Uncategorized

Certificate of Need Laws

nortonnole2 Comments

In 1960 $1 out of $20 in the United States was spent on healthcare. Sixty years later, nearly $1 out of $5 is spent on healthcare.

A dozen facts about the economics of the US health-care system

There are many reasons for this increase in spending (e.g. demographic shift, increased income, and more). In this post, I want to focus on competition in the healthcare industry. There is an excellent Brookings Institution piece from earlier this year on competition in healthcare. Martin Gaynor writes,

“The research evidence shows that hospitals and doctors who face less competition charge higher prices to private payers, without accompanying gains in efficiency or quality … the evidence also shows that lack of competition can cause serious harm to the quality of care received by patients.”

If there are benefits to competition in healthcare, the question becomes how we can increase competition. One of Martin Gaynor’s proposals is to eliminate or reform Certificate of Need (CON) regulations that require health care providers to obtain permission slips from a state health planning agency before the provider opens a new facility, purchases new equipment, or supplies a new service.

These laws were enacted federally in 1972 in an effort to control rising healthcare costs. The logic was that healthcare providers who are reimbursed for services would have incentive to invest in facilities and equipment that allows them to perform more services.

There is mixed evidence that CON regulations have achieved their goals. But, what is clear is that requiring permission erects barriers to entry. Moreover, these barriers to entry become more pronounced if the state health planning agencies are captured by existing hospital interests. Consumers like competition but suppliers do not.

In a new paper titled, “The Impact of Certificate of Need Laws on Heart Attack Mortality: Evidence from County Borders”, economist Kevin Chiu reports that the introduction of Certificate of Need Laws resulted in 6-7 additional heart attacks per 100,000 people. He focuses on heart attacks because the acute nature of heart attacks means you can’t “shop for care”.

The paper is an improvement over the existing literature because it zooms in on counties along state borders with and without CON regulations to get more apples-to-apples comparisons. For example, there could be regional trends that make a Florida to Washington comparison less valuable than a Florida to Georgia comparison. He also performs a number of tests that make the result more believable. For example, CON regulations have zero impact on suicides that normally take place outside the hospital.

Competition reduces prices, increases quality, and encourages innovation. Certificate of Need is one way in which laws have reduced competition in healthcare. The consequences are life-and-death without much apparent upside from cost containment. Currently 35 states still have Certificate of Need Laws. If you’re interested in finding out where your state stands, check out this map from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The statistically diverse curriculum

Santi1 Comment

It’s important to present undergraduate students with a wide variety of view points. But in my view the diversity of viewpoints is a means, not an end in itself. At the very least, it’s a path to learning how to evaluate arguments, and broaden sensibilities in a very Oakshottian way.

It seems obvious to me (and perhaps I am mistaken) that curricula should be structured around considerations other than mere diversity. After all “fields” of scholarship have formed around the types of conversations that develop when scholars try to learn about some aspect of the universe. There is a structure to knowledge and how it is generated, if only because of the particular history of particular inquiries about the world.

Yet, somehow in every curriculum conversation I have been involved in, I get significant pushback from those that view diversity as an end itself. To put the matter to rest I present the statistically diverse curricula. For the liberal arts core, let’s randomly assign courses and readings to each student such that the average student has the maximally diverse curriculum. The average student will be well rounded. We can even draw courses and readings from some weighted distribution to avoid a bias stemming from viewpoints that have been the most dominant throughout history. I doubt this would satisfy, or even make sense, for those that defend diversity of viewpoints as an end in itself. If the statistically diverse curricula is a no go, then diversity of viewpoints as an end in itself should be a no go as well.

How to Think About Inequality Data and Public Policy

Jeremy HorpedahlLeave a comment

Lately I’ve been thinking about the disagreements among economists about the extent to which inequality has increased in recent decades. I am facilitating a reading group at my university on inequality this semester with some great undergrads, so it has very much been on my mind.

With conflicting data showing different trends, how are we as economists to judge this? How can the general public even have a clue how to judge this?

You may have seen this chart before. It comes from an article in The Economist, which actually does a really good job of explaining the debate over the data if you know nothing about it.

TaxProf Blog

According to some estimates, the share of income going to the top 1% has doubled and is now over 20%. That sounds bad. Maybe we need some more redistribution. Maybe a wealth tax.

But according to other estimates, and taking account of our existing system of progressive taxes and redistribution, the share of income going to the top 1% has not risen at all, is only about 5%. Less worrisome. The existing system of taxes and transfers seems to be doing a pretty good job, or at least no worse than in the last 60 years. No need for a new wealth tax, etc.

So who is right?

Sorry, I don’t have the answer. I think I’m pretty good at digging into economic data (follow me @jmhorp on Twitter for an almost daily dose of data debunking!), but I am no expert in this area. There’s probably only a dozen economists that really understand this data and the trade-offs in different forms of measurement.

So instead of giving you the “correct” answer, I offer you a chance to reflect. Our temptation is to say the “correct” data is the one that comports with our political preferences. If you are a progressive, you probably think inequality is bad and getting worse. Piketty is your man. If you are more of a libertarian, you probably think it’s about the same as recent years. Auten and Splinter must be right!

Stop. And instead, consider how you might view the policy implications of the data you don’t like being the correct data. If you are a progressive, would you still think we need a wealth tax even if the Auten and Splinter data is correct? If you are a libertarian, would you still think things are just fine and maybe we should cut the top tax rate if it turns out that Piketty and co-authors have the real data?

If you answer is the same for the policy implications regardless of what the data say, you might want to check yourself. And if so, why are we even arguing about the data?

Perhaps your answer is “I might have the same policy answer regardless of the data, but there are people out there that are convinced by data.” I think that’s possibly reasonable, and I would like it to be true, but where are these people?

Perhaps the answer is “as a libertarian, I don’t care about inequality so long as the poor and middle class are also sharing in the gains.” Or “as a progressive, I will continue to worry about inequality until the top 1% only has 1% of national income.”

I think these are the normal fallback answers. But really? Libertarians: if the income of the top 1% doubled in a decade, but the bottom 99% increased by 0.5%, you would be fine with this, because at least no one declined? Progressives: you would really support increasing taxes on the rich, despite any downside to this, until incomes were exactly equalized?

Frankly, I don’t believe anyone really holds either of those extreme positions. So surely, the data must matter? We want some reasonably shared benefits from economic growth, but no one really demands that they be exactly equal, right?

So, consider your own biases. Don’t engage in motivated reasoning. And think through how your views might change if you are wrong about the data. Perhaps someday Mother Nature will reveal herself, we’ll have the true inequality data, and we’ll see if we were honest about our reflections.

Aggregate Demand Regimes

Zachary BartschLeave a comment

Is inflation correlated with output growth?

Consider the AD-AS model which is often expressed in growth rates. Economists will often say that the short-run supply curve is flatter in the short-run and vertical in the long-run. In other words, aggregate demand policy can have SR output effects, and only has LR price effects.  Sounds good.

But there is a lot of baggage hiding behind “can have effects”. Often we’ll say that lackadaisical businesses cause a flatter SRS and that businesses with rational expectations have a vertical one. Also sounds good.

What causes the steepness of the SR supply curve? I’m sure that there are multiple determinants in regard to expectations. Here’s what got me on this topic. David Andolfatto shared the below graph and asked “Does lowflation necessarily mean low growth?”.

Good question. My answer includes expectations concerning the monetary policy regime. Specifically, my answer was “It does in a regime of volatile and uncertain nominal income. Surprise AD growth pushes us up the SRAS.” Andolfatto called me out and in the right way, asking “What’s the evidences for this?”

[…crickets…]

I had no evidence. I had the AS-AD model in hand and some logic – but no evidence. My logic is as follows. In a monetary regime that includes a constant rate of AD growth, output and price growth are inversely correlated. If NGDP grows at 5% always, then inflation falls when output growth rises. In other words, AD is exactly what people expect – illustrated as a vertical SRAS curve.

However, expectations are different in a regime of erratic AD. Let’s say that the rate of AD growth is unknown, but that the variance is known. If this is the world that you live in, then you make hay when the sun shines. Businesses sell more in periods of higher income. And, because they’re marching up the marginal cost curve, prices also rise. Alternatively, it may be that output growth is inflexible and prices rise as a goods are rationed.

Regardless of the truth, the above explanation is just story-telling. I had no evidence. What would the evidence even be? Here’s what I settled on. First, let’s express the AS-AD model in quarterly growth rates. In order to get a handle on monetary regime AD variance, I calculated the standard deviation of the NGDP growth rate by Fed Chair. Presumably, the Fed chair has a decent amount to do with monetary policy and the rear that occupies that chair is an indicator of when a regime begins and ends. I calculated the correlation between the GDP deflator and RGDP growth rates by regime. Below is the scatter plot.

What does it tell us? It tells us that regimes of stable AD growth experience a negative correlation between inflation and output growth. It also tells us that a AD growth volatility is associated with a positive correlation between inflation and output growth. So,  Does lowflation necessarily mean low growth? It does in a regime of volatile and uncertain nominal income.

(Of course this is all casual. It makes sense to me at first blush though. Having said that, the line of best fit also looks like it’s driven by the 2 extremely variable times: McCabe & Powell.)

Spontaneous Emergence of Property Rights in the Classroom

Santi3 Comments

Last week I posted about Bart Wilson’s talk on his new book “The Property Species” and promised to share a class demonstration about the emergence of property rights in the classroom. But first let me tell you why I did this demonstration.

When I was a student I hated assignments that go through the motions of learning, but provide no learing. Building a paper maché volcano, while fun for some, teaches little about volcanic eruptions. Shaking and opening a soda bottle (pop?) is more instructive: it’s the fall in pressure as the bottle is opened that leads to the rapid release of the gas disolved in the liquid, the same thing happens to magma. And while being able to algebraically solve for the equilibrium price given supply and demand functions is a very necessary evil (to a point), it teaches little about the process of competition and price formation.

This is why I was reluctant to having my first Intro to Economics class write their own version of “I pencil”, quite a few years ago. Driving the point of how largely anonymous exchange and specialization, coordinated peacefully through property, prices, and profits and loss makes the modern world possible is very important. But how much can you really learn about this by watching and transcribing an episode of “How It’s Made”? For most students, not much at all. Partly in dread of reading and grading 80 versions of “I whiteboard marker”, or “I toothbrush”, and partly following my conscience I decided to throw in a twist.

The twist may seem evil and arbitrary at first. Students still had to choose a good and write their own version of “I _____” , but if two students wrote about the same good I would divide their grade by 2. If three students wrote about the same good I would divide their grade by 3 and so on. I did not give any additional prompts about how they should sort out potential conflicts or coordinate amongst themselves. These were just the rules of the assignment.

Without this seemingly arbitrary grading rule, goods to write about were not scarce. By changing the grading rules, goods to write about became scarce. While there are many more goods to write about than students, certain goods stand out in the mind, and extra effort must be devoted in thinking up a new good, and finding out if someone had already looked around their room and chosen the same good. Now students also had to coordinate amongst themselves or run the risk of a fairly severe penalty to their grade.

As expected, I have never had to enforce the the harsh grading penalties (anecdotal, I know). Students always find a way to coordinate and establish property rights over suddenly scarce goods. The point of the assignment was no longer about I pencil, but about the emergence of property rights and social coordination (and hopefully a little bit about I pencil as well). I didn’t act as a central authority that imposed and enforced property rights. I merely changed the incentives and constraints, hoping that the costs of coordinating and setting up agreements was smaller than the costs of not doing this.

When they turned in their assignment, we discussed how they had actually coordinated. Over the years I have seen multiple ingenious mechanisms. From class forums using the university platform, to a simple spreadsheet circulated amongst the students via email or WhatsApp. In the good old times before the pandemic they would sometimes meet after class and sort it out in person. Sometimes they created a common pool of goods and one of their classmates is chosen to distribute them among their peers. Leaders emerge to fill various roles from dispute resolution to registering claims. How this person is chosen also varies from class to class. Some students volunteer, others have it thrust upon themselves. The use of a homesteading rule is fairly common, first to choose gets the good in cases where there are multiple claims. In class we discuss why they use this rule, rather than last to choose gets the good, and the problems this alternative would entail.

I have only had one instance of a strong and contested dispute among “property owners”. That semester students had to not only write but present their work. Two groups (that semester “I _____” was a group assignment) wanted to do a good they thought would be amusing to present in class. I’ll leave it up to your imagination what good students in their late teens and early twenties might find to be amusing to present in class. The two groups of students underwent a rather complicated dispute resolution system with the rest of the class playing the role of arbiters of the multiple claims to the same good. Neither group wanted to budge, but one group ended up ceding the rights in the end.

What I like about this little classroom demonstration is that it makes it easier to teach the emergence of institutions as the products of human action but not human design. Order without design is a difficult concept to grasp, but maybe even more importantly it is a concept that is difficult to accept. But after this demonstration, not anymore, students experience the emergence of property rights. An added bonus is that in this case scarcity is clearly a product of the relation between their minds and how they relate to the world, not about objective quantities of goods.

Property rights emerge through their coordination but are not centrally imposed. They coordinate because a change in the environment turned a previously free good, the subject of their short “I ____” essay, into a scarce (economic) good. As you can probably tell Harold Demsetz is one of my favorite economists of all time. After the barrier of disbelief is breached, we can easily talk about the spontaneous emergence of money, cover a little about how property rights emerged in whaling on the high seas, and the spontaneous origin of law (very useful for future law students usually educated in the positivist tradition, as is the norm in Ecuador).

I later learned of the fish game (I am not an experimentalist). But, no disrespect intended, it seems a little contrived. I still like my assignment better. While the goldfish game teaches the tragedy of the commons, the “I _____” assignment teaches how the tragedy can be solved without a centralized authority by having students solve if for themselves and come to grips with the real limitations and problems they faced, albeit on a much smaller scale. I am still hoping for an experimentalist that thinks something serious can be made out of my little classroom demonstration.

Why Eliminate Water Subsidies when we could Reform Our Entire Society?

Zachary BartschLeave a comment

I love the Gastropod podcast. The hosts do a great job of trying to explain the historical debates concerning food in a charitable and careful manner. Their guests also tend to be very careful.

But the guest from the September 15th, 2020 episode about beef in the US was not nearly so careful. It’s a curse, really, to listen to a great podcast, only to have a portion of an episode ruined because a guest was allowed to spout on a topic outside of their expertise.

John Specht, a history professor at Notre Dame, committed such an offense that irked the heck out of me:

“Any reform is likely to make beef more expensive. So what that means is, I think, to avoid a charge of elitism, we have to recognize that changing how we produce our food has to happen in concert with building a more just society. We need to think of ways to make people better able to afford better-produced food. And we can’t just focus on one facet of that story. We have to think holistically about that. And what that means is that this is an even bigger challenge of what already was a big challenge. But it’s also perhaps even more powerful and even more important.”

Let me first say that I have no doubts concerning Dr. Specht’s knowledge concerning the history of beef in the US. If it’s like the rest of his Gastropod interview, I look forward to reading his book and I suspect that it is stellar. But the above quote has nothing to do with history and everything to do economics, public choice, and political economy. The above quote is why I can’t take seriously many people’s claims about what the ‘good’ is and how to achieve it.

  1. Any regulation or legislation that introduces additional requirements for beef producers will, almost certainly, increase production costs. I’m not sure what a ‘just society’ means to Dr. Specht, but I’m sure that it’s not an objective thing (knowable or not) that aids in analysis.
  2. “We need to think of ways to make people better able to afford better-produced food.” Luckily *we* don’t need to think of that. We don’t have the local knowledge of the beef market, nor the potential markets that beef-processing laborers face as alternatives (it’s different for everyone). The age-old, classical econ answer for improving people’s real incomes is to increase their productivity. Even if the labor supply for beef processing is perfectly elastic, and all increases in productivity accrue to the firm, the result of constant wages is a *partial* equilibrium conclusion. In general equilibrium, beef processing skills are probably partial substitutes for some other labor activity. This means that skilled employees can move to other sectors, employers, and industries. *We* don’t have much say aside from policy that makes productive innovation and skill accumulation easier.

Dr. Specht makes the problem out to be worse than it is and the solution to be more difficult than it is. We don’t need to reform an entire social and economic system. We don’t need a new political system that somehow, against all incentives, reflects compassion for beef processing laborers. That’s more than government can achieve.

Government *can* get out of the way. It can ease pathways to working legally in the US, which would reduce the labor abuses in which beef firms can indulge. Legal employment alternatives increases the opportunity cost of laborers. Government can stop subsidizing cattle hydration through water subsidies to ranchers. Reducing the number of cattle, and demand for meat processing laborers would cause fewer of these workers to be employed in what many consider an unpleasant job. With perfectly elastic labor supply, there is no decrease in wages. In general equilibrium, the decline in wages is small if there are many other firms that would demand the unemployed manual labor.  Further, the decline in the quantity of beef produced would make the marginal carcasses more valuable. Employers will likely desire more skilled and better-compensated labor to carve the more valuable inputs. Importantly, the better compensation comes, not from a re-orientation of societal values, rather, from the higher opportunity cost enjoyed by labor that is more skilled.

But removing subsidies and permitting more foreign-born workers aren’t the reforms that are proposed by the likes of do-gooders. Do-gooders want to feel responsible for their good. It’s not enough for them to get out of the way – no one receives praise for permitting others to engage in hard work. Typically, it’s the hard-workers who get that credit. Do-gooders mistake proactivity with good intentions. The result is a desire to employ government in activities that are doomed to failure due to imperfect design and adverse incentives. The incentives provided by markets are inadequate – not for firms, but for the people who desire a prominent role as caring managers.

Bart Wilson on “The Property Species: Mine, Yours, and the Human Mind”

SantiLeave a comment

As part of the spectacular lineup of seminars this semester at the USFQ School of Economics, we had the honor hosting the amazing Bart Wilson from Chapman University yesterday to present his book “The Property Species: Mine, Yours, and the Human Mind”. It was a very interesting talk and it definitely made me think differently about the traditional “bundle of rights” conception of property rights. One of the major perks of the switch to virtual conferences due to the pandemic, is having great international speakers (mostly US and UK based) present in our seminar.

The presentation made me rethink a small experiment (more a classroom demostration really) about the emergence of property rights I do with my intro students each semester. I can’t tell about the experiment just yet, just in case one of my students is reading this, because we are doing it in class today. You’ll have to wati until my next post.

You can watch the zoom presentation via Facebook Live (and like the USFQ School of Economics page in the process). Link: htps://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=626917664660173

OK, Millennial?

Jeremy Horpedahl1 Comment

How do young people fare when it comes to household wealth? The recently released Survey of Consumer Finances from the Federal Reserve provides some insights. One major takeaway: the much-maligned Millennials are doing pretty good! Ernie Tedeschi created this informative chart on Twitter:

Looking at household net worth at roughly the same age, Millennials today have roughly the same household wealth as Boomers did in the past. And both of these generations beat the generation between them, Gen X, as well as the “microgeneration” creatively labeled Oregon Trail.

And it’s something of a running joke on Twitter, but I must add: Yes! It’s adjusted for inflation!

Part of this may be driven by the increase in dual-income households. Certainly that matters. While wealth data by number of earners is harder to track down, income data is more readily available. What if we look at single-income households? Millennials are still in the lead! (Once again, the chart comes from Ernie Tedeschi.)

And before you ask: Yes! It’s adjusted for inflation!

None of this means that Millennials don’t face challenges, including financial ones. This data is current through 2019, so 2020 will almost certainly make these numbers look worse, for a time. But all things considered and anecdotes aside, the kids today seem to be as well or better than past generations.

(Oh, and before you ask: Yes! It’s adjusted for housing, medical, and education costs! In fact, these three factors make up half or more of most inflation adjustment indices.)

Proxy Culture Wars 1

Santi2 Comments

When contentious cultural and political issue arise in the USA, foreign intellectual elites invariably align themselves along partisan lines that try to mimick those of the cultural center of the world, the USA. The incomplete, and often contradictory overlap between foreign social reality, and that of the USA never fails to offer interesting paradoxes.

The intelectual battles, fought on foreign intellectual soil, are part of what I will call the proxy culture wars. The resulting paradoxes tend to stiffle local debate on local issues (I will use local as in local to a foreigner, i.e. not in the USA) by locking the participants into paradoxical positions. While the situation is amusing it causes real problems when trying to reach consensus on local solutions to local problems, communicating across the local partisan divide, or even thinking clearly about local issues.

For example, with the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the USA, legal twitter in Latin America has exploded in support or condemnation of her nomination. Those on the local/foreign right express their admiration for originalist interpretations, while those on the left local/foreign begin reciting Dworkin and praise interpretations of a living constitution. The ensuing battle would be relatively harmless if commentary on the goings-on in the USA was all that was at stake. But this is seldom the case as the parties bring out full battle regalia and engage in terms of the underlying merits of these positions as if they were general positions, applicable to local reality. In the fog of war, the local conditions and the contentious issues in the USA get mixed together.

The paradox arises when the debate turns local. For example consider Ecuador, where the constitution adopted in 2008 largely reflected the policy preferences of the self described twenty first century socialist president Rafael Correa (local left, now conviceted for corruption to 8 years of prison). Do those on the local right really admire originalism as a judicial doctrine? Do those on the Ecuadorean right really wish local judges would faithfully apply our constitution with its 99 constitutionally protected rights? Mind you, these rights include a right to universal access to information and communication technologies (Art. 16), recreation, the practice of sports and free time (Art. 24), and permanent and secure access to heathy and nutricious food, preferibly produced locally and in correspondence to the diverse identities and cultural traditions (Art. 13). Interesting side note: as documented by the Comptarative Constitutions Project, Ecuador ranks #1 in number of codified constitutional rights. But the nature of these rights and the problems they bring about are topics for future posts.

Are those on the Ecuadorean left, oponents of originalism and supporters of a living constitution really arguing for a more expansive interpretations of these rights? For example when the fiscal reality of the Ecuadorean government makes it impossible for the government to guarantee one of the 99 rights codified in the constitution, do those on the left argue for an expansive interpretation? Do they really want an expansive interpretation so that the government is let off the hook when it fails to provide access to smart phone technology for all Ecuadoreans, because of unsustainable fiscal position?

Of course what is really going on is a great example of motivated reasoning. Conclusions are arrived at, and arguments follow to support those conclusions. The paradox arises as the arguments that support “things I would like in the USA” do not necesarily map well to “things I would like at home”. The lack of coherence between local reality and comentary on the affairs of the USA leads to paradoxical positions that muddy local debate, and lead to incoherence and sloppy thinking.

Slips of the Atheist’s Expert Tongue

Zachary BartschLeave a comment

People have a lot of opinions about diet. For many, dietary opinion is individual – they don’t prescribe that anyone else adopt their beliefs and practices. Others have a more universal bent. Some people are dead-set against starches and others think that meat is taboo – for themselves and others. There are a lot of beliefs about diet.

The reasoning that people use for their dietary beliefs are just as diverse. Motivations range from religious beliefs, moral systems, social signaling, personal experimentation, anecdotal evidence, and so on.

Some people use the theory of evolution. They reason that we have canine teeth, like carnivores, so our ancestors had advantages in meat-eating. Others reason that we have relatively long small intestines, like herbivores, so our ancestors had advantages in plant-eating. Expert scientists from any one of a plethora of subjects are interviewed or write as authorities on the matter.

Scientists who are atheists say things like “Were humans designed to eat meat?”, or “If humans were meant to eat meat, then…”, or “our canines aren’t specially meant for processing meat”.

The problem, of course, is that using words like ‘meant’ or ‘designed’ implies one who ‘means’ or one who ‘designs’. For most religious people, there is no conflict. For an atheist, it’s strange turn of phrase. Why? Because evolution has two parts: 1) mutations that introduce variety and 2) natural selection. The former occurs prior to an animal’s birth. The latter occurs as a result of environmental reproductive pressure and opportunity.

In other words, to an atheist, there is no designer. So, what gives? I’ve settled on several plausible good-intentioned explanations that I order by increasing charity.

  1. Poor Evolutionary Understanding: The atheist scientist’s understanding of evolution is flawed. Maybe their theory includes first-person or third-person intentionality. An example would be that giraffes stretched and intended that their necks would become longer over the generations. An alternative poor belief is that environmental pressures, including predators and vegetation, intended that giraffe necks would lengthen. Environmental pressures achieved their goal through reward of the long-necked and the punishment of the short-necked. I like to think that scientists have a better handle on their area of expertise rather than having beliefs such these.
  1. Poor Grasp of English: The atheist scientist has a perfect grasp of evolution, but they are unpracticed at English in contexts of emergent order. Economists often have similar challenges and often refer to speaking allegorically as a crutch. Economists will say that prices ‘want’ to change or that a government desires social outcomes. Neither of which is true. Suppliers lower prices as their sales become lackluster.  Policy outcomes are desired by someone within a governing process – though the social outcomes may be desirable by nobody. Similarly, predators desire to eat and unknowingly exert selective pressure for genetic traits. Or, a drought causes smaller lizards to survive and larger ones to dehydrate and die. English speakers have difficulty discussing biological processes without intention-denoting verbiage.
  1. Implicit Theism: The atheist is really no atheist at all, but has belief in God that they cannot shake, despite their professions and logic otherwise. Using the past perfect tense in regard to the design of humans is case of parapraxis – a Freudian slip.
  1. An Expertise Gap: Specialists in arts and sciences utilize highly specific jargon so that very specific concepts can be expressed concisely. But such jargon muddies communication with those who aren’t specialists in the field. The specialist grapples with this expertise gap. Although the struggle deserves sympathy, anthropomorphizing is far different from the expert’s idea of the truth.
  • The problem is that jargon has highly a specific meaning. So, when a specialist makes a claim with jargon, the claim is also specific. A narrower set of applicability has less room for credible challenges at the margins of a claim and ideas can be clearly communicated precisely – though, the applicable cases may not be interesting. As the breadth of a claim increases, jargon can help to ensure that the breadth is limited to appropriately specific cases.
  • When the listener is not an expert, the scientist is uncertain of the gap in knowledge. They attempt to make relatively broad and interesting claims, but without the aid of their case-narrowing jargon. The result is that the expert says something which is clearly false to another specialist, but may be mostly true – or true enough for the listener.

Again, these four interpretations of misspeaking and miscommunicating experts are ordered by charity. I especially sympathize with the last interpretation. Imagine trying to teach a student that inflation is always costly, but sometimes more beneficial than costly. And that the costs still exist when the benefits outweigh the costs. So, should we have a policy of inflation? The true answer is highly specific.

Does an atheist scientist understand that there is no designer of human bodies – much less one that had diet in mind? Very much. Does the same atheist scientist know how to communicate unintentional biological advantages to the non-specialist? They do not.  What’s more is that they are not alone. Specialization introduces a knowledge gap and the unavailability of common jargon prevents adequately finessed broad claims.