One of the many ironies of this was that Mankiw was Bush’s adviser during the huge expansion of prescription benefits (aka statin subsidies) in 2003, paid for by … er … big tax cuts for the rich.

My hyperactivity is an important part of what I do 😉

Each principle sounds worth a post for sure!

1. Better safe than sorry. When we face a suitably asymmetric loss function, the safe option (if there is one) is a compelling choice.

2. The devil you know. When we are in a stable environment, and the effects of change are unpredictable, there is a strong case for sticking with the status quo.

3. Chesterton’s gate. We should be wary about interfering with benign influences. Such influences may be be involved in emergent phenomena such as markets, evolved traditions or ecosystems. But they might alternatively be plans or designs by people who know more than us.

4. Don’t let it be your fault. It’s better to allow a bad thing to happen without your intervention, than it is to actively do something bad yourself.

Mankiw wants to challenge utilitarianism and also to criticise some specific policies, the Affordable Care Act and minimum wages. Unfortunately, none of them are very well suited to both jobs. It seems to me that only prinicple 4 is a direct challenge to utilitarianism. Each of the first three might conceivably be used in a debate about the two policies, but it’s a bit of a stretch for the first two. The third is probably the most relevant. OTOH (I think) Matt is particularly interested in the first two of these principles.

http://theweek.com//article/index/258668/greg-mankiws-critique-of-obamacare-is-everything-wrong-with-conservative-thinking