Rooting For The Home Team?

USA - Run By 'Old Coots' With Childish Intellects

So I point out to my son that the local *comic book store* just closed shop:

CaptiousDad - Look John, the comic book store is out of business now....It's a bad economy right now, do you know what that means?

Son - Nah.

CaptiousDad - It means that a lot of people don't have jobs....that a lot of people don't have any money these days.

Son - Well....then they should just print more money!

HAH!!!

There you have it - the current national economic policy can be intuited by a 7.32 year old!

While my son is certainly very precocious....he hasn't read a lick of economics and so doesn't understand it a little bit - a la Bernanke, Obama, Bush, et al.

Boston Loses Jobs - Incumbents Rejoice!

Can you imagine that?

In an article on how Fidelity is moving yet another 1,000+ jobs from business-hostile Massachusetts to friendlier states the Globe runs a pic of a smiling Lieutenant Governor!

Is this some kind of Freudian slip?

After all, Massachusetts' incumbent statists are probably beaming at this development.

Not only can they use the opportunity to bash an *evil*, ungrateful corporation...

They've also just sent 1,000+ private sector employees and their families, people who might be inclined to vote against them, out of the electorate!

There are a lot of dying States out there. While most people are focusing on California, Michigan, and New Jersey....Massachusetts is also quietly well on its way to financial and demographic disaster.

A Junk Debunk

So I'm skimming a blog post that claims economist Paul Krugman *debunks* the idea of heavy government cuts as a way to economic recovery.

While Krugman didn't actually do what the blog author asserted....let's put that aside for a moment.

Morons and anti-Morons were arguing back and forth in the comment thread.

One particular mental midget offered up as his entire defense of Krugman that he *won a Nobel Prize* ergo he must know what he's talking about. (Next I'll have to take seriously the advice of *doctors* just because they went to medical school! Or government school teachers' opinion on education!)

Somebody countered that there's no such thing as a Nobel Prize in Economics.

And the boob came back with *yes, there is....look it up."

Lo and behold, the anti-Moron fired back:

Nobel Prize in Physics
Nobel Prize in Chemistry
Nobel Prize in Medicine
Nobel Prize in Literature
Nobel Peace Prize
Prize in Economic Sciences
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It's a later addition, not in accordance with Nobel's will. Tastelessly tacked on.

Hmmmm....I didn't know that. He's right, there is no official Nobel Prize in Economics.

Look, I've been telling people for I don't know how long - that macroeconomics is pure sophistry. There's just no way they can measure the aggregates they think they can measure; furthermore, the qualities of what they try to measure are changing all the time. Pure economics remains a fascinating subject to study but only so long as students steer clear of the junk, the propaganda, the Krugmans AND the Mankiws of that world.

From a humorous prior post:

Larry Kudlow - Isn't it better to have a broad-based permanent tax cut?

Greg Mankiw - I think there are different points of view on that....If you had a bunch of economists in a room you're going to get seven opinions from six economists. So there's no real consensus on that.

So no matter what agenda a slimy pol promotes....he can be certain to attain the imprimatur of some Harvard quack!

In other words, 99% of these award-winning/tenured economists are nothing but political propagandists (and wannabe political propagandists).

Krugman, as a Marginalization target, is low hanging fruit. I've left fisking him to others from the get-go.

But for those who appreciate seeing him smacked for the bazillionth time....see comment #10 from that post:

Krugman's problem is that he demonstrates complete ignorance when it comes to the most fundamental issues of economics: incentives. Incentives are often ignored in large systems because there is some inherent balance present. However, that balance only goes so far. The reason that it is okay to slash taxes on the rich to the tune of $1.3 trillion and yet it is not okay to spend $77 billion to extend unemployment insurance is because slashing taxes increase investment and leads to economic growth because it increases the incentive to work. Providing extended unemployment insurance does the exact opposite - it increases the incentive NOT to work. This is a fundamental fact that cannot be ignored. The other fact that Krugman fails to point out is that when taxes are lower, government revenue actually increases. The reason, again, has to do with incentives. If people are provided with incentives to work, there will be less "need" for unemployment insurance, more motivation to produce and earn more, and thus a net gain in tax revenue.

One last point - Krugman's error is summed up when he talks about "slashing benefits for those in need". Krugman believes that productive citizens have a fundamental duty to provide for people who are not productive, and that the needs of those people are valid claims on the wealth of others. That kind of attitude enslaves producers to consumers. It is undeniably immoral, and any philosophy that follows from that foundation is factually and ethically wrong on its face.

Larry Brown - Price Fixer

Consider this *outrage*:

CHARLOTTE -- Charlotte Bobcats coach Larry Brown, a longtime confidante and former coach of Allen Iverson, expressed disappointment that the 76ers reportedly offered Iverson a one-year, non-guaranteed deal Tuesday. Iverson has yet to accept the contract but Philadelphia is the lone team to publicly express interest in Iverson after his messy departure from Memphis.

"That upsets me a little bit," Brown said. "I’m just looking at how that looks. But he just wants to play. I get worried about that message personally. But I also admire Philly for giving him a chance, that’s more meaningful for me. I look at a [player] that’s scored 20,000-plus points, played hurt and did so much and now he’s got to play for a non-guaranteed contract. That’s pretty troubling for me..."

Let's see, Allen Iverson is a pass-fourth point guard, who's over-the-hill, a thug, and a proven team cancer. Nobody wanted him this summer when he was a free agent. And nobody, save for an irrelevant and injury-riddled Sixers team, wants him now.

Yet for some reason Larry Brown thinks we should all feel bad about the *diss* of a non-guaranteed contract?

Last I checked, Larry is coaching the Bobcats. Why the bleep aren't they opening up their checkbook for the Answer?

Somebody please remind Larry Brown that Allen Iverson was paid $153.3 million over the course of his career - so what difference would an additional guaranteed 800k make?

FURTHERMORE, the guy with his antics, obviously hasn't earned any such rights!

Let me ask y'all something.

Telling others to sign and pay Iverson - when his organization most hypocritically won't...

Lamenting about what some two-bit thug *deserves* in the face of the marketplace clearly asserting otherwise...

And wielding emotional arguments about *career achievements* and what entitlements should follow...

My question is this:

What types of politicians do y'all think Larry votes for?

It's not so hard to discern, now is it?

No Higher Than Pig Latin, Or Gibberish!

I came across the following re-definition in a book I just read:

ECONOMICS - noun. An arcane language, used by its own cognoscenti for reviewing past events in the production and distribution of wealth. There are some who would define economics as a science rather than a language; but, in the absence of any evidence that future events can be predicted by economists on the basis of fixed laws, this approach can hardly be supported by the objective lexicographer.

These clowns even admit as much. From a prior post:

Larry Kudlow - Isn't it better to have a broad-based permanent tax cut?

Greg Mankiw - I think there are different points of view on that....If you had a bunch of economists in a room you're going to get seven opinions from six economists. So there's no real consensus on that.

So no matter what agenda a slimy pol promotes....he can be certain to attain the imprimatur of some Harvard quack!

That Peter Bowler is good. I'm going to have to procure his recent book:

Recession Special - Affordable, Luxury Poop

That's the front web page of the embattled, bankrupt Boston Globe right now.

Red Sox, Red Sox, and Celtics (and an AP story on a helicopter crash that readers can and have seen on no less than one million other media outlets!).

Would you pay for that tripe given the existence of ESPN.com and countless other *free* sources of information?

And yet, in a feat of mind-boggling stupidity, just last week it was announced that the teetering Boston Globe was going to start charging viewers of its website.

To say those people simply DON'T GET IT would be ginormous understatement!

It's one thing to not grasp the basic laws of economics....but it's quite another to try and invert them.

I believe this misjudgment is even worse than today's Big Government policy - where their elegant solution to debt is....more debt.

I've written a bunch on the financial woes of the Boston Globe recently. Click here for the most recent batch.

Also, this announcement by the Globe reminded me of that Moron Ara Hovnanian.

A Fine Catch!

Powerline says she's an *argument for teaching economics in public schools*....

But that's 100% incorrect.

She's an argument AGAINST public schools - not one for giving them more mandates.

Hybrid Taxis - A Case Study In Government Failure

"Did you know that in the cab line at the airport (Boston) you can request a HYBRID taxi???"

That was Mrs. C-Nut provoking me late last night.

Nationwide, cabs are a disaster. They are over-regulated, too expensive, and too scarce all at once.

I used to live a mere 10 miles from Boston's Logan Airport and yet cabs to there cost a ridiculous $50. Since then, rates have gone up some more (ostensibly on account of gasoline).

And since then, Boston, like New York City, has been pushing to make cabs rolling idols for the eco-pagans; they've been trying to mandate hybrid taxis. In fact NYC, had their green ambitions temporarily thwarted by a judge. Read here.

Hybrids aren't built for the wear-and-tear of passengers, they are a cost burden on taxi companies - being far more expensive to buy and insure than Crown Victorias and the like, AND hybrids will endanger the safety of riders. These toys fold up like sardines in accidents.

I don't know about y'all, but I am already scared-to-death riding a cab on FDR Drive in Manhattan. I'm right sure I don't to ride that roller-coaster in a Prius lawnmower - at a steeper price to boot!

Cabs, like almost everything else on this planet, need less regulation - not more.

See also - Pluming Prius Putzes.

Marginalizing Calculated Risk

Blogger Calculated Risk wrote:

We will probably see a slew of articles over the next ten days on the various failures of the Bush administration. I think the two worst economic mistakes were the Bush fiscal policies (creating a huge structural budget deficit) and the administration's ideological opposition to regulation and oversight that allowed the housing and credit bubbles to form.

Okay, what the heck is *ideological opposition*?

To characterize an idea, disposition, or creed as ideological is to say absolutely nothing at all. Put it this way, what deliberate action would be insulated from such an accusation?

Maybe a *hypocritical* one, but that's about it. (And in such a case, the defendant might very well plead *rational*.)

More often than not, the *ideological* accusation comes from an outright partisan. I am no fan of Bush (click here and here), but it's been obvious for a while now that Calculated Risk is a, well, let's just call him a "non-Democrat hater". Heck the guy gushes over Paul Krugman - calling him "Professor" like a wide-eyed naughty school girl. If this isn't a Moron warning sign I don't know what would be!

Again, to say that Bush opposed regulation and oversight in the housing sector over *ideology* is to say nothing at all.

Furthermore, it's a COMPLETE FABRICATION! Here's commenter Average Joe smacking down this buffoon in the comment thread:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/....%20freddie%20labaton&st=cse

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago....

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken.....

A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

"I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing," Mr. Watt said.

Yeah, Barney Frank actually said that! He said that Fannie and Freddie *weren't facing any crisis* more times than one could count. One might be bold enough to label his un-evolved stance as IDEOLOGICAL.

Calculated Risk also Marginalized himself in a recent post titled Demolition As Stimulus:

As the Obama team has noted, properly chosen infrastructure projects provide the best bang for the buck. These projects provide jobs today, and they are an investment in the future. We need more projects ...


And since Obama asked for suggestions ... How about a demolition program?

The idea that knocking down buildings, any buildings, could be stimulative should reek of stupidity even to non-students of economics.

It just so happens there is a well-known debunking of this very concept. It's called the Broken Window Fallacy:

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

Now if you click on the Wikipedia link above, you'll find this ironic gem in the entry:

"Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack—like the original "day of infamy" which brought an end to the Great Depression—could even do some economic good. [...] the driving force behind the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. As I've already indicated, the destruction isn't big compared with the economy, but rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending."

Aha! Now guess what Moronic, Pulitzer-Prize winning economist uttered that and thus displayed the depth of their ignorance in the wake of 9/11?

It was "Professor" Paul Krugman....Calculated Risk's co-ideologue!

On The Cost Of Bailing Out Ignorant Incumbents And Manipulative Bankers

"This isn't about a bailout of Wall Street, it's a buy-in, so that we can turn our economy around," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

The advertised value of the "Bailout" that was just passed by Congress (and will be signed by quite possibly the worst President of all-time) is anywhere between $700 and $850 billion.

That's total BS - because it will cost many multiples of that when it's all said and done.

But that figure also ignores the money ALREADY squandered.

Consider just the price of gasoline. In the past 12 months, gasoline is up roughly 75 cents per gallon since the Federal Reserve started *bailing out* the banking/mortgage market. DON'T EVEN TRY TO SUGGEST THERE'S NO CAUSALITY.

Continuing on. As a nation we consumer roughly 400 million gallons of gasoline per day. So, thanks to the 12 month failed *lower-interest-rate bailout*, we have been spending $300 million PER DAY more on gasoline. Multiply that by 365 days and you'll realize that, already, the bailout has cost....

$109.5 billion smackeroos and counting.

Then you have to add in higher electricity bills, higher home heating bills, higher costs for transported goods - LIKE FOOD, higher air and rail travel costs,....

Oh and don't forget the all the people whose incomes are down or GONE because their industry was leveraged to $2.50 gasoline - retailers, the boating industry, restaurants, etc.

And the cost of Bear Stearns, AIG, Fannie Mae,...

All of these bailouts will fail precisely for the reason that they are endeavors to divorce *prices* from *intrinsic value*.

Economic forces are some of the most powerful on Earth; good luck to any Moron trying to fight them.

More Economic Illiteracy and a Hillary Cameo

A few years ago my wife was in need of an air conditioner. Her friend/neighbor informed her that another building tenant was coincidently trying to sell his. So my wife went up to see it. The seller wanted $150, my wife bid $130 (don’t ever say “offered”, the buyer “bids” and the seller “offers”), and the air conditioner changed hands at $130.

My wife went home and communicated the sale to that facilitating friend/neighbor of hers. My wife was quite happy with her procurement and described the very simple bidding process. Well guess what, her friend/neighbor became furious and claimed that it was unfair and deceitful to underbid the offer. She declaimed, “if you could afford $150, then you should have paid $150 !!!!!” Of course , my wife was taken aback by the no longer latent stupidity of now, just her neighbor.

“Pay what you can afford” or “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need” - a central tenet of socialism.

Next exhibit of economic illiteracy and somewhat of a corollary to the forementioned:

As a busy mother of a newborn, my wife found a forum, charlotte mommies, to be quite helpful. She would post questions pertaining to local pediatricians, daycare, teething, etc. and was almost overwhelmed with the enormity of instantaneous and helpful replies she would get. The site was truly a great find.

Of course, sometimes the posters got slightly off-topic. One “mommy” posted a tearful message that she had caught her husband cheating and with two small kids at home, she didn’t know what to do. Well that comment thread exploded right away. It was quite amazing to see the “reply” number jump into the hundreds.

Since we were moving to Boston, my wife sought out and found a similar forum for Boston mothers. Now consider this off-topic post from a Boston “mommy”:

“Does anyone know what the going rate is for maid service? ….I think I am underpaying mine…”

Do you think this woman throws in a few extra bucks when her steak at Outback is particularly tasty? Or pays 50 cents extra at the Mass Pike toll booth because the road is clean? (No way she is smart enough to have EZ-Pass or Fast Lane)?

This “mommy” thinks she is being compassionate by presuming that her maid is so damn stupid as to be unable to discern a fair wage for herself. Boston is not like rural Brazil or anything – despite being the anti-business exemplar; there are plenty of other job opportunities for this UN-exploited maid.

This “mommy” would definitely vote for William Galvin for governor.

Now for today’s last example of economic illiteracy that will certainly “one-up” its predecessors:

Hillary Clinton speaking to her “choir” in Aspen. From the Weekly Standard,

Hillary wasn't done giving us her mad moments in her Aspen Ideas Festival speech (and don't think Mad wouldn't have a field day with the concept of an Ideas Festival, either). Later in her remarks, she delivered this eye-popping economic analysis for the Colorado audience: "Ours will be the last generation to rely so exclusively on fossil fuels." She added that the "ups and downs of the global oil market cost the U.S. economy $7 trillion last year . . . almost enough to pay off our entire national debt."

Seven trillion dollars? That would surprise most economists, as well as Mad magazine readers who learned both to question authority and check sources, since the entire American GDP for 2004 amounted to $11.735 trillion according to the BEA; $1.5 trillion came from imports of goods. Energy goods (both domestic and imported) only accounted for $250 billion, making it extremely unlikely that price fluctuations in a single import commodity market could have generated anywhere near the kind of economic damage Senator Clinton cited.


Ignore the vapid global warming rhetoric and consider the ridiculous $7 trillion number she threw out there. It wouldn’t be near accurate to call her economically illiterate – I am going to have to search for a new term, maybe on a psychiatric website.

Given the long memory of today's de-monopolized internet media, I can't believe any aspiring politician would utter such nonsense. But I can see why Hillary likes to ban the (free) press from her "choir" fundraisers.