|
Media Infiltrations: Obama's Social Security Fine Print  The Wall Street Journal June 25, 2008 Commodity-Prices Scapegoats The Wall Street Journal June 3, 2008
"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."
 A Bound Man Shelby Steele What I'm listening to:  Langley Schools Music Project What I'm watching:  There Will Be Blood 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. Some of the sites
|
 7:00 pm EDTTuesday, July 1 |
| Unindicted co-counterconspirator-in-chief Donald Luskin will appear on CNBC's Kudlow & Company. Don will be talking about -- you guessed it -- politics, the economy, and the market. |
Chronicle of the Conspiracy
Join us as we discover, document, expose and challenge the bad people, the bad institutions and the bad ideas that stand in the way of wealth creation -- and show you how to fight back!
Friday, June 02, 2006
WAIT. THERE'S A QUESTION FROM THE AUDIENCE... There seems to be a little flurry of taking Paul Krugman seriously as an economist, with the publication of David Warsh's Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations (such as here and here). Robert Musil has just one question, though:What example, in the real world, is a single meaningful application of Paul Krugman's trade insights anywhere outside of academe and academic journals? I am aware of nothing.Update... here's another good one from Robert.
Update 2... A reader who requests anonymity has an answer to the question.
Paul Krugman and his theories and beliefs have made me money. Seriously. That's because I'm a Paul Krugman contrarian.Update 3... Now that Krugman is a respected economist again, he says in a recent speech that he's not getting as much hate-mail from the right as he used to. Reader George Sabatino knows why: "I guess that means TimesSelect is working?!?!"I remember a lesson from a finance professor at Wharton. He stated that the most useless person in the world is someone that is right half of the time. Those that are right more often than chance should be watched carefully, and mimicked. And those that are wrong more often than chance should be watched VERY carefully. The person that is consistently wrong will provide you with opportunities to create wealth again and again.
Paul Krugman is such a person.
I have made money by betting the opposite of what Paul thinks, both in legitimate financial markets and "illegal" betting sites. For example, when he became convinced that Dean was the man to win the election, I made money on Kerry winning the primary. When Paul was convinced that Kerry would win the whole election, I bet on Bush. Paul last year said the bubble in the housing market would burst. I knew that I could wait a year, and any bursting would be very slow than very sudden. Paul is convinced that growth is slow and that unemployment is high -- I've been long the market (and very happy) since he turned into a sourpuss.
I conservatively estimate that Paul Krugman has earned me an 'excess return' of about $25,000 on my capital over the past five years, adding about 5% more to my portfolio annually.
The Times Select fee is well worth the price, as it lets me know what Paul thinks. So I can bet the opposite.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:20 AM | link
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
CLASSY COMPANY You won't want to miss Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse Tour" of twenty US cities. You, too, can learn about:The fix of the 2004 election; the Bush Administration's confidential, and surprising, plans for Iraq's oil; the untold story of the destruction of New Orleans; the dark, misunderstood economics of the rise of the India-China colossus, Ken Lay's un-indicted co-conspirators; and many more tales of the current regime you won't get on your nightly news...And if you go to the June 13 New York City show, you can catch this classy act on the same stage as... Paul Krugman!WHO'S AFRAID OF OSAMA WOLF?, CHINA FLOATS BUSH SINKS, THE SCHEME TO STEAL '08, NO CHILD'S BEHIND LEFT...
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 7:19 PM | link
JOKE OF THE DAY
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:12 AM | link
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
BIG OOPS Here's the New York Times' incisive political analysis on Saturday:Republicans with close ties to the White House said on Friday that Donald L. Evans, the former commerce secretary and a longtime Texas friend of the president, was a leading contender to succeed John W. Snow, who has indicated his desire to step down by early July.
...That Mr. Evans is even being considered underscores the shift in focus of the search from Wall Street outsiders to Bush insiders. ...Administration allies said that senior officials had made overtures to prominent executives on Wall Street, including Henry M. Paulson Jr., the chairman of Goldman Sachs.
...But Mr. Paulson and other executives expressed little interest in taking the post, in part because neither Mr. Snow nor his predecessor, Paul H. O'Neill, had any substantial role in shaping economic policy.
The real power to set priorities, whether it was cutting taxes in 2001 and 2003 or the failed effort to overhaul Social Security in 2005, has always been held by a small circle of advisers in the White House, including Vice President Dick Cheney.
Of course today the appointment of Paulsen was announced. Does Dick Cheney know?
Thanks to reader Margaret Aten for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:01 AM | link
HITTING BACK Jason Lee Steorts responds to Paul Krugman's mischaracterizations of his National Review article on global warming. After hundreds of words devastating Krugman's claims in his column last Friday point by point, Steorts humbly concludes,
In light of all this, it would be easy to accuse Paul Krugman and Think Progress of "distorting evidence," "misleading readers," and engaging in a "disinformation campaign." I decline to return their favor. But I will permit myself the modest suggestion that, in the future, they strive to have the slightest idea what they are talking about.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:28 AM | link
Monday, May 29, 2006
I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS IS GETTING ANY COVERAGE After all, the corrupt official in question is a very prominent Democrat...Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:59 PM | link
WATCH OUT NEW YORK, LONDON... Pigeons have been added to the list of "domestic" fowl that can lead to human infection with avian flu. The World Health Organization reports:
An additional case occurred in a 39-year-old man from West Jakarta. He developed symptoms on 9 May, was hospitalized on 16 May, and died on 19 May. The investigation determined that the man cleaned pigeon faeces from blocked roof gutters at his home shortly before symptom onset. No further potential source of exposure was identified.Update... Here's another instance...
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:05 PM | link
Sunday, May 28, 2006
HERE'S A SARBOX YOU CAN LOVE George Reisman suggest a Sarbanes Oxley Act that would apply to government, not companies:The Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 requires corporate executives not merely to read but to certify the accuracy of their companies' financial reports. Why are Congressmen (i.e., both Representatives and Senators) held to a lesser standard? Why are they not required under penalty of perjury to certify that they have read and carefully studied each bill that they vote for? Don't the American people have the right to demand that their legislators know what they are doing?...A first step should be the refusal to enact any new legislation that the members of Congress are unwilling to swear or affirm under oath that they have read and carefully studied. And along with this, as another preliminary step, the promulgation of any new rule by any regulatory agency should be prohibited except upon that rule having been read, studied and voted into effect by a majority of the House and Senate Committees having jurisdiction over that regulatory agency. Thus, for example, before the SEC or EPA could enact any new rule, a majority of the members of the House and Senate Committees having jurisdiction over them would have to approve the new rule. This measure would effectively place members of Congress in charge of the various regulatory agencies.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:42 AM | link