![]()
|
Chronicle of the Conspiracy Saturday, February 09, 2008 KUDLOW REPLAYPosted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:49 PM |
link
Friday, February 08, 2008 TAX FEAR We're quoted this morning in USA Today:Perhaps the biggest concern: that President Bush's 2003 tax cuts, which lowered rates on capital gains and dividends to 15%, won't be renewed when they are set to expire at the end of 2010. McCain said he plans to extend the cuts, but both Democrats said they are likely to let at least some of the cuts expire. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 7:43 AM |
link
Thursday, February 07, 2008 SHELBY STEELE ON BARACK OBAMAI've been enjoying Shelby Steele's remarkable book about Barack Obama, A Bound Man. Steele is a scholar at the Hoover Institution who, like Obama, had a black father and a white mother. Based on his reading of Obama's own writings, Steele argues that Obama seeks to identify himself as a black as part of a quest for his absent black father, enmeshing him in complicated ways in the demands of identity politics. Steele is frustrated that such politics -- which he believes keep blacks oppressed by causing them to view themselves in relation to white guilt -- are at odds with the revealed superiority of personal determination of the type that Obama has clearly exhibited in his own achievements. Here's a sample: Update... Jim Allen says to check out this video interview with Steele. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:13 PM |
link
JOKE OF THE DAY Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:43 AM |
link
TAKE THAT, BILL GATES.... ...with your BS about a kindler, gentler form of capitalism otherwise known as charity. From the Wall Street Journal this morning: The number of poor people who can't afford food for their children is a lot smaller than it used to be -- thanks to capitalism. Capitalism didn't create malnutrition, it reduced it. The globalization of capitalism from 1950 to the present has increased annual average income in the world to $7,000 from $2,000. Contrary to popular legend, poor countries grew at about the same rate as the rich ones. This growth gave us the greatest mass exit from poverty in world history. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:39 AM |
link
Wednesday, February 06, 2008 KUDLOW REPLAYPosted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:38 PM |
link
FOX BUSINESS NETWORK REPLAY Thanks to Neil Cavuto for a very gracious interview about Ron Paul! Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:11 AM |
link
FASHION SIGNS OF THE TIMES
Thanks to Jameson Campaigne. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:57 AM |
link
JOKE OF THE DAY Or is it...? Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:53 AM |
link
Tuesday, February 05, 2008 THE MYSTERIES OF KEYNESIANISM So what exactly do "C" "W" and "A" stand for? Thanks to Mark Spahn for daring to ask.Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 3:35 PM |
link
Monday, February 04, 2008 THIS IS REFRESHING Even liberal economics uber-hack Dean Baker says of Paul Krugman that "he does misrepresent the issues..."Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:43 AM |
link
JOKE OF THE DAY Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:27 AM |
link
TO DOWD OR NOT TO DOWD? Some readers have complained that I "Dowdified" -- that is, isolated and took out of context -- Bill Clinton's quote that "We just have to slow down our economy..." in order to address global warming. Anyone who clicked on the link I provided found this context: "And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties -- would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.' We could do that.Okay, so I "Dowdified" old Bill. So sue me. And now that I've revealed the whole context, let's rip it to shreds, since it's actually worse than the "Dowdified" short version. Clinton indulges in the fantasy that great profits can be had and much economic activity stimulated by government mandating that people do things they wouldn't do without the mandate -- as though the mandate were a kind of all-else-equal add-on to the economic environment. In fact, when people are forced by government to do inefficient things like make plug-in electric cars, they are deflected from the more efficient economic activity in which they would otherwise be engaged. If Bill's logic were correct, then Hillary (as president) should mandate that everyone dig holes in his neighbor's yard and fill them up again, and charge $10,000 per hole each time. Just think of the economic activity that would result from everyone doing that all at the same time! But don't think about all the economic activity that really added value that those people were doing already, that they'll have to stop doing when they start trading hole digging and filling services with each other. There, all you readers who were so concerned I was being unfair to Bill Clinton. Feel better? Update... My DC-insider friend "Mick Danger," who provided the quote in the first place writes, Your response is thorough, very unDowdy. See also Paul Krugman today in the New York Times where he praises Hillary's mandated health insurance over Obama's desire to make health insurance more affordable. Elsewhere in the NYT, buried in a story about the Sunday political talkshows by Alessandra Stanley is a wonderful quote by Hillary, "We will have enforcement mechanisms." What little context given in the story is that Stephanopoulos was inquiring how her mandates would work and whether workers might have their share of health insurance garnished from their wages. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:03 AM |
link
Sunday, February 03, 2008 AT LAST IT CAN BE TOLD! Here's why Teddy endorsed Barack Obama:
Thanks to Dave Duval for sharing the truth. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:57 PM |
link
KUDLOW REPLAY Here's the YouTube video of Friday's hit. Sigh... I'm grateful to have so much TV exposure thanks to Brother Larry, but this was a frustrating one. The topic was the potential rescue of Ambac by a consortium of banks, a subject about which -- as a direct professional participant in markets -- I have a great deal of valuable expert opinion. But I can hardly get a word in edgewise, what with having to share oxygen with Charles Gasparino -- now a CNBC "On-Air Editor," whatever the hell that means, and formerly an uncritical and dutiful conduit for Eliot Spitzer's leaks at the Wall Street Journal, which was enough to get him a big advance to write a book on corporate crooks that was such a flop it never even made it to paperback -- paraphrsing with the excited air of inside information acquired by his investigative reporting nothing whatsoever beyond what anyone could have read last week in wire stories, all larded with an oily crust of cynicism and negativity; Andy Busch, an FX spokesman for BMO Capital Markets, who launched into a spiel about how the Ambac rescue efforts are being secretly guided by top federal agencies, finally falling so in love with the sound of his own bulls**t that he treated it as fact that the Fed is "leading the charge," not New York state insurance regulator "Daniel," as he incorrectly gave Dinallo's name; and Michael Panzner, a permabear peddling a perfectly awful catastrophe book, Financial Armaggedon, who looks like a televangelist and never ever actually says anything on Kudlow other than some version of "Well, gee, I don't know exactly, but everything is really terrible, I think, kind of. Yeah, that's it." Once I finally got the floor, no sooner did I have ten words out of my mouth than Doug Kass had to intervene -- having just had two minutes of his own to drone on in that painfully somnolent know-it-all way of his. I got the floor back from Kass easily enough. But as soon as I was done articulating an entirely feasible solution structure for Ambac, there was Gasparino again, acting as though I were a complete idiot for having any hope at all, since according to the wisdom of this "on-air editor" if there were a feasible solution it would have already been implemented. To quote him precisely, attitude and all: "Lemme tell ya sometin -- if it wuz dat easy dey wudda done it by now." Perfect! Just the kind of superficial logic to apply when one actually has no knowledge whatsoever of the actual facts of a story, but finds one's self on TV having to pretend. But, at the same time, how pathetically lame: I guess the Microsoft tender for Yahoo! didn't happen on Friday, then. If it were going to happen, it would have happened on Thursday (wait -- that's impossible, too, since for that to be true it would have happened on Wednesday... and so on). Larry's show is getting great ratings, so he must know what he's doing. But sometime, just for laughs, couldn't we try an experiment where just a couple of smart people who actually know what they're talking about get to actually exchange ideas with each other with enough time and courtesy to actually be able to make their cases? The discussion on Ambac would have been so much more useful for viewers if it had just been Larry, Doug and me. These "on-air editors" and FX chatterers and catastophe book promoters add nothing. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 5:50 PM |
link
|