More or Less: Behind the Stats

The way ‘economics’ should be taught. However recently the FBI changed crime statistics up so mabe Trump was correct in the ‘debate’ such as it was. Thank you Mr Harford

More or Less brings the research to the questions of the day! This is the good stuff and what you wish your politicians did. 4 stars because sometimes you fact check only what you disagree with. Your statements that most trump numbers are unbelievable doesn’t touch the many democrat unbelievable numbers- a prime one missed was student loan repayment SAVE plans which pay so little monthly that the loaner will never pay off the loan. This sets up the borrowers to a lifetime of debt. The point is this show one about numbers or politics? From an economics standpoint: did US taxpayers fund 100million for condoms outside of the USA? Sounds like that is true. Do other countries also pay 100M for condoms in Africa and 100M for Gaza hospitals ? It appears the US did in 2023? The political question is should we? The more or less group should have only made it clear we did both.

Dear Mr Harfort, I am writing about your very interesting and solidly supported podcast —as is all the material you produce—on the US maternal-related mortality statistics,. You rightly conclude that the upward trend in the last two decades for the US results from a statistical mirage—the coverage of the more accurate new format proposed by the relevant international agency progressed piecemeal, one state at a time over two decades, accounting for the index's substantial growth. That is, the growth is only partly due to the improved accuracy of the new format and most probably due to the increasing temporal coverage of the sample. I put together a graph showing this, together with equivalent indices for the major European countries. (Unfortunately this format does not allow attaching a picture.) The graph shows a near-constant level over time for the latter and a marked increase in the American one, as you pointed out. However, you also conclude that US information is utterly worthless, and with this, I disagree. Although one should dismiss the growth trend, we cannot overlook the differential in the levels, which shows that even the lowest US figure (at the beginning of the period) is much higher than any other major advanced economy. Thus, in 2003, the US index, which supposedly underestimated mortality since the new format was not in place, was already about 50% higher than the highest European one. By the end of the period, when supposedly the US data becomes comparable to the European, it is 2.5 times as high. I think this finding is most revealing of the US's precarious, backward healthcare condition. And to this extent, it is not worthless.

They ask the experts and that is so refreshing.