upshot is that the health care market cannot be expected to operate by the same rules as the markets for breakfast cereals or used cars. And insurers, for their part, may be more inclined to minimize costs than to act as a surrogate for the patient.
Thanks.
Nothing to do with the impossibility theorem, then!
(I know the term "information asymmetry", and know about it in healthcare, and can see intuitively the caused induced demand and I think other issues that may arise.)
One thing I've noted around that area, that besides between patient and provider, say you're picking a health insurance plan, say on the ACA exchange or a Medicare Advantage.
A key thing to know is what the insurer will approve if you get pretty sick. The potential purchaser has no access to the insurer's "approval algorithm", and even if they did, good luck figuring out which plan to choose based on that.
Way back in the mid-70s, we all gave 20% of one of our two-income households to a woman in the neighborhood to watch 5 of our neighborhood kids. Her husband worked, and then her income was the same as if she worked at a full-time job. The State of Colorado allowed a person to "watch" about 7 or 8 kids at a "day-care facility". Put our 5 with her 1 or 2, and the 7-limit was hit.
This all worked for some years until folks started getting divorced, then it sort of disintegrated...
It also stopped as pressure from the women’s movement meant better paying jobs became available to women.
NYC is going to be an affordability lab, “Freeze the rent,” “ Fast free buses”and “Free childcare for All,” will determine the success/failure of our new mayor. Since our governor has jumped on the free childcare for all bandwagon you’ll have tons of data 😊 , and as far as the oil, fracking currently provides about half of our oil and the oil companies don’t want to flood the market and negatively impact prices, … that old supply and demand 😈
I have read that fracking is way down because of the lower price of oil.
64% of US oil is from fracking, decreasing worldwide oil prices will decrease fracking
Oil is but one of trump's shiny objects. However, even oil's future is anything but shiny. The world - with or without the U.S. during trump's tenure - is moving inexorably to clean, abundant, very cheap non-emission energy - solar, wind, batteries, EVs and more to come. This is happening now and trump is either too stupid, ignorant or just a moron with a clown car of sycophants to understand this. He is handing China global energy dominance to the detriment of every American.
The long term price of oil is heading down - how far, who knows - but don't be surprised at $30-$40 per barrel or even less in a few years.
The EPSTEIN files are core to attacking Venezuela - a huge distraction from trump's fear of the EPSTEIN truths rising above the madness. The EPSTEIN victims with hunt trump down - with the help of upstanding members of Congress - and expose the TRUTH.
Trump is now saying we (we taxpayers) will pay the oil companies to go into Venezuela. We should be subsidizing the installation of solar panels so we can meet the electricity demand of all those data centers being built. Maybe Trump thinks they will be fueled by oil?
Thanks for alerting us about your op-ed. I read the Times every morning, but somehow never saw it and had to go dig it up. It was excellent! Focused and realistic. I would love to see it turn into policy.
On avoiding deficit financing of childcare because of inflationary concerns - would not increased access to childcare increase labor force participation and thus generate a significant counter inflationary effect?
Is there no criminality in your assessment of the recent kidnapping?
And in fact the whole regime of sanctions that has forced millions out of Venezuela?
The claim that the 2024 presidential election was stolen has never been clearly proven, and it's a long shot that fraud here can be proven.
Evidently the 2025 election of the V. parliament resulted in 23 of the 24 states choosing a governor who supports the Chavistas, with only a slight decline in voter turnout for an off-term election. The claim that there is no support for the Chavistas is unsustainable.
All that aside, I think the reduction of prices would be a good strategy. Nonfinancial corporate profits grew from $1.105 trillion in Q4 2019 to $3.041 trillion in Q2 2025, adjusting for inflation, by about 115%. Nonfinancial profits were 6.0% of national income in 2019, and were 11.9% in 2025. (Data found at Fed's Flow of Funds, page 10, line 10) How did this happen? Does that show that "Profit Inflation Is Real", the title of an essay by Servaas Storm at INET Economics. There is a basic foundational flaw if corporate price competition is broken.
Is there other evidence that it is broken? The study "Prices, Profits and Power" by Mike Konczal at Roosevelt Institute says, " While markups averaged 1.26 between 1960 and 1980,
they have been on a slow and consistent rise since then, averaging 1.56 during the 2010s. In 2021, markups suddenly increased to 1.72—that is, the average markup charged in 2021 was 72 percent above marginal cost. In other words, in 2021, we see a sharp increase in the 30-year trend of firms in the aggregate decoupling their prices from their underlying costs."
Your other recommendations are still to be desired.
My blog: http://benL88.blogspot.com
On the subsidy for childcare, note I am completely unfamiliar with the issue.
Still, I can see that by subsidizing childcare for a two-parent family, without an equivalent subsidy being available to a two-parent family where one parent stays home, you might be encouraging a parent to work, when a more efficient (and possibly even healthier--sounding Republican!) solution is available with one parent staying home.
The analysis of this seems not that complex, and must be something standard, that is around. (I see that a family that has both parents working, in a situation where working is "more efficient" in the sense that, without income and payroll taxes, the family would be ahead with the second parent working, could be worse off after taxes, so you might try to counter the taxation with a subsidy. (But why not have childcare be treated equivalently to a business expense?)
Also, I am not suggesting no subsidy for a family in a tight situation, due to the time and economic cost of raising children, gets no subsidy. There could be a subsidy. The question is should the subsidy favor a second parent working?
--
Again, this must be old ground and pretty-much solved. Anyone who wants to chime in with the solution, etc., that would be nice.
Measuring tighter, more discrete baskets of affordability makes sense. Especially if the language/terminology can be sharp and simple too.
How is this going to be factored into the upcoming, annual spending decisions facing Congress?
The size of the new tax cuts surely have to be always on the table; evidence of "what could have been" resources.
Same with the fuc.ing costs - so far - for months of deploying resources to the Caribbean with no end in sight. Put 'em on the table.
Chevron, and the rest of the fossil gang, needs Venezuelan gunk like it needs a hole in its capital. Energy companies everywhere are working to reduce their exposure to carbon pricing. Chevron is demonstrably doing so. So in addition to being expensive to both transport (it competes with Chevron's pipeline-supported Gulf resources) and refine (if "gunk" isn't a technical term in the refining business, it should be), it worsens Chevron's exposure to successful climate policy.
I wonder if Chevron can admit to running a carbon book without exposure to tobacco-style judgements for knowingly covering up the science of climate change.
"I argue that there are two criteria, both of which must be met for items to be part of the agenda:"
May I add a third? We need to restore some common sense notion of equity, fair play and progressive taxation so that we are not headed precipitously toward stark oligarchy/plutocracy.
I wonder what the legal risks are to oil companies signing contracts with a Venezuelan government that is being forced to sign arrangements made under the threat of military action. Could a new government declare the contracts null and void? Personally, I'd steer clear until an stable, independent, legitimate government wants to develop the resources and the threat of US military invention is gone.
There’s also a lot of bloat in the education sector though both profit and administrative fat