|
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
"What has been your worst blogging experience? "That's a guy who actually stalks me on the Web and once stalked me personally." "I'm saying this...guy's a jerk."
 A Bound Man Shelby Steele What I'm listening to:  Langley Schools Music Project What I'm watching:  There Will Be Blood What I'm playing:  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. Some of the sites
|
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, June 26, 2004
YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE Last post before going on vacation. Check out this funny and inspiring first-person story about a student who stood up to the leftist, anti-capitalist regime at his public high school. In a week when Michael Moore is getting his 15-1/2 minutes of fame, this one will keep you going. Thanks to reader Jill Olson for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:30 PM | link
THE SMALLNESS OF KRAUTHAMMER A foolish column in the Washington Post by Charles Krauthammer. Writing on the smallness of Bill Clinton's achievements as president, he says,
Small, but not always unimportant. Clinton did conclude NAFTA and did sign welfare reform. His greatest achievement was an act of brilliant passivity: He got out of the way of one of the largest peacetime economic expansions in American history. And though he takes personal credit for all the jobs created -- a ridiculous assertion to make about the decade of Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates -- he does deserve credit for not screwing things up. Presidents often do. He easily could have.
So a Democrat daring to actively champion a sweeping free-trade initiative opposed by the party's union base is "small"? So agreeing to a cut in the capital gains tax in 1997 is too small even to mention here? So unleashing the mad antitrust dogs at the Department of Justice to tear apart Microsoft during "the decade of Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates" -- and thereby ending that decade -- shows that he "got out of the way"? Hey -- feel free to trash Clinton. He deserves it. But along the way, let's not reveal an utter ignorance of economic history.
Update... James Crystal writes "You could say this was a sour Krauthammer column." Here's his take on Clinton.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:53 AM | link
Friday, June 25, 2004
JOKE OF THE DAYPosted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:44 AM | link
A NOTE TO THE "PUBLIC EDITOR"
Dan,Update... Reader Mike Tocci notes,If you call it a "rowback" when a correction masquerades as subsequent reporting, what do you call it when an admitted correction is handled in such a way as to make the reporter seem right despite it? My friend Caroline Baum at Bloomberg suggests it be called "oarsmanship."
Don
"There was a great line in an episode of the Mary Tyler Moore Show uttered by Murray Slaughter in reference to a rare yet brief show of honor from Ted Baxter. I paraphrase: 'When a pig flies, you don’t get mad when he only stays up for a few seconds.'"Update 2... From reader Michael Ladenson:
One of the common complaints of Bush-bashers is that the Bush administration will never admit mistakes. I don’t know if this is a legitimate complaint about Bush (an administration is not an individual, and proclaiming a mistake in the middle of a poisonously partisan atmosphere could be like releasing blood into shark-infested waters). But it is clearly true of Paul Krugman. The man CANNOT admit errors of any kind. Even regarding articles unrelated to his anti-Bush crusade -- book reviews, for example -- Krugman becomes immediately nasty when questioned. About anything.I have many liberal friends. Some of the most virulent Bush critics may be delightful to know personally. But Krugman gives the impression that, in any context -- professional or personal -- he is one nasty piece of work.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:56 AM | link
GDP GROWTH REVISED DOWN TO 3.9% We should have been worried when Wrong-way Krugman wrote two weeks ago "Over the last few months, the recovery has finally started to look like the real thing."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:35 AM | link
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS "UNELECTED DICTATORSHIP" Michele Malkin leads us to wonder Paul Krugman will react to the Supreme Court's fisking yesterday of his April 27 column, in which he wrote "the legal arguments the administration is making for the secrecy of the energy task force are 'strikingly similar' to those it makes for its right to detain, without trial, anyone it deems an enemy combatant. In both cases, as Ms. Greenhouse puts it, the administration has put forward 'a vision of presidential power...as far-reaching as any the court has seen.'...What Mr. Cheney is defending, in other words, is a doctrine that makes the United States a sort of elected dictatorship..."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:28 AM | link
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
Speaking of numbers: in 1980, middle-income families with children paid 8.7 percent of their income in income taxes, not 8.2 percent, as I reported on June 8. But it's still true that their combined income and payroll taxes rose under Ronald Reagan.
Okay, there's some small satisfaction in this. But here's everything that's wrong with it.
1) It took three weeks of hounding Dan Okrent, and his hounding editorial page editor Gail Collins, to get this done. I emailed the correction to Collins the very day it occurred in Krugman's June 8 column. In the past, Collins has completely ignored such emails from me, so I sent this one under a false name, at Okrent's suggestion. She still ignored it. So much for her lie to Okrent that "It is my obligation to make sure no misstatements of fact on the editorial pages go uncorrected."
2) If you pull up the original June 8 column from the Times web archive (you have to pay for it at this point), today's correction is not appended. So anyone reading that column for the first time will get the same mistake and no correction. In the only past example of a true Krugman correction (here), the original column in the archive carries the correction, just as corrected news stories in the archives carry the correction. Since that is obviously not happening now, Collin's much-ballyhooed "columnist corrections policy" is a step backward.
3) Krugman reports the factual error, but then asserts that it doesn't matter -- that he's right anyhow. This is a deception. The difference between 8.7 percent and 8.2 percent eats up 71 percent of the combined tax rate rise that Krugman is talking about. While it's "still true," it is reduced to near-vanishing triviality -- such triviality that I doubt Krugman would have even cited the statistics if he'd had the numbers right the first time.
4) I reported to Collins and Krugman a second error in that column, which remains uncorrected. Krugman stated "current projections show that under current rules, Social Security is good for at least 38 more years." This is an error. In fact, current projections show Social Security is good for only 27 years. I can only imagine the tortured negotiations that went on between Okrent, Krugman and Collins, that resulted in a "compromise" where one error was corrected (with the assertion that Krugman was right anyway) and another error was completely ignored.
I am waiting to get an explanation of all this from Okrent. Frankly, I find it simply disgusting that grown men and women would act this way. Make a mistake, run a correction. What's so hard about that? Just how small are these people, anyway?
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 3:34 AM | link
Thursday, June 24, 2004
(YET) ANOTHER KRUGMAN LIE REPORTED TO THE TIMES Paul Krugman's Tuesday column about John Ashcroft's underpublicized arrest and conviction of William Krar continues to draw fire. Michael Kantor of the Calico Cat blog has written to the New York Times about a Krugman lie from that column:In Paul Krugman's column of June 22, Paul Krugman writes that the FBI discovered a "cyanide bomb" in the possession of a William Klar. He mentions this "bomb" three times in his column.But based on the press release from the Department of Justice, Klar had in his posession the compound sodium cyanide, as well as other chemicals that could have been used to create dangerous cyanide gas with it, but there is nothing about him having an actual cyanide bomb in his possession. This is the URL of the Department of Justice press release:
http://www.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel03/texas111303.htm
And according to news reports I've read in other news publications, Klar had 800 grams of pure sodium cyanide, but there is nothing in these reports about there being a cyanide or other chemical bomb. Sodium cyanide by itself doesn't explode.
I think that this is an extremely important distinction that should be corrected.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:31 PM | link
EVEN MAXIM SCOOPS KRUGMAN From reader Sung Chun Kim:
What I find particularly funny about Paul Krugman's latest column is that the most recent issue of Maxim beat him to the punch. Not only did it beat him to the punch, but it displayed a far better knack for investigative journalism. For one thing, it discredits the notion that William Krar possessed "a chemical weapon -- a cyanide bomb -- big enough to kill everyone in a 30,000-square-foot building." According to the Maxim article, law enforcement officials now believe that Krar was petty amateur and probably didn't pose much of a threat to anyone.Maybe we should all chip in and get Krugman a subscription to Maxim? Maybe some jokes and pictures of pretty girls will loosen him up a bit...
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 5:04 PM | link
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
WHY INSURE YOUR WIG IF YOU DON'T WANT TO? Here's an idea -- let buyers of medical insurance buy in any state they wish, not just the one where they happen to live. It turns out that state regulations that mandate particular forms of coverage increase costs by up to 30%, so why shouldn't consumers be able to choose the regulatory regime they wish?Five different states require consumers to buy coverage for wigs. Yes, wigs. Other types of required coverage include alcoholism (45 states) and infertility treatment (14 states), contraceptives (25 states), acupuncturists (10 states), marriage therapists (14 states), massage therapists (2 states), and osteopaths (21 states). States have passed over 1,500 laws mandating that health-insurance purchasers (individuals and employers) buy particular types of coverage they may or may not want, usually at the behest of those who provide the covered service.Thanks to reader Eric Schlecht for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:17 PM | link
NEW TAKE ON "CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS" Our friend Reuven Brenner interprets the clash as between "mobile" and "immobile" societies. Interesting paradigm.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:15 PM | link
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
Spain's Prince of Asturias Foundation has awarded its annual prize for social sciences to American economist Paul Krugman, for work focusing on international trade and development.Or, if you prefer, the Spanish language version as translated by Google:The foundation singled out the Princeton University professor and New York Times columnist for his ideas on world trade and his ability to convey economic theories to a wider public. He beat out 23 other candidates.
The award includes $60,000, a commissioned sculpture donated by Joan Miro and a diploma.
When giving to know the failure, the jury of the Prize Prince of Asturias emphasized the preoccupation of the North American university professor by the treatment of the regional inequalities the act. Given to know by the president of the jury, Manuel Fraga, recognized "the high scientific personality and social" of Krugman and "the fecundity of its investigating work, that has contributed of way very remarkable to lay the the foundations of the new theory of the international trade and the economic development." University professor of Economy of the University of Princeton, Krugman prevailed in the last votings the South American historian, to the filólogo and resident Bulgarian semiólogo in France, Tzvetan Todorov and to German philosopher Rüdiger Safransk. Krugman is also columnista of the newspaper "The New York Times," Author of the book "The Great Deceit" (2003), a compilation of its journalistic articles in which it denounced the submission of the political system, judicial and economic American to the extreme right, Krugman is the fifth economist who obtains the Prize Prince of Asturias de Social Ciencias.Hmmm. "Columnista." I like that.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 5:07 PM | link
JOKE OF THE DAY It's not a racist joke if it's about racism, right? Okay.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 5:03 PM | link
KRUGMAN LIFTS FROM THE LEFT More evidence that Paul Krugman's June 22 column wasn't entirely original, shall we say. Leftist blog New Partisan isn't happy about the "uncanny resemblance to our David L. Steinhardt’s April 8 dispatch."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 5:00 PM | link
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
KRUGMAN, AN AMERICAN UNORIGINAL Paul Krugman's New York Times column today -- his second about John Ashcroft -- has generated an even greater than usual volume of emails and blog postings (here's my quick-take from last night, and here's an excellent email from a reader). Reader Jeffrey Jacobson notes that Krugman's column today on the supposedly under-publicized conviction of William Krar is a recycled (none dare call it plagiarized, what with Moore-inspired war-rooms gearing up all over left-wing Amerika) version of a March 14, 2004 UPI column by Jim Kessler, and a May 14, 2004 column by DeWayne Wickham. Reader Jim Glass points out an excellent post on Tom Maguire's Just One Minute blog, in which Maguire notes that even Krugman's fellow Times op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof made much the same point almost two years ago. Maguire goes on to wonder why Krugman is so quick to accuse Ashcroft of political bias and racism in seeking so little publicity for the Krar arrest and conviction -- yet while other media outlets such as CNN covered the story thoroughly,"...why did the NY Times not cover it? A search of their website for "Krar" turns up one previous story. Has Krugman declared the death of investigative journalism? Does this mean that the 'All Abu Ghraib, all the time' era never happened?"
Maxwell Argent, blogging at Advisory Opinion, takes on Krugman's claim that "Mr. Ashcroft is very close to the gun lobby.... After 9/11, he ordered that all government lists — including voter registration, immigration and driver's license lists — be checked for links to terrorists...except one: he specifically prohibited the F.B.I. from examining background checks on gun purchasers." Argent writes,
"...the Brady law requires the records' destruction...JANET RENO -- the long-time denizen of the gun lobby -- actually wrote the regulation making clear that records could not be searched for solely law enforcement purposes (as advocated by Krugman)...[and]...the LEGAL OPINION from the Office of Legal Counsel actually EXPLICITLY says that a search of the records solely for law enforcement purposes is illegal..."
Hmmm... so that means that when Krugman says of Ashcroft that "he ordered" that, what he means is that "he ordered" that the law be obeyed. Amazing.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 7:53 PM | link
ASHCROFT MUST BE WRONG -- KRUGMAN SAYS SO A reader nails it:
The problem I have with Paul Krugman's two column on John Ashcroft (here and here) is Krugman's disinterest in supporting any of the arguments he makes. He disagrees with Ashcroft, therefore Ashcroft is wrong. For example, Krugman claims that declaring eco-terrorists a greater threat to America than right-wing extremists is proof of Ashcroft's bias against the left. But this would be true only if a) eco-terrorists are actually a lesser threat, and b) Ashcroft is selectively ignoring threats from the "right". Krugman makes no claim to support the former, provides no examples of wrongful prosecutions of "left-wing" activists, and in fact begins the column by citing Ashcroft's successful prosecution of a "right-wing" terrorist! But Krugman says it's wrong, and so it is. The use of torture against detainees has been a controversial subject, particularly when it is suspected that the detainee holds knowledge of an unfolding threat, and this has been the subject of considerable debate (Atlantic Monthly did a cover story on interrogation techniques nearly a year ago). But no such debate exists in Krugman's column: Ashcroft discussed the legality torture in a classified memo, then tried to keep it classified, therefore Ashcroft is wrong. The correct definition of torture, whether it can ever be appropriate, how international law applies to combatants who have no nationality and do not recognize any war conventions -- no, no discussion or evidence is necessary. Krugman says it's wrong, and so it is. Besides, Ashcroft tried to keep it secret; what further proof do you need?As to the claim that Ashcroft is the worst attorney general ever, accuracy aside, no English professor I know would allow an opening or closing line so unsupported by the rest of the essay. The theme of these two articles is that Mr. Ashcroft is a bad attorney general; no attempt is made to put him in any historical context. Its simply an inflammatory accusation. I'm no historian, but I do know that for over 100 years, our government tolerated lynching, rape, and other assaults against black Americans, and failed to defend their right to vote, own property, gain employment, and enjoy equal justice under the law. Surely that era produced numerous candidates for the "worst ever" title, when compared to a man accused of holding overly dramatic press conferences.
John Kratunis
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:01 AM | link
SCANDAL! CORPORATE CROOKS! But this is one you won't hear about in the media. Because it's about the media.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 7:53 AM | link
Monday, June 21, 2004
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:50 PM | link
HITCH DEMOLISHES MOORE Okay, I can almost begin to slightly forgive Christopher Hitchens. This demolition of Michael Moore and Farenheit 911 is just superb.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:43 PM | link
"BOBBY" TO THE RESCUE! Still nothing from Brad DeLong to defend Paul Krugman for his hilariously wrong 1982 memo on "the inflation time bomb," back when he served on Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors. And Krugman himself has gotten tired of getting sliced to ribbons every time he tries to excuse his lies and errors on his personal web site -- he hasn't dared to post there now for eight months. So the task has fallen to the only guy dumb enough to do it -- "Bobby," keeper of the eternal flame at the Krugman online shrine. With defenders like Bobby, who needs critics? He nitpicks the fact that I didn't disclose I had only been able to read a single page of Krugman's memo -- a pointless criticism in any event, but the fact is I did disclose it. He argues that maybe Krugman's theories aren't wrong, as I claim -- rather, perhaps Krugman just misforecast the variables required by the theory. What's the dif? Garbage in or garbage out -- it's all still garbage. But the best is when he says "it's a cliche among economists, in and outside of academia, to say that they are notoriously bad at forecasting. With this fact in mind, Luskin's criticism is basically unimportant..." So that means that is just doesn't matter when Krugman authoritatively predicts this catastrophe and that in his New York Times columns, right? And that means it's illegitimate for Krugman to relentlessly criticize the economists in the Bush administration who forecasted more rapid jobs growth than has actually occurred, right? Hey -- they just screwed up. Maybe it was their inputs. What the heck -- they're just economists, right? No, for Krugman, those jobs forecasts were "promises," and when found to be in error they represent "the signature of a corrupted policy process, in which political propaganda takes the place of professional analysis." So let me get this straight, Bobby. The Bush guys are crooks. But Krugman is just plain incompetent, right?
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:58 PM | link
KRUGMAN WRONG ON REAGAN AGAIN Further evidence that Paul Krugman was wrong (read: lying) when he used carefully selected statistics to prove that Bill Clinton was a more popular president than Ronald Reagan. Here's a new poll showing that:
"Most Americans say that Ronald Reagan...will be remembered as a better president than Bill Clinton...according to an Associated Press poll. Seven in 10 say history will judge Reagan superior...Some 83 percent of those questioned said they have a favorable view of Reagan as a person, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs. ...A majority of 53 percent said they have an unfavorable view of Clinton while 41 percent rated him favorably."Thanks to reader Jill Olson for the link (she writes, "Oops -- bad news for Brother Paul -- Reagan trounces Clinton... read it and weep Brother Paul...better rewrite that column...").
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:35 PM | link
THE EUCHARIST-SPITTING THING MIGHT BE A BIT MUCH John Kerry's religious outreach director Mara Vanderslice doesn't seem to like religion very much:
Mara Vanderslice was raised without any faith and didn’t become an evangelical Christian until she attended Earlham College, a Quaker school known for its adherence to pacifism. When in college, Mara was active in the Earlham Socialist Alliance, a group that supports the convicted cop killer Mumia Abu- Jamal and openly embraces Marxism-Leninism. After graduating, Mara spoke at rallies held by ACT-UP, the anti-Catholic group that disrupted Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 1989 by spitting the Eucharist on the floor. In 2000, she practiced civil disobedience when she took to the streets of Seattle in a protest against the World Trade Organization. In 2002, she tried to shut down Washington, D.C. in a protest against the IMF and the World Bank. At first, John Kerry was considered too moderate for Mara...Thanks to Jameson Campaigne for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:29 PM | link
A DOUBLE CELEBRATION OF MARY JO K Irwin Chusid updates us on the Democratic National Convention's homage to Teddy Kennedy, occurring on the 35th anniversary of his pleading guilty to failing to report Mary Jo Kopechne's death. It turns out that, according to Jim Miller, it's also Mary Jo's 64th birthday. If she had lived, that is. Happy birthday Teddy and Mary Jo.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:00 AM | link
Sunday, June 20, 2004
BUSH AND THE MARKET I'm quoted in this Investors Business Daily story on how the market might be affected by the election:"The economy (and, therefore, the stock market) would be better off if Bush were re-elected," said Donald Luskin, chief investment officer for Trend Macroanalytics and a columnist for the conservative National Review journal."Love him or hate him, the cold fact is that his economic policies are more pro-growth (or at least less anti-growth) than those Kerry is likely to come up with," Luskin said.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:40 PM | link