Category Archives: Economy

The John (Eliot Spitzer) & The Mindless Schoolmarm (Kathleen Parker)

Celebrity, Economy, History, Media, The State, The Zeitgeist

We can all agree that Eliot Spitzer did his most ethical work as a John, between the sheets with the hooker with whom he was caught. Before that he was a politician who persecuted the productive class.

“Parker Spitzer,” CNN’s new current-events program, is easily the most repulsive thing on TV. More so than “Keeping Up With The Kardashians.”

I’d never have guessed, though, that I’d prefer Spitzer’s open statism to Kathleen Parker’s coy conformity. The New York Times stated that “Ms. Parker does not bring to CNN Mr. Spitzer’s propensity for controversy.” That’s an understatement.

Parker, we are told, is a Pulitzer prize winner. That tells me as much about that journalistic honor than Obama’s peace prize tells me about the Nobel Prize. Not only does this woman, Parker, not express a thought in opposition to her partner’s; she doesn’t express a thought.

Today the creepy couple entertained the king of Keynesians, economist Paul Krugman. Both offered plaudits to his predictive brilliance. Neither one challenged his warped history and economics. Yesterday it was the gorgeous model and ditz Paulina, and the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy. Both called the tea partiers savages. Nobody was smart enough to point out the differences between the Revolution in France, as Edmund Burke referred to this barbaric turning point in history, and the American Revolution.

Parker is a wound-up, tight-lipped, prissy schoolmarm—which is not a bad thing at all. I like prim and proper. It’s the dumb statist that I don’t much dig.

“Parker Spitzer” is self-congratulatory, pompous Beltway banter.

It needs to fail.

Chris Matthews Lies: The Best Minds Are Not Keynesians

Economy, Elections, Journalism, Media, Political Economy

Chris Matthews has been repeating this lie almost every week in this ramp-up to the mid-term elections:

“This president came into office facing the worst economic outlook since the 1930s. He took action, bold action, the action prescribed by the best economic minds – following the best thinking there is in economics ‘since’ the 1930s.

First, even before taking office, he backed up his predecessor in preventing a major collapse of the financial industry. Everyone involved said it ‘had’ to be done to avoid catastrophe – the destruction of our country’s financial spine.

Second, he took the action – again boldly – to powerfully offset the white-knuckle drop in consumer spending and business investment. If he hadn’t, no one – including his worst critics – would have any idea what would have befallen us. We can argue about the name it was given – the stimulus bill – but the creation of this great boost in economic demand for goods and services as critical break on what was widely seen as an economic free-fall.”

Nonsense on stilts. And what a propagandist Chris is.

I’ll quote this blog, from 2009, on the so-call Keynesian consensus: “The Royal ‘We’ is unwarranted; and it’s not only me.

The following statement was signed by more than 200 academic economists, and posted by the Cato Institute. The Wall Street Journal buried the statement among a list of economists touting the stimulus package–and the “principle” of printing and borrowing the country out of a depression:

“Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s ‘lost decade’ in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.”

“11 Long-Term Trends That Are Absolutely Destroying The U.S. Economy”

Business, Debt, Economy, Labor, Outsourcing, Political Economy

The Business Insider’s list of “Long-Term Trends That Are Absolutely Destroying The U.S. Economy” should form the sub-headings issuing from an overarching main causal agent: The State, its onerous regulations, and its mint. Over the decades, the Federal Reserve Bank, with State imprimatur, has debauched the currency and it manipulates interest rates so that the economy can never self-regulate.

In any event, The Business Insider may, at times, confuse cause with consequence, but, at least, it has looked beyond short-term trends; in itself a break from the trend.

See what you think (and do follow the hyperlinks before you accuse me of being remiss):

Long-Term Trend #1: The Deindustrialization Of America.
Long-Term Trend #2: The Exploding U.S. Trade Deficit
Long-Term Trend #3: The Shrinking Middle Class
Long-Term Trend #4: The Growing Size Of The U.S. Government
Long-Term Trend #5: The Constantly Growing U.S. National Debt
Long-Term Trend #6: The Ongoing Devaluation Of The U.S. Dollar
Long-Term Trend #7: The Derivatives Bubble
Long-Term Trend #8: The Health Care Industry
Long-Term Trend #9: Financial Power Is Becoming Concentrated In Fewer And Fewer Hands
Long-Term Trend #10: Rampant Corruption On Wall Street
Long-Term Trend #11: The Growing Retirement Crisis That Threatens To Bankrupt America

See the details HERE.

UPDATED: ‘How Do You Create A Job?’ (Hint: Food Stamps)

Business, Democrats, Economy, Free Markets, Socialism

In the Connecticut Senate debate, Republican Linda McMahon floored Democrat Richard Blumenthal with this simple question: “How Do You Create A Job?” Via the Free Republic: “Blumenthal stammers like an idiot. When he gets done, Linda McMahon schools him on the correct answer.” Writes David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner: “If you’re willing to suffer through Blumenthal’s answer, the response is pretty good”:

McMahon touches on the most important part of the production process: profits.
“Profits are the street signs of the free market—without profits there’d be no products.” [That’s Mercer, not McMahon.]

McMahon ought not to have used the active form of the verb, “create,” as it suggests that a central planner is involved in the creation of jobs. Her response, however, was instructive and refreshing. She might have also taken the opportunity to point out that production and jobs begin with savings and capital accumulation; not spending, as the DC establishment will have you believe.

But for an impromptu turning of the tables on a vile opponent (which is what McMahon’s performance was); she did a good job.

UPDATE (Oct. 7): Want to boost the employment prospects? “Do food stamps and unemployment insurance,” says Nancy Pelosi: “It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance — the biggest bang for the buck.”

Repeating the line twice was a form of self-persuasion.

Hot Air explains the liberal calculus whereby you forcibly take money from producers and hand it over to consumers and it magically multiplies:

“Pelosi, for her part, continues to insist that food stamps and unemployment stimulate the economy, and claims that every dollar spent in food stamps returns $1.79 to the economy. She floated this notion earlier this summer while trying to defend more borrowing to pay for yet another extension on jobless benefits rather than funding it through monies already authorized in Porkulus. That argument assumes that the $1 food stamp in question got plucked off the food-stamp tree at no cost to the government, rather than costing the full dollar plus the administrative costs of distribution and accountability. Even then, that dollar won’t generate a 79% ROI as it travels through the retail sector; if that were true, investors would put their money into nothing else.”