Definitely not.
You can chastise someone for failing to blame universities for educational inflation without even establishing what that inflation actually is.
Already did.
You need not figure the effect of differing labor productivity, nor higher demand, nor increased amount and quality of knowledge conferred, nor lower public support, nor anything, really.
The writer explored all of this in what I linked.
I'm the one full of shit because I believe, like every qualified economist
I disagree. One thing qualified economists all have in common is that they're all literate.
everywhere, that every human activity that fails to improve in efficiency at the average rate must become relatively more expensive than everything that does.
And what tells you that it hasn't?
There *aren't* a lot of things at play in medical inflation. There's only one, and I mentioned it just to show how poorly informed and educated you are in matters like this: we only measure what we actually spend. There isn't even the slightest attempt to measure a change in spending power. Spend $4.8T or so on ivermectin for literally everything medical next year, and nothing else: congratulations, medical inflation was -2%. But hey, I guess I'm the idiot for not recognizing the 'lot of things at play' in spite of nobody being able to say in play for *what.*
Context is very important, and you provided none, which meant that I had to assume you're talking about the relative spending the US does on health care costs relative to other countries, and yes, indeed there are many things at play there. But this is a common theme with you: You prefer weasel words, and I'm only going to respond in kind, starting with this post.