Hi, I like a lot of your articles and agree with a lot of what you have to say. We've interacted before. (This isn't the only substack I've used.) I was wondering if you were single and looking for a girlfriend. Idk if I meet your standards but I'd be interested in chatting if you'd like :)
Real GDP indexes to a particular base year to measure the market value of goods in terms of a particular willingness to pay for them. You need to do the same for social goods.
By your logic we would have to adjust real GDP upwards every year because willingness to pay for everything increases as real income increases. Just as a billionaire would pay more for an obesity-curing pill, she would pay more for a toaster oven.
It doesn’t change with income, and if it did, it would probably be greater for poor people since they wouldn’t be able to afford treatment for the accompanying health problems.
This is essential thinking Mr. Laird. We must no longer tolerate the economics of 'sola transactio'.
Hi, I like a lot of your articles and agree with a lot of what you have to say. We've interacted before. (This isn't the only substack I've used.) I was wondering if you were single and looking for a girlfriend. Idk if I meet your standards but I'd be interested in chatting if you'd like :)
Why think the value of having a father or not being obese increases with income? If anything, the data point us towards the opposite conclusion.
Because people with greater income have greater ability to pay.
A billionaire would happily pay a million dollars for a pill that cured obesity instantly. A poor person could not buy that million dollar pill.
Thus, in economic terms, the billionaire values it more.
Real GDP indexes to a particular base year to measure the market value of goods in terms of a particular willingness to pay for them. You need to do the same for social goods.
You're misunderstanding how real gdp works. It adjusts for change over time, not for differences between individuals within the same year.
There's no reason to believe that the relationship between wealth and willingness to pay to stop being obese is different today than in the past.
By your logic we would have to adjust real GDP upwards every year because willingness to pay for everything increases as real income increases. Just as a billionaire would pay more for an obesity-curing pill, she would pay more for a toaster oven.
What precisely are you saying about the (negative) value of obesity?
It doesn’t change with income, and if it did, it would probably be greater for poor people since they wouldn’t be able to afford treatment for the accompanying health problems.