The Economist 07Dec2019

20 The EconomistDecember 7th 2019

Letters are welcome and should be

addressed to the Editor at

The Economist, The Adelphi Building,

1-11 John Adam Street, LondonWC 2 N 6 HT

Email: [email protected]

More letters are available at:

Economist.com/letters

Letters

Taxing the super rich

The political left gets many

things wrong, but by identi-

fying billionaires as a “policy

failure” they are exactly right.

As you say, on average billion-

aires inherit one-fifth of their

wealth (“In defence of billion-

aires”, November 9th). These

transfer payments are unrelat-

ed to any effort or talent.

Therefore, high inheritance

taxes would not just be “wel-

come” but are necessary for a

well-functioning capitalist

system. Furthermore, the

inequality of income and,

more importantly, wealth, is a

disincentive for the vast major-

ity of individuals who can’t

expect to be millionaires when

they are toddlers (hello, Do-

nald Trump). Research has

shown that inequality can

suppress economic growth.

William Nordhaus con-

flates billionaires and innova-

tors when he says that the

latter collect only 2% of the

value they create. To the extent

that billionaires have made

their fortunes in property,

where corruption abounds, or

in finance, where “innova-

tions” can remove vast

amounts of value in crises, this

argument falls flat.

kenneth reinert

Professor of public policy

George Mason University

Arlington, Virginia

You condemned George Lucas

for the money he made by

selling Lucasfilm to Disney,

reasoning that it rewards him

for “Star Wars”, a film he made

over 40 years ago. However, the

price Disney paid was for the

commercial behemoth (I pur-

posely avoid the word empire

here) created through the life

of the franchise. The fact that

the Star Wars brand has flour-

ished and is still evident in

everyday life (the Pentagon’s

jedicontract being a good

example) is testament to the

creativity and ingenuity of the

firm that Mr Lucas created.

Indeed, in your next issue you

glorified Disney’s new stream-

ing service offering “Star Wars”

and described the sale of Lu-

casfilm as benefiting the con-

sumer through more choice

and lower prices (“Power to the

people”, November 16th).

I’m perplexed by your zig-

zag approach. In one edition

Disney’s takeover of Lucasfilm

is rent-seeking profiteering, in

the next it is good for the con-

sumer. I agree with the second

argument. Mr Lucas generated

a great amount of entertain-

ment for millions and deserves

his reward.

tim kilpatrick

Brussels

Taxes on the rich do not demo-

tivate them from trying to

become richer. Nor do taxes

demotivate the not-yet-rich

from trying to become rich.

When Bill Gates launched

Microsoft in 1975 the top rate of

tax was 70%.

ben aveling

Sydney

The sell by date

The time a consumer saves by

shopping for groceries online

is indeed important (Schum-

peter, November 16th). But

unlike shopping in a physical

store, the customer does not

get to select the quality of the

food, or more important, get to

check the expiry date. Super-

markets have identified the

online-delivery channel as one

where they can distribute their

close-to-out-of-date goods,

cleaning out their inventory.

m.j. faherty

London

The pulse of a nation

Regarding the politics of Brit-

ain’s National Health Service

(“Spin doctors”, November

16th), senior medics are ac-

cused of being traditionalists

because a lifetime of ethical

practice tells us what will

work. The ministers in charge

have had zero training in the

complex interaction between

medical science and the man-

agement of hospitals and

doctors, relying instead on

civil servants, who provide

them with top-down plans to

reform clinical practice.

The acute problem facing

the nhsis a lack of adequate

applicants for nursing and

paramedical professions. It is

no good promising larger

hospitals if standards cannot

be maintained. School leavers

prefer to do a social-science

degree rather than join a prac-

tical nurse-training scheme,

which involves unsocial hours,

discipline and the stress of

dealing with patients who are

often poor, old and sick.

Other problems include the

European Working Time Direc-

tive, which abolished the

requirement for newly trained

doctors to be resident in hospi-

tals in order to gain full regis-

tration. The supervisory sys-

tem that was akin to a firm,

where consultants and senior

nurses maintain standards and

teach doctors and nurses on a

designated ward, has been

demolished. Doctors leave

university with huge debts.

Small wonder therefore that,

particularly in general practice,

trainees opt for limited hours

and no home visits. Hence the

deluge of patients attending

accident and emergency.

Three measures are needed.

First, the reinstitution of pay

and accommodation for nurses

in training. Second, pilot pro-

jects in hospitals where the

ward/firm/residents’ mess

system can be reintroduced.

Third, upping the pre-registra-

tion status of qualifying doc-

tors from one to two years,

with the second year including

six months in a&eand in gen-

eral practice.

f.d. skidmore

Consultant surgeon

London

Increased demand in the nhs

is usually put down to ageing,

and it does play a role. More

important is “supply-led de-

mand”. Constant innovation

means that there is more that

doctors can do. But many of

those innovations lead to what

has been described by Alain

Enthoven, an economist, as

“flat of the curve medicine”: no

or minimal improvement at

high cost. This is particularly

true when we move towards

death, with around 20% of

health-care budgets being

spent on the last year of life.

Another common mistake

is to confuse health care and

health. Health care accounts

for perhaps 10% of health.

Income is the main determi-

nant of health. Spending more

on health care crowds out

spending on things like hous-

ing, education, the environ-

ment and benefits, which are

more important for health. The

nhsdoesn’t need more money,

it needs a radical rethink.

richard smith

Former editor of the

British Medical Journal

London

More on wind power

Kit Beazley (Letters, November

23rd) missed the point about

wind power. The worry I raised

(Letters, November 9th) is that,

as wind-turbine towers, foun-

dations and infrastructure get

seriously bigger, particularly

offshore, are the carbon foot-

print figures silently getting

worse, not better? The project-

ed financial cost per megawatt

hour is central to every wind-

farm project and is public

knowledge. If the projected

carbon footprint was pub-

lished as an equally important

figure for every wind-farm

globally, all calculated on an

agreed basis, we would know,

project by project, if we are

actually making technical

progress or not. It is these

detailed numbers that I want

the public to have. Then we can

have a meaningful conversa-

tion on sustainability.

jim platts

Cambridge, Cambridgeshire

A green lament

Your article on the Kurt Vonne-

gut museum (“So it goes”,

November 16th) reminded me

of his epitaph for the 20th

century: “The good Earth—we

could have saved it, but we

were too damn cheap and lazy.”

patrick leach

Adjunct faculty

Colorado School of Mines

Denver