Comments on: Why Can't My Team Do Whatever It Wants!?

By: USA Property Investors

USA Property Investors — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:22:14 +0000

Amazing Stuff thanx

By: USA Property Investors

USA Property Investors — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:22:14 +0000

amazing stuff thanx

By: huang

huang — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:57:11 +0000

cardy ugg boots On sale,Find newest Ugg Collection there.

cardy uggs Special sale,Order now,Save 38% immediately

cardy uggs boots This season hit the store,Only $99

Would you like a pair of classic short ugg home,make this winter warm,let you feet keep comfort every day.

Newest classic short uggs is in stock now,Save more off,Win lucky coupon code.

women's bailey button UGG this season hottest Short style UGG Boots,you should never miss it.

Bailey Button UGGs keep your feet amazing comfort,Special sale time is limited this week,Order now

UGGs Bailey Button Boots can't find?You can go our shop,Will save more 25%.

UGG Bailey Button Sale Come in stock,win more discount now.

Chestnut Bailey Button Boot this season hottest Ugg boots,every one is talk about that,Take them home now.

bailey button leopard Ugg boots let the fashion on your feet now,A pair of this will give you all.

Leopard Uggs New version of Ugg Bailey Button hit the store

UGG Australia Highkoo 2009-2010 this winter a new rasie trendy along with bailey button button.

UGG Women's Highkoo Will the best gift for christmas,for your girlfriend,your family member

UGG Grey Women's Highkoo keep rising,don's miss this opportunity to get them home with cheapest price you never imagin.

By: the deception of dignity | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

the deception of dignity | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:54:51 +0000

[...] of fiscal conservatism. We face massive deficits, the possibility of a disastrous and expensive health care bill, terrible environmental regulatory efforts subject to capture and abuse, food regulations that will [...]

By: Alex J.

Alex J. — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:53:39 +0000

I understand. It's politically untenable though.

By: James K

James K — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:54:35 +0000

Singapore's system is irritatingly MIA in this debate. Their health system is cheaper than any in Europe, and with outcomes at least as good.

But its arguably more free-market than the status quo so the Democrats don't bring it up. And advocating it requires a measure of coherent thought so the Republicans don't bring it up.

By: Compromise To Remain On The Path To Health Care Reform - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:13:33 +0000

[...] Will Wilkinson comments on Ezra’s Klein’s response to Emanuel. I have commented further on [...]

By: huadpe

huadpe — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:13:00 +0000

This is quite theoretical indeed, and if we're going down the road of theory, let's push it all the way. John Broome is one of the more notable ethical philosophers who deal closely with healthcare, and is a consequentialist, which I gather from your reasoning above you are (or at least are sympathetic to) as well.

One of the problems Broome notes (in Weighing Lives) is the question of discounting over time. If you discount for the future, you seem to be valuing future lives less in a way Broome finds quite repugnant. That is, saying someone's life is worthless because of when they happen to live it. If you don't discount for the future though you end up in situations where present information is woefully inadequate to guide actions.

By: Health Care Reform and Ideology - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:12:24 +0000

[...] Will Wilkinson comments on Ezra’s Klein’s frustration with Rahm Emanuel’s being willing to compromise on specifics of health care legislation as long as the key goals are met (which I discussed earlier). Wilkinson wrote: Bush couldn’t reform Social Security because his plan was unpopular. Obama won’t be able to deliver a health-care bill ideological Democrats want, because what they want is unpopular and legislators know it. So Congressional Democrats want something they can cast as “victory” while doing nothing that could hurt their noble struggle for ongoing political self-preservation. Right now, strongly ideological media liberals like Klein have to decide whether they’re going to (a) act as enforcers, sending the signal to the powers-that-be that they will vocally and publicly count a “trigger” plan as a pathetic failure, or (b) sigh and prepare to declare whatever legislation passes a profound victory for ordinary Americans that shows just how great Democrats are. [...]

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:39:38 +0000

This is a feature, not a bug.

By: mk

mk — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:16:39 +0000

I like your analysis very much, Will.

Related to your "unpopularity" point, there is a symmetry also with "starve the beast", which says ratchet down the taxes because people don't like them raised, so you'll put tax-and-spend liberals in a box. This could be called "gorge the beast" (in this case the beast is the American taxpayer), where you ratchet up benefits because people don't like their benefits cut.

Either way, the notion is that once you get over the hump of popular squeamishness, you'll have made a near-irrevocable change in public policy. Essentially both political parties are playing on a prospect-theory-based model of the American voter.

Bush succeeded in doing this. Of course, it was seen as very irresponsible and eventually everyone hated him (but they still don't want their taxes raised!).

I guess Obama's willing to take the risk because as you said, this is the whole domestic-policy raison d'etre of many liberals, and it's the best chance to get it in a long time.

By: links… | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

links… | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:27:37 +0000

[...] Will Wilkinson takes on Ezra Klein and the Democrats. [...]

By: Freddie

Freddie — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:12:33 +0000

This is something that I have argued with Megan McArdle about before. It's true that there is a certain rhetorical advantage in arguing in favor of filling tangible need over theoretical need– “let's feed this starving person” is indeed easier to argue than “but doing that might create more suffering down the road.” But I argue that there is a parallel advantage in arguing the other side; as long as a need is theoretical, you can assert it's size and strength without any basis in reality. In other words, there's no referent to real life, so there's no evidentiary basis for someone from my side to refute it.

Of course, this is all pretty damn theoretical anyway, at this point.

By: musa

musa — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:53:33 +0000

Considering that Medicare, and social security, enjoy broad popular support, it looks to me as if reform is quite popular in the concrete as well.

By: huadpe

huadpe — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:08:25 +0000

I understand the sentiment behind this view, however it belies the problem of the path not taken. I can avert this problem here in front of me by clear means. But what is wholly unclear is the new human suffering now or in the future that will be created by doing so. Your logic seems to be consequentialist in nature, and to justify this on a consequentialist level you have to show that this change will not cause some other worse consequences elsewhere.