January 2014 Archives

On Special Report today, Chucky Krauthammer could be heard quickly correcting his characteristic Keynesianism when fellow Fox-News panelist neoconservative George Will made him look, well, silly. As she knows nothing about economics, the blond Kirsten Powers, also empaneled to discuss the economy, was none the wiser. Neither did host Bret Baier notice Chucky stumble and recover.

The Fed had set the price of money at zero, Krauthammer noodled. In his opinion, this served as a positive impetus for steady but slow economic growth. The far cleverer George Will jumped on this, pointing out that quantitative easing was the Democratic equivalent of faux trickle-down economics. In other words, the manufacturing of paper money inflates prices on the stock exchange, enriches a few big players, and leaves the rest of us holding devalued dollars and struggling to survive. (Naturally, this is not verbatim. I paraphrase from memory, since few news outlets bother with the written word any longer.)

Like greased lightening, Krauthammer leaped to finesse his Fed demand-creation Keynesianism.

As mentioned, other than the two men involved, nobody (except a few Austrians like myself) noticed.

UPDATE (1/3): EPJ on Chucky’s Nutty Two Tier Minimum Wage Proposal. Our neocon is such a tinkering technocrat.

This is truly goofy. It would result in businesses hiring teenagers over breadwinners. Since the advocate Charles Krauthammer seems to understand that raising the minimum wage causes unemployment, his proposal has to be classified as pathological altruism.

Here’s Philip Klein on the problems with Krauthammer’s proposal:

On a Fox News panel earlier this week, Charles Krauthammer floated a proposal for a two-tiered minimum wage system in which the rate would be raised for individuals who are the breadwinners of their families and remain the same for others. But this would be an absolutely terrible idea.

MORE.

The late Steve Jobs was not the only man who had no time for that excuse of a man, Bill Gates.

“[H]edge fund founder Robert W. Wilson, who [sadly] committed suicide over the weekend,” had nothing but contempt for the patronizing Gates (who is also a racist and a statist).

Mr. Wilson, “one of the most active philanthropists in the country”—“over the course of his career he donated an estimated $500 million to various causes”—refused to join what he termed Bill Gates’ “worthless Giving-Pledge” charity—as if Gates’ showy, sanctimonious, very public efforts are the way to give.

Quite the opposite:

The righteous give secretly. The pious give publicly. Accustomed to the hedonism of Hollywood and the exhibitionism of cable news anchors, it may surprise some to learn that the manner in which most Americans give satisfies the exacting standards of righteousness specified by Maimonides. The 12th century Jewish philosopher stipulated that the highest form of charity is practiced when “donor and recipient are unknown to each other.” This is self-explanatory.
Observe how in no time at all, Brangelina, Madonna, Clooney, Lady GaGa …, and Gisele Bundchen advertised the sums they gave. …

(From “Haiti: Trade In Voodoo For Values”)

On BuzzFeed you can puke your way through Bill Gates’ paternalistic, condescending verbose missives to the late Mr. Wilson. Here I’ve posted only Wilson’s “caustic” replies (courtesy of BuzzFeed):

From: Robert W. Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:16 PM
To: Bill Gates
Subject: Re: Giving Pledge discussion

Mr. Gates, I decided more than ten years ago to try to give away 70% of my net worth and have already given away one-half billion dollars. (I’ve never been a Forbes 400) So I really don’t have to take the pledge.

Your “Giving Pledge” has a loophole that renders it practically worthless, namely permitting pledgees to simply name charities in their wills. I have found that most billionaires or near billionaires hate giving large sums of money away while alive and instead set up family-controlled foundations to do it for them after death. And these foundations become, more often than not, bureaucracy-ridden sluggards. These rich are delighted to toss off a few million a year in order to remain socially acceptable. But that’s it.

I’m going to stay far away from your effort. But thanks for thinking of me. Cordially

When the vapid Gates disgorged more empty words, the admirable Mr. Wilson put an end to the discussion. Decisively:

——- Original Message ——-

From: Robert W. Wilson

To: Bill Gates

Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:15 PM

Subject: Re: Giving Pledge discussion

Mr. Gates, thanks much for your email. But as my previous email indicated, I wouldn’t have much fun or add much value to this group. You, being a liberal, think you can change people more than I think.

But let me make one comment. When I talk to young people who seem destined for great success, I tell them to forget about charities and giving. Concentrate on your family and getting rich—which I found very hard work. I personally and the world at large are very glad you were more interested in computer software than the underprivileged when you were young. And don’t forget that those who don’t make money never become philanthropists.

When rich people reach 50 and are beginning to slow down is the time to begin engaging them in philanthropy.

I’d greatly appreciate just leaving it at that. Cordially

What a shame that steely Randian men such as Robert W. Wilson are a dying breed, and creepy androgyny like Bill Gates are multiplying.