i love.
click here (or the image below) to read the entire thing.
via manolo for the brides.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
This makes my day
Milton Friedman has long been one of my role models. So I was delighted to read that, according to BYU econ prof Richard Evans, at least in one small way, I have managed to emulate him.
Split Opinion
...about the proposed health reforms:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of U.S. voters at least somewhat favor the Democrats� health care reform plan, while 45% are at least somewhat opposed.
While the overall numbers favor the plan, those with strong opinions tilt the other way. Twenty-four percent (24%) strongly favor the plan, but 34% are strongly opposed....
Among all voters, just 12% think their health care coverage will get better if the plan is passed while 37% expect it will worsen. Thirty-seven percent (37%) expect their coverage to stay about the same if the plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats becomes law.
A Missed Opportunity
From Donald Marron:Donald is right. The Pigou Club is not happy.On Friday, the House of Representatives passed its climate change bill by a slim margin. The bill�s key feature is a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases. That system would set national emission limits and would require affected emitters to own permits (called allowances) to cover their emissions.
The number one thing you should know about this bill is that the allowances are worth big money: almost $1 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and more in subsequent decades.
There are many good things the government could do with that kind of money. Perhaps reduce out-of-control deficits? Or pay for expanding health coverage? Or maybe, as many economists have suggested, reduce payroll taxes and corporate income taxes to offset the macroeconomic costs of limiting greenhouse gases?
Choosing among those options would be a worthy policy debate. Except for one thing: the House bill would give away most of the allowances for free. And it spends virtually all the revenue that comes from allowance auctions.
As a result, the budget hawks, health expanders, and pro-growth forces have only crumbs to bargain over. From a budgeteer�s perspective, the House bill is a disaster....
Economists have spent decades demonstrating the potential benefits of using environmental taxes to help finance the government (and make no mistake, a cap-and-trade system is a tax; the Congressional Budget Office, much to its credit, even scores it that way). But that economic logic works only when a substantial fraction of the revenues are used to improve fiscal policy � e.g., reducing deficits or reducing distortions from the tax system. The House bill does neither.
wedding party: men's gifts under $20
{ walnut and maple money clip by holcombswoodworking }
D. writes me with a challenge:
I am not having a bridal party, but I have a friend officiating, another as a musician, another as DJ, and readers... oh my. I want to give them something as a token of my appreciation, but they're mostly guys (so jewelry is hard, unless I have something different for the girls), and the biggest problem is we're pretty strapped for cash. The wedding is this August, so we don't have much time to save for gifts, either...yes! yes. some of these are traditional, some unique, some just plain random (firestarter!)... you said no cufflinks, so i included the pair below if useful for other folks searching for similar. will post a separate post for ladygifts.
I'm hoping to spend 10-15 tops per person; something handmade (of course); something unique. Cufflinks are out (these guys aren't the kind of guys who wear cufflinks)... I'm totally at a loss.
can you find unique handmade gifts for random wedding helpers for under $15 each?
for your friends, readers, bartenders, photographers, djs, all under $15:
{each photo links to its shop}
also for readers/writers, there is a world of printed/gocco'd moleskine notebooks, many customizable and under $10.
and a few more ideas, for $15-$20:
{each photo links to its shop}
or you could always get handmade frames and put photos in as your token of appreciation:
{each photo links to its shop}
what do you think? other ideas? post links?
Monday, June 29, 2009
The Arbiter of Ignorance
In a brief blog post on healthcare, Paul Krugman says that George Will and I are "either remarkably ignorant or simply disingenuous." I cannot speak for George, but I can attest that I am completely ingenuous. So I suppose I must be remarkably ignorant.
There is a lot of that going around lately. In an earlier post on the state of macroeconomics, Paul says, "Brad DeLong and I have been sort of tag-teaming the Great Ignorance which seems to have overtaken much of the economics profession."
What is going through Paul's head as he writes these posts? I suspect three things:
1. On the issue of macroeconomics, I think I understand Paul's point of view. He accepts the 1970-vintage Keynesian economics he first learned from, say, Jim Tobin when Paul was an undergraduate at Yale. Like Tobin and Bob Solow, one of his teachers at MIT, Paul thinks a lot of modern macroeconomics was an unfortunate turn in the wrong direction. In this old paper (published version), I tell the story of modern macro and describe how many old Keynesians were more likely to denigrate modern macroeconomics than to engage it intellectually. Paul is following in that tradition.
2. On the issue of health care, I also think I understand Paul's point of view. He would like a single-payer system, and he views a public option as a Trojan horse to achieve that goal. In my column, I wrote, "for those who see single-payer as the ideal, a public option that uses taxpayer funds to tilt the playing field may be an attractive second best. If the subsidies are big enough, over time more and more consumers will be induced to switch." Paul was one of the people I had in mind (see this old post of his).
In his latest post, Paul writes, "the standard competitive market model just doesn�t work for health care: adverse selection and moral hazard are so central to the enterprise that nobody, nobody expects free-market principles to be enough."
In my view, these comments are just off point. The Obama administration says it wants a public insurance plan that will compete on a level playing field with private plans (that is, without taxpayer subsidies). Is there any cogent economic analysis that suggests that such a policy addresses problems of adverse selection and moral hazard? None that I know. If it has to stand on its own financially, the public plan has no special advantage in addressing these issues.
In any event, it is not like the only alternatives available to us are a government-run health insurance plan or unregulated laissez faire. The most intriguing proposal in the current policy debate is the Wyden-Bennett bill (see this David Brooks column or this letter from CBO on the proposed legislation). That seems to be the best hope for truly bipartisan healthcare reform. At this point, given the legislative strategy of Congressional leadership, the hope is slim at best.
3. On the issue of tone, I again think I understand Paul's point of view. He likely believes that civility is overrated. He seems to think that in the blogosphere, and perhaps in the public debate more generally, you score points simply by insulting your intellectual adversaries. Sadly, I am afraid he may be right.
There is a lot of that going around lately. In an earlier post on the state of macroeconomics, Paul says, "Brad DeLong and I have been sort of tag-teaming the Great Ignorance which seems to have overtaken much of the economics profession."
What is going through Paul's head as he writes these posts? I suspect three things:
1. On the issue of macroeconomics, I think I understand Paul's point of view. He accepts the 1970-vintage Keynesian economics he first learned from, say, Jim Tobin when Paul was an undergraduate at Yale. Like Tobin and Bob Solow, one of his teachers at MIT, Paul thinks a lot of modern macroeconomics was an unfortunate turn in the wrong direction. In this old paper (published version), I tell the story of modern macro and describe how many old Keynesians were more likely to denigrate modern macroeconomics than to engage it intellectually. Paul is following in that tradition.
2. On the issue of health care, I also think I understand Paul's point of view. He would like a single-payer system, and he views a public option as a Trojan horse to achieve that goal. In my column, I wrote, "for those who see single-payer as the ideal, a public option that uses taxpayer funds to tilt the playing field may be an attractive second best. If the subsidies are big enough, over time more and more consumers will be induced to switch." Paul was one of the people I had in mind (see this old post of his).
In his latest post, Paul writes, "the standard competitive market model just doesn�t work for health care: adverse selection and moral hazard are so central to the enterprise that nobody, nobody expects free-market principles to be enough."
In my view, these comments are just off point. The Obama administration says it wants a public insurance plan that will compete on a level playing field with private plans (that is, without taxpayer subsidies). Is there any cogent economic analysis that suggests that such a policy addresses problems of adverse selection and moral hazard? None that I know. If it has to stand on its own financially, the public plan has no special advantage in addressing these issues.
In any event, it is not like the only alternatives available to us are a government-run health insurance plan or unregulated laissez faire. The most intriguing proposal in the current policy debate is the Wyden-Bennett bill (see this David Brooks column or this letter from CBO on the proposed legislation). That seems to be the best hope for truly bipartisan healthcare reform. At this point, given the legislative strategy of Congressional leadership, the hope is slim at best.
3. On the issue of tone, I again think I understand Paul's point of view. He likely believes that civility is overrated. He seems to think that in the blogosphere, and perhaps in the public debate more generally, you score points simply by insulting your intellectual adversaries. Sadly, I am afraid he may be right.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
men's handmade + vintage wedding hats
{each photo links to its shop}
rachael and her fianc� were having trouble finding a men's summer hat that didn't break the bank. she loved the ones at magar hatworks (see men's collection) and asked me to see if i could find more options.
etsy has lots of men's vintage hats, if you can luck into the right size -- not so many on the handmade side, plus you have to wade through acres of knit. chachashouse and magar are the best so far, with a couple off-etsy handmade options below. (anyone have other suggestions for great handmade hats?)
barbara feinman millinery
worth & worth hats
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
