|
Media Infiltrations: Republicans and the Populist Temptation  Wall Street Journal February 9, 2010 Why Taxing Stock Trades Is a Really Bad Idea Wall Street Journal January 6, 2010
"What has been your worst blogging experience? "That's a guy who actually stalks me on the Web and once stalked me personally." "I'm saying this...guy's a jerk."
 The Happy Body Aniela and Jerzy Gregorek What I'm listening to:  Langley Schools Music Project What I'm watching:  Star Trek What I'm playing:  Speed Racer Order these from Amazon.com at Amazon's normal low prices... and a fraction of your order goes to help support this site. Thanks!
Thanks to Irwin Chusid, public editor.
|
The Conspiracy Letters
Join the fray! Email us at letters@poorandstupid.com. We reserve the right to publish all letters with authors' names, unless specified as not for publication or for publication anonymously. Letters may be edited for clarity and brevity.
Friday, March 14, 2003
KEEP THE FAITH I read your piece today on NRO Financial ("From Wags to Riches"March 14, 2003) and I have to say it was poignant, if not only for its insight but its timing--an economic data analyst's job security, it seems, is highest during a downturn. The constant slur of financial projections based on what are in fact ex post measures of economic conditions do little more than provide a fleeting, blurry glimpse of the future.This reminds me (the idea that an abstract concept such as "confidence" or "faith" are real engines for long-term growth) of research about the capital-forming effects of "trust" in both government and market/consumer institutions (Zak & Knack, The Economic Journal, 2001) -- there exists a robust correlation between trust and investment levels; even a rapidly heating up economy that loses some foundation of trust (scandal in a centrally-planned economy, forinstance) will lose investment faster than a mixed/pure-market economy with steady growth.
Satya P. Thallam
Fiscal Policy Researcher
Goldwater Institute
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 3:38 PM |
link 
FULL NELSON? Re: "Tantrum and Epiphany" 3/14/2003: But does Nelson of The Nelson Report have a Ph.D. in Asian studies or such? Isn't that the bar that has been set?
Bruce Bartlett
Senior Fellow
National Center for Policy Analysis
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 3:04 PM |
link
I PREFER THE STRONG Re: the letter below, "Bush Support is Solid, Despite Krugman" (3/14/2003): Here are my personal feelings I vividly remember having on September 11, 2001, just minutes after the attacks, when I was walking from WTC to uptown along the Hudson river promenade:
"Geez I am glad they elected Bush with the team including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice -- I get goosebumps thinking what kind of security team would have been it office if Floridians pushed a little harder on those hanging chads and gave Al Gore the victory"
Say what you want about anything else, but when it comes to life and death -- I prefer the strong in my corner...
Arthur Berd
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:58 AM |
link
BUSH SUPPORT IS SOLID, DESPITE KRUGMAN Re: "Tantrum and Epiphany" March 14, 2003: You nailed this one on the head. I've watched this pretty closely (sometimes I wish I had other things to do) and have been struck by how resolved the Bush supporters are on this matter (including me). Nobody I see is changing sides and I haven't heard one person who supports Bush suggest that he is not up to the job. Quite the opposite in fact, I've heard numerous people express the feeling they are glad he is the one in the chair. Given the typical razzle dazzle of economic pundits, Krugman can try to get away with whatever economic theory he wants to sell, but he can't manipulate much less change the polls which show 60% of the American people support a unilateral war against Iraq if necessary. And those numbers appear to be firming slightly as Americans get more and more angry over the United Nations issue. The point is it appears most Americans feel Mr. Bush is in very close contact with an unfortunate reality. Perhaps it's Krugman who has let go the tether. And in light of your note last week re: formal education ("Cut the Crap, Tapped!" 2/27/2003), where did Krugman get his Ph.D. in political science? Ir are you just allowed to stand on your soapbox and spout a lot of shit if the New York Times editors agree with your position?
Anyway, your words are appreciated and they've helped me to relieve myself of one more burden in life -- specifically of buying the New York Times. It's gone the way of French and German products which are now, and for a long time to come, out. Have to believe most Americans concur.
Anonymous
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:33 AM |
link
Thursday, March 13, 2003
THE REAL PLAN Re: "Un-Fact of the Day: Kvetchin' Gretchen is at It Again," (3/13/2003): I think what she wants to say is “we need a plan to restrict the wealth of others.”Anonymous
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 2:02 PM |
link
BLACK RASPBERY AVALANCHE? Re: "Ice Cream, Mandrake... Children's Ice Cream" 3/5/2003. With Holman Jenkins’ Wall Street Journal article yesterday and more thoughtful letters to Poor and Stupid, the FTC superpremium ice cream caper isn’t going away. But there is one scenario we haven’t considered. Superpremium ice cream is not like a McDonald’s “ice milk” shake. We all know superpremium ice cream is loaded with more good stuff than regular ice cream—all the gooey, fattening, really tasty morsels of fudge and marshmallows, etc. By blocking the merger of Nestle and Dreyer’s the FTC is defending America’s ice cream eaters against higher prices. Lower prices, axiomatically, mean that more superpremium ice cream will be consumed. Millions of Americans previously resigned to Flavor-Ice will now gain access to Chunky Monkey and Black Raspberry Avalanche. More fat, more sugar, more cholesterol—more heart attacks—for more people. So I wonder: Will the FTC be liable when the trial lawyers begin extorting billions from the superpremium ice cream industry?
Bret Swanson
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:01 AM |
link
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
CONFESSIONS OF AN ANTITRUST LAWYER Re: "Ice Cream, Mandrake... Children's Ice Cream" 3/5/2003: It is interesting to watch history repeat itself in my adult lifetime. When I started practicing law in 1964, antitrust law was based upon a series of perfectly silly judicial decisions, and government guidelines based upon those decisions. Nobody could merge with any competitor, for example, not even two grocery stores on adjacent corners at one geographic location-the now infamous Von's case. Virtually every restraint of trade was "per se," unlawful, a legal conclusion which avoided the necessity of proving that a challenged practice had any anticompetitive effect. Once upon a time, I represented Orange Crush (remember?) in an FTC proceeding against all of the major soft drink companies. Each brand(!!!!) was gerrymandered into a "market." Thus, Orange Crush (with less than 2%) of soft drink sales, had monopoly power in the (tah-dah!) "carbonated orange drink market." Dr. Pepper, that giant among soft drinks, had an absolute monopoly of the "pepper flavored cola market."Eventually, all of this nonsense was buried by the rise of the Chicago School of economics, a new breed of antitrust enforcers like Bill Baxter and Jim Miller under Reagan, and the appointment or reeducation of judges, who knew or were made to realize that enforcement had nothing to do with economics or whether or not a practice had any adverse impact on consumers. As I recall, a previous "premium ice cream" market gerrymandered by the FTC was rejected by the courts years ago. Here we are again, with the FTC trying to defend the indefensible. Ben and Jerry's is losing more sales because of its leftist political views than it will ever lose because a couple of its competitors merge. Have these idiots been to a supermarket -- there are competing ice creams all over the place to turn to if prices ever get "too high" in the eyes of consumers.
I specialized in antitrust law (whatever that meant at the time) from 64 to 98. All of my "peers" who are still active are now big wheels, including some at the FTC and the Department of Justice. They know better, but the game must go on. Frankly, rather than continuing to waste time and client money defending against this sort of infantile crap, I am delighted to be retired.
R. B. Rogers
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 4:10 PM |
link
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
BUFFETT'S REAL TRACK RECORD More good comments on Buffett today ("Krugman and Buffett, Together Again for the First Time" 3/11/2003). I was talking to a good friend of mine yesterday who is a long-time Berkshire Hathaway shareholder but, paradoxically, is a fellow Buffett-hater, as I am increasingly. He pointed out that the so-called "oracle" has actually done very poorly on numerous, perhaps even a majority of his public investments recently. Coke, US Air, Salomon Bros., and several insurance companies all come to mind. Rather, he has become wealthy buying private companies or distressed assets on the cheap, where he has imperfect or "inside" information perhaps or where he can use his deep pockets as the buyer of last resort. Given this context, he doesn't seem so smart after all, but simply an opportunist.Chris Luke
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:44 PM |
link
TO BE GOVERNED... Re: "Socratic Questions for Multilateralists," 3/11/2003. Many years ago, when I lived in the (then still not defunct) Soviet Union, I came up with a sophism of some similarity:
- All people are idiots
- Because they allow themselves to be governed by the worst idiots amongst them
- Because no normal person would ever agree to govern such a bunch of idiots
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:22 AM |
link