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

Latest
Media Infiltrations:

Of Interventions and Conservative Principles
National Review Online
September 23, 2008
Quit Doling Out That Bad-Economy Line
The Washington Post
September 14, 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, March 17, 2007

MANKIW VERY MUCH   Here's an hilarious YouTube video of economist Yoram Bauman explaining what Greg Mankiw really meant in his ten basic principles of economics. Thanks to reader Mike Daley for this and many other good humor links.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 3:09 PM | link   

LIBERTY AT THE EDGE OF ANARCHY   "Oh yeah? Well, without government regulation, how could there be a highway system? Don't we at least need traffic lights?" Apparently not. Amazing that something this hynotically balletic would, in fact, probably be incredibly stressful. Thanks to Cafe Hayek for the link (they have more in a similar vein).

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:47 PM | link   

THE MYSTERIOUS EAST DAILY DOUBLE   Here's how to settle a hold-out problem:

Developers have turned a house into an island in China after the owner refused to move out.

The villa now stands alone in a 30ft deep man-made pit in Chongqing city...

The Chongqing Zhengsheng Real Estate Company wants to turn the area into a £40m 'Broadway' square, including apartments and a shopping mall.

But the owner of the villa says he won't move out unless the company pays his price - the equivalent of £1.3 million.

"The villa owner refuses to move, so the real-estate developer has had to dig out all around it to force him to," says a saleswoman at Weilian Real Estate Sales Company.

"He wants 20 million yuan, or he'll stay till the end of the world."


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:53 AM | link   

THE MYSTERIOUS EAST   The real estate bubble meets the China bubble:
A Chinese appeals court has upheld a ban on a company from selling land on the moon, ruling that "celestial bodies" could not be anyone's property, state media said.

Lunar Embassy to China, a Beijing-based company that sold plots of lunar land to individuals...offered to sell individuals ownership of an acre of lunar land for 298 yuan...each.

"Within three days of opening for business, it was reported that 34 clients had bought 49 acres of land, earning the company more than 14,000 yuan.

"There was no indication if the company provided discounts to clients who bought multiple plots."


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:48 AM | link   


Friday, March 16, 2007

HAS HE TRIED A SOFTENER?   An important policy statement from William Poole, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Saint Louis:
Expanded Mission Means a Sturdier Stool

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:53 AM | link   


Thursday, March 15, 2007

THE CLUB FOR NO-GROWTH   It's a new political influence organization on the left, and according to the Washington Post, it's modeled itself on the Club For Growth -- it intends to hold Democrats responsible for upholding liberal principles such as protectionism, the same way the Club holds Republicans responsible for conservative ideals such as free trade.
They The group, which includes a political action committee called Working For Us and a nonprofit entity named They Work For Us, carries the backing of people like Steve Rosenthal, a past political director at the AFL-CIO, Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of Moveon.org and -- most intriguingly -- blogger icon Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of the influential Daily Kos Web site.

Working For Us is modeled explicitly on the Club For Growth, an independent organization that over the last several election cycles has transformed itself into an electoral force by endorsing fiscally conservative candidates in contested primaries and then pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into districts to help those candidates win.

Here's what my DC lawyer/lobbyist friend knows who the new organization's first targets are going to be:
Democratic senator Max Baucus and congressman Charlie Rangel are the twin gatekeepers of free trade, one of the most important policies enabling individuals and companies to build such a prosperous economy. Some of their fellow Democrats want to cajole and intimidate Baucus, especially on trade issues.

Baucus and Rangel tend to be “yes, but” supporters of free trade. Most of the time they are mostly for it but with conditions to placate certain political factions on the center-left (not the far left). It’s sadly time to get out the book on speaking “triangulation.”

Check it out on the Working For Us website
...Max Baucus, as Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, will play a key role in the legislation to re-authorize fast-track before it expires in June.

Today, They Work for Us, an independent 501(c)(4) organization, launched a radio ad campaign in Montana targeting Baucus on fast-track...


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:18 PM | link   

WHERE'S GRETCHEN MORGENSON WHEN WE NEED HER?   The New York Times' true crime reporter on the business beat somehow managed to overlook this story, which would seem to fall so neatly into her usual narrative about how corporate management enriches itself with incentives that kick in even when the company performs poorly.
Even steep losses at The New York Times didn't stop its family owners from enriching themselves and insiders with bonuses for making "profits" when there were none.

Although its board acknowledged in filings yesterday that the media company lost $3.76 per share in 2006, directors revised its bottom-line bonus formula to exclude embarrassing write-downs, converting millions in losses into instant profits of $1.58 per share.

As a result, the revisions triggered a payday clause to unleash 75 percent of the cash bonuses targeted for top executives and family members that otherwise would have been lost, filings said.

CEO Janet Robinson, 56, got an 11 percent pay raise, including stock awards, to collect $4.4 million even though the company's stock lost about 12 percent in 2006. Separately, she's amassed another $4.13 million in restricted stock.

Chairman Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger, 55, failed to meet his company's original targets based on earnings per share, but the board voted anyway to let him collect as much as $3.4 million in bonus and stock awards by using more optimistic cash flows instead of final earnings per share.


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:57 PM | link   

THE WORST-CASE TAX SCENARIO   Dan Clifton at the American Shareholders Association has the darkest possible view for the future of US tax burdens. He says that under the budget now being put together by the Democrat-controlled congress, the 2003 tax cuts will be procedurally impossible to extend beyond their scheduled expiration after 2010. Here are three must-read docs from Dan:
Line by Line Item of Tax Increases Facing Expiration and their Cost (income, cap gains, dividends, estate, AMT, small business expensing, etc). Taxes will be raised $545 billion through 2012 and $2.1 trillion by 2017.

Tax Cuts for the Wealthy? The new IRS data shows a dramatic increase in progressivity from 1996-2004 despite $764 billion of tax cuts for the wealthy including a slashing of the capital gains tax rate from 28 to 15 percent.

Recent experience of Japan and China’s equity markets in response to higher capital gains taxes.


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:47 AM | link   


Wednesday, March 14, 2007

JOKE OF THE DAY  

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:49 AM | link   

IT'S ALL POLITICS, THEN AND NOW   Here's a long-forgotten episode from the early days of the Clinton administration -- courtesy of a March 26, 1993 New York Times story [no link available]:
Any hope that the Clinton Administration would operate a Justice Department free of political taint -- or even the appearance of political taint -- grew dim yesterday when the White House confirmed that it would dismiss the U.S. Attorney investigating one of its chief Congressional allies.

When Attorney General Janet Reno first announced the blanket dismissal of about 70 United States Attorneys who are Bush Administration holdovers, her aides said she might exempt those needed to wrap up significant investigations. But...Those booted out would include U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens of the District of Columbia, who...is in the middle of an investigation of irregularities in the House of Representatives and a detailed financial auditing of one of the most powerful House Democrats, Dan Rostenkowski, chairman of Ways and Means.

The Wall Street Journal edit page this morning has the same story, but isn't it delicious to read it covered in the New York Times, now so eager to see a Clinton returned to the White House?

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:20 AM | link   


Tuesday, March 13, 2007

CONSERVATIVES FOR PROTECTIONISM!   I've decided to support senators Byron Dorgan's and Hillary Clinton's proposed legislation under which "the White House would be required to take immediate action to reduce the trade deficit if the trade deficit exceeds 5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)." It's a great idea. The "immediate action" the White House should take would be to cut taxes. What better way to stimulate export growth? Look what happened after the 2003 Bush tax cuts -- export growth has surged, and never stopped surging, growing way faster than GDP month in and month out. Let's go for it! Pass that bill! Right on!


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:57 PM | link   

WHAT A STRANGE THING TO SAY...   ...of the late Betty Hutton:
It's like her obstetrician was Bob Clampett:

"Can't Stop Talking About Him"
"Murder, He Says"
"I'm Just a Square (In a Social Circle)"
"Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief"

The unpredictable Irwin Chusid strikes again.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:42 PM | link   

BE AFRAID (YOU KNOW THE REST)   Here's a scary graph -- it's a sneak preview from the Heritage Foundation's latest Federal Budget Chartbook, thanks to Heritage's blogger Robert Bluey. It shows the future track of federal tax receipts as a fraction of GDP, and it's up, up and away even if the 2003 tax cuts are extended past 2010. Why? The Alternative Minimum Tax and "real bracket creep" -- people moving into higher tax brackets as productivity growth makes everyone wealthier -- are the culprits. To prevent this, we have to think about cutting taxes. But right now the Dems in control just talk about hiking taxes.


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 5:57 PM | link   

KRUGMAN'S PROTECTIVE PAYWALL IS LOWERED   The New York Times set up "TimesSelect" -- under which you have to pay $50 a year to read their columnists -- in part to protect their columnists from the constant bashing they were getting on the blogs. Now the Times announces it will make the columnists free for college students. Perfect -- if there were ever a population unlikely to criticize the Times columnists, that would be it. I assume there is some filter for detecting and rejecting members of the Young Republicans. Thanks to my DC lawyer/lobbyist friend for the link.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 2:14 PM | link   

OUTTA HERE?   Intrade has listed futures contracts on whether attorney general Alberto Gonzales will resign. It's not looking good...


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:35 PM | link   

INCONVENIENT CRITICS   How did this ever get by the thought police at the New York Times? It's bufferred with the usual fulsome praise for Al Gore, but the burden of this story is that climate scientists are pretty unhappy with the hype in his film "An Inconvenient Truth."
“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

...Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:59 AM | link   

IT'S JUST NOT FAIR   Our friend Dan Clifton lets us know that the IRS's latest Statistics of Income bulletin is out, covering 2004 returns, and that it reveals how terribly inequitable the federal tax structure really is. The "tax burden" is profoundly "maldistributed"! It's not fair! For example:
Adjusted gross income (AGI) increased by 8.9 percent from the previous year to $7.4 trillion for 2005 and taxable income increased 9.5 percent to $5.1 trillion.
It's not fair! We've been in a recession ever since George Bush took office! How dare income increase 9.5% in a single year! Or:
...the top 1 percent of taxpayers...accounted for 36.9 percent of the total income tax reported, an increase from 34.3 percent in 2003.
It's not fair! The Bush tax cuts in 2003 were supposed to be a giveaway for the rich! And now they're paying a larger share of taxes than they were before! It's not fair! I'm calling my union rep!!

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:34 AM | link   


Monday, March 12, 2007

TRADE DEFICITS BY THE NUMBERS   It's all so simple if you just look at the numbers (instead of the union-driven politics). A new paper by Dan Griswold:
An almost universal consensus prevails that the record U.S. trade deficit for 2006 was a drag on U.S. economic growth. The consensus reflects a basic assumption that growing imports to the United States displace domestic production, reducing growth of real gross domestic product. But the consensus on trade deficits and growth ignores the actual record of the U.S. economy in recent decades and the positive correlation of imports to domestic production.

...economic growth has been more than twice as fast, on average, in years in which the current account deficit grew sharply compared to those years in which it actually declined. If trade deficits drag down growth, somebody forgot to tell the economy.

In reality, trade deficits tend to be pro-cyclical, growing when the economy expands and contracting when the economy slows or slips into recession. The trade deficit "improved" during each of the three recessions the nation has suffered in the past quarter century — in 1981-82, 1991, and 2001. With the help of payments from Gulf War allies, the current account actually moved briefly into surplus in 1991. Thus, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson stood on solid empirical ground when he noted in a March 1 speech on trade, "Critics often ask: If trade is so good for America, why do we run a trade deficit? These critics might be interested to know that the last time we ran a trade surplus [1991] our economy was in recession."


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:56 AM | link   


There's more...visit the archives!