Perhaps there is to much commentary on a single economist here.

Should Americans embrace a more robust social safety net at the cost of much higher marginal tax rates, reduced work incentives, and a smaller economic pie? From a strictly economic perspective, there is no right answer to this question.

...

Put simply, the healthcare reform bill would make the United States more like western Europe. That may mean more security about healthcare, but it also means that future generations of Americans will likely spend more time enjoying leisure.

I love the way that this is expressed. I thought at first that he may have meant that final clause sarcastically, referring to potentially increased unemployment, but his link is not about that potential effect.

For the most part, if the nation as a whole works fewer hours, that is indicative of some percentage of the population losing their jobs, and some working fewer hours than they'd like to to maintain a standard of living. However, if we found that a system could be devised in which the fewer hours could be distributed more evenly – if, for example, everyone worked just a little bit less – we would be more likely to describe it as more time enjoying leisure, instead of "underemployment."

This system would also be predicated upon our ability to maintain a standard of living with fewer national work hours. I'd think advances in technology alone would be enough to accommodate the loss, but again, we currently have a system in which labor-saving technology does not benefit the laboring workforce.

In other news, happy thanksgiving:



You can also read about economic systems that the pilgrims tried.

Fun chart from Matthew Yglesias. Click to enlarge.

Don't we all?

Obama wants worldwide end of fossil fuel subsidies:

Many countries, including the United States, provide tax breaks and direct payments to help produce and use oil, coal, natural gas and other fuels that spew carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas. Eliminating those would provide "a significant down payment" toward the U.S. goal of cutting fossil fuel emissions in half by 2050, Froman said.

Ensign

John Ensign brought public transit into the health care debate.

Republican John Ensign said the numbers were skewed. He pointed out that if automobile and gun deaths were eliminated from the data, the U.S. would rank much higher. Calling these “cultural differences,” Ensign said “in this country, we like our guns” and “we are a more mobile society” who drives more and uses public transportation less than Europe.

It reminds me of this Andy Singer comic illustrating all the hidden costs of our automobile culture. I doubt John Ensign is going to use this as a reason to fund public transit or start measures to curb gun deaths.

Tevye & Perchik

Just for the sake of reference, here is the recent back and forth between Paul Krugman and Greg Mankiw regarding the Cap'n'trade v. Carbon-tax debate.

"He's right and he's right? How can they both be right?"
"You know... you are also right."

Joe Wilson's Embarrassment

Craig Ferguson and Keith Olbermann have both issued responses to Joe Wilson's outburst from Obama's health care speech, indicating his behavior was an embarrassment to the legislative process and the nation.

Really, I disagree. I think our houses of congress could stand to use a little bit of a relaxing of the rules of decorum. Joe's outburst wasn't quite as bad as South Korea's fistfighting, and really, was rather on par with the standard booing and cheering that would tend to occur during any speech. I might argue our legislators aren't interrupted enough. When a congressman stands in front of his (usually empty) house and the c-span camera and chooses to provide misleading information, there's no reason that person shouldn't be interrupted with exclamations to contrary or at least boos.

Joe Wilson did not embarrass the U.S.; he embarrassed himself.

There were some elements of the speech that might require some skepticism, the least of which was probably the claim to which Wilson objected. The thing I might have been most likely to question was the following: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future."

The president has often indicated that he intends the purpose of reform to be to "bend the cost curve," meaning to reduce, over time, the percent of GDP spent on health care. This does not necessarily mean, as is often mistaken, that we will be reducing what share of the health care cost is taken by the state. And though in the end, the cost of reform should be paid for, the time to promise no additional deficit on the state balance sheet is not in the middle of a deep recession.

"I don't understand why the people who have stuff are enraged and the people who have nothing are warm and hopeful."