|
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 We reserve the right to publish all letters with authors' names, unless specified as not for publication or for publication anonymously.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, October 10, 2003
KRUGMAN CLASSIC Paul Krugman says of the Bush administration today, "And it continues to push for more tax cuts, when even the most sober observers now talk starkly about the risk to our solvency." There is not one economist in the world who thinks that the US has any risk of insolvency. This is yet another lie, but it's underhanded in classic Krugman style.Krugman's lie about our "solvency" (it's just such a sh*tty, disingenuous way to describe the US economy that I have to put that word in quotes) is even more unbelievable given that the Congressional Budget Office lowered the debt projections this week. Wow, how is the CBO predicting lowered debt in the face of lower taxes and more military spending? Amazing how things like growth address issues of "solvency" isn't it.
John Davidson
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:05 AM |
link 
Thursday, October 09, 2003
RHETORICAL TRICKS I, too, read the piece by Arnold Kling and came away with the exact impression as you regarding his over-simplified argument ["Kling on Krugman" 10/8/2003]. It seemed odd that Mr. Kling failed to acknowledge Krugman's Type C arguments, because they are prevalent. In addition to pointing out that Krugman's Type C points are more often than not based on deception, perhaps a better tack would have been for Kling to argue that the effectiveness of Krugman's Type C points is overwhelmed by the vitriol and partisanship that ooze from his Type M points. Nevertheless, it's hard to criticize someone who is taking on the Evil One. However, it is important that Krugman be analysed and criticized accurately in order for right to eventually prevail over wrong. Readers can sense when an argument is not precise, even if they cannot put their finger on exactly what the flaw may be.Incidentally, one Krugman rhetorical trick that particularly irks me -- and that is neither Type C nor Type M -- is when he writes that "Leading economists agree...", or "Most credible economists believe..." and then goes on to argue that whatever economic position is being implemented by the Bush administration is, in fact, a minority opinion among truly enlightened thinkers. Of course, what he means by "leading economists" are his buddies down the hall at Princeton who think exactly as he does. There's no legitimate attribution here. Just a cheap rhetorical trick to make you believe, regardless of reality, that Krugman's position is the widely accepted one. Perhaps in the halls of academia, but not in the real world.
As always, keep up the good work. And for the sake of your mental health, try to keep the face-to-face encounters with the Evil One to a minimum.
Jay Dillon
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 3:54 PM |
link
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
THE APT QUOTE Don, in re Casablanca (the movie) and Krugman ["Face to Face with Evil" 10/7/2003], the apt quote is the one where the Peter Lorre character says to Rick (Bogart): "You despise me, don't you Rick?" And Rick replies: "I suppose I would if I gave you any thought." Just put Krugman in the place of Lorre and yourself in the place of Bogie!Joseph Johnson
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:44 PM |
link
DESPITE HIS GNOMISH LOOKS Let us hope that Paul Krugman never receives a Nobel Prize ["Bad Day for Krugman" 10/8/2003]. I just heard that Paul Lauterbur, who I met a few times during my graduate days at the University of Illinois, received the 2003 Nobel in Physiology and Medicine. It would lessen the importance of Dr. Lauterbur's Nobel in my eyes to see someone of Krugman's ilk receive this honor.
I am a scientist, not an economist. So to me, the theories behind economics seem more open to interpretation due to the vast number of dependent variables involved, especially when compared to some of the simpler (i.e. fewer variables) scientific concepts I deal with. Thus, I view economics as a less exact science than physics or chemistry. Yet it seems to me that Krugman would at least need to prove his ideas correct in order to receive the accliam that is afforded to him, regardless of his gnomish looks. As it stands his ideas are supported by his own version of the facts, making his conclusions laughable and making his status entirely political and without merit.
Drew Stout
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:26 PM |
link
KLING RESPONDS I regret the statement that you quoted ["Kling on Krugman" 10/8/2003], and I will try to be more careful in the future. The "Real World 101" essay probably was, in hindsight, quite flawed. I think that it raised some valid issues, and overall I do believe that the conclusion that professors who wish to contribute to public policy discussions would benefit from more experience outside the academy. However, the grain of truth in the essay is all the more reason why I should have made a greater effort to prune the weak arguments and explain others more carefully.
Arnold Kling
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:54 PM |
link
TYPE F ARGUMENTS I entirely agree re: your post "Kling on Krugman" [10/8/2003]. but let's also say that Krugman relies on Type F arguments: Fallacies. In his big New York Times piece, "The Tax Cut Con," just to site the one egregious instance that sticks in my mind, he argued that tax increases are good because we had the prosperous decade of the 1990s following Clinton's big tax increase of 1993. Could Krugman not be familiar with the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? I bet he'd quickly pounce if someone who opposes him tried to pull the "it followed therefore it was caused by" fallacy, but he uses it when it suits his argumentative purposes.
George Leef
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:02 PM |
link
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
WHO'S EVIL? This is one of your better notes ["Face to Face with Evil" 10/7/2003]-- very thoughtful and broad reaching. I have a son-in-law who is a PhD student at Emory here in Atlanta, and he and I argue at almost every opportunity, and your note helped alot. What's disappointing is that I feel he believes I'm evil, and all of America, except the far left, is evil. I hadnt thought of the safety net you mentioned before, and he really needs one, being 36 and unemployed as an English PhD candidate. But what's really bizarre is that he'll wonder about what shoe brand you wear, or shirts, or watch, and of course my working daughter bought him his own Lexus. Don't the liberals see the contradiction in their own behavior? Do they act this way out of guilt -- many don't seem to actually "do" anything to help people in need. So here I am, a retired successful executive, volunteering 3 days a week, mentoring, donating money etc., and my kids think I'm evil, and they don't do anything except complain about America. Sorry for rambling.Anonymous
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:16 AM |
link
FOLLOW THE MONEY Re: "Plame Covert? A Simple Legal Question" [10/3/2003]. While watching Mr. Joseph Wilson on MSNBC, he mentioned that both he and his wife had contributed to politicians within the last several cycles. Having done so myself, I wanted to see if their contributions were listed on www.opensecrets.org, which tracks campaign contributions. Sure enough, Joseph Wilson the 4th of Washington, D.C. was located several times giving to various campaigns. With this information in hand, I looked to see if Valerie Plame was mentioned. She was not. However, a Valerie Wilson of Washington D.C., was named (I checked this name since one article I have read recently mentioned she now goes by the name Wilson) and I noticed she gave $1,000 to the Al Gore campaign in 1999. I am sure there are several Valerie Wilsons who live or work in the D.C. area, but this entry corresponds exactly with an entry for Mr. Wilson (actually a credit from the campaign) on the same day. Incedentally, it does list an employer (not Central Intelligence), but it is not a company that I could find any information on (Brewster-Jennings).
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=Wilson%2C+Joseph&txtState=DC&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2000=Y&Order=N
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=Wilson%2C+Valerie&txtState=DC&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2000=Y&Order=N
Anonymous
Update... Here's a tantalizing tidbit on Brewster-Jennings.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 4:28 AM |
link
LIMITS TO "CLASSIFIED STATUS" FOR PLAME Re: "Plame Covert? A Simple Legal Question" [10/3/2003]. In my experience there are clear limitations on the "classified status" of CIA employees. Further, it appears uncertain whether this individual has been outside the US in the past five years, especially in light of her status in the Directorate of Research. Finally you might consider that the status of CIA employees is dependent whether they are under "embassy cover" generally an open secret, or actually operate under deep cover. Deep cover has little to do with the embassy's overseas operations. I believe 27 years working with these folks qualifies me in these observations.
T. J. Jackson
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 4:23 AM |
link