With Sarah on vacation, Matt and Ezra talk about the philosophical underpinnings of worries about inequality, take a look at Donald Trump's difficulty grappling with the delegate selection process, and discuss a blockbuster new paper that reveals huge city-to-city variation in how long poor people live. The Weeds is supported by Goldman Sachs. To learn about developments currently shaping markets, industries, and the global economy, subscribe to the firm’s podcast, ‘Exchanges at Goldman Sachs,’ available on iTunes.The Weeds is also brought to you by The Great Courses Plus. Visit TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/Weeds to stream Understanding Investments and hundreds of other courses for free!
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
This week's episode of the weeds sponsored by the great courses, the great courses plus, is offering our listeners a chance, a stream hundreds of their courses, including understanding investments, its two hundred fifteen dollar value for free. You just go to the great courses plus dot com, slash weeds, that's the great courses plus dot com, slash weeds. The weeds is supported by Goldman Sachs to learn about developments currently shaping markets. Industries in the global economy subscribed to the firms, podcast exchanges Goldman Sachs-
but on Itunes. The following podcast contains explicit language. What happened in these
welcome to another episode of the weeds boxes? Policy, podcast, mechanically network- I Matthew glaziers with me as usual- is as we're fine, but we ve had Sarah clip deported to grants Fishing
she's, not when I look we're friends,
France, I sought an instrument that sometimes it is taken the weeds.
Maybe maybe not quite as good. Yes, it's an unfortunate. I mean to be stuck in a city with no progress at all. I think
in the entire city. Embarrass you have to eat bread I think to subsist. Does because there's no audio tonight,
nutritious wheezy audio exactly it sad, so we figured we would just proceed without her sons, guest and me great up. So are we not as great as one service here,
you we're gonna, make the weeds great again of injury
but for now we're gonna be about his great, as as we can be as two of us going to talk about a new research paper that made big headlines and talk about,
waves in the primary, but I think first wanted to talk bro
de, I and I think, couldn't conceptually about the idea of inequality and an economic inequality that has
please sort of increasing role in left laughter centre politics in a way. That is not. I think always that
well thought out, or even clarified as to what it is that people are talking about, ready, see, inequalities, deep level of
certain paired with, I think, a certain amount, even for people who give a lot of thought to this heading paired with a certain amount of vagueness on the data.
Like, even when I talk to people who really do inequality and we begin chilling. Ok, what do we need? What
mean what do we mean when you really get down the question of what are we concerned about and why there is often I think a lot of causal issues are you. Are you concern about some caused by inequality? Concern about them with inequality is a by product of yeah. It often gets really complex,
and so I was a philosophy major in college. So so I mean I mean, or as a couple days,
miles into the sky, you have a project where one traditional view,
about income. Redistribution has been a kind of utilitarian view and
The basic logic here is: if you take
ten thousand dollars at a bill gates. His pocket he's
literally not gonna notice, like his his net wealth, swings by much more than that and on a day to day basis. It is no negative impact on his quality of life, which, if we give
thousand dollars to someone who is struggling to pay for college or someone who is facing eviction from her apartment. That's gonna make a huge massive improvement it in her quality
So you could say okay? This is why this is
a lot of questions you can ask about that. But, broadly speaking, if you take money from
but we have a lot of it and give it to people who don't have that much. You will increase the net sum of of awesomeness, but a lot of people don't like utilitarians style, moral reasoning. People have a lot of objections to it. Philosophical objections and one particular philosopher John Rawls, really felt that this coming utilitarian thinking tramples on a lotta. What's most valuable in the liberal political tradition,
but the idea that people have individual rights and that you know you can't just say, Johnny is not- can be allowed to speak his mind any more because he so annoying to other people that silencing him and stifling descent will increase human happiness
but he wants to create a philosophical justification for the kind of welfare state liberalism
that was being created in the United States under the great society that was being created in England under Clement Atley other I've? A weird question about the recent EU too said that that I'm cares about. Is you know much more about rules than that? I do we? U at Harvard when he was there
He stole my boys, always he was married ass. He was alive kicking around and I believe I picked up his his former hatrack at an auction over the outskirts. So it's a deep person
sure you just said something interesting a minute ago, which is a little bit off the point, but it's just a fascinating ideas. Question. Do you think that what John roles did was worked out, a political philosophy that he thought was ideal that ended in adjusted
should for the liberal welfare state or doing the watch on rules did was worked backwards from a welfare state that he liked and found what he considered to be a firmer philosophical underpinning for it. He always did not like the characterisation that he had gone and created a ex post facto philosophical justification for a political regime that was happening and, in fact laid in his life. He went in the direction of a governance model that he calls property owning democracy.
That is a little weird and not very much like actual countries that that we see, but I think this is the kind of case where, like what somebody says about their own work, is less valuable than what is actually on there
and he is a regional book. Theory of justice is published in the early seventies. He was clearly working on it do out. The nineteen sixty is, which was that high water mark of great society, liberalism and the United States Welfare state programmes like any book. It does not address everything you might care about. It says nothing about protecting the environment. For example. It says nothing about disability rights does nothing but feminism, but it does have a couple of chapters about civil
Obesity is unlike when and why it is justified, which I think just goes to show like what was on his mind. Right was the civil Rights Movement Kennedy, Johnson era, liberalism and what was valid in it and why history bears that out. Even if it's not the official nature of the
Jack penny. What would we roll says is that for big philosophical reasons, but that if you're gonna have a social system that ends up with people being unequally treated by the outcomes, there has to be a justification for then inequality and the justification has to be something that could be accepted in principle by everyone. Who is there, including the people that the short end of the stick, and so he he articulate, says idea. That's called the difference principle that inequality is ok in so far as it benefits the least well off people in society. So I think that the classic example is that you know it's ok, to pay surgeons, high salaries,
has. That means people won't bother to get the training and will do the work and they save lots of lives and that's good and in a general sense, most people think that if you had no inequality at all, it would be difficult to have a functioning economy and and growth. So that's a big philosophical argument.
And quality, and to me I mean what's interesting by both the utilitarian and the rosy and egalitarian principles. Is it neither of those ideas actually say that inequality?
per se is a bad thing. They all
say that a society
we might look at becoming less unequal in order to benefit actual human beings in there
but they also all say that a country like the United States, which has a very high level of inequality, is still a better juster, fairer society than a place like Portugal, which has less inequality but is substantially poorer than the United States such that poor portuguese people are worse off than then pour american people. Now you can look at countries and peoples interests pointed them, Denmark, Sweden, where
always thinking, people are better off than they are in the United States, and we certainly could do things in the United States to reduce inequality and and lift up that the lowest wage people here. But it's not true as a general matter that the level of inequality in society is, they mean determinant of how well off its poorest. Citizens are, and none of the sort of big philosophical ideas that that I'm familiar with say that that's a problem and also I dont think like when Barack Obama says that inequalities, the defining challenge of our generation. I don't you
actually means that if he could make the american economy look more like Peru, you know how to do it right, but that is legal. The literal words seemed to mean,
if you could make America as a whole, much poorer, but also much more equal, that he would go do but also think so
thing in there and in the way, both these philosophical approaches to the issue are structured is interesting in its telling in that you mentioned a couple minutes ago, so I picked up on an asked you about that rules as work is typically thought of not as a justification for different abstract levels of inequality, but essential.
location for the welfare state. The reason that inequality plays a factor there is because,
You might want to move money into other purposes, and similarly, be you tell tearing argument is also about what would you do without money? What can you do with our money? It was not the case that in the fifties in the thirties, in the forties, and
sixty in the seventies and eighties, even to some degree in the nineties, inequality itself was often considered a major.
That was in a major thing that people talked about in left of centre, even right of centre american economic life inequality. It came up, it was only a people measured and attract a little bit. Some of the people talked about. There's always been concerns about disparities in wealth, but
It is a much more recent development in participating, liberal thinking that inequality per se
is a problem, and you have a lot of rhetoric now that what you will,
to do is almost irrespective of what you are doing with the money. You want to bring down levels of inequality
yeah. I mean I ain't. I think that that is a relatively sort of neutral and, of course, the actual level of inequality used too much lower,
so it was not always is very high before that a project, for instance in but I mean in this- should have made too late twentieth century. There was less inequality than there is knowing, and you also seen as in figures on the right that if he read Friedman in a number of occasions in his sort of older works and from the six and Seventys he just kind of weaves off distribution
concerns and links, as you don't really need to pay attention to them, and I don't think he's being like hide the ball disingenuous about that. I mean he's operating in the landscape, where the gap between rich and poor, obviously,
meaningful people would have rather been millionaires in the seventies than paupers and and that, where millionaires, but it was not a big, salient aspect of american life and not something that people thought an enormous amount of bow and its also. Why, like so Lyndon Johnson talks about a war on poverty right, not about a a war on in quality right? Of course, there was a redistributive element to
a substantial and tax money was flowing from which people to poor people, but the idea that he had was that he was a shame that in a country that was at the time the richest country on the planet, that there were people living in really really abysmal conditions. It wasn't about the eighty that individual Americans were so wealthy that it was appalling. It was actually the average was so high
it is appalling that people, when these conditions- and I think stark inequality, was seen as like. You know a problem for other places in Latin America. You would often have these like landowner, plantation dominated economies and the united
It was just not that kind of place, and so what has happened in recent years is that the inequality itself has become the problem in the rhetoric, when you hear of things like Barack Obama saying that inequality is a defining issue of our time, what has
I think suddenly, but really importantly, changed. In the liberal view of the economy and liberal view of economic justice, is it the distribution
question is important. Separate from the question of are the poor. Doing ok, separate from the question is, is a middle class doing ok that at least, if you take the rhetoric at bay,
value? You could have a world where we tripled everybody's income and that would
In summary, I mean obviously in many respects, I'd be a good thing, but in some respects it would be a bad thing because it would make the gap between the rich and the poor yon wider, and within that argument, which of course he says come up because of
actively from the data we have? The scope of inequality has widened quite a bit in recent decades, but
you have that, I think, is a bit of a search which happens a lot and american politics for you.
This issue. Inequality where it feels to people like something is really wrong. Maybe look
that may not like it, and they
The search kindly begins for. Why is it wrong? And there are some things where I think the problems being pointed out.
Our problems are of inequality that are based on inequality and some things right think that inequalities become a way for people to talk about other problems that have not developed such political salience yet, and I actually think this is one of the difficulties of the conversation. I think it often confuses, and in some cases actually makes more difficult issues that need to be faced had on so one reason people get very upset about inequality is the sort of raw distribution of economic wealth, but often, if you really press em, they're, they're, very upset about media in wages stagnating
or poverty being so persistent and in some cases, not idle. There has been increasing lately, but for some time after the recession it was you can imagine ways it were median wages. Would increase again or poverty would decrease, but the top one percent
keep pulling further away. Then there's a set of arguments that I think are:
in some ways more significant for inequality, Kwan equality which are on political power.
and the ways in which a country in which the top one percent,
are aggregating more and more and more of the wealth is a country where,
they are going to have more and more more political power to orient the economy and orient public policy around their interest. Since that becomes away that
Bodies both is, on the one hand, self perpetuating, but on the other hand, is a problem because it's going to lead to public policy, the cakes wealth and otherwise would go to the middle classes and and the poor and brings it up to the top one percent. I do think that this sort of median income question is crucial here. I think that if you go back to the political rhetoric of the ninety nine years, when there was a time when the poverty rate was following quite rapidly, median incomes were growing
as quickly as poverty was falling, but at a decent, clap and rich were also getting richer, largely through the stock market accumulation. But you know we was just like good times.
And at that time there were people who said
oh no, no things away worse than they luck, because inequalities explaining how to control but then
was a kind of a left wing crank position? It was not the means stream view of left of censure people,
I just want to care about how using cranky, because I think it might come up differently than than when we talk about it, isn't
view is necessarily wrong. Crazy. Just at the people who were arguing that you were not taken seriously was entry was aim,
it was a marginal view right where you would have heard- and you did not hear Al Gore in two thousand and saying-
we ve done a lot of good things in the economy, but it's really bad that the Genie coefficient as resident he talked about
gaps and health insurance, the need to regulate tobacco. You know Bob Bob out, but there was an economic record. That means stream. Democrats were very comfortable, claiming credit
there was of a consensus and democratic party that I think is since really broken down, but at that time that the great
compromise or, or the great advance, depending on who you talk to that NEO Liberalism had made was to understand that if you really really really put the government in service of the market that you can make people which make it takes some of that money from the rich, in addition to increasing wages down at the bottom, you can also take some of that money from the rich and put it back into the social safety net. Creating
the children's health insurance programme? Even if there was going to be more inequality, there is also a rising tide lives all. But
and they were having it happens. After that period, is the rich keep getting richer but be it only begins to lift the yachts? You don't see, meeting wages going up, you don't see poverty and improving it. It just sort of gets worse of them
item and more and more and more of the gains of of reasonably good economies just floated the exact
and that's when you start seeing mainstream democrats embracing inequality is an issue more and I think it's never been entirely clear.
If what they are saying is that they were wrong
in the nineties to say that that was an acceptable outcome and they just sort of like would like that bad
or if they're saying that the just don't believe it's possible there's one thing you could say is that in principle it would be fine to increase middle class incomes by any means possible, but the only available means is more. Redistribution and authority would be to say, look, there's like three or four different things we could do, but it's really important to do reduced
Lucian, because inequality is the predominant challenge of our time, and I think there's just enormous sort of ambiguity around that, because we have seen slow growth and rising inequality over the past fifteen years. So it's been sort of very comedians gun together. I due notice that, over the course of twenty fifteen there was job growth in the United States. There was wage growth in the United States, it wasn't spectacular wage growth, but it was positive and
the stock market de quite portly in twenty fifty, and so there was a year in which the gap between rich and which, in the middle class, narrow.
I do not really see people celebrating that, because
How is it was a year of weak wage growth and saying well
Ok, you're pay only went up one percent, but at least which people lost three percent in the stock market is like. Nobody is controlled by that. What people really care about is the idea of a sort of broadly shared increase in living standards, not actually what's happening,
the income distribution to an extent, I don't wanna, say everyone's life, so I think that there are a couple of places where, when I try to think about the question of what are the reasons to care about inequality just around the inequality question not about something else, you can otherwise addressed
I kind come up with a couple of them one, and this is a tricky question to adjudicate and I've ve spent a lot of.
Optimism. Gotten a lot of different answers is the degree to which distribution is a zero sum game. Is it agreed to
the top one percent running away with income gains is part of the reason that the median amount
worker or the american worker at the ten percent I'll, has seen their wages stagnates about
and there are certain mechanisms- do appear to be leading to inequality that are or
so an example would be the fact that we more or less
the union. Certainly, private sector unions and we lowered high marginal tax rates and made some changes on corporate boards. Another
things it made a much easier and also much more lucrative. For
c. O is in, and heads of industry to lever,
to their negotiating power for much bigger compensation packages and that's one reason: you see the differential between worker and c o pay c on Worker Bay drive up so so so much in in recent decades, but other
Economists argue that there might be some effects on the margin, but, for the most part, leaves a separate trans
look in the daddy. You see them taking off it at supper times. As I remember this meeting wages really begin to stagnate and Seventys, whereas top one percent they really begin to go up in the in the mid eighties. Another thing that can be looked at here is that political power issue. Now I tend to think that around the political power you want to be addressing campaign for
the Un Reform or directly that that that sort of the more obvious, if you're, worried about the effect of money in politics than do something about whether money can come into politics. The rejoinder people offered that is well
Arab super high inequality. Do not able to do anything about the money coming into politics. Has super rich people have a lot of peril block it. I feel like that, into being
bit of turtles all the way down argument because well then, by the same token, how are you can add my
use a policy to changing inequality, but but it's a, I think, it's a argument worth taking seriously. There's no equilibrium, even if you did a highly strengthen the campaign for an answer from system and get rid of citizens. United
do public financing and do small donor matching and all the other things you might do that you would still end up if you didn't. If you then did nothing about distribution of income in this country would still end up with a worldwide
even if, because of some momentary coalition of political power, you would pass those laws. They would just get chipped away over fifteen twenty twenty five years and there's no stable distribution of political power in the in a country of the
I don't equal a lot of places where would be better to actually define the thing you're worried about end attack that thing of median wage stagnation, I think, is a, but there are others too. So I guess where do you come down on that? I mean: how much do you worry about in a quad?
for equality, and I dont mean here in terms of would you accept full
wages for everyone if they felt for the rich faster, but as one priority among many, where does inequality rank? Fear
I think that it is not a great idea to have adopted this entire inequality focus. I think that it gets you into a lot of thorny, difficult measurement issues that becomes a little bit
sort of conceptual cul de sac, and they really. It seems to me that what is an amazing people is slow pace of increase in living standards for average people. I do think it's true that addressing that probably requires you to alter the actual balance of power in sort of enterprises and and in the economy in a way that would have a levelling impact. Read that right now what happens that top managers and large shareholders have too much overall influence over what is done with economic resources in the United States where they want to do is pocket the resources, and I think that that both takes money out of peoples,
gets an and also prevents some of the kind of investment that that would spur growth but did focusing on the inequality part and making its sound as if confiscating bill gates his money and setting dumpsters full of it on fire would be constructive or making it seem as if
The fact that founders of very successful companies have enormous amounts of paper wealth
is the reason medium wages have slowed right I mean that's, I think so clearly wrong right that, like Mark Zuckerberg, personal fortune has not come out of the pockets of average people working in the food service industry, but there's no way to make that
connection, but when you think about inequality, those are the among the most salient examples like the very richest people in the world who tend to be corporate founders. Andorra, their children is much more sensible to focus on the question of how our me
in people doing and then to focus on the intergenerational transfer of wealth, which I think there's tradition,
been a lot of concern about in the United States, for obvious reasons and there's been a real dismantling of state taxes? That's much more
baroness concern than about inequality
per se. I mean we don't like the idea of a sort of permanent aristocracy of inherited wealth right that that is problematic on its own terms and that also stagnating incomes for middle class people is problematic and zone terms. Those two things do not cause each other and those two things are not to wreck.
related to the genie coefficient either. We should probably stop you for a minute and define the genie coefficient. Bides is easy. It's
ratio of the area above the Lorens curve, the area below it. So you know that makes it really simple enemies
doesn't our intuitive so so that digital television? This is the standard way that unequal distribution of economic resources is defined and its a bit difficult to get you.
Mind around, but it's over, like imagine, drawing a picture where each person is like higher based on they earn more money right and then you put them in order to the person who owns the most is all the way on the right and then the next person is next
the experts next to him right. So then you would have you can imagine like a square right and then there's a line that goes on top of everybody's heads and the gene
coefficient. Is the ratio between what's in the in the blank space, with above the line and what's below the line? Do if you have a perfectly equal distribution of income? It's fifty slash fifty and if it gets skewed that the ratio goes higher and it's it. It's like an abstract number, but it's
the way to summarize the distribution of income and crime in that white spaces income right, but on both sides of his income in the basic question, is where's yeah yeah. Exactly so.
I think one reason that it's hard to talk about inequality in a rigorous way in the context of a political campaign. Is that measuring it and explain
What you're measuring is really really not friendly stumps, because to be fair, though, I think that one way people think about inequality- and this is another place where I think it has actually gotten a little bit confusing because they're using a not that precise idea tie to another penniless per cent
measurement, but the one I really hate people talk about us top one percent share of income yeah
get into different argument about whether we should be doing income or wealth where I gotta come down on that. You should be looking at wealth side of things, but but
even so. I think that one reason is,
so even more complicated and pretty leads to more confusing policies is of it. You could have policies would address the genie coefficient, but that would actually be aimed at length the ether third to ninety two second percent, while the income distribution, but because politicians are thinking about top one percent, sometimes top point
percent income. The policies are much more narrowly targets. Only the rhetoric of one percent versus ninety nine percent has been very powerful, is comprehensible to people. Like really goes. It means something. Does it interesting question as to whether people in these second, you know whatever? That? Is that ninety eight percent of right do they?
Shall we perceive themselves as to be comrades in arms, with the very poor shipping economic policy? I'm like a little you're talking there about people making like two hundred fifty three hundred thousand dollars a year, and I am a little sceptical that those people have a self conception as like being on the and the oppressed,
side of the economic divide, but monotonous, avert some things for promoting and make better get. You are a lot of wine bottle. Rhino six
you know something we will talk about is that their keep being bank shot theories, which is like
will? We have empirical evidence that high levels of inequality, her people's health or we have evidence that high levels of inequality are bad for opportunity right. So if those things are true of, of course, has a problem right, I'm in public health hazards are bad Bob. I put it in the way that that research agenda has proceeded as a little and sound judgment
Fundamentally, let's hunt around for something that is caused by inequality and, as you said, that the political power thing seems like a fairly straightforward case and worth guy gets keeping in mind as we design election rules and and campaign seasons. But
If truly you're only worry we're about the imbalance in the coming finance system, I just don't think anyone would be sincerely motivated to completely overhaul the economy.
The place I come down, which I think is related, but but slightly different and in a couple ways is that inequality seems
me to be a signal of a lot of things that are going wrong. I can imagine a version of inequality that may be wouldn't, but the one we have in the way in which we react to it. I think inequalities becoming shorthand for a lot of things and maybe we're not only super conceptual clear about our real problems. In that way, inequality is a by product of some things that I think,
We should worry about particularly around the basket of concerns that lead to people wearing, but inequality. I would prefer that the buzz word, the rallying cry, had become full employment. I think that
a lot of the things that really concern me and that I think actually drive the particular pines of inequality, that worry me have to do with very low levels of worker power.
There are their ways in which, as do the unions are waste which ass do a federal reserve policy, their ways in which it has to do with the demand side policy from Congress, I mean they're, all kinds of things that go into a full employment.
the agenda, but I think that if we
that we would be. I think inequality would close a bit, but even if it didn't, we would have addressed the forms of inequality that strike me as rolling rock, but then the place up puts you.
is ok, so may be the case for a quality being. The issue is not that
on, but is there some reason to believe that in a quality is such good politics as opposed to one
about full employment, worrying about median wages, worrying about unemployment, worrying about things like that that
There is some highly instrumental case for four grounding inequality
even if you really using it to address these other things,
somewhere, where one I don't feel like I'm on super from ground is.
I do not want any elections in my life, but I am sceptical that inequality, some kind of special political.
Winner, and I have not seen a lot of winds come out of it. Obviously Bernie Sanders. This campaign is doing actually, but I think that he is focus much more on power and imbalances in power than mere imbalances in income, which I think has been a very smart move that he's made in framing his campaign
I am not persuaded, I think by that argument, either that yeah inequality, maybe a little bit conception confused, but it's such a huge political winner than that that that should be the the play
and I just I have not seen the election campaigns have convinced me of it? So I think next we can talk about the actual campaign coming up a fairer, really yeah
what are you about? Adding this week's episode of the weeds sponsored by the great courses we ve been
can a lot about the great courses lately and were excited by their new great courses plus video learning service. It gives you,
limited access to this huge library of the great courses, lecture series in so many fastening subjects you that science
history, cooking everything, as we really want you to try the great courses plus so they're, giving our listeners especial chance to watch one of their popular courses, understanding investments, absolutely free,
understanding investments is presented by award winning Professor financial Economics, it Duke University, Conall Footprint camp, the course expire.
the fundamentals of investing for people warrant familiar with the process, and it also covers areas more experience. Investors, fine beneficial its
super interesting. You know you can learn a lot. You can benefit on the bottom line and with great courses
you can watch as many different sectors as you want anytime anywhere. So now
way courses plus is offering our listen, there's a chance, a stream hundreds of their courses, including
standing investments. It's a two hundred fifteen dollar value for free. You just go to the great courses plus
calm, slash, weeds, that's the great courses plus dot com, slash weeds, so we
an amazing weak. In the election campaign we had a boring Tuesday in which no states voted with a shitty Tuesday. It's boring Tuesday,
what we ve seen some interesting and definitely wheezy developments in the campaign, which is that states have now started to actually select their delegates to the convention. We talk about candidates, winning states, and sometimes we we get fine grained integrate how many delegates they won. But then a separate phase of the process is when the actual human beings are selected, the rules for how that happens very from place to place. But typically the answer is not ok. If Donald Trump win seven delegates, that means he gets to pick seven people and TED crews
spin cleaning up on the actual delegates selection in the handful of states that have done it and has been stocking down. So a Louisiana, we're Trump. I think one all the delegates there, like, basically all crews, guys here,
to the Colorado stage, Ethiopia Convention and he got it stacked with tat crews, guys so Trump is talking about how this is unfair
I think common sense indicates the Trump is correct, but also I want to
buzz here, because I think it's important to explain what this means and what it doesn't mean. This doesn't mean that on the first ballot at the GNP convention, the tea
Crews, guys were Louisiana. Delegates will vote for TED crews. They want they're gonna, go for Donald Trump, like they're there to some degree more or less bound to do that rule say that they have to vote for damage. What probably is going to happen are certainly potentially may happen is if Donald Trump does not get a majority of delegates before the convention. What's gonna happen is going to have a first ballot boat and Donald Trump, get whatever forty two percent of the delegates, and after that, there actually aren't very binding instructions about what those delegates to that point. Those dug its consort of do whatever they want and the ideas
none of them like Donald Trump and they're all going to go to TED Cruz right, and this is the difference between what we're looking at in twenty sixteen and like the brokered conventions of your because what would happen
and went when Al Smith came to the nineteen twenty four convention without enough delegates to win the nomination, he came with Pro Psmith delegates from Eastern Democratic Party machines,
that were look, they were loyal to Smith and they were loyal to the same bosses. That Smith was loyalty right. So you don't heating went on the first ballot and they were still fighting for him on the second third. Fourth, and
timidly why you would say the commission was brokered is that these different people had delegates who were loyal to them and they may deal or to some degree, these different bosses. It didn't have to be our Smith. It could be, as, as you kind of said, you would have machine bosses who had control x amount of Adele bits of a state
she boss was on the ballot, but the machine boss would be in the room making exact helping to make the deal, and so
we are seeing is that we now have pledged delegate, so they may have to vote according to the rules for tromp or in some cases, crews, r, K Sec. But then there is the question of where to their real loyalty.
actually lie, and these are not delegates who are controlled by TED crews in a machine sense, because tickers isn't have patronage
to hand out right he's, not gonna give him postal Yankees. It he's. Ok, get your sister fired. If, if you don't do it, he says, but they are people who TED cruises. Fuelled teams in these different states believed to be like on their side, and so, if ten crew,
is in theory. You can have a majority of the delegates personally favour. Crews, tromp has like forty five percent pledge on the first ballot. Think for trump crews.
Its thirty. Whatever we go to the second ballot than ever on, votes for tankers and and that's all she work, the other possibility is that
Nobody will win on the second ballot either, but then we will see if crews really retains the loyalty of those people to the extent that he can be like a big negotiating player and unity that win the nomination for himself by making
sessions to other people or swing it one way or the other, and I think that's a little untested. I mean there's been some good reporting of about this. These events have a lot of it from from the Washington Post, but we just don't have the kind of politics anymore, where I think we really really know to what extent these crews delegates are like hardhearted crews, loyal, and I want to note two things.
on both sides, who this one is that it is the case now with this come up on the weeds before TED crews has just flat out out organised the rest of the Republican,
he has run a more professional.
savvy effective farsighted campaign, Marco Rubio was not running a strong delegate accrual strategy, so one thing I just think we should just
can subsequent is TED Cruises really showing that he just a little bit ahead of the others in this and its one reason. I think it gives me separate from the question how many delicacy has
whatever a little bit more confidence if you prevail, it is just that I think a lot of people can be caught without plant rack and TED creases not gonna, be called without a plan, but but the other point is that, as you say, this is,
happened for a long time or in the contemporary circumstances of delegates, selection and UN convention rules
as such people, to really know how to handle it. There are a lot of people before who are experienced it.
Broker convention, but there were norms of how you broke Workin ventures. Corfu. You call is clear how the delegates got information from people, and now it's not right. So, in terms
just like what you said a minute ago, where there is this idea that TED crews,
end up in a room with someone and he's gonna be making concessions or making deals. The question of who
in that room is really uncertain. Now I mean it could be John K, sick. It could be Donald Trump, something one ideas, it's just that the candidates, but my guess is there going to be
I mean damage upsetting to deal makers who may be happy to be taken in detail, but I am a little sceptical that he will see this as an as above the board thing to discuss, but he might but the other option is there not other players in the Republican Party who its clear will have a lot of influence, is what isn't there? Who is the leverage to make deals right of Paul Ryan comes out. It really is unclear. Just for all I mean porn is now said that he will not be the candidate that he thinks it should be. Somebody ran, but even a porn did come out. That talk has been talk. It is coming
Washington. I talk the talk coming from the establishment that wants to see Paul Ryan chosen because it seems they go finally, save them from his hellish year end the spectre of TIGERS, Donald Trump, but in fact was never obvious it of Paul Ryan
walked out and said. Okay, I will serve as your candidate that he would actually get those delegates when this is where I think there's been a really shocking organizational failure. I think there's been a line of media snark about Donald Trump sort of ineptitude at this, but it came from the weight. Trump sees trumps path to victory is to secure a majority of pledged delegates. It doesn't matter who select the delegates if he gets a majority, they have to give it to him. On the first ballot, Trump has limited resources, limited access to Party institute.
it's moving institutions, so he's focused on you know his twitter account his rallies, trying to win New York, trying to win California trying to get it eats unfortunate for him that cruises poaching these delegations, but he'll live with it and
It's best to people who are really losing here, I think, are the Republican Party elected officials from these states. Would, you might think would be happening here is that crews in tromp are out. There is the last man standing running in the primaries, getting votes but
cordless who wins. The state, the governor or the senators or ideally, both of them working together are making sure that that states Delegation
is packed with people who they know and they trust and who respect them, so that, in the event that nobody has a majority, you can go broker the convention right in the answer. The question of who are the brokers is it's a clear who would be the broker for New York? State Republicans cause that's not really an existing state party, but you know it should be that that the Republican Party elected official
from all these southern states, ultimately control the delegations and that's how you would have hoped for it could be a Paul Ryan.
be Mitt Romney for the party regular would be to say that that the strength of regulators traditionally has been that that's exactly who gets to go, be a delicate, but they haven't done. It has been a lot of talk from republican elected officials about
problems with Donald Trump. There's been a lot of seemingly meetings with billionaires on offshore resorts, where they talk about add campaigns, but they did not
at least. We have not yet seen a state where they have done the work to say: okay, this is rock solid, packed with friends, family close to porter staffers of the governor and they're, going to come in they're, going to do what they have to do on the first ballot and then, if it doesn't come to that, the governor is going to go in the room and he's going to speak to the mall, and this speaks to a way in which the Republican Party is an institution. Assertive loose,
institution has failed, has failed to some you're in its role as a party you're talking here about individual power versions are public and party, but another version of this that very much could have happened. There's been a lot of talk about how the Republican Party didn't decide right. So what is it didn't like tromp? It did not give a large number of elected official endorsements to any particular candidate before Iowa. It is not united behind any candidate is not really tried to push other candidates out. It has been somewhat Hennessy, terrified and paralysed, but suddenly could have been happening in the background, even of our public party being unwilling to intervene more aggressively in the the election or these anew unable to come up with one candidate could support. The Publican party or sort of tribute to their public and party could have been really keep an eye on this process and make
here, as you put it, it's pretty regular right. One version that is the government nurse cronies, but another version of that is, if he republican state committees, loyal foot soldiers right who are loyal, who are involved in Republican State Committee efforts and so in the
and are going to take some direction from elite republicans, not just like
will. You give me what I wanted Missouri, but what is best for the party, and they did not do that.
Either, and so their public body does not decide. It also didn't, organise and also hasn't been planning. I mean it just there is nothing. You can look at this here and say and wealth at
Prince purposes, Robin by did a good job on that. If you are part of their pumpkin establishment and- and maybe this is because previous was afraid of being seen and Didn'T- want the responsibility of trying to program connection right, I mean it's entirely possible that what this was considered. They said, my God, can you mad
the backlash, if it seemed to be us who did that and some level, I think people looking at the TED Cruz saying, even though Donald Trump is upset, I think a lot of the reaction. People having is well that's pretty clever, of TED Cruz like this is part of campaigning for President he's showing his goodie campaigning for president. It's possible republican Party looked at this and said: if we do it, it will just look like you're stealing the whole thing. We don't want that responsibility better to let it be a chaotic thing that ends with
Who knows what then, to make it be a chaotic thing that ends with everybody being angry at us, but even so
just another way in which the parties too afraid to step forward and take proactive steps to avert what could be a total disaster for them at the Kevin. I want a one cow to said it did close out. Is it you
I've talked before. I think we ve top of run the show about how TED Creasy very weak general action candidate, but the only thing can be taken.
We got a general election candidates than his beliefs and record and and and the things he said, which are pretty unusual. Even for Republican is that he also
Talk the nomination from Donald Trump and split off my kind of that sort side of the party is getting cold.
Lion TED. All the time by Trump on Twitter, I mean for pedigrees. Go on with a split republican party is just like an unimaginable disaster for Republican.
I think I think we should say that about about all these scenarios. There's a question of life
it's in the rules and like what is really comprehensible, and it does always seem to me that, as long as Trump is ahead in votes and delegates and polling that it's just hard sell to say, you're going to likes to wipe it from it right I mean you could but
it's so ugly. I think this is a good time to move and talk about our white paper, the wheat which under excited about as so this week
there was a study released in the Journal of the American Medical Association and distant
is done by Russia. Chatty, who is one of the leading economists relating unkindness right now, but also is the
eating economist. I think on doing new,
sort of dataset based experiments, particular on inequality and social mobility. Lot of
Well, not economists on the team, David Cutler, is one of them at Harvard this stuff
is about health inequality and its
things are really really really striking. It's fun
these are, among other things, that people in men in the top one percent of the income distribution that live fifteen years longer than men in the bottom. One percent of the income distribution it finds it there are parts of
country, where the average life expectancy for low income Americans puts them around of Sudan or Pakistan levels. It finds that the gap in life expectancy and launch
between the rich and the poor is growing substantially. I think for women there has been a gain of about.
point: nine years between two thousand and one and two thousand fourteen for rich women again
you point nine years and for poor women again of point zero for years. These are real,
Really striking numbers are coming from the best status, as we have on this, and the other thing about this
said. That is really striking. Is it goes through and pretty systematically disproves
one of the mechanisms, a sort of straightforward inequality mechanisms that would seem like what
actually follow from workable
equality. So one thing you might imagine is the income contributor here: is it poor? People can afford health insurance or they can afford
medical care and they show that health insurance and getting on.
Care, and even medical and hospital quality in that area does not seem to predict any of this.
nothing, you might think, is poor people live in more data.
Race or more toxic environments are breeding in more pollution or they dont have access to two groceries with fresh fruit to the way they tests, which I think is pretty clever as a look at what happens when you have more income segregation. So, in theory, if that's the problem in places where the poor people in which people live in a more intermixed way, would not have
But in fact they find that longevity is actually better for the poor a little bit when they are actually more economically segregated and they sort of go through like this or just a bunch of things that you think might be the cause of mechanism and just do not appear
And so then you end up in this new place, where the only thing that they find it is, I think, somewhat hopeful or implies something.
For an unusual going on- is that there are a couple of cities of number of cities, but politically big blue,
city six of the ten, our cities where the poor live the longest and California they see.
You be doing a really good job cutting this, so you have a bunch of cities where, in the difference between how long the poor in San Francisco and the poor in Detroit LIVE, is equivalent to have sent for his go just cured. Cancer, like just completely eliminated cancer, which I think is an amazing
things tat, and this is kind of hit a little like a bomb in part, because it disproves a lot of things people thought before, but also because it really shows how stark these disparities are in the country.
And I think it raises a lot of really interesting spaces frankly, but one of the really interesting ones is it it is
geographically different. It is so different metro area to match our area that it
It is likely to ask this question about what are some places doing right and someplace,
doing wrong? They tried to control for race and other things. He seems to be very hard to control for, but
Nevertheless, like it is, it is very striking, I think, speaks to the need to be thinking about a different set of.
policies than we usually are. When we talk about these questions here I mean
it seems like most sort of clearly it looks like these are states that have more draconian anti smoking walls.
it also, though, just places that have more. I don't know why, what to say it, but like health conscious effluent yuppies,
dense around the ground seems to have a kind of a spill over effect unto onto lower income residents of of these kinds of areas,
you know one thing that I am always sort of uncertainty about when these things come down is what is the actual state of the conventional wisdom like I saw some people looking at this study result and
oh, like the big thing this shows is that access to health care is not the main
driver of health outcomes of the United States. I thought that was
that was already very, very well established, there's a fair amount of our
you mean about that. I mean you use some experimental evidence to suggest that it would matter more need. For instance, we know that people of health insurance tend to get more blood pressure. Medical wangle blood pressure mitigation actually tends to help, and so you ve things it that work for those calls:
pathways and you some affirmative, observational observational data showing that health insurance does increased life expectancy. They also some experimental,
should it doesn't way this stuff? It's it's a very lively debate. Ok, I just I had always been under the impression that it was already sort of conventional wisdom that lifestyle factors are the predominant driver of of health disparities right that the the most expensive
You're treatments attend you be either, not that effective or else becoming in end of life scenarios where the potential gains are not that not that big and in the United States, no matter what your insurance tat is right. If you get hit by a car
are the. We don't in fact let people just brought in the streets of easily preventable injuries.
You think it's important to understand that right that, like what
say that they don't find that access to health care is a big driver of this. There are operating
baseline, worthy minimum amount of access to healthcare is not no access to healthcare it would.
interesting to know hypothetically what would happen if we actually did just turn away indigent patients from any kind of health care needs. My suspicion is that a lot of them would die, but we don't do that to me, though any port and part of this paper. That was not really emphasise a lot of the journalists
it is the fact that they control for race, ethnicity, that's a fairly standard demographic control to put into things, and I think it is good to do that
Sometimes you can draw a map of the United States and some phenomena
is here and you're like whoa. What is that crazy arc running from eastern text?
up through into New York and oftentimes you're. Seeing counties that have large african american populations also have some other phenomenon that that colleagues heavily with race. So that's good, but one thing that happens when you can drop where it says that we know that race
a big impact on life expectancy, and we don't know why that is so. I think it implies,
to keep it in mind when we control, because you
usually the purpose of throwing statistical controls and regression is that you,
want to avoid coming out with an explanation that you already know. If you're trying to study human heights impact on things, you don't want your result to just be show you
Men are taller than women right right, so you might want to control for gender right, because we know why men are tall there. One is very, very well understood, not well understood at all is wide. Letty knows have longer life expectancy than than none has bannock white people and that's true without controlling for income.
Striking biggest hispanic population is very, very poor. So when you read or write up of this study, that says life expectancy and for the poor and San Antonio is below average, you might be inclined to believe that
Poor person in San Antonio has a below average life expectancy, but it's almost certainly not the case. Synod hundreds of very heavily latina city at the low income population in San Antonio is very, very disproportionately latino and by I have not crunch the numbers, I'm quite
certain that its, in fact, above average there saying that is below average when you control for ethnicity. But that's that's dip
from a sort of a raw outcome, but if you're trying to isolate the effective income, which is what they're trying well, I think a lot about them.
you make on this a lot, which is you don't work
in controlling fair variables to accidently control. The thing your measuring you ve made this point about the wage gap or out which is often
you'll, see studies that are-
about the the male female wage gap and will say well when you control for hours worked, yea, all kind of jobs, you choose, etc, etc. They goes way and the point you made and ended
and I thought about a lot- is it when you do that you are controlling away the thing that your actually trying to measure and figure out. That's the way the wage gap works, but I dont
How that is doing that here, you know, I mean, I think, is an appropriate control. I just think it's important to foreground the fact that you have done right.
cause? I think, particularly because the hispanic paradox is itself not well understood right, so one thing that you might have
was that with a reason Latinos have longer. Life expectancy is that they disproportionately live in warm weather areas in the United States, which is true, so maybe they like go outside more. Maybe they spend more time with a swimming pool and there are better physical.
And so one thing this study shows is that that's not true right that their geographical disparities, when you control for raised, which is itself an interesting finding,
I just think it's important when you are investigating mystery is when one of the things you control for is itself a black box that you don't understand. That's a fair push you to accurately described
what you're saying why, if there were some well known, universally agreed upon reason why Latinos have longer life
see, then why people then saying well, of course, we're controlling, for that would be great, but it's like we have to miss.
right. On the one hand, we don't know why San Francisco, when you control for ethnicity, has a longer life expectancy. Events had Antonio.
On the other hand, we also dont know why low income Latinos
hunger, the low income African Americans. So there's like two different mysterious things bobbing around in the low income
nation and we're seeing that one way or another: it's not easily explicable by health insurance policies. You know which is good to know right, but we would particularly when you're saying lifestyle type stuffy is relevant. Rights are one transmission factor for that could be like local environmental factors and when people are influenced by what they see on the street, but also like discreet, cultural communities may just two
for it like habits and and mores and values, which is also relevant. So one thing I was thinking about here- I was actually when I was reading survey thing about the same hispanic paradox questions and
That was one reason. I really noted that six of the ten cities had had the best outcomes here were in California. Conference is very, very large spy populations. Obviously, but there are a couple things in it
that it struck me? So so one thing that was going on in the study you were when they say like why mighty cities be doing better than she say. Maybe these
These have bigger immigrant populations and the reason that struck me as interesting was they also had this finding about economic segregation actually being a positive thing and that
might be explained to some degree by immigrant communities.
It is a very high level, social support for a high level of social cohesion and just are able to have an eternal city dynamics. It maybe they're they're, just raw incomes, wouldn't predict, except for the fact that, when they looked at social cohesion, when they looked at religiousness, when they looked at social capital, which are the mechanism, certainly that I had thought, that kind of thing would operate through
didn't find in a factor of and Ebay they just that that wasn't there so that to me what was interesting at the very least in suggesting that whatever the effect is in hispanic communities, it is doing this. It's not that there is a very high level, social capital punishment, such more social adaptation and in other areas, but I do want to back out a little bit because I think something that is interesting here, separate from the controls and- and I agree with you- that there are parts of this study, the, U Cannon and am sure will be challenged. But one of the things that the study speaks to which we might have actually talk about a little bit on the weeds before there are incredibly incredibly incredibly strong correlations and its important. This is a observational study. It's not an experiment on, but their ends.
Incredibly strong correlations between smoking between obesity, between health, behaviors and low income mortality in ways that we did not find for health insurance for Medicare for a bunch of other things? And that implies two things. One is that if we want to think about how to make people live longer and healthier, we probably need to be thinking more about direct health interventions, but to most direct health interventions like that they happen.
Finally, at the state and much more to the point, the local level. So again, another is not those interesting, so many California areas wrong. There is cause for, and has been a pretty aggressive state particular on smoking bans New York, which also to New York City, which also there really has been very aggressive or on Trans fats. Also has a smoking ban
etc, and one night Canada thing here is that state and for again purdue local politics there. Some of us
arise there smaller Superman have more of an effect. I think, if you think about the amount of attention and energy the goes into federal health policy, with the idea that we're gonna make people healthier party now and the postal Vomica era, where you have a baseline of most people, have or cut
Health insurance. I think that the EU would almost having now want to see is a rational change. Of course, like people really thinking about what can you do to encourage healthier behaviorist at the less polar
eyes and unless similar spores issues at the state and local level, I mean you know,
I always do think about this sort of, like the two faces of health and health care policy.
wait, and even you saw it- I mean your member early in the Obamacare world. There was a house bill and Senate Bill and the House bill was called the Healthy Americans ACT and the Senate bill was called the affordable care and patient protection. I think
the Americans ACT was. Why did not only was it was wise men. Ok, at any rate, it did not in fact indicate the divide and in the policy approaches, but do we like to actually too
an idea. One idea is, we need a law that is going to make people healthier. Another idea
as we need a it's going to make health care affordable and protect patients interests in the health care system. These two things have a connection to each other. If you dont get sick, you probably don't need healthcare, and if you are sick, getting healthcare might make you healthier, but
very loose connection right. I mean answered you see in this study that have you seen in a wider studies. Right that, like being healthy, is largely about doing healthy stuff outside of the doctors office, eating nutritious food knots
o king, not drinking too much having some physical activity in your life, even in terms of like catastrophic things right like so, a lot of people die in car accidents. Right, if you, if you don't drive a lot, your good read a lot of people. If you work is a professional longer, you are very likely to have a saw, kill you and those who, like the big, crows drivers of help and then there's like health care, which takes up a credible amount of money.
has maybe some impact on people's health, but is just like clearly not a main driver and what we ve had. A lot of in the federal government is health care, finance politics and, to some extent, like pharmaceutical.
Regulation stuff and we ve been very little public health politics coming out of the federal government in part,
political reasons and in part for short of federalism type reasons, and that's what
really saw in New York under Mayor Bloomberg. In particular, it was public health which is about
by cleans. They, I don't know what the deal with the Trans fat thing is, but a they got rid of
they really lead the nation in like punitive Anti smoking room
They tried to ban big sodas, weighty, exactly end, and if that kind of movement came to a state government, will you have a broader set
powers? You know you could imagine really cracking down on the availability of sugary, sweeten drinks on certain kinds of unhealthy prepared foods, doing much much more on the transportation system to encourage people to move around. It's not like cigarettes could be made illegal. You know, I think, would be a reasonable public health intervention, but all that stuff, while much more targeted at the question of like how healthy
our people, I don't think you can get set the thing that is like bugging people in health care policy normally, which is just as you know, is Bernie Sanders. As the campaign trail. He says like he believes that health care is right, not a privilege. Trade
would you just the idea that some people think that if you have a legitimate medical problem, someone should just take care
it forty in much the way that I don't know it's like a burglar breaks into your house, you, you know like haggling with the police,
and the question of whether the police sitting down
with you, like does anything is almost secondary, ray you're just like
title to law enforcement services. If people committing crimes- and that's like the conceptual issue,
in health care, but I do wonder how cognizant people who push that
line are of the limited health efficacy. You know like,
I wish I could peer inside Bernie, Sanders its head and see like what is what is he hoping to achieve with this agenda? But to some
so think. That's one reason that it should have worries.
started on that. I think that postal bomber care
It is certainly less salient than it was pretty Obamacare get not perfect, not our rat, but it is both the bar to doing anything because
poor as issues is so much higher and the objective need is somewhat lower, as that would just think
flip year, strategic parties a little bit and then you go
into a study like this, and I do think, though, that this stuff, the stuff that appears to
in a study in an we don't really know here. I think it's really more say we don't really know what's working here. We don't really know what is in the study working
this study, has a lotta suggestive evidence in both directions. But it's just not experimental right. We do not
and only take one city and then another city and its randomly put
but under them and then randomly start making interventions in one
two while the other service control, so we don't have the quality about it. We like to have, but to your point, about what emotionally moose people. I think that one
when I think it's well made, but I think one problem too is
There is not a very good language around this stuff and it actually cut us we're direction. So so let me give an example: when you talk about increasing health insurance subsidies for them,
you're saying. Ok, the poor are in a position where they can buy health insurance, but they will like it, and so we are going to be a nice good country and make sure they can afford it, not just part of being, as Bernie Sanders has a good decent, rich in a decent nation at our level of wealth. When you start talking about these public health interventions, you're actually mean
sing? I think some of the signals that people feel around it. You are saying that there are behaviors disproportionately concentrate in local communities like smoking, and what you are going to do is punitive. We change that you were going to either make it illegal to smoking at a restaurant you're going to increase.
cigarette or alcohol taxes, you're you're going to do all kinds of things that are not the folks you wanna help having
and a desire and you're gonna fulfil that desire. It is you're going to maybe do something unpopular and paternalistic. It takes away some degree potentially of their liberty or at least makes it less accessible because taxes, or whatever else you doing- and that is how we can increase health, and I think that one thing is that a lot of people who are in national politics, or even just instead local politics there there, because they want to help the poor and they want things to feel fairer, and even if these
things these kinds of public health interventions and may be effective. It doesn't feel necessarily good way into. I do think you see a couple telling psychological flips right, which is why, if you ask people about policy ideas like taxes on sugary, sodas
Why are you know various just like nanny state fussing with what people can eat your most
likely to see laughter centre, people embracing while right of centre people do not want smaller government, less intervention, less paternalism. But then, if you flip it and your tongue about imposing restrictions on what people can do with
stamps the politics that tend to switch were now, conservative politicians are much more likely to want to say, will look. This must be nutrition program. You can't buy like unhelpful right up when it.
and the difference there is that I mean there's, there's a few differences
I do think the main one is that if you can cast this specifically as a measure that is harsh on low income, people that it begins to appeal more to conservatives, whereas if you can cast it as an issue that is, is friendly to them.
you know it becomes more palatable to liberals and in particular it makes liberals embrace certain very ineffective versions of this select. If you tell liberals will the problem is that we don't do enough to subsidize farmers markets in low income, community
right the liberals who get very excited about that right. We can write like there you could use.
trying to say the same thing, which is that the government should do something to get low income people to eat healthier food. But if you can present,
It is like we are offering something amazing right that, like everybody wants to be this like yuppie,
artisanal beans and there like something kale- and you know all we need to do is like provide them with. Like our you know, Pendril Board, then
Liberals are all about that deserves a waste of money. You know, if you say
ok, let's have a tax on Fredo's. Then it's like
he gets a little ideologically muddle, and if you say it's like
Kay put a million rules on food stamps, and so you can only use would stamps to buy frozen. Broccoli then, like liberals, are gonna hate that idea right.
And this you don't there's reasons for these it at all levels, but I think you are seeing that there's a large,
People really align themselves around there, like emotional view of low income people, and so it's like liberals want to help, whereas conservatives feel that they ought to help themselves
and so you know, depending on how you your framing these ideas, you get very different political reactions, whereas the
the data. I mean it's not conclusive on anything, but he just it appears to suggest that the most effective measures are likely crudest. Gentle nudges do not
Spain, should we alter what people eat righted like she shoves? Yes, sharp policies that target unhealthy behaviors directly and
possibly in a very, very heavy handed way. Definitely
work like that, you just don't let people smoking restaurants or an office politics or basically anywhere they will smoke, fear a cigarettes work
Well, whereas stuff for your bank shouting as a way to deal with health, probably work,
The little bit learning english thinking about smoking. Those politics are smoking right. Is that these semi fake issue of second hand smoke was a really important driver of this one thing that happens. Obviously, if I smoke in a building,
the other people who are vaguely near me smell the smaller. I remember when rash to smoke built, I haven't vaguely nearly and I may be annoyed by it and that created licence to say that we were kicking all the smokers outdoors constantly to help the non smokers. If you look at the research,
There has been meaning, it seems really meaningful public health benefits of these anti smoking world, but the benefits the causal mac-
is it by making really unpleasant smoke, you get people to smokeless, which is very healthy for them, which is great buddy. You don't have that right if eating Fredo's likeness
Airily caused crumbs to fall into everybody else's hair.
you would now have this like political pretext to say like oh, if you want to eat Fredo's, you have to go outside and the freezing cold and radiant, and then she was doing it at and I will say like I wish I have benefited. I am one of the people who benefited from harsh anti smoking rules and I think I would benefit from harsh anti
networking walls but like I wish that snacking was more annoying to other people and would create more sort of reason too to go for it. But that's why smoking has been like the big public health success
dead people sorted got in their heads to it. I dont think the logic. Actually,
works like a bar is a private establishment. The other example this it actually workers drinking yet, particularly through the mechanism of drunk driving, gets
been a lot done around. I think correctly, around drunk driving it may just drinking harder, yes, and that has in a broad sense, has benefited a lot of the lot of drinkers again said like second smoking, but with a somewhat more direct council met.
As a rule on on behalf of the innocent bystanders. Eyes is one of the ways in which healthcare extension may ultimately produce big public health gains.
Is it when you socialize the costs of ill health? You create the reason to go in and address the underlying drivers of unhealthiness in a way that doesn't exist when you privatized the costs ride so and of course, an ideologically rigorous conservative will say well that doesn't show we need to be paternalistic, it shows we shouldn't. Have socialism
healthcare, but nobody cares. The fact is that we- and you know it means that particular view
age: a needle Medicaid expansion everywhere everybody in the Obamacare system suddenly-
everyone's health is, everyone else's business
and you like- have a reason to Islam about you- know their snacking and whether they walk enough and in others,
which is what, by the way, a lot of conservatives were afraid of and worried about with a bombing that create exactly about I'm I'm a little less convincing you well that you don't see that I think very heavily among the elderly, for instance. I don't think that we have put down on it.
unit of rules about how the elderly like have to go.
I mean I'm not saying it's like I no brainer, but its closer right,
Close, my just nothing, that's like the more you need people together, the more you have some kind of like reason to go and go into. It gets a good place to close with a boom weeds
Fanaticism, weeds, we miss, are friendly colleagues, our capacity for we hope she's having fun in France wanna thank our producer, Ac Valdez. Please share the progress on
look on twitter wherever fine podcast are downloaded, and you will see you next week.
Transcript generated on 2021-09-14.