RE: Public Opinion On Spending
RE: Public Opinion On Spending
Relying on the adage---the only stupid question is the one not asked---I ask for an explanation of an order of magnitude. I had understood it to mean an approximation of an amount associated with whatever subject was under discussion. However, in reading David Levenstam's comment (see related excerpt below) it appears that an order of magnitude is generally viewed as 10's, 100's, 1000's etc. Responses welcome. All my books remain packed in boxes, so I can't look up the figures, but I seem to recall that the Congressional proponents of Medicare projected an ten-year federal outlay of some $8 billion, as opposed to the annual outlay of $110+ billion now. I can't conceive of the vast majority of Americans supporting a program that would have cost two orders of magnitude greater than projected.
RE: Public Opinion On Spending -- order of magnitude
Usually one order of magnitude more is about 10 times more. So, increasing from a range around 8 to around 80 is an increase in an order of magnitude. It is more debatable, but not uncommon, for each digit to be its own order of magnitude: 1-9 / 10-99 / 100-999. Unfortunately, my whatis definition reference, http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci527311,00.html doesn't answer the implied range question either. [It does mention: multipliers from septillionths (10)^-24 to septillions (10)^24, a span of 48 orders of magnitude.] I'd say 8 going to 110 is only a single order of magnitude increase; my own rough range is based on 50% of the next higher, so I wouldn't call it a second order of magnitude until it was over 400, half of 800. Now I am also interested in knowing what is the smallest number that is two orders of magnitude larger than the original 8 billion estimate ? Tom Grey Relying on the adage---the only stupid question is the one not asked---I ask for an explanation of an order of magnitude. I had understood it to mean an approximation of an amount associated with whatever subject was under discussion. However, in reading David Levenstam's comment (see related excerpt below) it appears that an order of magnitude is generally viewed as 10's, 100's, 1000's etc. Responses welcome. All my books remain packed in boxes, so I can't look up the figures, but I seem to recall that the Congressional proponents of Medicare projected an ten-year federal outlay of some $8 billion, as opposed to the annual outlay of $110+ billion now. I can't conceive of the vast majority of Americans supporting a program that would have cost two orders of magnitude greater than projected.
Re: Public Opinion On Spending
In a message dated 8/1/02 11:53:27 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Programs Billions of dollars as of FY 1993 Medicaid$76 Food Stamps $25 AFDC (Family Support) $16 Child Nutrition Programs/WIC$ 7 Public Housing Assistance $20 Total Federal Spending on These Programs $144 Total Federal Outlays $1,408 This is an excellent poll; thank you for sharing it. It's too bad they didn't include farm subsidies (both individual and corporate) in the survey. I wonder if it would be fair to say that people tend to view welfare as government spending that goes to programs they don't like? Sincerely, David Levenstam
Re: Public Opinion On Spending -- order of magnitude
In a message dated 8/1/02 2:50:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you want a technical definition: if X is precisely N orders of magnitude greater than Y, then X = (10^N)Y. Thus 110 million, being between 80 million and 800 million, is between one and two orders of magnitude greater than 8 million. A more exact figure, if we want to get logarithmical, is that 110 million is 1.14 orders of magnitude greater than 8 million. To say that 110 million is two orders of magnitude greater than 8 million is probably to play somewhat fast and loose with the definition of an order of magnitude; David was likely thinking in terms of how many more digits the one has than the other. Myself, I'd tend to say that a number would have to be at least 253 million (it is 1.5 orders of magnitude greater than 8 million, which rounds to two) before I'd call it two orders of magnitude greater than 8 million. Perhaps there is an accepted definition of order of magnitude which is defined solely by how many digits are in a number; if so, then this sense is far less precise, defining 1000 to be an order of magnitude greater than 999 (for example). If such a definition exists, it would fit with David's statement. --Brian The $8 billion figure refers to a 10-year estimate of the original cost, whereas the $110 figure refers to the current annual cost (or the annual cost during the vicious debates over reigning-in entitlement costs which took place during the Clinton administration when concern over the deficit brought uncontrolled entitlement spending to the center of public policy debate when the news media treated us to daily harangues against cold-hearted Republicans who wanted to force poor elderly people to die from horrible untreated illnesses because some Republicans wanted to reduce the annual growth rate of Medicare from 11% to 8%). Thus the $8 billion figure comes to $0.8 billion annually, more than two orders of magnitude smaller than the $110 annual figure from the 1990s. Since I'm relying on old memory for the figures anyway I thought I'd be generous and round down to two orders of magnitude. Sincerely, David Levenstam
Public Opinion On Spending
Those who think the public's wishes are being grossly defied will find support in this general question (1996): 758. Here are some things the government might do for the economy. Circle one number for each action to show whether you are in favor of it or against it. C. Cuts in government spending. Strongly in favor of1258 In favor of 1290* Neither in favor nor against393 Against 146 Strongly against54 [Medians indicated with *] BUT - what if you ask about the three biggest areas of the budget - defense, pensions, and health? 759. Listed below are various areas of government spending. Please indicate whether you would like to see more or less government spending in each area. Remember that if you say much more, it might require a tax increase to pay for it. E. The military and defense. (1996) Spend much more 61 Spend more 211 Spend the same as now 585* Spend less 315 Spend much less 106 F. Retirement benefits. (1996) Spend much more 166 Spend more 474* Spend the same as now 496 Spend less 99 Spend much less 26 B. Health. (1996) Spend much more 229 Spend more 634* Spend the same as now 329 Spend less 65 Spend much less 20 In other words, all of the main items in the budget are popular and indeed if anything the public wants them to be larger. (Presumably views about defense spending have become much more pro-military lately). Support for spending cuts is largely predicated on delusional views of what the budget looks like to begin with - such as the popular views that foreign aid and welfare are the two biggest categories. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] He wrote a letter, but did not post it because he felt that no one would have understood what he wanted to say, and besides it was not necessary that anyone but himself should understand it. Leo Tolstoy, *The Cossacks*
Re: Public Opinion On Spending
In other words, all of the main items in the budget are popular and indeed if anything the public wants them to be larger. (Presumably views Question: could public opinion be endogenous? Ie, maybe there might be some status quo bias? Would people before the New Deal or the Great Society have approved of specific programs before they existed? Isn't it folk wisdom that many gov't programs start with promises they'll stay small (income tax, social security, medicaid) but once they exist, they become popular? Fabio
Re: Public Opinion On Spending
In a message dated 7/31/02 4:30:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not sure this is right. If you look at what the public say they would like in a government health care program it is huge and very expensive (in contrast I suspect if you asked how much they would like to spend on it the amount would be too small to pay for what they would like to see in the package). As I understand it, the cost of the medicare program turned out to be much greater than expected, but not because congress kept changing the legislation to add more goodies. Rather treatment became increasingly more expensive. I suspect that popular opinion would have preferred to see an even bigger medicare program at the start. Of the examples you mention I suspect that only the income tax was sold on the basis of its limited size. - - Bill Dickens All my books remain packed in boxes, so I can't look up the figures, but I seem to recall that the Congressional proponents of Medicare projected an ten-year federal outlay of some $8 billion, as opposed to the annual outlay of $110+ billion now. I can't concieve of the vast majority of Americans supporting a program that would have cost two orders of magnitude greater than projected. Typically one of the selling points of federal programs is that they won't cost too much. Indeed, weren't Public Choice folks here at GMU among the first to explain how groups wanting concentrated benefits can get them by spreading the cost over the larger group of taxpayers, making each taxpayer's share tiny and thus not worth the cost of opposing? Sincerely, David Levenstam
Re: Public Opinion On Spending
William Dickens wrote: As I understand it, the cost of the medicare program turned out to be much greater than expected, but not because congress kept changing the legislation to add more goodies. Rather treatment became increasingly more expensive. In an email discussion with me circa 1995, you mainly attributed the low-ball estimate to wishful thinking (presumably mixed in with deception?), not unforeseen technology shocks. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] He lives in deadly terror of agreeing; 'Twould make him seem an ordinary being. Indeed, he's so in love with contradiction, He'll turn against his most profound conviction And with a furious eloquence deplore it, If only someone else is speaking for it. Moliere, *The Misanthrope*
Re: Public Opinion On Spending
Bryan Caplan wrote: Support for spending cuts is largely predicated on delusional views of what the budget looks like to begin with - such as the popular views that foreign aid and welfare are the two biggest categories. Not too far off, given that most US military effort in the past century has been for the benefit of foreigners. As for health/pensions/welfare, when is a transfer entitlement not a transfer entitlement? -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Re: Public Opinion On Spending
In a message dated 7/31/02 11:18:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: William Dickens wrote: As I understand it, the cost of the medicare program turned out to be much greater than expected, but not because congress kept changing the legislation to add more goodies. Rather treatment became increasingly more expensive. In an email discussion with me circa 1995, you mainly attributed the low-ball estimate to wishful thinking (presumably mixed in with deception?), not unforeseen technology shocks. Additionally, what about the impact that increasing government spending on medical care had on pushing up the market price of medical care and thus pushing up Medicare (and Medicaid )payments in a vicious cycle? David Levenstam
