The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid is a trademark of Donald L. Luskin

Latest
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

Krugman Truth Squad logo, courtesy Tom Miller, Atomic Art: admin@atomicart.com

Peter Sellers and Peter Bull in ''Dr. Strangelove'' Columbia Pictures, 1964 -- Click to order!

"What has been your worst blogging experience?
Donald Luskin."
-- Brad DeLong

"That's a guy who actually stalks me on the Web and once stalked me personally."
-- Paul Krugman

"I'm saying this...guy's a jerk."
-- Charlie Gasparino

What I'm reading:
cover
A Bound Man
Shelby Steele

What I'm listening to:
cover
Langley Schools Music Project

What I'm watching:
cover
There Will Be Blood

What I'm playing:
cover
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!

Amazon Honor SystemClick Here to PayLearn More

Thanks to Irwin Chusid, public editor.

Copyright 2002 thru 2008
Donald L. Luskin
All rights reserved.
"The Conspiracy to
Keep You Poor and Stupid"
and "Krugman Truth Squad"
are trademarks of
Donald L. Luskin
www.poorandstupid.com

Logo by Tommy Carnase 1995

"The road is cleared," said Galt.
"We are going back to the world."
He raised his hand
and over the desolate earth
he traced in space
the sign of the dollar.

From Atlas Shrugged
by Ayn Rand

From each as they choose,
to each as they are chosen.

From Anarchy, State and Utopia
by Robert Nozick

"there is some shit I will not eat"

From i sing of olaf glad and big
by e. e. cummings

Some of the sites
that have linked to us!
* recently updated


In Association with Amazon.com

Powered by Blogger Pro™

Powered by Blogger Pro™

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!

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...

Come on, Peter. Play nice.

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 November

German unemployment declined in November, according to statistics released Thursday, showing that Europe's largest economy can continue to grow even as the U.S. economy slows.

Unemployment in Germany, on an adjusted basis, fell to 10.2% from 10.4% in October, the German Federal Labor Office said Thursday.

Huh? 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...

By any measure compared to Microsoft, broadband markets are vastly more competitive and fragmented than Microsoft’s core markets. No broadband company has anywhere near Microsoft’s depth or breadth of market share, nationally and internationally, and in both consumer and business markets.

Is Microsoft implicitly asking for permanent regulation of its operating system and Office?

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...

"Now that Republicans are in the opposition, they're going to be the most saintly budget hawks you can imagine," said American Enterprise Institute economist Kevin A. Hassett. With the absence of power, he notes, comes the absence of accountability and blame. As Hassett put it, "being in the minority means never having to say you're sorry."

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

...Police in northern China's Hebei Province have detained Zhu Laiyong who sold Sudan IV, the carcinogenic industrial red dye, to poultry farmers who had mixed the dye with feed. The investigation found Zhu sold the red dye to poultry farmers after he promised to purchase contaminated red-yolk duck eggs at a higher price.


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

A front-page article Thursday about Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.’s enlisting of Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, to help persuade China to change its economic policies referred incorrectly to the amount of dollar-denominated American debt held by China. It is several hundred billion dollars, not several hundred million.


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.

This project only exists as an excuse to spend money. There is no need for it. The VA patient population doesn’t need it, nor is there even any political credit to be received. The locals are either intimidated, unaware or outraged. The local media is mostly disinterested or stupefied.

The famous Alaskan pork barrel "bridge to nowhere" was outrageous -- but it was only an example of congressional hubris hitting a new high. It was, as they say in finance, a nonrecurring event. This VA project presents an opportunity to go after the more prevalent virus, namely the perception on Capitol Hill that project spending is rewarded back home.

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.

The Barnes & Noble where Edwards will hawk his book pays $7 an hour to start. The Wal-Mart that sits just yards away pays $7.50 an hour.


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 Choices
As 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?"

"Doh!", on the other hand, is an interjection uttered when the speaker realizes that he has made a stupid blunder with impending unpleasant consequences.

This interjection was invented for the TV cartoon series 'The Simpsons' and is a favorite utterance of Homer Simpson.

I prefer the spelling "D'oh!", with an apostrophe, which represents that in pronouncing it, one form one's mouth to pronounce a "d", builds up some pressure in the mouth, then releases the breath. It's sort of like a glottal stop, but at the front of the mouth, not in the throat.

Here is a demented list of all utterances of "D'oh!" in the cartoon series.

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.

Obviously, Mark has more time (and inclination) to watch the Simpsons than I do...

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.

Oh my god, look at this: people are selling their businesses for what they might ACTUALLY be worth!

Others have moved to different, higher-paying fields — from academia to Wall Street, for example — and a growing number of entrepreneurs have seen windfalls tied largely to expanding financial markets, which draw on capital from around the world. The latter phenomenon has allowed, say, the owner of a small mail-order business to sell his enterprise for tens of millions instead of the hundreds of thousands that such a sale might have brought 15 years ago.
And then there are those dratted entrepreneurs:
But among new occupations, the winners include numerous partners in recently formed hedge funds and private equity firms that invest or acquire companies. Real estate developers and lawyers are more in evidence today among the very rich. So are dot-com entrepreneurs as well as scientists who start a company to market an invention or discovery, soon selling it for many millions. And from corporate America come many more chief executives than in the past.
Of course, not all of this wealth is in cash:
Seventy-five percent of the chief executives in a sample of 100 publicly traded companies had a net worth in 2004 of more than $25 million mainly from stock and options in the companies they ran, according to a study by Carola Frydman, a finance professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management. That was up from 31 percent for the same sample in 1989, adjusted for inflation.
So they grew or even started these companies and now they own STOCK in them? The horror! Where will it end? I trust the Democrats will soon put an end to all this unbridled capitalism...

In a rational world we would be thankful for a system that allows these people to prosper--and thus create the new drugs and technology for the next generation--not to mention the jobs and wealth...


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   


There's more...visit the archives!