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

Latest
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

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
The Happy Body
Aniela and Jerzy Gregorek

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

What I'm watching:
cover
Star Trek

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!

Thanks to Irwin Chusid, public editor.

Copyright 2002 thru 2009
Donald L. Luskin
don-at-luskin-dot-net
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


In Association with Amazon.com

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!

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.

These pockets of productivity are notable in that people succeeded with little if any involvement from the central government. To my colleague Peter Gordon of the University of Southern California and me, this sends an important message: Rather than try to fix a doomed political process, neighborhoods should be allowed to secede from the city.

At first blush this idea probably sounds radical, even absurd. But secession is the logical extension of the Unified New Orleans Plan, which, in an earlier incarnation, allowed each neighborhood to hire urban planners to coordinate post-Katrina reconstruction. If neighborhoods can be trusted with this vital task, why can't they manage their own security, garbage collection, noise ordinances and road maintenance? Devolving power in this way goes far beyond UNOP's proposed "citizen participation" and enables neighborhoods to more effectively mobilize their energy and know-how.


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 key is that the indexation of benefits after retirement to the price level, not the wage level, adds a wedge between Social Security's costs and its resources roughly equal to half of life expectancy at retirement times the trend productivity growth rate. Each 0.1 percentage point increase in the growth rate of productivity reduces the long-horizon Social Security deficit by approximately 0.1% of taxable payroll.... Real wage and productivity growth of 3.0% per year (as opposed to the 1.1% per year assumed by SSA) would wipe out the 75-year deficit.

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.

Their budget proposes massive increases in spending, expansion of government - As highlighted above, revenue is not the problem, out of control spending is the problem. The Democrats, however, don't seem to care. Their singular goal is to spend more and make government bigger. In that spirit, their budget is calling for a $42.5 billion increase in non-defense spending this year. Yikes.

Their budget proposes no offsets to pay for these increases - Despite these huge increases, the Democrats offer no way to pay for them except by raiding Social Security and raising taxes. This is completely irresponsible. Governing is about making tough decisions and ending governments programs that are ineffective and wasteful -- even if they sound good. Their budget, however, has expansion across the board regardless of effectiveness. Hardly fiscal responsibility.

Their budget proposes no fix to the AMT - In spite of their continued talk of fixing this increasingly oppressive tax, they have done nothing and are allowing it to continue to grow and adversely affect more taxpayers.

Their budget proposes no entitlement reform plan - The Budget Committee has heard testimony from several witnesses warning of the unsustainable growth of entitlement programs likes Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Repeated experts have said that if entitlements are not reformed, in the very near future, the budget will either be completely consumed by them, or Congress will have to double current tax levels. Do we really want to saddle our children and grandchildren with our debt? The Democrats apparently do.

Their budget proposes no accountability standards - With all of these increases in expenditures, the Democrats are conspicuously silent on all the current waste in the federal budget. Instead of making the government more efficient with what it is already operating under, they are just calling for more money. I do not know of one business that operates in such a backward fashion. We need to promote efficiency and accountability -- not just blindly sign away taxpayer dollars to useless government programs.


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.

Mr. Conrad has no intention of extending the Bush tax cuts, which he voted against and whose repeal would slap the economy in 2011 with the largest tax increase in U.S. history. But Senate Democrats don't want anyone to know this, at least not before the 2008 election. So Mr. Conrad says his budget revenue estimates "assume that Congress will take steps to counter the effects of the expiration of tax cuts in 2010 in a manner that does not add to the nation's debt burden." How so? Well, "this additional revenue can be achieved without raising taxes by closing the tax gap, shutting down illegal tax shelters, addressing tax havens, and simplifying the tax code," he avers.


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.

Second, as long as a fortune is earned (as opposed to stolen, squeezed from governments or otherwise extorted from citizens), pecuniary acquisitiveness is directly related to the comfort of others. Larry Ellison's company has created tens of thousands of jobs, introduced technology that has benefited all parts of the economy and paid billions in taxes. When Mr. Ellison measures his success with money, he spills opportunity and economic abundance onto all of us, directly or indirectly.

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