Maxine's Links for November 2 2009

FT: McDonalds Pulls out of Iceland

 The loss of the Golden Arches highlights the extent of Iceland’s economic demise since the pre-crisis boom years when its “Viking Raider” entrepreneurs turned Reykjavik into an international finance centre and launched a buying spree of high-profile European assets.

Market forces are a bitch....

 Kaiser Health News: Fight Erupts Over Health Insurance Rates For Businesses with More Women

 The Pennsylvania home health care company Linda Bettinazzi runs is charged about $6,800 per worker for health insurance – $2,000 more than the national average for single coverage. One reason: nearly every one of her 175 employees is a woman. ... Insurers say women under the age of 55 cost more to cover because they use more health services, and not just for maternal and infant care. But Bettinazzi, the president and CEO of Visiting Nurse Association of Indiana County, believes there's something inherently wrong in charging her company more because it hires a lot of women.  ... Studies cite, among other costs, maternity and reproductive care that requires mammograms, Pap smears and regular doctor visits. Women also use more prescription drugs and may have to contend at younger ages with cervical cancer and breast cancer.

 Is Maxine the only one who has noticed that there’s usually some male involvement in producing the conditions that require “maternity and reproductive care?”  Are the prescription drugs oral contraceptives? There’s certainly a causal link between sexual behavior and cervical cancer. Maxine is reminded of the good old days, when young women pregnant out of wedlock got to have the baby and raise it themselves while the fathers went on to college and marriage (to someone else). Surely the men in the risk pool would not expect the women they are consorting with to bear the full costs of contraception, maternity, and other reproductive care? That wouldn’t be fair, would it? Just asking...

 NYT: New Regs for Toys Hurt Small US Manufacturers

 Maxine thinks this article provides good insight into both the up side and the down side of regulation. She also is struck once again at how advantageous regulation is to large firms. The costs alone assure that smaller competitors will be forced out of the market. So small businessmen oppose all regulation, thereby helping their larger competition AND hurting consumers. Surely, there’s a way to protect consumers and small businesses?

 Youtube: Economist questions on Jeopardy

Maxine found herself wondering what proportion of Econ Bachelor degrees, Master degrees, and doctoral degrees could answer all of these. History of economic thought has not been a top priority in most graduate econ programs in the US. See here also. Maxine has had conversations with card-carrying PhD economists who appear to have little or no knowledge of the writings of, say, Adam Smith. They know Milton Friedman, but do not seem to have read Capitalism and Freedom (for example). She hasn’t met a math nerd yet who knows about the Cowles Commission and how it gave him/her a major boost. So Jeremy Bentham???? Just saying...

 WSJ: Tighter Belts Mean Thicker Waists

 Maxine still can’t figure out why whole foods with fewer additives cost more to produce than “processed”  foods. Maxine wonders if some of this is simply market segmentation and price discrimination by food manufacturers. Would there be economies of scale that would reduce the prices of whole foods if, say, regulation required less processing, better quality control, and fewer additives universally? Wouldn’t firms then compete to produce whole foods more competitively thereby driving down prices? Shouldn’t the “default” be healthy food with high nutritional content? Then people who “prefer” empty calories can exercise their god-given right to be fat and unhealthy and the rest of us can enjoy the benefits of lower grocery bills, good health, and lower health insurance premiums. Just asking...