The New York Times and it's editing ilk still is among the worst liars and warmongers. The #1 in raping the truth and the little trust some people still had - or even still wrongly have - in the NYT, because of some 'alibi'-journalists like Krugman or even Dowd working there. They're planning to use the articles by these as 'alibis' to defend themselves later on - Look how critical we were! - when they all must appear in court for their crimes against humanity.

"We should be getting 28% of GDP [gross domestic product] in revenue. We are only collecting 17%."

SENATOR BENNETT (R-UT): Are you comfortable with saying 20 percent of GDP is all the federal government ought to be taking out of the economy, or would you go with some of our friends who say, ``No, it should be as high as 25 percent or 28 percent, 29 percent of GDP, and then we can pay for all of the wonderful things Congress wants to enact''? Do you have an opinion as to where that number ought to be?

BERNANKE: Well, Senator, I just noticed in empirical fact, that over the last 40 years, the share of GDP collected as federal taxes has been pretty stable, about 18.2 percent, something in that range. And you're right, that we're not much below that at this point. No, I would not be inclined to pick a specific number other than to note that historically we have been, sort of, stable around this 18 percent rate.

How is this decree still on the books after 76 years? In 1975, a mere 46 years into the Decree's lifespan, the DOJ refused the company's request to eliminate a provision forbidding Ludowici from acquiring the assets of another clay roof tile manufacturer. The DOJ still insisted that clay roof tile was a distinct market from all other roofing materials, and that Ludowici was still a potential monopolist. During the next quarter-century, Ludowici did not make another attempt to overturn the Decree, “because the outside legal expense to terminate the Consent Decree outweighed the then present benefits to Ludowici.”

Ludowici finally decided it was worth it two years ago, and they asked the DOJ to finally put an end to a case that has spanned 13 presidential administrations. The fifteen individually-named defendants, Ludowici executives, have all left the company and, presumably, died since 1929. Ludowici itself has been bought and sold several times, and today it operates a single plant in Ohio.

In its own filing with the district court, the DOJ's Antitrust Division said that the Consent Decree “is no longer necessary to sustain a competitive market,” implying that it had been necessary for over 75 years.

"He [Saddam Hussein] has been free to rebuild his purchasing networks and resume production of toxic and nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them."

Actually, I interpret that 1999 NY Times editorial quote as meaning that Saddam Hussein was free to rebuild his capacity if he indeed wanted to. I don't interpret it as stating that he had commenced with rebuilding and rearming. Those are two different things.

I was opposed to invading Iraq from the get go and did not believe Hussein had the WMD's that the Bush Administration said it would. The administration was determined, right or wrong (again, wrong in my opinion) to invade Iraq regardless, and the administration was filled with people who had been pushing for forcibly removing Hussein since the 1990's. It was clear to anyone who cared to see it that the WMD was just the justification that was being used to sell a policy that the administration was determine to follow no matter what.

People can have honest disagreements over whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. One need not be a Michael Moore leftist type to have opposed the invasion. I opposed it from a conservative perspective in that the cost in lives, money, resources and the generation of increased anti-Americanism was far greater than whatever threat Hussein's Iraq may have posed to us. Nothing that has transpired in the nearly three years since the invasion has caused me to change my initial opinion. Had a host of weapons been found in Iraq after the invasion, I would have been more than happy to say the the Bush administration did the right thing and would have swallowed my pride and admitted I was wrong.

But even if forcibly removing Hussein from power was the right thing to do, no matter how you cut and slice it, the Bush administration has botched the occupation, and from a lot of what I have read, seems to have given little thought as to how it would handle the occupation of a post-Saddam Iraq. We have not brought safety, reliable electricity and clean drinking water and other basic necessities to the Iraqi people. In parts of Iraq, it appears that Baathist tyranny is being replaced with a repressive Islamic fundamentalism where liquor store owners and barbers who give their customers western style haircuts are targeted for murder, where women are losing the rights that ironically they possessed under the Baathist regime.

In the end, it all boils down to what we can realistically hope to accomplish in Iraq. The best case scenario as I see it is that a competent and large enough Iraq force can be deployed so that we can begin to reduce our troop presence in Iraq. At present we seem to be stuck in stalemate. We clearly do not have enough troops to eliminate the insurgency and the insurgents cannot expel us from Iraq but instead can bleed us slowly. The argument for "staying the course" seems to be one that suffers from the belief that we can ultimately control the outcome in Iraq to something that greatly favors the United States. I do not believe that this outcome is in our power to achieve, barring a massive infusion of troops and resources into Iraq, along with the concomitant increase in government that libertarians like you (and myself) purport to deplore.

In response to the previous diatribe against the war, Libertarians are against non-essential increases in government. If a libertarian believed that the war and the subsequent occupation are required for national defense, then it would not be outside of our philosophy to say that increased government spending is both necessary and desired. I believe our founders supported these ideas when they conducted the war against Tripoli, the Quasi War with France, and indeed the war of 1812. If you believe that Saddam did have WMD’s then you also believe that the cost we had to bear was minimal.

The Internal Revenue Service has had serious shortcomings in its internal controls and financial management systems that caused it to sap its resources in the preparation of its financial statements in the fiscal years of 2004 and 2005, according to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

As a result of the controls and systems flaws, the IRS didn't keep effective watch over its financial reporting or legal and regulatory compliance, according to the GAO. Thus, the revenue service didn't "provide reasonable assurance that losses, misstatements, and noncompliance with laws material in relation to the financial statements would be prevented or detected on a timely basis," the report concluded.

...the GAO still considers issues related to the IRS's controls over financial reporting, management of unpaid assessments, collection of revenue and issuance of tax refunds, and information security to be material weaknesses. What's more, the accountability office asserted that the IRS didn't always comply with a law concerning the timely release of tax liens.

"IRS's most serious financial management weaknesses are rooted in its continued reliance on outdated automated systems," the GAO report added. "The lack of a sound financial management system that can produce timely, accurate, and useful information needed for day-to-day decisions continues to present a serious challenge to IRS management."

The encyclopedism of Peter Drucker was enhanced by many studies besides that of law; but mere addition can never account for a living core of vital principle. Drucker's comprehensive range and inclusive grasp of languages, philosophy, politics, and economic organization, or inclusive circle of learning, is not out of tune with the contemporary world. Such an eguklios paideia, the new education, may appear as a mere trend of out time, but is in effect as deeply rooted as our electric technology. The latter, with its recovery of the simultaneous and acoustic principle of organization, retrieves Cicero in the West, as the computer has retrieved the I Ching in the East.

Theodore Lipps pointed out long ago that the single clang of a bell includes all possibly symphonies and music. It is this inclusiveness and simultaneity of experience that reunifies the consciousness of our time. The same inclusive awareness is utterly at odds with the enormous backlog of fragmented studies and classified data accumulated over the recent centuries of visual organization.

It was easy for the widely versed Drucker to be a pioneer of contemporary business study as soon as business itself became deeply involved in the knowledge industries. As modern industries required more and more knowledge (as contrasted with mere craft experience), the Druckers became indispensable to the functioning and programming of business.

Drucker has called himself "an unlicensed psychiatrist" of modern business. His fellow Viennese, Sigmund Freud, applied modern psychiatry at a time when organization of the human family was collapsing under the impact of modern industry. (See E. R. Leach, Runaway World). Drucker has accepted the role of putting the outer structures in order, just as Freud attempted the same task for the inner life.

First things first: given all the bad-mouthing the French receive, you may be surprised that I describe their society as "productive." Yet according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, productivity in France - G.D.P. per hour worked - is actually a bit higher than in the United States.

The book..., by a young, white Parisian woman, was a runaway best seller last year. The title means "Hello Laziness"...and it's one long argument in favor of slacking off at work. Author Corinne Maier became an icon to fellow cubicle-dwellers, who recognized a principled point behind her tongue-in-cheek exhortations to "actively disengage" and "spread gangrene from within": The book is a protest against an ossified corporate culture in which people try to look busy while waiting out their jobs-for-life. Needless to say, Maier's company could not fire her even after she publicly detailed her total refusal to make an effort at work.

The French riots should be a wake-up call, but not for pouring billions of euros into the banlieues, as measures announced today by Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin would do. A visionary leader would seize the chance to dismantle an economic system that is eating its young.

I think it was your observation that an American who works 70 hours per week will almost always get beat on productivity PER HOUR by the Frenchmen who works 35 hours per week because of the diminishing marginal returns of the longer hours. It might be a good idea to reiterate that concept, since a newcomer might not be aware. I might also add that even if you grant the extra productivity, the extra cost per hour of benefits and meddlesome regulation would make me think twice about opening a business over there. Is there any way to compare the first 35 hours of the American work week to the total 35 hours of the European work week for a more apples to apples comparison?

FYI you are tangentially responsible for an argument between my wife and me during the hurricane fiasco. She thought $40 for a roll of toilet paper was gouging, and I though it was brilliant. I am, of course, wrong because I am the husband and she is cuter than I am.

I’d like to make a comment on French productivity. They have, I recall, 10% unemployment in general and 30% unemployment for people 18 to 25 years of age. If this is correct and one makes the assumption the people who are unemployed and the young are the most unproductive, then the higher French productivity can partly be explained by the fact the French exclude the least productive workers from work force.

Let's be specific. Since September of 2002, the S&P 500 has returned 15.6% per year on an annual compound basis. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has returned only 5%. Hey, it's great that Buffett used to be a start. But what has he done for investors lately?

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:55 PM | link    

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:52 PM | link    

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:49 PM | link    

There's more...visit the archives!