Chronicle of the Conspiracy
Wednesday, July 01, 2009KUDLOW REPLAY Save us from the Austrians! Is it just the "narcissim of small differences," or is it especially annoying when self-proclaimed "specialists" like Michael Pento get it vaguely right -- but not because they really understand anything, but only because they've memorized a few free-market slogans and econobabble statistics? Or is it just his sheer amateurishness? The raving about "Phillips Swerve analysis" and the "ay-po-gee" of the bond market rally? Well, not to complain -- after all, he's promised me 7% of his income (now if only he had an income).
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:20 PM | link
HEALTH CARE "REFORM" TALKING POINTS Brilliant! Best ever! A simple catalog of right-on responses to all the liberal BS about why we need government-run and government-rationed health care. Read them all -- but I like these especially:
"Forty-five million people in the U.S. are uninsured."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:48 AM | link
AMTRAK TODAY, GENERAL MOTORS TOMORROW! What wonderful things happen when the government owns companies. "Mick Danger" snapped this on the Acela between Washington and New York. He says, "Maybe the Senate will junk the Pelosi-Waxman-Markey bill and just let frequent train travelers cash in their miles to handle global warming."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:32 AM | link
Tuesday, June 30, 2009DOES OBAMAMANIA HAVE NO LIMITS? It's the end of the world.
With Wal-Martís endorsement of a legal requirement that employers provide health benefits to their workers, the nationís largest employer has broken from the business community...The Chamber of Commerce is not pleased:
The Chamber issued a blistering denunciation of Wal-Mart's action Tuesday, saying the company is trying to undermine other retailers through anti-competitive means.Update... My DC-insider friend "Mick Danger" says,
Anything to hold off the union.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:18 PM | link
CHECK YOUR PREMISES This kind of moral/political commentary masquerading as economics is a very dangerous thing. Here's a blog post by James Kwak, part of the Baseline Scenario blog, a cottage industry of quotable commentary on the current economic crisis (he and his colleagues like Simon Johnson are constantly showing up as "expert" interview subjects, mouthing off on whatever twist or turn happens to be in the news that day for admiring reporters).
Mark Thoma links to a medical paper that brings up the issue that few people want to talk about: at what point is the cost of medical care to extend life not justified? Like Thoma, I donít have a great answer, except to point out that in a world of scarce resources, the answer cannot be that any effort to extend life by any small amount is always a good idea. (And as David Leonhardt explained, our health care system is certainly constrained by scarce resources, whether we like it or not.)Set aside whether the fault is with this blog post or the sources it links to (it's both). The problem here is the premise it is implicitly based on -- the idea that medical goods and services are different from any other from the consumer's point of view, or from a moral point of view. How can a "medical paper" opine on whether a health care cost is "justified"? Doesn't each consumer have his own utility function for that, just as he does for all other goods and services, based on his personal needs, preferences, and endowments? Why is it useful to point to a New York Times' reporter's banal observation that these services are scarce resources? What services are not?
These questions only mean anything worth debating if you presume from the start that government is supposed to be paying for these things. That presumption makes these questions a matter of public choice, and this debatable. But if you assume that patients ought to be free to decide as they will, then who cares about any of this?
Framing it this way is not about actually debating the issue of scarce resources at all. For economists like Kwak (aptly named, I might add), the idea is to insert the unspoken premise of government involvement for its own sake -- to make a "baseline scenario" of the debate, not to be questioned.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:26 AM | link
Monday, June 29, 2009SCOTUS DETERMINES THAT WISE LATINO WOMAN IS NOT SO WISE AFTER ALL Breaking (good) news:
The Supreme Court, voting 5-4 in a case that has been a lightning rod for high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, invalidated a Connecticut city's decision to scrap the results of a firefighter promotion exam in which the white candidates scored better than their black peers.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:15 AM | link
HOW DOES GREG MANKIW KEEP HIS COMPOSURE? From his blog this morning:
In a brief blog post on healthcare, Paul Krugman says that George Will and I are "either remarkably ignorant or simply disingenuous." I cannot speak for George, but I can attest that I am completely ingenuous. So I suppose I must be remarkably ignorant.Thanks to Rohit Dewan.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:12 AM | link