![]()
|
Chronicle of the Conspiracy Friday, March 23, 2007 REBUILDING NEW ORLEANS The best way to get on with it is to get out. Sanford Ikeda:...you can see pockets of resilience. Hard-hit Broadmoor's active neighborhood association has formed partnerships with corporations and non-profits. Two-thirds of this sector's homes have been rebuilt. As early as October 2005, while Mayor Ray Nagin fiddled, the 5,000-plus parishioners of Mary Queen of Vietnam Church in New Orleans East were well organized and rebuilding. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:19 AM |
link
BRAD DEWRONG The stupidest morbidly obese economist alive proudly quotes a blogger who quotes him being wrong about high productivity assumptions making the officially calculated Social Security unfunded obligation go away. Brad DeLong sez, Faster productivity growth affects the cost of Social Security (initial benefits go up faster the faster is productivity growth). And it affects the revenues of Social Security (a richer economy pays more in Social Security taxes). But it affects revenues more.The system's unfunded obligation is $13 trillion, and it arises almost entirely from the excess of promises made, minus taxes collected, from participants in the program already. For future participants, the present value of taxes and scheduled benefits are roughly equal. Faster growth would increase both the future revenues and the future benefits in approximately equal measure. The revenues would arrive before the higher benefits must be paid, so there's an illusory improvement if you use a flawed metric like 75-year actuarial balance which counts the inflow but overlooks the outflow, but the actual total deficit, which is on the books already, isn't really affected. The idea that faster economic growth will eliminate unfunded liability is simply incorrect, as Jagadeesh Gokhale demonstrates in a definitive paper. Update... Okay, I shouldn't have been so ad hominem at the opening there. But I'm sure anyone who's ever read any of DeLong's critiques of me will recognize the satire involved. I should have referred to him as the stupidest hulking Marxist economist alive. Mea culpa. Update 2... Jabba the Economist responds. He attacks me for having said he was "simply incorrect" about Social Security. He admits that he was incorrect, but it wasn't "simple." My error. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:24 AM |
link
Thursday, March 22, 2007 THE MYSTERIOUS EAST In China, only the most heinous criminals get this kind of punishment, meted out by the Department of Redundancy Department:Police-run gang given prison jail in N. China Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 4:54 PM |
link
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 OTHER THAN THIS... ...the Democrats' proposed federal budget is pretty good. Congressman John Campbell (R-CA48):Their budget proposes the largest tax increase in American history - The Democrat's budget calls for a tax increase of every tax bracket, slashes the child tax credit, raises the death tax, and reinstates the marriage penalty. And this is just a sampling, there is more. In all, the Democrat's plan will cost taxpayers over $390 billion in the next 5 years. What is particularly frustrating about this ill-advised action is that the Democrats are blatantly ignoring the economic consequences and fiscal benefits that lower taxes have brought to the treasury the past few years. Revenue has increased in double digits the last two years alone because of the economic expansion encouraged by reduced taxation. This revenue growth has been crucial in reducing the deficit. The Democrats refuse to recognize this, though, and instead they just want to tax us to death. This is a recipe for disaster. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:22 PM |
link
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 IF JOHN EDWARDS IS CARBON NEUTRAL.... ...then so is the whole country. Greener-than-thou presidential candidate John Edwards justifies his 28,000 foot mega-mansion:The March 20 edition of CNN’s “American Morning” showed Edwards hyping global warming, promoting his energy plan that mandates carbon caps and claiming that his new mega-McMansion was actually being operated in a “carbon-neutral way.” He has recently declared his campaign “carbon neutral.”Okay, let's take him at his word. But then America itself should be let off the global warming hook. According to a paper published in the journal Science -- "A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink in North America Implied by Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide Data and Models," by S. Fan, M. Gloor, J. Mahlman, S. Pacala, J. Sarmiento, T. Takahashi, P. Tans -- the North American continent is better than carbon neutral -- it's a net carbon sink. The spatial distribution of the terrestrial carbon dioxide uptake is estimated by means of the observed spatial patterns of the greatly increased atmospheric carbon dioxide data set available from 1988 onward, together with two atmospheric transport models, two estimates of the sea-air flux, and an estimate of the spatial distribution of fossil carbon dioxide emissions. North America is the best constrained continent, with a mean uptake of 1.7 ± 0.5 Pg C year...mostly south of 51 degrees north. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 4:52 PM |
link
JOKE OF THE DAY Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 7:29 AM |
link
HOW CAN DEMOCRATS RAISE TAXES WITHOUT RAISING TAXES? Easy. By raising taxes. From the Wall Street Journal: Mr. Conrad, the Senate Budget Chairman, pulled off the neat magic trick of claiming his budget includes "no tax increase," even as it anticipates repeal of the Bush tax cuts after 2010. How does he pull that rabbit out of his hat? By positing what amounts to a giant asterisk where the tax increase is supposed to go and hoping no one will notice. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 7:29 AM |
link
Monday, March 19, 2007 THIS IS WHY I TRY NEVER TO EAT IN NEW JERSEY Seen in the men's restroom of a coffee shop in Plainsboro.
Update... Reader Anthony Mastroserio wonders, Plainsboro is just across U.S. Route 1 from Princeton. You don't think Paul Krugman put the sign up? Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:17 AM |
link
WHY NOT JUST PAINT A TARGET ON THEIR FOREHEADS? An op-ed by Arthur Brooks in the Wall Street Journal defends the super-rich: First, the super-rich have the ability -- and increasingly the willingness -- to be super-givers as well. Bill Gates is an obvious example: Through philanthropy, he has turned his attention to giving away the vast wealth he has accumulated, proving that giving money can signify as much success to a person as accumulating it can.With a defense like this, the rich might as well just give up and march into a gas chamber and get it over with. Their wealth doens't need to be justified on the grounds that it has any particular effect on other people. It doesn't need to be justified at all. Their wealth is their property, and that's the end of the discussion. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:37 AM |
link
|