>Do you have any reason to believe that higher taxes and spending will lead to better outcomes, or higher net societal welfare?
Not the parent, but how about all of Western Europe?
As much as economics wants to tout itself as a science, when confronted with real world examples of what works, tested in real countries over the past 75 years, it just retreats into some dressed-up version of American Exceptionalism to explain the failing of its own prescriptions.
> Not the parent, but how about all of Western Europe?
You're going to have to be more specific. What about "all of Western Europe"?
> As much as economics wants to tout itself as a science
Is this going to be a game of definitions? What qualifies as a "science", in your view? Do you consider sociology to be a science? Psychology? Ecology? Geology? Anthropology? Archaeology? History? Linguistics?
> tested in real countries over the past 75 years
Which 75-year-old policies are you referring to, exactly?
> it just retreats into some dressed-up version of American Exceptionalism
What you could possibly mean by economics being a "dressed-up version of American Exceptionalism" is honestly a complete mystery to me.
> to explain the failing of its own prescriptions.
Interesting that you mention that. Relative to the size of its wealth, the U.S. spends a disproportionate amount on health care. Even as a high income country, the U.S. spends more per person on health than comparable countries. Total health expenditures per capita, U.S. dollars, PPP adjusted, 2016 [1]:
United States: $10,348
Switzerland: $7,919
Germany: $5,550
Netherlands: $5,385
Austria: $5,227
Belgium: $4,839
France: $4,600
United Kingdom: $4,192
See [2] for a breakdown by country of government/compulsory healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP: https://imgur.com/a/BzaVX6w. The U.S. comes out on top, by far. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the problems with U.S. healthcare won't be solved by pouring more money into it, but rather by addressing systemic issues with the way it works?
Regarding education:
The United States spends more than other developed nations on its students' education each year... Spending, of course, only tells part of the story and does not guarantee students' success. The United States routinely trails its rival countries in performances on international exams despite being among the heaviest spenders on education... The average first-year high school teacher in the United States earns about $38,000. OECD nations pay their comparable educators just more than $31,000... Among all educators, U.S. payrolls are competitive. The average high school teacher in the United States earns about $53,000, well above the average of $45,500 among all OECD nations. [3]
The United States spent $12,300 per FTE student at the elementary/secondary level, which was 29 percent higher than the average of $9,600 for OECD member countries reporting data... At the postsecondary level, total government and private expenditures on education institutions as a percentage of GDP by the United States (2.7 percent) were higher than the OECD average (1.6 percent) and were higher than those of all other OECD countries reporting data. [4]
Again, has it ever occurred to you that maybe the problems with U.S. education won't be solved by pouring more money into it, but rather by addressing systemic issues with the way it works?
The US spends a disproportionate amount on healthcare because its system is privatized. Healthcare is cheaper relative to the degree of nationalization, as your own data shows. Switzerland and Germany are closed to the American model (although not as bad) and cost more. You specifically said “tax and spend,” not just spend, because you reduce costs with societal-level economies of scale. Of course you spend more in a privatized system - you have a bunch of vultures trying to profit off people at their weakest and most vulnerable.
Education in the US suffers from a similar problem because of its patchwork and variable system of state and federal funding, much of which was specifically designed to disadvantage the poor and minorities.
All your data points show is that privatizing and applying inconsistent distribution regimes to what should be public goods makes them more costly, less efficient, and produce worse outcomes in aggregate.
> The US spends a disproportionate amount on healthcare because its system is privatized. Healthcare is cheaper relative to the degree of nationalization, as your own data shows. Switzerland and Germany are closed to the American model (although not as bad) and cost more. You specifically said “tax and spend,” not just spend, because you reduce costs with societal-level economies of scale. Of course you spend more in a privatized system - you have a bunch of vultures trying to profit off people at their weakest and most vulnerable... All your data points show is that privatizing what should be public goods makes them more costly, less efficient, and produce worse outcomes in aggregate.
Wrong. I specifically linked to data showing government healthcare spending, not private healthcare spending (https://imgur.com/a/BzaVX6w). Read again.
> Education in the US suffers from a similar problem because of its patchwork and variable system of state and federal funding, much of which was specifically designed to disadvantage the poor and minorities.
I don't disagree with this. There are other important factors, of course.
>Wrong. I specifically linked to data showing government healthcare spending, not private healthcare spending
...that they pay in the context of a privatized healthcare system, largely to cover the disabled, elderly, and chronically unwell, who the privatized system sees as a profit center.
I don’t understand what you can’t or refuse to understand about this. Of course the pay more under this arrangement. They would pay less if they covered everyone and the system was nationalized, which, again, the historical example of Western Europe proves to be true.
Not the parent, but how about all of Western Europe?
As much as economics wants to tout itself as a science, when confronted with real world examples of what works, tested in real countries over the past 75 years, it just retreats into some dressed-up version of American Exceptionalism to explain the failing of its own prescriptions.