October 31, 2007Milton Friedman vs. Phil DonahueThe doyen of daytime TV is left speechless by the master:
Posted by jk at 6:44 PM
Clinton Stumbles at DebateI thought of posting this earlier, but I guessed that the good folks at Dow Jones might post the Political Diary free today, in lieu of Best Of The Web. It's very good from cover-to-cover today, but I have heard from several sources that Senator Clinton was not at the top of her game last night. John Fund gives a blow-by-blow that makes her sound a little less inevitable. Happy Halloween!Or not! Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute is not happy. He says the economics of all holidays are suspect, but that Halloween is just plain wrong: Now if you know someone well, perhaps you can anticipate the type of gift they might like. But Halloween is no time for thoughtful, targeted gift-giving. At Halloween, each house on a typical American block picks out one type of candy, and they give that exact same candy willy-nilly to everyone who shows up at the door. It's an economic nightmare. I counter that it's worth the billions in education. Halloween is exciting to the very young. Free Candy! As they get older, they can question the quality of the goods provided and the value of their time collecting. I passed by Taco Bell yesterday and let the line scare me off - even I am growing up! It's socialism kids -- enjoy your early perception, then come to expect its grim realities. Now if the Democratic presidential candidates would only learn. Hat-tip: Greg Mankiw
Posted by jk at 1:16 PM
| What do you think? [2]
But johngalt thinks:
Socialism on the back end, yes, but capitalism at its most ruthless on the front as wholesalers and retailers slash prices on slow moving inventory to get it off the books. And in the middle the guilt-ridden suburbanites look for the most cost effective way to assuage their unearned guilt - just as taxpayers resign themselves to brazen thievery of their wages to help "the children" and "the needy." BOO! More frightening than any black cat or creaky gate. Posted by: johngalt at October 31, 2007 3:23 PM
But jk thinks:
Most ruthless? Suburban guilt? I thought you had come to the ThreeSources party as a collectivist -- but the crack about the children and the needy was a peek under the mask. Happy Halloween, jg. Posted by: jk at October 31, 2007 4:09 PMOctober 30, 2007Innovation IIEveryday Economist links to an outstanding column by Alvero Vargas Llosa. The column is well worth a read -- and I have to agree with Josh's commentary, namely "the fact that we still need to have this debate is somewhat silly." It is a shame that more people do not read Schumpeter. If they did, they would understand why capitalism and economic growth actually benefit those at the bottom by providing them with goods and services that previously only the rich could afford. And perhaps more importantly, it does this without coercion, force, or central authority to direct it. Economics and Markets
Posted by jk at 6:35 PM
On InnovationWhen Larry Kudlow asked Mayor Giuliani how he was going to get health insurance to the uninsured, Hizzoner gave my favorite political answer of all time: "How did we make cell phones cheap?" That may be a non-sequitor to the collectivists, but I'm sure the ThreeSources faithful get it. Free Market competition and innovation brought what was once the archetypal luxury item to commodity pricing. We don't ask how we're going to get people cell phones -- every 12 year old has one or two. That spirit of innovation may take a big step up. The Wall Street Journal (paid link) reports on a Google push into the wireless marketplace. Within the next two weeks, Google is expected to announce advanced software and services that would allow handset makers to bring Google-powered phones to market by the middle of next year, people familiar with the situation say. In recent months Google has approached several U.S. and foreign handset manufacturers about the idea of building phones tailored to Google software, with Taiwan's HTC Corp. and South Korea's LG Electronics Inc. mentioned in the industry as potential contenders. Google is also seeking partnerships with wireless operators. In the U.S., it has the most traction with Deutsche Telekom AG's T-Mobile USA, while in Europe it is pursuing relationships with France Télécom's Orange SA and Hutchison Whampoa Ltd.'s 3 U.K., people familiar with the matter say. A Google spokeswoman declined to comment. The details are a bit murky, but the world's largest corporation will certainly influence any area it finds strategic. I was selling technology to search engine purveyors a few years ago and they unanimously said that their investments would be in the mobile space. I'm thinking that when Google joins Wal*Mart in focusing on profit potential in health care, the problems we stew about will all be solved. UPDATE: A WSJ email alert alerts: After opposing Google Inc.'s moves to dramatically reshape the wireless industry, Verizon Wireless is now in serious discussions with the Internet company over carrying phones tailored to a new Google operating system, a person familiar with the discussions said. Looks like AT&T-Apple vs. Verizon-Google. I guess my beloved T-Mobile will get stuck with Microsoft®... A Contrarian View of the Housing SlumpJohn E. Tamny provides a look at the housing slowdown that I had not considered. At first glance, it makes a lot of sense to me. One of the market's most important functions (you could call it the most important) is to direct capital to its best use. Tamny suggests that real estate is not the best use of capital and that a downturn might direct it to more productive purposes: For one, it has to be remembered that one man's mortgage loan is another man's savings. There's no net consumption gain to speak of given the certainty that someone has to be foregoing consumption so that the borrower can borrow. Also forgotten is that heavy consumption at the expense of savings diminishes the capital base such that productive businesses of all stripes go wanting in their search for investment, or are forced to pay a higher rate of interest while competing for funds with prodigal homeowners. He also has a nice riff on tax policy: the liquid, and easily transportable investments lend themselves to competition in tax rates, whereas real estate is captive to its geography. Superb. Economics and Markets
Posted by jk at 12:27 PM
But mdmhvonpa thinks:
I damn near peed my pants! Posted by: mdmhvonpa at October 30, 2007 11:57 AM
But jk thinks:
That's what we're here for, mdmh -- smoke 'em if you got 'em! Posted by: jk at October 30, 2007 12:38 PM
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
But, isn't that the American way? Self-sacrifice for the good of future generations! Dammit, that's how we got through WWII, why not now? /snark! Posted by: TrekMedic251 at November 2, 2007 12:24 AMOctober 29, 2007Rudy! or Mitt!Fred Barnes floated this idea on the Beltway Boys TV show this weekend. Now, he has a Weekly Standard column on it. Barnes claims it is a Two-Man Race There are three things to keep in mind when evaluating the presidential race in 2008. First, national polls don't matter at all. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry polled at 13 percent or less nationally before the primaries, then locked up the Democratic nomination a few weeks later. State polls provide a better clue of what may happen. Second, the primaries are a dynamic process. Win in the early states and you have a far greater chance of capturing the later primaries--and the nomination. Third, money is more important than ever in 2008. If a long shot like McCain or Thompson or even Mike Huckabee wins in Iowa (January 3) or New Hampshire (January 8) or South Carolina (January 19), there won't be enough time for him to raise the funds needed to compete effectively in Florida on January 29 and the 20-plus primaries on February 5. Television ads are expensive, but necessary. Barnes pushes the idea of "scenarios." The national polls are misleading. It is comparable to ignoring the electoral college system -- multiplied by the time line. This won't cheer up a lot of Thompson supporters in ThreeSources Land. And, to be honest, it doesn't thrill me. Watching the national polls, I had lulled myself into believing in a Giuliani or Thompson outcome. I could easily support either of those candidates fulsomely. Barnes does establish a credible scenario for Governor Romney to prevail. This would not drive me to the Clinton Camp, but he is way down on my list.
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
Well,..if there's an upside to this, it looks like the US is ready to look past (or ignore, if you will) Romney's Mormonism. And the Dumb-o-crats are the ones always touting multi-culturalism!
But jk thinks:
I'm glad they're looking past his religion, tm, I just wish they wouldn't look past RomneyCare. Posted by: jk at October 30, 2007 10:55 AM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
My oldest friend from when I grew up in Utah is a libertarian Mormon. As he puts it, "I belong to the same church, but not the same religion." Romney's religion is Big Government, nothing else. Many Mormons today (in Utah and elsewhere) are the same, eschewing the 19th century Mormon ideal of self sufficiency. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 30, 2007 11:01 AMGive Me a D!The D in DAWG stands, of course, for deleterious. Even if global warming is real and caused my man, are we certain it is so bad? The Pollyannaish folks at the NYTimes Europe bureau have a piece on Greenland: But now that the climate is warming, it is not just old trees that are growing. A Greenlandic supermarket is stocking locally grown cauliflower, broccoli and cabbage this year for the first time. Eight sheep farmers are growing potatoes commercially. Five more are experimenting with vegetables. And Kenneth Hoeg, the region’s chief agriculture adviser, says he does not see why southern Greenland cannot eventually be full of vegetable farms and viable forests. It seems four trees planted by the Dutch botanist Rosenvinge in 1893 are coming out of dormancy and springing green buds. I was not aware that we had global warming in 1893. I should get out more. Hat-tip: Instapundit
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Whoops, hit Enter when putting in the password. Anyway, why shouldn't Greenland be like how it was before? A few years ago, there was a report on "global warming" that the MSM ignored, about tree rings dating back to AD 1200 showing a warmer Earth back then. The Earth's cooler temperatures during Medieval times was no small reason why European populations suffered. It destroyed harvests of certain grains, which was well-known to Jefferson and some other intellectuals of his day. By the end of the 18th century, they were worried about new global cooling and a repeat of the near-famine conditions. I just remembered Isaac Asimov writing in his "Book of Facts" in 1979 that it wouldn't take much to cause a new Ice Age, only a slightly cooler summer followed by a slightly cooler winter. That was the climate change hysteria back then. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 30, 2007 11:22 AM
But johngalt thinks:
You mean Greenland might actually be GREEN again? Say it ain't so! Posted by: johngalt at October 30, 2007 2:44 PMRep. Tancredo to Quit HouseI suppose he'd have to give up his seat when he's inaugurated. I know that other ThreeSourcers are closer to Tancredo's views on immigration than I am, but I think we might all maybe sorta agree that his extremist positions do not do the GOP any good. (I still remember when he wanted to deport the class valedictorian). John Fund, in the Political Diary, hammers him for blocking comprehensive immigration reform: The 61-year-old Congressman certainly had a rabble-rousing impact on his fellow Republicans. While the comprehensive immigration bill proposed by a bipartisan group of Senators earlier this year turned out to be hastily written and deeply flawed, Mr. Tancredo had no effective alternative in mind. He simply wanted to kill the bill, pouring cold water on efforts by members such as Rep. Mike Pence to craft a compromise that would deal in a practical way with aliens already in the country and businesses that desperately need a reliable guest-worker program. Fund then speculates on his political future: But while Mr. Tancredo is leaving Congress, don't think you've heard the last of him on his pet subject. He plans to continue speaking and writing and (for now) pursuing his presidential bid. Then there's the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Colorado, when Democratic Senator Ken Salazar, whom Mr. Tancredo sees as 180 degrees opposite him on immigration matters, will be running for re-election. The problem is, Mr. Tancredo thought long and hard about running for the same seat in 2004, only to discover that polls showed he would have trouble winning even the GOP nomination statewide. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, Congressman. (I may have promised no more nasty comments like that about Rep. Tancredo -- but this is a special occasion.)
Immigration
Posted by jk at 4:09 PM
Well Done, SoxSeriously, they've assembled a great team. Like a lot of Rockies fans, I feel that they never had to face the team that swept the Phillies and Diamondbacks, but you could call it great pitching. Before my magnanimity gets out of hand, let me make fun of the Boston fans one more time: AP/Yahoo: BOSTON - Police in riot gear cleared several large crowds gathered around Fenway Park early Monday after the Red Sox won their second World Series title in four years. Those guys know how to party!
Posted by jk at 10:37 AM
October 28, 2007Imagine..."Imagine if a two hundred and fifty year supply of energy were right here at home." "Black hydrogen" never looked so good. Hat tip: Blog brother Cyrano.
But jk thinks:
I'm sold on coal. Posted by: jk at October 28, 2007 5:16 PMGlobal Warming Doomsday Called OffAn uncommon referral (my brother's been researching the latest objective criticism of Al Gore's Nobel Prize winning eco-thriller since the science teacher at his children's elite (expensive) private Boulder County school screened it in her classes) and an uncommon source (CBC is the state-sponsored television outlet in socialist Canada) "explodes the doom and gloom of global warming." As the Nobel Peace Prize begins collecting dust on Al and Tipper's mantelpiece it is fair to reprise these "deniers" contradictions, originally aired in November 2005, of the IPCC orthodoxy upon which this granting of the once illustrious award was largely based. Humans stand accused of having set off a global climate catastrophe by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The documentary is posted on YouTube here. It's 43 minutes long but I suggest the following excerpts: 5:30 to 8:30 - Ice core samples in Greenland show average temperature 1 degree higher now than 100 years ago, but 1 degree lower than 1000 years ago and 2 degrees below previous millenia. Corroborated by measurements elsewhere in North America, China and North Africa. "In 1875 we have the lowest temperatures in the last 8000 years and that matches exactly the time when meteorological observations started." 8:30 to 11:00 - Computer models, using probability theory, replace the "old" Little Ice-Age Theory with the infamous "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures over the last 10,000 years. Hockey stick theory developed by Dr. Michael Mann of U of Virginia, adopted by IPCC, of which Mann is a committee member. Hmmm. "It makes you believe, that in particular, the [IPCC] climate view is held by many. In fact it's really held by few." I haven't watched the rest yet. Feel free to post your own highlights below. Deleterious Anthropogenic Warming of the Globe
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:29 PM
| What do you think? [1]
But jk thinks:
Very cool. I'm intrigued with the 20th Century graph around 17:47. It shows a little dip through the 1960s, meaning that all the boomers remember it being a lot colder in my childhood. Boomers, of course, extrapolate their personal anecdotes into a worldview. Show -- or refute -- real data all you want, but a baby boomer will easily believe in DAWG from personal experience. Also note John Christy, highlighted in a previous post. Posted by: jk at October 28, 2007 5:14 PMOctober 27, 2007Senator Edwards Doesn't Want You to See ThisWhich is, sadly, good enough for me: Apparently, once Carla and Carolina Week put the piece up on YouTube, the Edwards camp asked them not so nicely to take it down. Like any good bright-eyed journalists, they refused. The Edwards camp then "intimated" (whatever that means) that this would jeopardize the campaigns' relationship with the University. Keep in mind that Edwards is both an alumni and a former employee of our nation's leading public university. Bizarre. Pretty inconsequential criticism if you ask me, but if it bothers the populist Senator, I'm happy to link. October 26, 2007
But Terri thinks:
This gave me tears from laughing so hard! Posted by: Terri at October 27, 2007 10:07 AMBastiat WeepsThe Everyday Economist instructs (I guess that’s what he does naturally) on Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy in the context of the California Wildfires
Posted by jk at 12:37 PM
Nordlinger on BushJay Nordlinger makes a good point on one of our President's virtues: Conservatives are down on President Bush, often unreasonably, I believe. I also think they’re a little ungrateful — ungrateful, spoiled, and smug. They will miss him sorely when he’s gone, I feel sure. This is true whether a Republican or a Democrat succeeds him. I see some truth tellers in the GOP field. Mayor Giuliani and Senator Thompson seem well qualified to continue truth telling (my leftist friends all call it arrogance). I'm not so sure about Governor Romney. The President does indeed deserve more points for this than he gets. From Conservatives or Libertarians.. President Bush
Posted by jk at 12:27 PM
October 25, 2007
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
Will cross-post this weekend! Posted by: TrekMedic251 at October 25, 2007 10:27 PMBeauchamp Rapprochement?I will still spew a few angry words at the cowardice of Franklin Foer and the mendacity of the once proud "The New Republic." But this Michael Yon piece on Private Beauchamp has silenced me forever on his score. Read the whole thing -- and send him $50 -- but the short version is that his commander gave him the chance to go or stay. And he chose, another time, to stay in Iraq and continue a difficult mission in our nation's uniform: Lapses of judgment are bound to happen, and accountability is critical, but that’s not the same thing as pulling out the hanging rope every time a soldier makes a mistake. You shut up one blogger, soldier. Thank you for your service. Hat-tip: Instapundit Media and Blogging
Posted by jk at 2:14 PM
An Annoyed Nobel LaureateWSJ's Notable and Quotable shares a snippet of an interview between John Christy of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and CNN anchor Miles O'Brien: O'BRIEN: I assume you're not happy about sharing this award with Al Gore. You going to renounce it in some way?
Deleterious Anthropogenic Warming of the Globe
Posted by jk at 2:00 PM
Senator Santorum Gets a LifeNot mentioning whether he misses the World's Most Deliberative Body, Opinion Journal Political Diary turns to John Fund to answer "Whatever happened to Rick Santorum?" The former two-term senator from Pennsylvania is proving that defeated officials can mine a wealth of opportunities beyond politics. Yesterday, the Philadelphia Inquirer announced that he will become a columnist for the largest newspaper in the Keystone State. His column will be called "The Elephant in the Room" and focus on cultural and foreign policy issues rather than politics. I've conceded that Santorum was not my favorite Republican, but a lot of people around this blog devoted much blood and treasure to his re-election, and the country would have been far better off had they succeeded. UPDATE: DB Light from PA Water Cooler links to Don Surber's advice for the Senator. First, don’t tell anyone but this is the easiest gig in the world. You get paid to piss people off. Not much, but it beats pissing people off for free.
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
Glad to see Tierney's finally getting on the RIGHT track here. I guess the only way to make a major paper profitable again is to start telling both sides of a story for a change. And you're right, he might not be everyone's cup of tea, but he beats the hell out of a Democrat any day in my book! Posted by: TrekMedic251 at October 25, 2007 10:29 PMOctober 24, 2007GO ROCKIES!Galley Slave Jonathan V. Last links to Kissing Suzy Kolber blog, with this video and many other rude, mean-spirited, personal attacks on Boston Red Sox fans.
Posted by jk at 4:37 PM
| What do you think? [5]
But AlexC thinks:
did you guys forget how to play? Posted by: AlexC at October 25, 2007 12:40 AM
But jk thinks:
Ow! Remind me never to take eight days off work. It's a long series, I'm still in. Posted by: jk at October 25, 2007 10:58 AM
But johngalt thinks:
Rockies in five! Posted by: johngalt at October 25, 2007 3:17 PM
But jk thinks:
Love the optimism. Rockies in seven. Posted by: jk at October 25, 2007 3:48 PM
But Harrison Bergeron thinks:
The air was too thick for the Rockies. Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at October 25, 2007 6:12 PMIt's True! I Read It In TNR!Drudge says he's got the goods on TNR's latest fabulist. I love this story. I'll never tire of it. Hat-tip: Instapundit Media and Blogging
Posted by jk at 2:15 PM
How About That First Amendment Thingy?Senator Clinton is racking in the donations from Chinatown dishwashers, Senator Obama and Governor Romney are drawing four-digit checks from "the children." The Washington Post notes the trend: Elrick Williams's toddler niece Carlyn may be one of the youngest contributors to this year's presidential campaign. The 2-year-old gave $2,300 to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). It's time to cut and run from the quagmire of campaign finance reform. All of it. It lives in opposition to transparency, which would be good. It contributes to establishment candidates and the much-decried dynastic Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton trend. Here's my campaign finance laws: Everybody can give all they want to anybody they want. Candidates who do not provide a good public accounting of the support they receive should not be voted for. Understandable, enforceable, and Constitutional.
But jk thinks:
Good Republicans or not, I'm calling Bull***t on the Dover kids: $2300 from dog sitting? For a primary? I'm thinking not. Posted by: jk at October 24, 2007 12:54 PMMr. LuskinNice clip from Kudlow & Company. Don Luskin and Jeremy Siegal hold class on index investing: Economics and Markets
Posted by jk at 12:08 PM
October 23, 2007Unhappy AnniversaryThe markets have recovered spectacularly from their losses twenty years ago. But the Supreme Court of the United States has not been so fortunate. Gary McDowell recaps this historical outrage and puts it into perspective. (free link) Twenty years ago today the United States Senate voted to reject President Reagan's nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court. The senators may have had every reason to believe that was the end of the story. However ugly it had been, however much time it had taken, Mr. Bork's defeat was only one more routine sacrifice to partisan politics. But time would prove wrong anyone who actually thought that. The battle over Mr. Bork was politically transformative, its constitutional lessons enduring. My favorite piece of trivia from Justice Clarence Thomas's book was that Judge Bork and his wife joined him for a dinner to celebrate Thomas's confirmation. Bork had set the stage for the Thomas fight. Thomas had the advantage of knowing how brutal the opposition would be, and less of a paper trail. Post Bork (think about the world if Bork had been confirmed instead of Anthony Kennedy) we have inured to these confirmation battles and adapted: Bush's picks of Alito and Roberts are stellar. But the pain and trials documented in Thomas's memoir are gut-wrenching. Chief Justice Taney was not conformed because of his work as President Jackson's AG in opposition to National Banking. Advice and consent is not new. Nor I suspect is bitter partisan rancor. But the intrusion of direct politics seems new and unwelcome: The price paid has proved high, indeed. The defeat heralded a fundamental transformation in the process surrounding judicial appointments and thereby radically politicized the public's view of the nature and extent of judicial power under the Constitution. Confirmation battles from Mr. Bork to Clarence Thomas to Samuel Alito have taken on the trappings of ordinary political campaigns, from instant polling to rallies and protests and attack ads. Sadly, the courts are no longer above the fray. Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg answered no questions and her leanings and philosophies were well known. Yet she was approved 96-3, based on her intellect and integrity. It is a crime that the same offer was not extended to Judge Bork. UPDATE: I guess it is a good day to bring this up. I have had a copy of this paper on my hard drive for some time. "Sex, Lies and Jurisprudence: Robert Bork, Griswold, and the Philosophy of Original Understanding" by none other than blogging deity Glenn Reynolds (moment of silence as the prophet's name is invoked...). Professor Reynolds links to it again today as he links to McDowell's piece and says "I also think that Bork was an unsuitable nominee who deserved to be rejected. And I say this as someone who is, in fact, more of an originalist than Bork, whose originalism was of a rather dubious and frequently uninformed nature." I'm a big Bork fan. While there's every possibility I am just not bright enough to grab the subtleties, a couple readings of this (lengthy but very accessible) paper leave me wondering if Reynolds and I read the same book. I do not see the points in "Tempting" that Reynolds refutes. If the Perfesser is "more originalist" than Bork, that's swell. I see Bork as more originalist than any of the current members save Thomas and possibly Roberts and Alito. The "Borking" gave us Justice Kennedy and likely frightened off several originalist nominees and the Presidents who would choose them. I cannot see how anybody who seeks original intent or text would not agree that the cause was not served when Bork was defeated.
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Think on this: with Bork on the court, the Kelo ruling would have been on the side of freedom. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 23, 2007 4:11 PM
But jk thinks:
It's difficult (and depressing) too imagine all that would have been different had we been ruled by the American Constitution for the last 20 years. Posted by: jk at October 23, 2007 5:37 PMOctober 22, 2007Careful With Your BrandAn interesting piece in TCSDaily today looks at company employees who might have an incentive to alienate customers and clients. One of his examples is one that has bitten me: My new Amazon card wasn't really with Amazon. Rather it was a Chase Bank "affinity card" sponsored by Amazon. Apparently, Amazon has an arrangement with Chase to offer this card. In return it receives some small percentage of each charge. I'm more forgiving of his example of the K-Mart security guard who came down heavy on a woman and child who had an $8 price switch in an $800 order. I got an Amazon Card as well and set it up as my default for Amazon purchases. I didn't pay an $8.00 bill one month (there's that number again. Eight dollars...clearly Bush caused 9/11) Anyway, the $8 was late, so I got a twenty-something dollar charge, and all my Amazon purchases bounced. That was when I figured out that Amazon does not know or care anything about this card. When that and my good family name were cleared up, that card expired. Amazon didn't know and it was difficult to add the new card. I didn't swear off Amazon, but it seems a real missed opportunity. Their customers buy things with a credit card, Amazon is in a unique position to integrate its signature card into its process. The firm is so well integrated with Target as a partner, you use your Amazon account to buy from Target.com. Yet no effort was put into facilitating the Amazon Card and the Amazon store. I have now switched my account to use another card. I'm living happily ever after but Amazon and Chase are missing out.
Posted by jk at 1:13 PM
I Was RightOn immigration, the FDA, every choice of candidate -- it's a long list. But today, I want to ask if everybody is still enthused about Coach Shanahan’s trick of calling time a half second before the snap of a field goal. Last night we got a close up of the (opposing) Coach standing with the referee, and the announcers speculating on whether he would call time out or not. I was misconstrued -- I do not want to outlaw icing the kicker with a timeout to "think about it." But I think that the team should be allowed to make the play on the field. I'll let the rules committee draft the legislation, but this is rapidly spinning outer-of-hand.
Posted by jk at 11:46 AM
Mark Steyn on SCHIPTerri @ I Think ^(Link) Therefore I Err links to a great Mark Steyn column. It's about SCHIP, like Buffy is about vampires. Steyn (and Kim Strassel, and I) see the expansion of SCHIP as a step into further socialism. Steyn says if you want to do something for the children, then "try not to make the same mistake as most of the rest of the Western world and avoid bequeathing the next generation a system of unsustainable entitlements that turns the entire nation into a giant Ponzi scheme." He then, in a short column, compares "Live Free or Die" General Stark to "get your head blown off for the President's amusement" Rep. Pete Stark, Speaker Pelosi's children's Congress, Greece's 25% pension outlays, and an incredibly comprehensive recap of the Frosts: A couple of weeks ago, the Democrats put up a 12-year-old SCHIP beneficiary from Baltimore, Graeme Frost, to deliver their official response to the President's Saturday-morning radio address. And immediately afterwards Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin and I jumped the sick kid in a dark alley and beat him to a pulp. Or so you'd have thought from the press coverage: The Washington Post called us "meanies." Well, no doubt it's true we hard-hearted conservatives can't muster the civilized level of discourse of Pete Stark. But we were trying to make a point – not about the kid, but about the family, and their relevance as a poster child for expanded government health care. Mr. and Mrs. Frost say their income's about $45,000 a year – she works "part-time" as a medical receptionist, and he works "intermittently" as a self-employed woodworker. They have a 3,000-square-foot home plus a second commercial property with a combined value of over $400,000, and three vehicles – a new Chevy Suburban, a Volvo SUV, and a Ford F-250 pickup. Superb.
Posted by jk at 11:24 AM
October 21, 2007Another Day, Another DebateAnother day, another debate. But it had this nugget, which NRO's Jim Geraghty calls "the best line of the campaign so far." "Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." F*ck yeah, that's a good line.
But jk thinks:
I TiVoed the debate so I could flip between the ALCS game seven and the Broncos-Steelers. My recorder has two tuners, and this is the first time in the history of TV that there have been three good things on at once. It is a great line and Senator McCain's appearance of FOXNews Sunday in the empty debate hall was very good as well. Bobby!I was happy to see that Bobby Jindal had won the Louisiana governorship. Patrick Ruffini captures it: "They can either go quietly or they can go loudly, but either way, they will go." -- Governor-elect Bobby Jindal (R), on Louisiana's corrupt establishment
Posted by jk at 12:23 PM
| What do you think? [1]
But AlexC thinks:
One of the articles I read this Am said that Blanco did not run for gov again because of the beating she took over Katrina response. Really? Because I thought it was Bush's fault. ... and that didn't stop Mayor Chocolate City from being re-elected. Posted by: AlexC at October 21, 2007 1:05 PMOctober 20, 2007Review CornerShort: Clarence Thomas's My Grandfather's Son: five stars. Slightly longer: This book is, firstly, a distinctly American biography. Justice Thomas comes into the world with zero advantages and rises to great heights on his own intellect, integrity, and work ethic. Thomas's journey is America's. If we had an editor around here, such clichés would be stricken, but in this instance that would be a mistake. A side interest of mine is how closely removed we are from a Willa Cather existence: both of my grandmothers were born into it, and at the end of the 20th Century two Justices sat on the Supreme Court who had grown up without indoor plumbing. Thomas's youth is about as hard as can be imagined without actual chattel slavery. It is also a political tale. Thomas leaves the Catholic church and avoids the Republican party over tacit acceptance of racism and segregation. He and his family later look on in horror as the party of JFK becomes the bigots at his "high tech lynching." Thomas is consistently hurt by the people and polity who are there to help him, and when he speaks out, he's cast aside by white liberals for being uppity. It is also a tale of incredible strength and courage. Hats off to this great man for his forbearance and strength. I read Bork's "Tempting of America" last year. One realizes that we are chasing out any decent people from government service. No wonder only he crazies seem to be left -- how many decent people would or could put up with this? It's no secret that I'm a fan of Thomas. He's far and away my favorite justice (Nino blew it on Raich) but this book would appeal to anybody. Five stars -- easy! Review Corner
Posted by jk at 6:56 PM
Well spoken anti-PragmatismSamizdata's Quote of the day "We all have to compromise," says Walt Chalmers (played by Robert Vaughn)
Posted by jk at 2:45 PM
I Can Almost Smell Camden...
But AlexC thinks:
I trust that had had the Phils triumphed, my Colorado sourced bull balls would have come in a collectible tin! Tip #1 - Consume with a glass of whole milk. Tip #2 - For easy peeling of the wrapper on the kakes which have a iced topping, flip over and rub the iced side (wrapper still on) on a table. It just works. Posted by: AlexC at October 20, 2007 1:40 PM
But jk thinks:
Perhaps. I was going to go easy on you and offer Rocky Mountain Chocolates as an alternative. Thanks for the tips. Posted by: jk at October 20, 2007 2:40 PM
But jk thinks:
Reelecting Nagin was a major disappointment, but I wonder if the State is now seeing exactly what and where the corrupt government has brought them. Senator Landrieu is in trouble as well. (I'm not calling Landrieu corrupt, but she is a part of the Democratic machine politics that has provided every opportunity for corruption.)
But Charlie on the PA Turnpike thinks:
Apropos of pretty much nothing, and n spite of knowing I am about to subject myself to flames, I wanted to point out the following: I grew up in NYC eating Tastykake; they used to have a large plant on Flushing Bay in Queens. This was well known to me, as it sat several hundred yards from Shea Stadium (in Corona). So while The Mets deserve all the flames for entering this years record books (bass-ackwards), there was a time these delectable treats were baked in NY. Posted by: Charlie on the PA Turnpike at October 22, 2007 7:53 AMOctober 19, 2007I'm Gonna Get In Trouble For ThisAttila at Pillage Idiot has Rep Ron Paul explaining The Executive to a Cocker Spaniel. "Doctor Paul": This President reads way too much into Article II. He thinks that when it says, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America," it gives him all sorts of warmaking powers.
Dirty Hippie
But AlexC thinks:
I would have turned the fire hoses on you my friend. Posted by: AlexC at October 19, 2007 7:50 PM
But johngalt thinks:
But he's such a happy looking fellow! None of that black armband anarchy bulls**t. Not that I'd have picked him up hitchhiking or anything... Posted by: johngalt at October 23, 2007 2:42 PMDirty Hippies Lose One!A Sen. Clinton contributor is denied in an attempt to get 1 million of federal jack to erect a Woodstock Museum. Stephen Moore has the good news in OpinionJournal's PoliticalDiary: Well, what do you know? For the first time in modern history, the United States Senate yesterday eliminated an earmark. After scores of votes forced by Pork-buster Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma Senator finally prevailed 52-44 on a roll call vote to extinguish funding for a $1 million museum to memorialize the 1969 Woodstock Concert. Far out! Would they sell fake, bad, brown acid in the gift shop? 110th Congress
Posted by jk at 1:52 PM
Happy AnniversaryI'm not sure everyone remembers where they were 20 years ago today, when the market fell 22%, but I was doing PR for an investment banking firm. I've never been in battle, but I saw true fear that day in the eyes of the company principals and several of its top brokers. Don Luskin says he caused it and offers a front row seat. Economics and Markets
Posted by jk at 1:44 PM
October 18, 2007On MasonomicsI can't really excerpt it, though Everyday Economist did a good job. Arnold Kling writes a good sized piece on TCSDaily about Masonomics. I have noticed how frequently that I have seen good, solid, free market thought which somehow bears the imprimatur of George Mason University's School of Economics (as if Walter Williams were not singular proof). Kling says it's ongoing. Years from now, perhaps people will be saying that something big got started recently at the George Mason University department of economics. Maybe if you become a Masonomist now, you will be getting in early on a trend that will soon catch on much more widely Then he breaks it down in ways I think will be popular around here. The intrinsic danger of shared sacrifice (lose the "we") and the primacy of markets even when markets fail. Read the whole thing. Just this once. For me. Economics and Markets
Posted by jk at 4:09 PM
SCHIP: Fighting Back (against poor childern)A guest editorial (paid link) in the Wall Street Journal today offers a good, pragmatic response to the SCIHP imbroglio. This point has been made but not emphasized: we know the mean ol' Republicans hate poor kids and want to see them starved and denied health care and all that, but Grace-Marie Turner asks "Will this expansion help or hurt the poorer children the program was designed to serve?" The answer isn't encouraging. I suggest this as a good time to fly the pragmatism flag. Earlier Turner says "[T]his debate is not over whether to give poor kids health care, or even over whether this program should continue. Everyone agrees that it should." and I thought "she doesn't read ThreeSources." Yet, I think the hard-liners are going to get their ideological asses kicked, if they are seen to deny health care to poor kids. Arguments about crowding our private insurance are compelling to me but it's a tough sell. The fact that President Bush wants to cover the poor kids before considering expansion up the income ladder is a good -- and salient -- point, when one is badly needed.
But johngalt thinks:
JK champions pragmatism as the best strategy to stop government health care for the masses but misses the facts that a) we're already there to large degree and b) it's pragmatism that's made it possible. "First enroll 95% of children now eligble instead of the 66% already enrolled." And then, I suppose, there's no objection to raising the eligiblity bar still higher? And to be eligible now you need not be in poverty. Your family can have the resources of TWO impoverished families all to itself and still get the free ride. Not to mention the express escalator that the "Federal Poverty Level" has been on since the '70s. Pragmatically, it won't be long before Jenna and Barbara Bush are "poor kids." Posted by: johngalt at October 18, 2007 3:13 PM
But jk thinks:
I had a hunch that you might not be on board, jg. Probably not worth rehashing every argument over the last few years around here, but I am seeing that: Again, I am prepared to fight at the margins, knowing that it means conceding the ground already lost. Overriding the veto or giving today's Democratic party a filibuster proof majority would not help the cause of freedom. An attempt to scale this back will lead to one or both of those unfavorable outcomes.
But johngalt thinks:
After the Rockies won both games of a home double header versus the Dodgers on September 18th dagny asked me, "Do you think the Rockies will make the playoffs?" I said, "No. Their chances are slim squared." That's not quite as bad as "zero, nada, zip chance" but they were still long odds that paid out. I've learned not to say "never." Posted by: johngalt at October 19, 2007 2:48 PMOctober 17, 2007Congress vs the NazisInevitably the comparisons had to be made. Even after all the political posturing, it came as a surprise to the Democratic Congress that their approval rating of 11% is just half of the favorable rating received by Nazis in a German poll. The approval rate for Democrats was 11% - It was 25% for Nazis when asked if there was anything good to their control of Germany. President Bush's ratings are within the margin of error. Congressional insiders are formulating plans to gain more popularity than Nazis. Said one insider, "We never figured that calling President Bush a no good Nazi really meant that he had a higher level of populariity. But there it is."
But jk thinks:
Heh. Good thing we discuss important b******t around here! Posted by: jk at October 18, 2007 11:48 AMBring Back The Lobotomy!Too funny. Everyone compares VP Gore's Nobel Prize to Arafat's, but Dr, Henry Miller has a better choice on TCSDaily: Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz received the 1949 Nobel Prize in medicine for "his discovery of the therapeutic value of [prefrontal lobotomy] in certain psychoses," including depression and schizophrenia. The prefrontal lobotomy operation, in which the nerve fibers connecting the frontal lobe with other parts of the brain were cut, and which often made patients zombie-like, would be repudiated by the medical community within a decade. Hat-tip: Don Luskin
Posted by jk at 11:50 AM
Undertakers Hardest HitJames Taranto has a semi-regular feature on Best of the Web that goes something like "X happens, Y hardest hit." In the vein, here is an actual headline. "As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch" At what's believed to be the world's largest cemetery, where Shiite Muslims aspire to be buried and millions already have been, business isn't good. That's terrible!
But jk thinks:
Bush's fault! Posted by: jk at October 17, 2007 12:07 PM
But jk thinks:
Well done, ac, you out-Tarantoed Taranto. He did the same headline, or as he would say "Life imitates ThreeSources." Posted by: jk at October 18, 2007 11:44 AM
But AlexC thinks:
Homer nods. Posted by: AlexC at October 19, 2007 11:22 AM
But jk thinks:
Kerfuffle! Posted by: jk at October 19, 2007 12:11 PMOctober 16, 2007Mike!He spouts off the best one-liners (though Governor Romney's concern that Jennifer Granholm was going to tax the debate was up there). But Governor Huckabee drops further on my list every week. The Club for Growth and WSJ Ed Page have hammered him for tax increases during his tenure as Arkansas Governor. He waffled -- badly -- of trade in the last debate. Now John Fund tells us he's joined the cappers-and-traders: Mike Huckabee continues to demonstrate his populist, anti-free market bent. Fresh from a debate in Michigan where he showed skepticism about free trade and President Bush's veto of a budget-busting health care bill, the former Arkansas governor has now embraced a mandatory cap on global-warming emissions. The Non-Gore Nobel LaureatesI have not paid a great deal of attention to the Nobel prizes awarded in economics. The blurbs I have seen all have the same line: Leonid Hurwicz, Eric Maskin and Roger Myerson won the Nobel Prize in Economic Science for their work showing where markets work and where they don't. It was unlikely I was going to convincingly refute the Laureates' work, but I did not like synopsis. It plays into the old mixed economy idea that you can't trust the market everywhere. It implies that you have to trust Sens. Trent Lott and Ted Kennedy on important things. A guest editorial in the WSJ Ed page today provides a much more free market view. George Mason Professor Peter Boettke says "Strangely, some have used this occasion to disparage free-market economics. But the truth is the deserving recipients owe a direct debt to free-market thinkers who came before them." Mechanism design theory was established to try to address the main challenge posed by Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek. It all starts with Mr. Hurwicz's response to Hayek's famous paper, "The Use of Knowledge in Society." In the 1930s and '40s, Hayek was embroiled in the "socialist calculation debate." Mises, Hayek's mentor in Vienna, had raised the challenge in his book "Socialism," and before that in an article, that without having the means of production in private hands, the economic system will not create the incentives or the information to properly decide between the alternative uses of scarce resources. Without the production process of the market economy, socially desirable outcomes will be impossible to achieve. It is a great column. I have given a paid link, but let me know if you'd like me to mail the article. UPDATE: The Everyday Econmist has more links. UPDATE II: And Mankiw links to a short overview online at Reason. Economics and Markets
Posted by jk at 11:03 AM
But jk thinks:
95.0 (And I want to contest Question 58) Posted by: jk at October 16, 2007 10:41 AMOctober 15, 2007The NEXT Nobel PrizeObesity could be as big a crisis as climate change unless the nation starts to lose weight soon, Health Secretary Alan Johnson warned on Sunday. It's about the UK, but we also have a problem with weight in this country. Wouldn't it be awesome if Richard Simmons won next year's Nobel Peace Prize?
(tip to BOTW)
Posted by AlexC at 7:52 PM
| What do you think? [2]
But jk thinks:
Lima Oscar Lima! Posted by: jk at October 15, 2007 8:24 PM
But PR1ME thinks:
Eureka! Thank you for helping me make the connection. More people are getting fatter. And the earth is getting warmer. That's because LARGE BODIES RETAIN HEAT! Here's what we do about it: tell that thunder-thighed cellulite-mama that she needs to fit into a size 9 bikini by next summer. Stick to your guns. Do it for the earth. Posted by: PR1ME at October 20, 2007 2:19 AMSupply Side Under SiegeGreg Mankiw takes a whack at my heroes today. After I recovered from high dudgeon, I wonder if he has a point. He compares supply-siders to global warming extremists: They both noticed something that many serious scholars had been working on (human carbon emissions are causing the planet to overheat, high tax rates are causing the economy to underperform.) I'm a supply sider and a Laffer acolyte through and through, but I'd be willing to concede that he is on to something. Perhaps the supply-siders can be too ebullient and too optimistic. Taking the suggestions at face value however, if you divide the supply spiders by ten you still see a benefit to cutting taxes, even if it is less than promised. Cutting the global warming alarmism by ten, and you see water levels rising at 1.8"/century. It destroys the case to damage global growth. Yet I'll still take 10% of the promised benefits of tax cuts. Economics and Markets
Posted by jk at 1:10 PM
Mazel Tov!ThreeSources friend Perry Eidlebus proposes in the Philippine sunset, and is accepted.
Posted by jk at 12:23 PM
ObamanonicsThere was a lot of enthusiasm when Austin Goolsbee was announced as a key economic advisor to Senator Barak Obama's Presidential campaign. But as I mentioned, I have been disappointed. He's always keen to talk about "fairness" and "inequality" but, like the rest of the Democratic field, "growth" is not in the vocabulary. The WSJ Ed page today compares him (paid link) unfavorably with Democratic lion John F. Kennedy. President Kennedy said 'The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy." When it comes to taxes, Barack Obama is no Jack Kennedy. The Illinois Senator recently announced that he wants to raise the capital gains tax to restore "fairness" to the tax code. The line I keep hearing is that the Democrats want to put the tax rate back where it was when Bill Clinton was president and the nation was prosperous. I think it is telling and worrisome that they are not only ignoring his dedication to free trade but that they are going to roll back his "tax cuts on the wealthy." Economics and Markets
Posted by jk at 10:55 AM
October 14, 2007The Numbers Aren't In......and we have a winner! I really wanted to post a copy of the cartoon here too but elected not to since the linked image includes an instant online poll. When I clicked on "like it" the numbers went from 42 like - 58 don't like to 50-50. When all seven Threesources readers weigh in it should be 90-10! Hat tip: Dad, who saw the print version in the Denver Post. He said the caricature made her look "like a witch." You mean, like this dad?
But jk thinks:
Sixty Four. You presume all seven will like it? Posted by: jk at October 14, 2007 2:38 PMOctober 13, 2007Blood For Oil, Really This TimeDemocrat Hillary Rodham Clinton advocated talks to settle differences with Iran but said Saturday that Tehran would invite U.S. action if it were to disrupt oil supplies. Refreshing to hear some honesty from Democrats... it's not about freedom or democracy or any of those silly abstractions. Tip to DRJ @ Patterico's who writes: I’m glad Hillary said this and I hope she means it, but I expect anyone who wrongly criticized Bush about oil or unilateral action to hold Hillary to the same standard. Um, yeah. They'll get right on that.
Posted by AlexC at 4:22 PM
Some who did not winThe Wall Street Journal catalogs (free link) some of the people and the groups who were not selected for a Nobel Peace Prize. In Olso yesterday, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was not awarded to the Burmese monks whose defiance against, and brutalization at the hands of, the country's military junta in recent weeks captured the attention of the Free World. I still like the line from "Night Court" Hyper-ambitious attorney Dan Fielding says: "A Nobel Piece Prize -- I'd kill for one of those!" I didn't realize how true that was. Hat-tip: Don Luskin
Posted by jk at 4:18 PM
An MSM MomentKind of like a "Senior Moment," I suppose -- I had an MSM moment this morning. My recording of the Rockies game ended with two outs and two strikes on the last batter in the bottom of the 11th. I first ensured that our incredible team prevailed and they did. Then I saw the lead Yahoo head: Ex-general: 'No end in sight' in Iraq Wesley Clark? No, General Sanchez. Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded coalition troops for a year beginning June 2003, cast a wide net of blame for both political and military shortcomings in Iraq that helped open the way for the insurgency — such as disbanding the Saddam-era military and failing to cement ties with tribal leaders and quickly establish civilian government after Saddam was toppled. I certainly respect the General and his service but this was a disappointing attack on the administration. Or was it? Terri @ I Think ^(Link) Therefore I Err links to two stories which say the General attacked first-- and most vocally -- the press. Funny how that gets left out. Powerline: The Washington Post's headline was typical: "Former Iraq Commander Faults Bush." John Hinderacker provides much of the text of the speech, and General Sanchez did start on the press. It is still a disappointment to read this story when General Petraeus’s efforts seem to be bearing fruit. McClellan - Grant? Media and Blogging
Posted by jk at 10:53 AM
October 12, 2007Two Personal AttacksDon Luskin says "Conservatism is Doomed." ...when even reliable warhorses like columnist George Will start swallowing the Left's lies about economics. First it was Will's puff-piece adulating Austin Goolsbee, Barack Obama's economic hatchet man. Will's column was too crowded with charming lifestyle details about Goolsbee to bother to mention his 2005 "paper" claiming that any benefits of the Bush administration's Social Security reform proposal would be consumed in fees earned by the investment industry -- when, in fact, the administration's proposal specifically ruled out precisely the high-fee investment vehicles that Goolsbee used in his "study." Conservatism may well be doomed, but Mister Will is not a reliable indicator. Will is "conservative" on some level, but he is "Washington establishment" far more than ideological. Will's whacks at President George Herbert Walker Bush gave us President Clinton as much as Ross Perot. I trust Will on Baseball, but not on politics. While I am handing out disapprobation. I fell for the early reviews on Austin Goolsbee. He was associated with the University of Chicago (moment of reverence) and was recommended by a lot of libertarian bloggers. He has been a regular guest on Kudlow and Company, and while he is no doubt a bright guy, he truly is a party hack. He doesn't attempt an academic distance from politics, he proudly parrots the Obama/Democratic line. Let's see, who else is on my list here: the impressionist who sings "Take me out to the ball game" on TBS every 17 seconds... Somebody's HappyTo be fair, a lot of people are happy that VP Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize (though I have enjoyed much blog commentary today from those who do not). But I was surprised to see Professor Gregory Mankiw celebrate. As VP Gore is a member of his beloved Pigou Club, however, Mankiw is pleased. That is the problem with the Pigou Club. Mankiw is right that that is probably the best way to cut emissions but he glosses over the necessity (or lack thereof) for cutting emissions. He says (I paraphrase) that it is a public good to cut emissions, so irrespective of DAWG, why not do it? French fries are bad too. Trans fats. Too much sugar. Let's raise revenue with taxes, trying to do the least damage possible to innovation and investment -- let's not use the tax code to achieve dubious "social good." That argument is far more worthy of Gore than Mankiw.
But Everyday Economist thinks:
Mankiw's Pigou Club is nonsense. Why should we raise the tax on gasoline? Even if we admit that we should reduce pollution through taxation, we should tax the emissions of pollutants and not the consumption of gasoline. Posted by: Everyday Economist at October 12, 2007 7:47 PMThis Calls For a Pointless Gesture!AlexC rightly ridiculed the importance of a "Sense of the Senate" resolution, and over-reaction to it from left-of-center bloggers. Our legislators must be "Animal House" fans -- they seem to always have time for pointless gestures. Speaker Pelosi, however, gets a prize. As political payback for Armenian constituents, she will thumb her nose at an important ally to redress, for the third time, a 92 year old event. John Fund writes in the Opinion Journal Political Diary: More Turks have died in Iraq than any other foreign nationality, because it's Turkish truck drivers and logistical workers who bring in so much of the material used by U.S. troops there. The U.S. Air Base at Incirlik in Turkey channels 70% of all air cargo going into Iraq and one-third of the fuel U.S. troops use in Iraq comes through the Turkish port of Adana. The gavel of speaker really is in the hands of America's children. War on Terror
Posted by jk at 12:46 PM
It's official:The Nobel Peace Prize is officially a joke. Al Gore, U.N. Climate Panel Mr. Gore will have a platform to raise the profile of the issue later today, when he gives a press conference. In his own statement after the prize was announced, he said: "We face a true planetary emergency…The climate crisis is not a political issue ...'' If it is not a political issue then why was he granted a political prize for his "advocacy of the future of the earth?" Even Yasser Arafat must consider his own prize tarnished by this. Deleterious Anthropogenic Warming of the Globe
Posted by JohnGalt at 10:36 AM
| What do you think? [3]
But jk thinks:
Those Burmese monks were certainly undeserving. Glad to see it went to real peace advocates: VP Gore and the U.N. Posted by: jk at October 12, 2007 11:07 AM
But AlexC thinks:
I'm with Czech president Vaclav Klaus: You don't have to be a DAWG denier to agree. Posted by: AlexC at October 12, 2007 11:17 AM
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
Same Algore who looked the other way (along with Blow-Job Bill) while Islamofascists took shots at us, until they found a weakness in our defenses. Yeah, sounds like a man of peace to me! Posted by: TrekMedic251 at October 13, 2007 11:59 AMOctober 11, 2007Five 200,000s or three 333,333s?Gotta credit this Pittsburgh counterfeiter for high hopes: The likeness of Grover Cleveland is on this fake $1 million bill. Cleveland's portrait is on the genuine $1,000 bill, which has been out of circulation since 1969.
But AlexC thinks:
Everyone knows grocery stores can't break a million. A hundred-thou, probably. Posted by: AlexC at October 11, 2007 4:36 PMTime to go Short?I saw the heading ECONOMISTS TURNED more optimistic, seeing lower chances of a recession and stronger job growth, according the latest WSJ.com survey in the Wall Street Journal and I was going to write a tongue-in-cheek "uh-oh, time to short" post. But as I read a little, I think a real atta-boy for Charmin Bernanke is in order. So do the surveyed economists: The economists overwhelmingly approved of the Fed's decision on Sept. 18 to cut the target for the federal-funds rate by a larger-than-expected half percentage point. Seventy-six percent said the move was appropriate, compared with just 22% who thought it was too aggressive. Just one economist felt that the cut wasn't aggressive enough. That contrasts with a recent, but unscientific, WSJ.com reader poll in which 60% of respondents said the Fed action too aggressive. I recently read Bernanke's textbook (thanks to a tip from The Everyday Economist, who did not approve of the rate cut) and I think that the 50 basis point cut is completely in keeping with Bernanke's theories. I agreed with the suggestions in the book, and even in his suggestion that we codify inflation targeting goals in the US Fed. I have one difference. Bernanke admits that the CPI understates inflation between 0.5 and 2.0% He says the mean is "about 1%" (is that the kind of math they do at the FOMC?") and he adds a percentage point to ensure no deflation. If you call the mean 1.25% and let 2.25% be the target, I am on board. In reality, I think the CPI underestimates closer to the top of the spectrum, but I'll take two and a quarter. With that target, core inflation is still in target and the Fed was correct to look at bond yields and follow the markets. Atta boy, Ben! UPDATE: The DJIA has lost 200 points since I suggested shorting. (Past performance is not an indicator, yadda, yadda) Economics and Markets
Posted by jk at 1:56 PM
You live long enough...You see everything! Mickey Kaus lectures National Review for not being tough enough on Senator McCain vis-à-vis immigration: I think they're cheap dates. McCain obviously still believes his semi-amnesty is the essence of "real immigration reform." Is he saying it will have to wait until the |