![]()
|
Chronicle of the Conspiracy Saturday, December 02, 2006 HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE MENTIONED KRUGMAN... ...but he did, and I got a little excited. Here's a replay of Friday's Kudlow & Company appearance on YouTube, in which Larry asked me what I thought of Paul Krugman's recession forecast.Update... Here's Larry's own detailed critique of Krugman's recession forecast. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:22 AM | link
Friday, December 01, 2006 MORE SOCIAL SECURITY SQUABBLING My post earlier this week on Social Security reform has generated some sharp response from both sides of the reform community. Not unexpectedly, allies of Peter Ferrara, whom I disparaged as acting unconstructively, have responded angrily and, well, unconstructively. In this blog posting, Tom Giovanetti of the Institute for Policy Innovation, which sponsors Ferrara's work, uses sleaze tactics to discredit me. He quotes me out of context as having say "Ferrara's claims are basically lies" without so much as an ellipsis, when in fact, I said, "Based on my conversations with White House sources, Ferrara's claims are basically lies." There's all the difference in the world between my full sentence and the fragment Giovanetti isolated -- and Giovanetti says not a word to actually support the truthfulness of Ferrara's statements in question against my representations to the contrary based on sources. And he tries to portray me as a hypocrite by citing highly favorable things I wrote three years ago about an earlier version of Ferrara's plan. Fair enough: at one point I agreed with Ferrara. But now I don't. And in my recent post I gave my reasons, which Giovanetti doesn't dispute one bit. I feel it supports my basic point about Ferrara's unconstructive approach that Giovanetti would respond in such an unconstructive way -- an attack, rather than a response.James Hamilton of For Our Grandchildren gets it right when he admonishes Ferrara: Luskin rightly notes that Ferrara's "lies" only help provide a wedge that opponents can use against us...The oppoonents of reform must be getting a good laugh at our expense. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:12 AM | link
Thursday, November 30, 2006 DO YOU HAVE TO HATE AMERICA TO GET A JOB AS A REPORTER? From a Dow Jones story today:German Unemployment Falls In NovemberHuh? At the last report, unemployment in the US fell from a low 4.6% to an even lower 4.4%. An unemployment rate even vaguely like Germany's would be regarded here as evidence of a recession! Yet this reporter manages to make it seem as though the German economy is doing great, while the US economy is in the tank! Thanks to reader Vincent Reda for the link. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 4:17 PM | link
WE DON'T MIND GETTING MUGGED -- AT LEAST FOR THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT Reader Ben Cunningham sends us this sad news from Canada, whose socialized health care system is often presented as a model for the US to follow: According to an Ipsos Reid survey among the general public, a majority of Canadian adults rank a patient wait times guarantee as more important than any other of the Government's priorities. Of the five policy promises made by the Government of Canada during the last federal election, 42% of Canadians said that "a patient wait time guarantee that would reduce wait times for key health services" was the most important to them personally. This compares to lowering taxes (19%), restoring accountability to Ottawa (14%), tackling crime (14%), and implementing a choice in childcare program (9%). Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 4:11 PM | link
DISSING THE ECONOMY AGAIN The New York Times grudgingly reports on yesterday's upward revision to third quarter GDP. But by the third paragraph, once the goods-news facts are out of the way, the Times immediately descends into bad-news opinion. But new signs surfaced yesterday suggesting the economy may be headed for a steeper decline during the rest of the year, with corporate inventories bulging and home sales deteriorating further. Economists said that the slide in growth had still not bottomed out on its way down from the lofty 5.6 percent expansion in the first quarter. “Things kind of tailed off in the third quarter, so you entered the fourth quarter without much momentum,” said Joshua Shapiro, chief United States economist with MFR, an economic research firm. “We’re not off to a great start.”So that's what "economists said"? How professional, how scientific, how exact. "Things kind of trailed off"? "...without much momentum"? Let's see now, are "trailing off" and "momentum" neo-classical concepts, or Keynesian concepts? Or are they just blather that media-whore fakers are willing to spew for reporters looking for the dark side of a story? Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:10 AM | link
Wednesday, November 29, 2006 BLOG READERS SURVEY The University of Wisconsin is taking a survey of blog readers, and asked me to post a link to that my readers could participate. Click here to participate!Update... The first screen offers a pulldown menu asking you to identify the name of the blog that referred you. We are listed as "Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid." Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:39 PM | link
THE SOCIAL SECURITY DEBATE -- BETWEEN CONSERVATIVES I suppose there are no ideological rivalries as intense as those between people who basically agree. And so it is with Social Security reform, the controversial political battle the White House engaged unsuccessfully in 2005, and now says it intends to engage again. Some reformers are characterizing the White House's current efforts as a complete sell-out, the worst combination of higher taxes, lower benefits and no personal accounts. Here's reform advocate Peter Ferrara: President Bush plans to try to revive his Social Security reform effort by offering the Democrats tax increases to get them to go along with a package of long term cuts in future promised benefits. White House minions have been on the Hill for most of this year trying to sell this plan to Republicans. Personal accounts are gone from the reform effort, or will receive only token support to be given up to close the final deal with the Democrats.Based on my conversations with White House sources, Ferrara's claims are basically lies. In order to make a dialog with Democrats possible, the White House has announced repeatedly that it will at least consider all possible solutions, as indeed it should. That's not to say that the White House has already pre-agreed to the worst possible Democratic solution. Of course Ferrara is spreading these lies in order to make the White House deny them, to get the White House on record as endorsing only pro-growth solutions. So in that sense, it's a good thing. But at the same time Ferrara is promoting an agenda of too-good-to-be-true solutions -- such as the budget-busting fantasy of funding personal accounts from general revenues. By promoting fantasies like that at the same time as he accuses the White House of selling out, Ferrara makes realistic solutions difficult to achieve. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:03 PM | link
THE REGULATED SEEKS REGULATION (FOR OTHERS) Microsoft has led the charge for so-called "net neutrality," a new regime of broadband carrier regulation designed to throttle Internet content competition from telephone companies and cable operators. Telecom guru Scott Cleland thinks that Microsoft had better think twice before it throws too many regulatory stones from its glass house: Microsoft has much more to lose than gain from Net Neutrality. Just like it’s never smart to play with matches in a windy weather when you own a forest, it’s never smart to push for permanent regulation of market power when the political winds are blowing much more regulatory and your company has more market power than any other...Thanks to my DC lawyer/lobbyist friend for the link. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:09 AM | link
WATCHDOG OR LAPDOG? Can fiscally conservative Republicans be any more effective in the minority than they were in the majority? A stimulating Washington Post story this morning suggests that they can, using their disempowered minority status to take principled positions that they didn't have the integrity to take as an empowered majority. In Congress, the minority life is mostly talk and little action, and yet for advocates of minimal spending and low taxes, that may not turn out to be so bad. It's easier to promote fiscal discipline in theory than to practice it as a party leader or committee chairman...The first test of this proposition is upon us, as three principled conservatives attempt to block passage of nine spending bills that stand as unfinished business in this legislative year. "We need to examine the bills in the light of the last election, in which I think the American people were unhappy with our spending habits," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) explained to reporters. He and his allies, including Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), want Congress to pass a "continuing resolution" to extend funding from the previous fiscal year. "We'd save the taxpayers a lot of money," Sessions said.The conservatives have been cheered on by the Club For Growth's blog, which has carried the story of the continuing resolution long before the mainstream media picked it up. It's time to gear up. The Senate showdown on earmarks is next week. The good guys, Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint, are battling the appropriators and the big spenders. There were indications late last week that a "continuing resolution" would be issued, which would potentially save taxpayers up to $17 billion. However, I'm now getting word from a source on the Hill that the CR isn't a done deal.Watch carefully. This will be a test case that will determine whether the GOP majority will be a principle watchdog deserving of a return to power in two years, or a corrupt lapdog deserving of its new-found minority status. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:49 AM | link
Tuesday, November 28, 2006 NOT EXACTLY A SMART ARBITRAGE ...but a great headline, you have to admit. Shanghai Daily has the scoop.Man detained in duck egg scandal Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:30 PM | link
NOT QUADRILLIONS? Most "errors" in the New York Times are in the direction of portraying the economy as weak, or on the brink of doom. Here's a rare exception: Correction: Nov. 24, 2006 Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:17 PM | link
WHERE DOES PORK COME FROM, DADDY? Critics of pork-barrel government spending love to point to ridiculous project like Alaska's "bridge to nowhere." That one was an obvious target of ridicule. But most pork isn't so obvious. Most pork is disguised as high-minded and benevolent government do-gooding, designed to make it difficult for critics to assail without being accused of being cold-hearted. But one doesn't have to be a cold-hearted opponent of do-gooding in order to oppose pork projects whose do-gooding is based on lies in the first place. Consider the case of the expansion of a Veterans Administration facility near Pittsburgh. The VA's planning projections, used to justify the project, show rising service demands by patients in the area. The VA's own data shows that actual service use trends and veteran demographics indicate that the Pittsburgh VA has passed its peak volume and that demand will begin a steady decline before the new facility is even completed in 2009. Other VA documents indicate that existing capacity at the nearby Heinz Division, in addition to existing and planned new capacity at the University Drive Division, can readily accommodate realistic service demand estimates. This $200+ million project got part of its momentum from Senator Arlen
Specter trying to give his colleague Rick Santorum something to brag about --
bringing federal money back to the Pittsburgh area -- as if that would help his
doomed reelection efforts. Santorum lost, but the pork project lives on. Besides
being useless and a waste of federal money, the VA expansion will cost the
neighboring townships millions in extra costs for highway, waste treatment and
other expenditures for decades to come. To protect my sources, no links are available on this story. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:15 PM | link
KUDLOW REPLAY For any of you who missed my impassioned defense of bond shorts on Kudlow & Co. yesterday, here is a YouTube replay. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:23 AM | link
Monday, November 27, 2006 TWO AMERICAS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE The ManchesterUnion Leader on a John Edwards book signing:...Edwards is holding his book signing at Barnes & Noble instead of Wal-Mart. Which is too bad for his anti-low-wages campaign, because in Manchester Wal-Mart pays hourly employees more than Barnes & Noble does. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:22 PM | link
THAT DAMN UPWARD MOBILITY AGAIN! The New York Times discovers afresh what should have been understood as an axiom of economics. The headline of a front-pager today: Lure of Great Wealth Affects Career ChoicesAs reader Aron Spencer puts it in a single syllable, "Doh!" The story is about people with training in traditional fields such as medicine and law, who are using that training for less traditional careers in Wall Street and management, and earning far higher incomes. You'd think it would be good news that people are finding paths to personal wealth. Yet the Times manages to make it sound like something bad. One doctor who went to Wall Street reflects for the Times on doctors who stayed in medicine: "They went to the top programs, they remained true to their ethics and really had very pure goals. And then they...saw that somebody else who was 10 times less smart was making much more money."So going to Wall Street involves being untrue to one's ethics? Having impure goals? And here's a quote from a couple of "experts" -- the same left-leaning academic economists who can always be counted on to show up in Times stories like this: "The bigger the prize, the greater the effort that people are making to get it," said Edward N. Wolff, a New York University economist who studies income and wealth. "That effort is draining people away from more useful work."The reporter has a twinge of conscience, apparently, and acknowledged the value-loaded last sentence -- but then uses the acknowledgment itself as a non sequitur jumping off point to "prove" a proposition that the quote didn't even address: What kind of work is most useful is a matter of opinion, of course, but there is no doubt that a new group of the very rich have risen today far above their merely affluent colleagues.There's even an "expert" quote designed to piss on the philanthropy of the newly rich: As some have grown enormously rich, they are turning to philanthropy in a competition that is well beyond the means of their less wealthy peers. "The ones with $100 million are setting the standard for their own circles, but no longer for me," said Robert Frank, a Cornell University economist who described the early stages of the phenomenon in a 1995 book, "The Winner-Take-All Society," which he co-authored.Try to imagine this same story written for Forbes. All the same facts. But instead of this fault-finding envious nostalgia for a bygone era in which reporters weren't quite so relatively underpaid, there would be a celebration of the potential for upward mobility. Update... Reader Mark Spahn has a nit to pick: I think what Aron meant to say was "Duh!" "Duh!" means "Well, yeah, isn't it stupefyingly obvious?"Update 2 [11/28/2006]... Aron replies: I actually did mean D'oh!; the NYT has just realized (well, at least one reporter), how economically ignorant it has been for so long.Update 3 [11/28/2006]... Reader David Zuger comments :What an infuriating article -- just reeking of envy, suspicion and mean spirits (and I'm a liberal Democrat, kind of). The very clear subtext is: how dare these highly educated people think for themselves, choose their own career paths, want to make more money, create new businesses and jobs! They should be content to stay in the roles they were trained for, keep their noses to the grindstone, and trust the government to take care of them and redistribute any "excess" wealth they accumulate. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 7:14 PM | link
THE RICH DON'T PAY ENOUGH OF NOTHING Ben Stein interviews Warren Buffett, whom he describes as "one of the smartest men on the planet" (in his office, which Stein describes, as obliged by standard journalistic technique when talking about Buffett, as "unpretentious"). Here's the summary, a la Stein: Put simply, the rich pay a lot of taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected, but they don’t pay a lot of taxes as a percentage of what they can afford to pay, or as a percentage of what the government needs to close the deficit gap.Huh? The "deficit gap" (which would seem to be a redundancy -- it's either a "gap" or a "deficit," but not both) is, by definition, an amount of taxes not paid by anyone. So how can the rich pay a disproportionately small percentage of taxes that nobody pays in the first place? Thanks to Jameson Campaigne for the link. Update... Reader Raja Sekhar adds, Are we to assume that Mr. Buffett's $37 billion donation to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will be used to make charitable gifts to the IRS? If not, perhaps he should mind his own business... Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:35 AM | link
|