[steveinator]

Interesting read. I liked the reference to Ralph Nadar... Those who vote in favor of war should be required to enlist in a draft.

Though I don't know how serious I can take this when the guy uses the word 'wonks' in reference to those he disagrees with.

Also I think that the lack of 'skin in the game' encourages risk, which counteracts a natural tendency for large groups to be more conservative (look at big business vs small). If you made decision makers have skin in the game, you'd have even less innovation and new ideas in large institutions. This is taking into account factors beyond his thesis, but leads to interesting thoughts when it comes to practical application of his ideas.

[md224]

I could be wrong, but I believe the term "policy wonk" is not necessarily negative... I assumed it simply referred to one who is well-versed in policy debates and data.

For example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/

[graeme]

This is correct.

source: extensive reading of political blogs + newspapers circa 2006-2008.

[jessaustin]

...the guy uses the word 'wonks' in reference to those he disagrees with.

This is a pretty mild epithet coming from NNT. He has described the same group in much less complimentary terms.

[paganel]

> Those who vote in favor of war should be required to enlist in a draft.

The same as those people that were counting bananas or such after the Fukushima incident should have been given incentives (including financial ones) to move close to the affected area, with their families and kids. You either trust your words and computations or you're not.