It takes an optimist like George Will to point out what’s good these days:
Really grim news always contains good news. Remember Orwell’s rule that the quickest way to end a war is to lose it? One way to reduce the price of oil is to have an economic slowdown. The price plummeted from a July 3 peak of $145.29 to $62.65 last Friday. Is everybody happy?
Not exactly. Hugo Chávez, Vladimir Putin and Iran’s ruling mullahs, whose geopolitical ambitions are lubricated by high oil prices, are dismayed, which augments America’s stock of happiness. Some Americans, who discern a lead lining in any silver cloud, fret that falling oil prices will lure less virtuous Americans out of the market for electric cars, if there ever is such a market. The plummeting profits of oil companies please people who think profits represent economic success but moral failure. Such people are not among the millions of individual investors who own 23 percent of the companies and who do not worry that their pension funds are among those that own 27 percent of the oil companies, or that their IRAs, mutual funds, etc., are among those that own 43.5 percent of the companies. Anyway, as Congress contemplates yet another “stimulus,” the plunge in oil prices has delivered the equivalent of a huge cut in income taxes.
Thank you, Mr. Will. By the way, where are we going and why am are we in a handbasket again?
Hubbard posted this at 12:28 PM HKT on Tuesday, October 28th, 2008 as Philosophy, Politics
No Comments »
Now that the government is a shareholder in banks, Thomas Friedman lays out some possible unintended consequences:
Let’s imagine this scene: You are the president of one of these banks in which the government has taken a position. One day two young Stanford grads walk in your door. One is named Larry, and the other is named Sergey. They each are wearing jeans and a T-shirt. They tell you that they have this thing called a “search engine,” and they are naming it — get this — “Google.” They tell you to type in any word in this box on a computer screen and — get this — hit a button labeled “I’m Feeling Lucky.” Up comes a bunch of Web sites related to that word. Their start-up, which they are operating out of their dorm room, has exhausted its venture capital. They need a loan.
What are you going to say to Larry and Sergey as the president of the bank? “Boys, this is very interesting. But I have the U.S. Treasury as my biggest shareholder today, and if you think I’m going to put money into something called ‘Google,’ with a key called ‘I’m Feeling Lucky,’ you’re fresh outta luck. Can you imagine me explaining that to a Congressional committee if you guys go bust?”
And then what happens if the next day the congressman from Palo Alto, who happens to be on the House banking committee, calls you, the bank president, and says: “I understand you turned down my boys, Larry and Sergey. Maybe you haven’t been told, but I am one of your shareholders — and right now, I’m not feeling very lucky. You get my drift?”
Maybe nothing like this will ever happen. Maybe it’s just my imagination. But maybe not …
(H/T)
I really hope there’s a sunset provision to the government ownership of stock in the banks. It could take decades to get the government out of the bank ownership business.
Hubbard posted this at 11:01 AM HKT on Tuesday, October 28th, 2008 as George Bush Sucks!, It's Economics - Stupid!
No Comments »
Christopher Hitchens here writes about how terrible it is that McCain and Palin are railing against some of the billions of dollars the federal government spends on research. In the midst of which, we get this:
We never get a chance to ask her in detail about these things, but she is known to favor the teaching of creationism in schools (smuggling this crazy idea through customs in the innocent disguise of “teaching the argument,” as if there was an argument), and so it is at least probable that she believes all creatures from humans to fruit flies were created just as they are now.
A. All the recent stories have been that Palin is the only one of the four major candidates frequently having discussions with the media. It seems that lots of people get to ask her questions these days.
B. It doesn’t require a federal research grant to search the interwebs and find that Palin actually doesn’t promote the teaching of creationism. Hitchens has no excuse for peddling lies, though the irony of doing it in this particular column made it worth my time to read this. Flippin’ Wikipedia even got this one right.
C. I don’t think that Sarah Palin has said whether she’s a creationist or not, so the last line of speculation is largely baseless. I actually like that she doesn’t talk about that, since it’s a complete non-issue what our politicians think about the vast majority of scientific issues.
For someone so concerned about science and research, this was a remarkably fact-free tirade.
Hitchens then proceeds to a lengthy paragraph of unhinged and unsupported speculation about Palin as a religious fanatic. There’s not too much actually connecting Palin personally to religious fanaticism (and, by any historical or global standard, Pentecostals are some pretty mild religious fanatics), though I’m not sure it’s a terribly American past time to begrudge politicians their peculiar theological beliefs. It’s interesting for Hitchens, who hates all religion, and who understands the finer points of Christian theology about as well as a hammer understands a wine glass, to involve himself in such a discussion.
Apollo posted this at 5:17 PM HKT on Monday, October 27th, 2008 as Faith, Hitch-slapped!
1 Comment »
Does Joss Whedon have the solution to the West’s demographic issues? I have some evidence that indicates a connection.
Read the rest of this entry »
Tom posted this at 2:47 PM HKT on Monday, October 27th, 2008 as I bid you stand: Men of the West, Nerdom
No Comments »
Trying to save trees, it seems. Out of the top 25 newspapers, only two increased their circulation in the last year, and then only by .01%. Some of the declines are double digit. Those numbers are a month old, so the New York Times has undoubtedly now fallen below one million.
It’s worth keeping in mind that this occurred during the most watched presidential campaign ever, an exhausting twelve month slog that hasn’t let up since last Thanksgiving. If they can’t sell newspapers now, when will they sell them?
Apollo posted this at 8:12 AM HKT on Monday, October 27th, 2008 as Journalism
No Comments »
This Biden interview is pretty funny. First the reporter asks some over the top questions. Then Biden responds in utterly stupid ways. He says here that it’s the Bush tax cuts that are redistributionist, redistributing wealth from the middle class to the rich. What? In what world is that possibly true?
This reminds me of the “when France and the US kicked Hezballah out of Lebanon” bit. It’s impressive to see his ability to simply make up crap and sincerely say things that can politely be called nonsense. The man plainly doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but that doesn’t stop him from talking, and it doesn’t stop him from acting like others are stupid when it’s he who is spouting what is, objectively, idiocy.
Apollo posted this at 6:53 PM HKT on Sunday, October 26th, 2008 as Audacity of Hype, Buffoon Watch
3 Comments »
The other day, I was discussing former Senator Al D’Amato (R-NY) with a friend. Back in 1996, he realized that Bill Clinton was going to win a solid reelection bid over Bob Dole, so as NRSC chairman, D’Amato had his candidate throw Dole to the wolves. The plan worked, and Republicans had a net gain of Senate seats (gaining ground in Nebraska, Arkansas, Alabama, although losing in South Dakota).
David Frum seems to think along similar lines:
Unchecked, this angry new wing of the Democratic Party will seek to stifle opposition by changing the rules of the political game. Some will want to silence conservative talk radio by tightening regulation of the airwaves via the misleadingly named “fairness doctrine”; others may seek to police the activities of right-leaning think tanks by a stricter interpretation of what is tax-deductible and what is not.
The best bulwark for a nonpolitical finance system and a national culture of open debate will be the strongest possible Republican caucus in the Senate. And it is precisely that strength that is being cannibalized now by the flailing end of the McCain-Palin campaign.
What should Republicans be doing differently? Two things:
1. Every available dollar that can be shifted to a senatorial campaign must be shifted to a senatorial campaign. Right now, we are investing heavily in Pennsylvania in hopes of corralling those fabled “Hillary Democrats” for McCain. But McCain’s hopes in Pennsylvania are delusive: The state went for Kerry in 2004, Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and McCain lags Obama by a dozen points in recent polls. But even if we were somehow to take the state, that victory would not compensate for the likely loss of Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and other states tipped to the Democrats by demographic changes and the mortgage crisis. The “win Pennsylvania and win the nation” strategy may have looked plausible in August and September, when McCain trailed Obama by just a few digits. Now it looks far-fetched.
But it is not far-fetched to hope that we can hold 45 or 46 of our current 49 Senate seats. In 1993, then-Senate Minority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) stopped Hillary-care with only 43 seats. But if we are reduced to just 40 or 41 senators, as could easily happen, Republicans and conservatives would find themselves powerless to stop anything — and more conservative Democrats would lose bargaining power with the Obama White House.
2. We need a message change that frankly acknowledges that the Democrats are probably going to win the White House — and that warns of the dangers of one-party, left-wing government. There’s a lot of poll evidence that voters prefer divided government. By some estimates, perhaps as many as 8 percent of voters consciously cast strategic votes in favor of division. These are the voters we need to be talking to now.
Seems like solid advice, which is probably why the right won’t take it.
Hubbard posted this at 11:34 PM HKT on Saturday, October 25th, 2008 as Conservatism, Politics
No Comments »
It will provide us a useful list in the future of people to not listen to. Because this cannot possibly be the reasoning of an intelligent, principled conservative who has decided to vote for Obama.
He gives the game away when, in two paragraphs, he says that the big reason he’s voting for Obama is competence, but then he belittles Gov. Palin. Of the four people at the top of the tickets, she is the only one who has demonstrated competence as an executive. If your issue is competence, then the other three are blank slates, and to belittle her and vote for the blankest of those slates is not the reasoning of a sound mind.
So either Adelman’s unprincipled and is lying to us about why he’s voting for Obama. Or he’s stupid and actually thinks that post suffices as an explanation. Either way, he’s off of the list of future Republican advisers, and his dimwitted reason for voting for Obama makes me feel good about that fact.
Apollo posted this at 9:43 AM HKT on Saturday, October 25th, 2008 as Conservatism
No Comments »
The editorial page editor of the New York Times: “The problem with conservative columnists is that many of them lie in print.”
The obvious response is to wish Andy good luck at keeping his job.
Apollo posted this at 11:51 PM HKT on Friday, October 24th, 2008 as Journalism
No Comments »
Sign seen today on a half-empty shelf at a very large liquor store: “Due to a shortage of whiskey, Makers Mark stocks will be sporadic for several weeks. We apologize for the inconvenience.”
An economic downturn is one thing, but combine that with a whiskey shortage, and I’m suddenly convinced that we stand on a precipice. I’ve thought the 1929 comparisons were overblown, but now it’s going to be like prohibition all over again!
Apollo posted this at 7:29 PM HKT on Friday, October 24th, 2008 as DON'T PANIC
3 Comments »
The tart tongued Krauthammer is backing McCain. Taking a philosophical view is Thomas Sowell:
In his classic 1987 work, A Conflict of Visions, Sowell identifies two competing worldviews, or visions, that have underlain the Western political tradition for centuries.
Sowell calls one worldview the “constrained vision.” It sees human nature as flawed or fallen, seeking to make the best of the possibilities that exist within that constraint. The competing worldview, which Sowell terms the “unconstrained vision,” instead sees human nature as capable of continual improvement.
You can trace the constrained vision back to Aristotle; the unconstrained vision to Plato. But the neatest illustration of the two visions occurred during the great upheavals of the 18th century, the American and French revolutions.
The American Revolution embodied the constrained vision. “In the United States,” Sowell says, “it was assumed from the outset that what you needed to do above all was minimize [the damage that could be done by] the flaws in human nature.” The founders did so by composing a constitution of checks and balances. More than two centuries later, their work remains in place.
The French Revolution, by contrast, embodied the unconstrained vision. “In France,” Sowell says, “the idea was that if you put the right people in charge—if you had a political Messiah—then problems would just go away.” The result? The Terror, Napoleon and so many decades of instability that France finally sorted itself out only when Charles de Gaulle declared the Fifth Republic.
What role have the two visions played in the campaign? Sen. John McCain, who is trailing, has by and large embraced the constrained vision; Sen. Barack Obama, who is leading, the unconstrained vision. Asked if Obama represents the purest expression of the unconstrained vision since Franklin Roosevelt, Sowell, himself an African-American, replies: “No. Since the beginning of American politics. This man [Obama] has been a left ideologue for 20 years.”
Read it all.
Hubbard posted this at 10:26 AM HKT on Friday, October 24th, 2008 as Audacity of Hype, The Conservative Sowell
No Comments »
There’s at least one conservative writer standing as a stalwart for the more conservative candidate, and it’s the guy who used to write speeches for Walter Mondale. No “wet fingered conservative” he.
On joining the ranks of the petulant “Obamacans:” “I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I’d rather lose an election than lose my bearings.”
Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who’s been cramming on these issues for the past year, who’s never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of “a world that stands as one“), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as “the tragedy of 9/11,” a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?
The Obama choice is irresponsible, and it’s galling to have people telling us 1. John McCain was irresponsible in picking such an inexperienced candidate for vice president so 2. I’m going to vote for an inexperienced candidate for president. Krauthammer stays focused on the actual question at hand:
Today’s economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I’m for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
Apollo posted this at 9:15 AM HKT on Friday, October 24th, 2008 as Audacity of Hype, Conservatism, Kraut-hammered
No Comments »
Here’s hoping that Scott McClellan’s vote gets him a job in an Obama administration.
Apollo posted this at 7:42 PM HKT on Thursday, October 23rd, 2008 as Audacity of Hype
No Comments »
In Argentina, politicians are planning to punish people who saved their money for retirement; President Kirchner plans to nationalize individuals retirement accounts:
Argentine President Cristina Kirchner announced this week that her government intends to nationalize the country’s private pension system. If Congress approves this property grab, $30 billion in individually held retirement accounts — think 401(k)s — managed by private pension funds will become government property.
That the state could seize retirement savings no doubt seems outrageous to Americans. But it is a predictable development in a country where government intervention in the financial system is the norm. With Washington now expanding its role as guarantor in American banking, that’s something to think about.
Could it happen here? Yes, actually. The House Democrats are thinking about ending 401(k) accounts (H/T):
Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive. House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal. At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.
Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.
The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.
First, we already have the social security tax of 12.4% (6.2% from the worker, another 6.2% from the employer). Second, instead of being able to invest in mutual funds that, over decades, average 8-10% annual interest, we get 3% government bonds.
Let’s do some math for a not-so-hypothetical worker named Hubbard, age 27, who saves a large chunk of his salary because he’s a touch neurotic. For 2008, he saves approximately $10,000 and receives a partial match from his employer of $2,000 for a total savings of $12,000. If he plans to retire in 2045 at age 65, and his interest compounds at 7% (a low ball long run figure), then according to this calculator, from that one year of saving and investing alone he’ll have $156,951. Now let’s say he does as the government could mandate, saving 5% of his salary, which would be $2,370, plus gets $600 from the government, for a total savings of $2,970. Invest that for the same amount of time in government bonds earning only 3%, and at age 65 he’ll have $9,132. That’s a difference of $147,819.
NOW COMPOUND THAT DIFFERENCE OVER DECADES OF INVESTING. That’s a lot of lost money.
It won’t do to say that our hypothetical worker should invest the difference in another account. Ed Morrissey explains:
The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.
That means your employer can no longer write off their contributions to your 401(k), and your capital gains would be taxable year-on-year. In other words, it becomes just another investment or savings account, with no tax benefit at all, and no employer contribution. Instead, Uncle Sam would give you your “matching” funds — up to a whopping $600 per year! Whoopee!
As Michelle Obama says, you could buy a pair of earrings every year … except, of course, you can’t. It’s in The Lockbox, defined by politicians as Locked Away from You but Accessible to Us. It goes there along with 5% of your gross earnings, apparently to play with the 7% of your gross earnings that already goes to Social Security. And what do they do with the money? They give you government bonds as your only investment option.
Maybe you’ll be lucky, and they’ll have Franklin Raines running the agency issuing those bonds.
Let’s pray this bad idea goes nowhere.
Hubbard posted this at 2:08 PM HKT on Thursday, October 23rd, 2008 as It's Economics - Stupid!, The Democratic Congress
2 Comments »
Slate has a few photos from Obama, Japan. My favorite:
Note how their drawing looks Japanese, except for the large lips and broadish nose. Japanese perceptions of race always amuse me.
Apollo posted this at 11:32 PM HKT on Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008 as Those Wacky Foreigners
No Comments »