You can certainly err by acting without thinking things through, but you can also err by thinking things through excessively, and hence doing nothing (aka analysis paralysis).

"she also knows that the Senate bill saves hundreds of billions of dollars over the next two decades"

No, it doesn't, and CBO didn't say that. It may _reduce the deficit_ by hundreds of billions (due to the tax increases in the bill), but it doesn't "save" hundreds of billions.

If you buy a new car that costs you $500/month, and then get a second job that pays $600/month, it would be silly to say that buying the car "saved" you $100/month. You could certainly say that you've found a way to get the new car without increasing the household debt, but the car itself is an additional expense.

Salon already is, for all intents and purposes, bankrupt. It stays in business as a pet project, but continues to lose money.

For the health care bill, it's just as deceptive to say that it "saves" $110BN than that it "costs" $1 trillion.

Say you decide to buy a new car that will cost $500 a month. By buying the new car, you'll stop having to put $100/month in repairs into your old car. The "cost" of the new car is $400/month ($500-$100).

If, at the same time, you get a second job at the same time that earns $600/month, it's absurd to say that the new car somehow "saves" you $200/month.

You could have gotten the new job without getting the new car - the two have nothing to do with one another. You could have gotten the second job, and kept the old car, and cash flow would have gone up by $600-100=$500.

In this case, the "cost" of the health care bill is $400. The fact that we'll at the same time raise taxes to pay for it, such that the increased taxes are higher than the incremental cost of the health care bill doesn't make the bill "cost" any less, it just means that we've increased revenue to pay for it.

BTW, totally agree about the size of the defense budget.

1300% interest? Looks like you and Andrew both have the same problem here.

If you owe me $1300 (because I loaned it to you in the past), and are paying me $130/year in interest on that, and at the same time, I'm giving you $10 as a charitable donation because I'm being nice to you, there's no "1300%" interest there. It's 10% interest, and a $10 charitable donation.

Today, the World Bank estimates that the developing world spends $13 in debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants.

Apples and fir trees.

If you really want to get an idea of fund flows, you need to look at how debt repayment balances with the combination of grants and new loans. Comparing debt service with grants standalone is meaningless.

Ikea is also structured in an incredibly tax-efficient way. Basically, the stores are owned and operated by a company that's owned by a Dutch not-for-profit that's controlled by the Kamprad family. The foundation has huge assets (probably close to $50BN), but gives away very little (perhaps as little as $2MM/year). Because it's a foundation, however, the assets grow tax-free.

The stores pay a licensing fee to another company, however, which actually owns the Ikea brand. This second company is probably (eventually) owned by the Kamprad family, but the way that ownership structure is set up, it looks like it's paying taxes at a rate of about 4%, vs. the 35% standard US corporate tax.

Great Economist piece on it here:

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=6919139

"This system is immensely profitable to pharmaceutical and health insurance firms,"

Except that it's not - health insurance firms have margins well below average for US companies as a whole.

The key cost drivers are (a) we buy more services than other countries, and (b) we pay more for those services, since the people directly paying the bills (the insurance companies) have less leverage than the providers do.

The monopoly problem here is really the local health groups, so you get situations where one company dominates the hospital system in a local market, so an insurance company CAN'T say "no, you're asking too much, we're not going to do a deal with you."

"We" are not doomed. If you're a subsistence farmer in coastal Bangladesh, yes, you're probably doomed. If you're a Dentist in Germany, you're fine. The rich world can readily adapt around the impact of global warming - it's the Third World that doesn't have the resources to do so.

Now, we can debate the ethics of this all we want, but the core fact is that efforts to fight global warming are (largely), in essence, aid from the developed to the developing world. The question then becomes, are they the most efficient kind of aid, in terms of improving quality and length of life in developing countries? Would we be better off saying "we're going to spend the money on AIDS drugs for kids in Africa rather than on higher cost forms of energy in order to reduce global warming?"

The military appears to be making a reasonable interpretation of the intention of Congress. To change this, we need to change the law.

Patrick - Very sorry to hear about your mom. All my best to you and your family.

Wow, that must have been trying. I bet shopping at the grocery store is tough too, where those nasty sales staff won't go and fetch your items for you.

Ikea doesn't put on pretenses - inexpensive, stylish (usually), functional furniture, with lots of funny names. If you want Ethan Allan, go there.

All depends on internal configuration - assuming we're talking coach, I'll take more legroom in a 757 over less in a 777 any day of the week. A number of carriers fly 757s Transatlantic, and a couple of have done with all-business configured 757s, which are very comfy.