|
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.
|
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, August 18, 2006
AN OPENING FOR A LIBERTARIAN Seize the moment! From the Wall Street Journal's "Political Diary" email news service (no link available):Texas Republicans will hold a "summit" meeting today in Houston to try to settle on a single write-in candidate in their desperate attempt to save the House seat of former Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Mr. DeLay dropped out of the race after winning the March primary, and a federal court ruled the local GOP could not replace him. That leaves the party's line on the ballot blank.The GOP now faces the arduous task of running a write-in candidate against former Rep. Nick Lampson, a Democrat who once represented part of the Houston-area district. Mr. Lampson has more than $2 million in his campaign kitty and is considered the defacto front-runner in a conservative district that gave President Bush over 64% of its vote in 2004.
The estimated 150 precinct officials who will gather for today's closed-door meeting are debating the virtues of various candidates, including Sugar Bend Mayor David Wallace. But there is another option. Libertarian Bob Smither, an electrical engineer who is well known through his work with a child-welfare foundation, is the only name other than Mr. Lampson's on the ballot and he has announced that if elected he will vote for a Republican for House Speaker. That could be meaningful if Republicans lose enough House seats this fall that control of the House hinges on a single seat. Why not throw their backing behind Mr. Smither, much as moderate Democrats in Connecticut are supporting Joe Lieberman?
Dick Murray, a University of Houston political analyst, says that Mr. Smither could pull 12% to 14% of the vote even if he gets no significant backing, making a write-in campaign for an alternative candidate all the more difficult for Republicans.
Some Republicans think the party should simply back Mr. Smither. "I'm not convinced a write-in will succeed," says Jerry Patterson, a Texas Land Office commissioner. "We should seriously consider supporting Bob Smither. Nick Lampson could be the one vote that elects Nancy Pelosi as Speaker." Another prominent Republican from out of state endorsed Mr. Smither yesterday. Bob Barr, the former Georgia congressman who served as a House manager during the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, says Mr. Smither might be an improvement over the write-in alternatives: "I don't see him going to Washington and voting for bigger government the way so many Republicans have done."
The district has proven in the past that it's a fertile political ground for libertarian-oriented Republicans. Back in the 1980s, the district elected Ron Paul, a free-market Republican, who later went on to become the 1988 Libertarian presidential candidate. Mr. Paul staged a political comeback in 1996, and now represents a neighboring district as a Republican. Indeed, Mr. Smither has been holding talks with Mr. Paul about endorsing the notion of the GOP forming an alliance of convenience with a Libertarian. After all, third-party candidates are in vogue this year in Texas. In the governor's race, entertainer Kinky Friedman and state Comptroller Carole Strayhorn are each polling close to 20% of the vote in their bids to topple GOP incumbent Rick Perry.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:03 PM |
link 
A NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER ADMITS IT Yep. They just make up the stuff they write. From Valleywag:
David Pogue, the friendly Bob Saget of tech journalism, got flak for last week's New York Times column, in which he explained why Macs will never dominate the business scene. One of his reasons was that IT pros would put themselves out of business by filling their companies with Macs. He got plenty of shit for that one. And under the pressure, he's cracked:Thanks to reader Chris Masse for the link.Now, the truth is, I've never worked in a corporation a day in my life. I've never called an I.T. (information tech) person for help, don't know any such people well, and basically have no clue about what their jobs really entail.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 5:58 PM |
link
NOW THAT'S POLITICS THE OLD FASHIONED WAY Ned Lamont's spokesman called Waterbury, Connecticut, the place "where the forces of slime meet the forces of evil." The local paper responded with some rather strong words:
As The New York Times reported Aug. 3: "Mr. Lamont prefers not to talk about his background. 'I've been blessed,' he will say, but beyond that he can turn testy." Ordinarily, such cantankerousness would raise suspicions among inquisitive reporters -- "What's he hiding?" But liberal journalists adore him because they share his world view on abortion, homosexual marriage, universal health care, racial quotas, loopy environmentalism and especially the war against Islamic terrorism.And they're just warming up. Read the whole thing!They are blood brothers, or more accurately, fellow travelers. Just as journalism has become a hornet's nest of socialism (communism not yet perfected), if you shake Mr. Lamont's family tree, a lot of Red apples will fall.
His great-grandfather, Thomas W. Lamont, was chairman of J.P. Morgan. A wealthy progressive pacifist, he was the sugar daddy for the American Communist Party and other extreme left-wing organizations. His wife, Florence, belonged to such subversive groups as the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship and American Committee for Friendship with the Soviet Union.
Their son, Corliss Lamont, was an unapologetic Stalinist and atheist. Congress once declared him "probably the most persistent propagandist for the Soviet Union to be found anywhere in the United States." As national chairman of The Friends of Soviet Russia, he refused to condemn Josef Stalin's show trials in the 1930s. For 22 years, he was director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been financed by communists and dedicated to advancing Marxism since its inception and to this day seeks to impose socialism and atheism on America. He also chaired the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee for 30 years, during which time he fought efforts to root out Soviet spies and sympathizers in the U.S. government and military. He ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate from New York in 1952 with the American Labor Party and in 1958 with the Independent Socialist Party; both parties fronted communist causes. Near the end of his life, he befriended Cuba's Stalinist tyrant, Fidel Castro.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:10 PM |
link
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT From the New York Times corrections pages:
An article on Tuesday about President Bush’s defense of American policy in the fighting between Israel and Lebanon incorrectly described the planning that led to Mr. Bush’s meetings on Monday at the Pentagon and the State Department. Mr. Bush’s schedule for the day was prepared weeks ahead as part of the annual presidential review meetings; it was not devised last week as part of a White House effort to seek political advantage on national security after Senator Joseph I. Lieberman’s loss in Connecticut’s Democratic primary and news of a disrupted terrorist plot in Britain.Nuff said. Thanks to reader Jameson Campaigne for the link (via Taranto).
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:22 AM |
link
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
JOKE OF THE DAYPosted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:03 AM |
link
THE JOURNAL GIVES EQUAL TIME to Ned Lamont, who writes an op-ed today called "Democrats Mean Business." He styles himself as an Horatio Alger who has learned the lessons of entrepreneurship and will bring them to Washington. But here's the bottom line, with emphasis added:
First, entrepreneurs are frugal beasts, because the bottom line means everything. In Connecticut, voters are convinced that Washington has utterly lost touch with fiscal reality. We talked about irresponsible budget policies that have driven the annual federal deficit above $300 billion and the debt ceiling to $9 trillion. Meanwhile, the government is spending $250 million a day on an unprovoked war in Iraq while starving needed social investment at home.So which is it, Ned? Is the problem that Washington is spending too much money? Or is the problem that Washington isn't spending the money on social programs?
Update... Reader Josh Hendrickson sees a coordinated attack. He points out that in Lamont's op-ed this morning we read, "By every available metric, the 'stay the course' strategy in Iraq is not a winning strategy." An editorial in this morning's New York Times says, "Staying the course until President Bush leaves office 29 months from now is not an option."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 7:57 AM |
link
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, HONEY Well, it was yesterday actually. But at least I remembered. It was the 35 years ago that President Richard Nixon imposed wage and price controls as an emergency measure to rein in runaway inflation.Here's the punch-line. When Tricky Dick did that in 1971, the Consumer Price Index had just grown 4.36% on a year-over-year basis. Today it is growing at essentially the same rate -- 4.15%. And it seems that nobody even cares.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:59 PM |
link
JOKE OF THE DAY
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:29 PM |
link
DEADWOOD: THE MINIMAL STATE
I came late in the third season to HBO's series "Deadwood" -- a compelling portrayal of libertarian self-rule via an informal and minimal state. I've been catching up on what I missed in the first and second season (get the DVDs by clicking here), and discovered this gem in the ninth episode, when the leaders of the camp first set up their minimal state. Says it all, doesn't it... The minimal state is still a state.
Update... Reader Art Patten sends this along:
...what advantage is there today to the nation state? Boundaries between states enshrine and exacerbate inequalities and prevent the free movement of peoples. Large and prosperous state and state-related organizations and locations attract the envy and hostility of others and are sitting duck targets for terrorist action. Technologies of communication and transportation now make geographically-defined communities increasingly irrelevant and provide the new elites and new entrepreneurs with ample opportunity to stand outside them. Economies construct themselves in spite of state management and money flees taxation as relentlessly as water follows gravity.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:20 AM |
link
Monday, August 14, 2006
JOKE OF THE DAYPosted by Donald L. Luskin at 2:27 PM |
link
LET THERE BE CONFLICTS -- AS LONG AS PEOPLE INVEST! My DC lawyer/lobbyist friend remains upset about the media's cynical reaction to the investment advice provision in the pension bill.
Could it be a virus in a left-over CBS coffee mug?Update... A reader who requiree anonymity (lest he be conflicted!) adds:This is from Institutional Investors’ “Daily II” e-newsletter service quoting an “expert” at MarketWatch, which as you know, is now part of the Dow Jones empire but was formerly part of CBS.
The Pension Protection Act and a proposal by Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards may end up hurting investors more than helping them. So suggests columnist Thomas Kostigen of MarketWatch, who said the new act that will allow mutual funds companies to give advice to 401(k) participants is “akin to letting the fox into the henhouse,” as most plan members put their money in mutual funds. In other words, says Kostigen, the mutual funds may end up recommending that the 401(k)ers invest the funds these companies offer. He calls the law “a bonanza for mutual funds.” Kostigen says the pension bill is “an ugly example of just how disingenuous the financial services industry, and Congress for that matter, can be.” To make matters worse the CFP proposal would allow advisers to opt out of acting as fiduciaries to their clients, which, he says, would allow the board’s members to “put their own interests ahead of what is ultimately best for the client, and put commissions ahead of investors’ goals and objectives.”The average investor doesn’t invest enough; our consumer culture cries out to provide these folks with all the advice we can throw at them. Meeting them at work is the smart way to go. The new law will allow most middle class Americans a new (and maybe their first) opportunity to receive investment advice, most of it very basic.If an individual chooses, he or she can listen to the advice of an investment company person handling their company’s 401(k) program but then decline to buy the funds from the company offering the advice, if they want to shun “conflicts.”
What they shun now is “investing.”
Something the critics ignore is that under existing law, 401(k) participants essentially can’t get any advice on appropriate investment strategy. Not only are the plans not permitted to dispense advice, but any financial advisor or broker who is vaguely familiar with the rules and penalties of ERISA will politely avoid (at all costs) offering concrete investment advice regarding their clients’ 401(k) accounts. Couple these barriers with the large number of 401(k) investment options, including relatively exotic ones, and it becomes undeniable that the current system puts the uneducated investor at serious risk. Viewed from that standpoint, Boehner’s legislation is a vast improvement, however you might feel about the financial services industry.Regarding conflicts of interest, the typical plan is either a single fund family or a platform of multiple families which is typically put together by an insurer or a bank. In the first case, the conflict is almost negligible, as other companies’ funds aren’t permitted in the account anyways. And in the second, the platform provider is typically the one to dispense advice, and assuming they have a uniform compensation structure from the various funds, there’s no incentive for them to provide anything other than what they think are the best recommendations for an individual.
In sum, these critiques are much ado about nothing. Shouldn’t these folks be on vacation, anyways?
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:33 AM |
link
A GOOD POINT IN THERE SOMEWHERE Can you believe that Henry Kaufman -- the famous economist of the 1970s and 1980s known then as "Doctor Doom" -- is still around, and still dispensing jeremiads against the sins of debt? It's true (just check this morning's Wall Street Journal op-ed page). But as he criticizes the Fed for not doing something or other to rein in sinful debt (it's not clear just what he'd recommend, only what he'd recommend not doing -- which is what they are doing now), he does make one point with which I heartily agree. The Fed's reliance on bogus econometric models must end:
The third leg of the Fed's policy stool -- heavy reliance on an econometric model -- is also wobbly. Such models are formulated on the basis of past economic and financial variables that do not adequately incorporate structural changes in business and financial behavior. Their underlying economic equations and statistical projections offer, for the most part, false comfort. The econometricians trained in this kind of model building, some of whom shape economic policy, should understand the limitations. Instead, they seem to have become entranced by their own magic.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:25 AM |
link
Sunday, August 13, 2006
TIMESLY ADVICE The New York Times doesn't like the idea of ordinary Americans getting investment advice from investment experts (just Gretchen Morgenson, thank you).A set of groundbreaking provisions [in the recently passed pension bill] clears the way for employers to automatically enroll employees in their companies’ 401(k)’s, unless they specifically request to opt out. That is good because it is likely to increase savings significantly, especially among low- and middle-income workers.My DC lawyer/lobbyist friend, who had more than a little to do with the bill, has his own views:But the bill also imperils savers by allowing for potentially biased investment advice. Previous law quite sensibly banned mutual fund companies from offering advice if their funds were among an employee’s 401(k) options, but it did not give employers a legally sanctioned way to provide such advice. For the new bill, some senators had proposed protections for employers to hire qualified independent advisers. Unfortunately, at the behest of securities industry campaign donors, the House majority leader, John Boehner, fought hard for basically lifting the ban, and won.
Can the New York Times promote...the New York Times? Or, is that a conflict?If a company which sells investment products and services is free to promote them, more investment products and services will be sold. If this catches on, more individuals will invest in their own futures. Individually and collectively, this could be good. No guarantees, of course, because investments can fail. Some investments, such as shares of the New York Times Company, can perform very poorly. Losing more than half of your investment is worse even than risking a potential conflict from an advisor. Duh.
The editorialists at the famed Times dish out some tough nanny talk to those folks in Congress who think Americans need to save and invest more and know that if they get advice, they are much more likely to do so.
I believe that ten years from now, the reforms allowing investment advice to be given will result in a dramatic improvement in the national savings rate.
Here are three pieces of solid and unconflicted advice: 1. Don't buy the New York Times; the fools give it away online for free. 2. Do not take their advice -- it is bad and conflicted (meaning: it will fail you and they only have their political interests in mind) 3. Don't buy their stock; let Sulzberger throw inherited money down his drain.
One last thing, the Times editorial contains a gratuitous and false charge that John Boehner's policy views on such matters derive from financial industry donors. That is a real airball of a cheap shot. He just wrote a law. You just wrote words on a fishwrapper. Bye Bye!
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:11 PM |
link
CAPITALISM RAP Click here for the song. Here are the lyrics.
(I feel so) Capitalissimo!Thanks to prolific Dave Duval for the link.
Words & Music by PRODOS
The rich get richer
The poor get richer
Check the score
Get the Big Picture
The rich get richer
The poor get richer
Name the cause
Get the Big Picture
The lights go on
I feel strong
Thomas Alva Edison
The rich get richer
The poor get richer
That’s the score
Get the Big Picture
The rich get richer
The poor get richer
What’s the cause?
I’ll draw you a Picture
Have a hug
Read Atlas Shrugged
Blow a kiss
To a Capitalist
C-A-P-I-T-A-L-I-S-M
Know what I am?
CAPITALISM?
What I want?
CAPITALISM?
Who’s your friend?
CAPITALISM?
Big and bright!
CAPITALISM!
Up in lights!
(I’m already Globalized!)
I feel so ...
I feel so ...
Yes! I feel so CAPITALISSIMO!
I feel so wonderful
I want to tell the whole world
This is my way
I’m coming through!
Yes! I feel so CAPITALISSIMO!
I want to tell the world
Fill the world and thrill
The world with Freedom!
Freedom is my way!
(INSTRUMENTAL)
The lights go on
The fight goes on
In the streets
On the blogs (thinker to thinker)
The lights go on
The fight goes on
Live long and
BARBOOLABONG!
Light a spark
My doggy barks
Start a fight
Doggy bites!
Feeling brave?
Feeling strong?
Got the picture, now?
I knew you would
Oh, I knew you would!
My baby’s brave
My baby’s strong
She blew a kiss
To a Capitalist! :-)
You want a friend
You got a friend
C-A-P-I-T-A-L-I-S-M
Creative lives
As yours and mine
Seek and know what I am
CAPITALISM?
What I want?
CAPITALISM?
Who’s your friend?
CAPITALISM?
Big and bright!
CAPITALISM!
Up in lights!
(I’m glad to globalized!)
Yes! I feel so CAPITALISSIMO!
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:03 PM |
link
CASE CLOSED: KELLER LIED New York Times "public editor" Byron "Barney" Calame can't quite bring himself to say it, but all the facts are there in his column today. Executive editor Bill Keller initially claimed the NSA wiretap story of December, 2005, had not been delayed until after the 2004 presidential election. Now Keller admits that it was. Keller: "It was probably inelegant wording...I don’t know what was in my head at the time." Hmmm. I do. Good analyses here and here. Thanks to David Duval for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:44 PM |
link
WHO NEEDS KRUGMAN? Just keep chatting with the AVR and pretty soon a whole op-ed column will emerge, ready for publication.
Thanks to Jameson Campaigne for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:37 PM |
link
PERFECT
Thanks to David Duval for the link to People's Cube.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:01 PM |
link
RAND SCENARIO DEBUTS ON TV Our friend Rick Gaber writes,
The movie Love Letters -- with a screenplay by Ayn Rand -- will be shown on Turner Classic Movies at 8pm Eastern on Wednesday, August 16th. Set your Tivos, DVDRs and VCRs if you haven't already gotten a copy of this delightful film.For more from Rick, click here.Click here. Then click on the "MONTH SCHEDULE" button in the second menu bar (scroll half way down).
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:07 PM |
link