DEFINE COSTS. U. S. tax burdens appear to be higher: have benefits increased commensurately? Two Blowhards are dubious; Cal Pundit (this is at the old site) notes that most of the growth in spending is for Social Security and medical payments; Econ Log raises, then questions, the Baumol services effect in government expenditure. I don't propose to address all of their comments tonight, but something does occur to me: isn't the use of the term "cost" misleading, particularly with respect to medicine? Transfer and insurance payments now provide for services such as organ transplants and reconstructive surgery once inconceivable, and for much more effective medicines. On the expenditure side, these consume money that formerly wasn't being spent. But on the cost side, these things are all cheaper. Anything inconceivable or infeasible might as well have an infinite opportunity cost ... now they're available at a high, but finite opportunity cost. Might make sense to look at ways to introduce competition into the provision of medical procedures (to discover lower opportunity costs) and to use the resources diverted into Social Security to support inventive investments. Isn't the most effective lockbox on Social Security investor-managed accounts, with substantial penalties for early withdrawal?