Matt,

Can I come over and play D&D tonight? I'll bring the 12-sided die if you provide me with my Class 9 Wizard costume.

Posted at April 27, 2006 11:25 AM in response to The Larger Issues

well, it's really the doctors who will be damned--the women, apparently, haven't the agency for sin. just ask the SD legislature.

Posted at April 14, 2006 11:47 AM in response to Mifepristone and Mortality

I'm skeptical as well, but I tend to think that any step towards more coverage that states take is a "good" thing even if the bill isn't perfect.  I'd never want this as national policy, but it should increase health coverage in Mass, and we in other parts of the country can see what works and doesn't work about the program. 

Posted at April 5, 2006 12:29 PM in response to The Problem with the Massachusetts Mandate

second sentence...."article" should be "argument"

Posted at March 31, 2006 1:26 PM in response to Krugman Gets It

Way to be, Max.  This argument is eerily reminiscent of the minimum wage article.  As, theoretically with my handy-dandy supply and demand graph, minimum wages increase unemployment (or depress employment).  yet, obvervable, real-world data tell us otherwise.  Likewise, my supply and demand chart may in fact be able to show you that if you have an employer paying wage X and you introduce an EITC of Y, the wage will become X-Y, and the after-EITC income of worker will be X-Y+Y or X.  Therefore, a subsidy to employer.  Yet, our data tells us the wage doesn't even go down by a fraction of X--it just remains at X, and the worker gets 100% of Y.  I mean, the EITC would probably be a good idea up to some fraction of Y lower than 100% going to the worker--the fact that it is indeed the full 100% both helps workers and (should) let the Michael Linds sleep well knowing they didn't give one penny out in corporate welfare!

 again, way to be, Max. 

Posted at March 31, 2006 1:26 PM in response to Krugman Gets It

slemieux (I assume Scott of LGM?) is correct--look at even Peyton Manning's earnings vs. Manny Ramirez, and you'll see that NFL players are grossly underpaid.  Nevertheless, the NFLPA did seem to have enough muscle to get this done.  I'm not sure why.  Any ideas?  maybe b/c the owners, while selfish, aren't entirely stupid and you know, killing the golden goose and whatnot.  A good question, though.

Posted at March 9, 2006 7:20 AM in response to Football Deal

Excellent post.  The one thing I've always agreed with George Bush on is what he repeated over-and-over during the Social Security bamboozle trip:  It's silly to negotiate with yourself.  Why the hell is Ed Kilgore already trying to compromise with the insurance industry when it seems obvious they'll oppose any plan, single-payer or one that tries to co-opt them.  Let them come to the table with an offer, then (maybe) it would be worth talking about compromises and "public-private third ways" and whatnot. 

Posted at March 7, 2006 8:34 AM in response to So Let's Talk

Interesting, I thought the Gladwell article was good, too, but I have no idea why he or anyone else would think that certain problems, such as police brutality or, say, medical malpractice, would follow a bell curve.  He correctly points out that they don't--but, I would argue that they intuitively do not.  I'd have guessed a power-law-type distribution for police brutality, and i'm sure most others would, too.  His homelessness example is probably better.  His smog one is, too, but ignores global warming. 

 However, Ezra, your point on HSAs dealing with a "bell curve" problem when a "hockey stick" approach is warranted is a VERY good one.  good job. 

Posted at February 10, 2006 10:21 AM in response to Fun With Power Laws

maybe that's an interesting idea.  I tend to detest salary caps in sports (I tend to get outraged and how underpaid NFL players are--yeah, i'm idiosyncratic like that, i guess), but maybe there is an analogy here.  Whether, assuming Congress could pass such a law, it's a good idea, I don't know.  Sports salary caps are wealth transfers from players to owners.  Corporate caps would have the same effect, I guess--wealth would transfer from executives to shareholders, presumably. 

 but, even assuming that (a) sports salary caps are good and (b) corporate ones are practical, it doesn't really deal with the problem.  Mainly, executives are overpaid precisely because those setting their salaries are not really the "owners"--they are the board, which, seemingly, is not being responsive enough to shareholders.  So, it seems to be that efforts to strengthen shareholders, either through SOX-type disclosure rules or shareholder activism (like that seen at CalPERS and whatnot) are better for solving the root problem and also not as disruptive to the market (i mean, a salary cap really distorts the market, and i'd say in bad ways, even for Bill Ford and that Wagoner guy).

Posted at February 8, 2006 12:13 PM in response to Compensation Redux

JayA, to be fair to the NFL, at least it's stopping people from profiting off the name "Superbowl" as opposed to just using it or, worse, criticizing it.  Although, your point that it's silly is well taken. 

Posted at February 3, 2006 10:50 AM in response to Trademark Follies