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, February 09, 2008

KUDLOW REPLAY  


Posted 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.

Don Luskin, chief investment officer at TrendMacro, fears the Democrats will eliminate the lower tax rates before they expire. Higher tax rates reduce the after-tax returns of stocks, making them less-attractive investments. An analysis by Clifton suggests stocks could fall by as much as 10% if the capital gains tax rate returns to 20% and dividends are taxed at a person's normal income bracket.

Luskin says that with both Clinton and Obama having a good shot at defeating McCain, there is concern on Wall Street that Democrats will pursue anti-growth strategies if they capture the White House. He says Wall Street quakes at Clinton's proposal to freeze adjustable-rate mortgages for five years.


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 7:43 AM | link  


Thursday, February 07, 2008

SHELBY STEELE ON BARACK OBAMA  

I'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:

...Barack Obama is a man who truly wants to be black, a man who is determined to resolve the ambiguity he was born into.

Does this disqualify Obama for the presidency? It may. There is a price to be paid for fellow-traveling with a racial identity as politicized and demanding as today's black identity. This identity wants to take over a greater proportion of the self than other racial identities do. It wants to have its collective truth -- its defining ideas of grievances and protest -- become personal truth. And then it wants to make loyalty to this truth a reflex within the self, within one's own thoughts, so that all competing thoughts are conceived in disloyalty...

...You must join a politics that keeps alive the idea of white obligations to blacks. Social determinism must be your worldview, so that you see blacks as "systematically" and "structurally" aggrieved even when no actual oppression is apparent. You may mention black responsibility in relation to black uplift, but to "be black" you must always land on a deterministic explanation of black difficulty. Determinism automatically blames and obligates white power for black problems, so it becomes the central faith of the black identity. When a black argues against it, he invokes the Uncle Tom label...

The point is not that Barack Obama is a blind and true-believing follower of this identity. Few blacks are. The point is that he is accountable to it. If, for example, Obama broke with this determinism by saying that blacks themselves were largely responsible for closing the academic achievement gap with whites, he would likely be seen as an Uncle Tom for letting whites "off the hook." So, in order to be black, he must pay tribute to a determinism that makes whites ultimately responsible for black uplift, even when it is obvious that only black responsibility will make a difference.

These are the identity pressures within which Barack Obama lives. He is vulnerable to them because he has hungered for a transparent black identity much of his life. He needs to "be black." And this hunger -- no matter how understandable it may be -- means that he is not in a position to reject the political liberalism inherent in his racial identity. For Obama, liberalism is blackness.

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.

The parts of the world that are still poor are suffering from too little capitalism. Foreign direct investment in Africa today, although rising, amounts to only 1% of global flows. That's because the environment for private business in Africa is still hostile. There are some industry and country success stories in Africa, but not enough.

Mr. Gates also announced his foundation is starting "a partnership that gives African farmers access to the premium coffee market, with the goal of doubling their income from their coffee crops." This is fine as a modest endeavor to help a few Rwandan and Kenyan coffee farmers, but it's hardly going to remake capitalism. The main obstacles to exports in poor countries are domestic ones like corruption and political strife, not lack of interest from rich-country buyers for premium coffee.

Moreover, how do philanthropists choose just which product is going to be the growth engine of a country? Much research suggests that "picking winners" through government industrial policy hasn't worked. Winners are too unpredictable to be discovered by government bureaucrats, much less by outside philanthropists. Why did Egypt capture 94% of Italy's import market for bathroom ceramics? Why did India, an economy with scarce skilled labor, become a giant in skill-intensive IT and outsourcing? Why did Kenya capture 39% of the European market in cut flowers? Why did tiny Lesotho become a major textile exporter to the U.S.? Why did the Philippines take over 72% of the world market in electronic integrated circuits? Because for-profit capitalists embarked on a decentralized search for success.


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:39 AM | link  


Wednesday, February 06, 2008

KUDLOW REPLAY  


Posted 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.

"But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.

"And guess what? The only places in the world today in rich countries where you have rising wages and declining inequality are places that have generated more jobs than rich countries because they made a commitment we didn't. They got serious about a clean, efficient, green, independent energy future… If you want that in America, if you want the millions of jobs that will come from it, if you would like to see a new energy trust fund to finance solar energy and wind energy and biomass and responsible bio-fuels and electric hybrid plug-in vehicles that will soon get 100 miles a gallon, if you want every facility in this country to be made maximally energy efficient that will create millions and millions and millions of jobs, vote for her. She'll give it to you. She's got the right energy plan."

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.

That little remark is very telling. Perhaps it will get more attention as this campaign goes on.


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  


There's more...visit the archives!