|
Media Infiltrations: Deadly Rescue  National Review November 17, 2008 Krugman’s Posthumous Nobel National Review Online October 14, 2008
"What has been your worst blogging experience? "That's a guy who actually stalks me on the Web and once stalked me personally." "I'm saying this...guy's a jerk."
 A Bound Man Shelby Steele What I'm listening to:  Langley Schools Music Project What I'm watching:  There Will Be Blood What I'm playing:  Speed Racer Order these from Amazon.com at Amazon's normal low prices... and a fraction of your order goes to help support this site. Thanks!
Thanks to Irwin Chusid, public editor. Some of the sites
|
Chronicle of the Conspiracy
Join us as we discover, document, expose and challenge the bad people, the bad institutions and the bad ideas that stand in the way of wealth creation -- and show you how to fight back!
Saturday, March 29, 2003
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
Krugman wrote Friday,
"In spring 2001 the lights were going out all over California. There were blackouts and brownouts, and the price of electricity was soaring."
I live and work in California, and did so during the spring of 2001. I did not experience a single power interruption of any kind at either my San Francisco office, nor my home in the suburbs around Palo Alto. I can't remember talking to a single Californian who personally experienced a blackout or a brownout.
I'm not saying nothing at all happened. But I assure you that no cute helpless dog was mauled.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:22 PM | link
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
"An influential adviser to institutional investors is urging its clients to oppose the re-election of the directors of Texas Instruments, including Thomas J. Engibous, the company's chairman and chief executive.
"The adviser, Institutional Shareholder Services of Rockville, Md., is angered by the recent disclosure that the Texas Instruments board adopted a costly stock option plan without obtaining shareholders' approval. It is recommending that stockholders withhold their votes for the eight directors who can stand for re-election."
It turns out at Institutional Shareholder Services believes that Texas Instruments ought to seek shareholder approval even though proposed new NYSE and SEC rules mandating that have yet to be finalized, approved or go into effect. It's one thing to argue that options plans ought to be approved by shareholders; but it's absurd to criticize a company simply for not following rules that don't even exist yet. But be that as it may, let's stick to Morgenson's slanted coverage.
First, ISS isn't "urging its clients" to do anything. ISS doesn't "urge" anything -- I know that, because during many years when I was responsible for the investment of hundreds of billions of dollars at one of the world's largest investment managers, I was a client of ISS, and I know exactly what they do and what they don't do. All they do is make recommendations for how investors should vote their proxies -- thousands upon thousands of them every year.
Second, there's no reason whatsoever given in the story, or anywhere else that I can find, to suggest that ISS is "angered," or feels any other particular emotion about this or anything else. ISS simply has a set of guidelines for what they consider good corporate governance in the interest of shareholders, and this particular proposal at TI violates the guidelines. It's nothing to get "angered" about. Nobody's "angered."
Don't you think if ISS were "urging its clients" and if ISS were "angered" that there'd be at least some mention of the Texas Instruments matter on ISS's website? There's not. The only place you'll find it is in the fevered imagination of kvetchin' Gretchen. And on the pages of America's "newspaper of record." Everywhere else this is just a moderately interesting plain-vanilla business story.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 3:16 PM | link
Friday, March 28, 2003
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
The particular news hook that Krugman has grabbed onto as his excuse for pillorying the veep is the report released this week by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which found that energy companies manipulated the electricity market during California's power crisis in 2001. Krugman -- whose knees instantly jerk toward blaming any and all problems on the corruption of corporations and plutocrats -- says, "...yes, I am patting myself on the back for getting it right."
But according to Krugman, Cheney and his National Energy Policy Development Group didn't get it right. That's putting it mildly. Here's how Krugman puts it:
"They were supremely confident — and yet with shocking speed everything they had said was proved awesomely wrong."
Get it? Look carefully at the choice of words -- shocking speed... awesomely wrong... Shock and awe! That's no coincidence -- Krugman wants you to see the "disturbing parallels" between the Bush administration's lack of credibility in energy policy and the war on Iraq.
"Right now, pundits are wondering how Mr. Cheney — who confidently predicted that our soldiers would be 'greeted as liberators' — could have been so mistaken."
Tom Maguire on his Just One Minute blog went back to the transcript of Cheney's Meet the Press interview with Tim Russert a week ago Sunday, and finds it impossible to reconcile Cheney's nuanced appraisal of the prospects of war with Krugman's characterization of it as a "confident prediction" that is now "so mistaken."
But let's take a look for ourselves at the report of Cheney's NEPD Group. Was it "supremely confident"? Hardly -- it reads with about the same bland bureaucratic self-assurance as any other government task force report, and offers up the usual broad list of findings and recommendations designed to please just about everybody. Krugman condenses it as:
"...in brief, that the energy crisis was a long- term problem caused by meddling bureaucrats and pesky environmentalists, who weren't letting big companies do what needed to be done. The solution? Scrap environmental rules, and give the energy industry multibillion-dollar subsidies."
The prime recommendation of the report -- which President Bush acted upon in an Executive Order the very day after the report was released -- was to require "meddling bureaucrats" to prepare a statement of the "energy effects" of new regulations. Modest exploitation of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was recommended -- hardly "scrapping environmental rules." And the so-called "multibillion-dollar subsidies" to the energy industry were in the form of grants for the just the kind of environmentally friendly alternative energy research that liberals love -- perhaps Professor Krugman's objection is that he fears the research would be done by corporations, not universities.
For Krugman, the heart of what's wrong with the task force report is that it didn't explain the California energy crisis entirely as the result of market manipulation. He claims that's exactly what last week's FERC report does:
"But now we have a new report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which until now has discounted claims of market manipulation. No more: the new report concludes that market manipulation was pervasive, and offers a mountain of direct evidence, including phone conversations, e-mail and memos. There's no longer any doubt: California's power shortages were largely artificial, created by energy companies to drive up prices and profits."
As I pointed out earlier today, this claim by Krugman is substantially false. In Krugman's words, it is "awesomely wrong." And he might say that I exposed it "with shocking speed." Within minutes of Krugman's column being posted on the Times website in the wee hours Friday morning, I had download the FERC report for myself and read the second and third sentences of its summary:
"Staff concludes that supply-demand imbalance, flawed market design and inconsistent rules made possible significant market manipulation as delineated in final investigation report. Without underlying market dysfunction, attempts to manipulate the market would not be successful."
John Weidner sums the situation up a bit more bluntly on his blog, Random Jottings:
"The 'perfect storm' of events and circumstances that led to the shortages included a nationwide rise in natural gas prices over which the state had no control, a three-year drought that reduced hydroelectric generation in California by over 20% during the late 1990s, and an explosion in August 2000 in the El Paso pipeline that carries natural gas from Texas to southern California. All of these factors led to increased wholesale costs of gas-fired electricity. However, under the California regulations these higher wholesale prices could not be passed on to consumers. So while electricity suppliers were going bankrupt, consumers were turning on the juice as if nothing was amiss. This not the way markets are supposed to work. Meanwhile the boob in the governor's office was doing his best to muddy the waters by finding scapegoats, mostly out of state suppliers, and avoiding blame himself."
So maybe Cheney's task force got it wrong by overlooking market manipulation entirely -- but Krugman's just plain wrong to blame manipulation entirely -- and he's lying to the extent that he claims the FERC report is doing that. And Robert Musil points out on Man Without Qualities another way that Krugman has gotten it wrong all along. Musil notes that a year ago Krugman wrote in his Times column,
"The great risk now is that this will be treated purely as an Enron story. That's wrong; Enron was mainly a trader rather than a power producer, and as such could have only limited impact on electricity prices. The bigger story involves market manipulation by a number of producers."
But the FERC report highlights Enron as manipulator-in-chief, and notes that its role as a trader made it an even more effective manipulator:
"EnronOnline gave Enron knowledge of market conditions unavailable to its competitors. This informational trading advantage from EOL was highly lucrative for Enron, which could absorb losses in physical markets because of its profits in financial markets. Enron manipulated thinly traded physical markets to profit in financial markets. Staff estimates Enron’s profits from EOL exceeded $500 million in 2000 and 2001. EOL was a primary driver of wash trading, which created a false sense of liquidity, which can cause artificial volatility and distorted prices."
Why was Krugman letting Enron off the hook last year? And why, in today's screed, did he not even mention Enron once (even Bush got mentioned once)?
Well, far be it from me to suggest any "disturbing parallels." But let's not forget that Krugman was paid $50 thousand to be a member of the Enron Advisory Board -- and while a member, he wrote a glowing puff-piece on Enron for Fortune magazine. Oh sure, he's been tough on Enron recently -- and even tougher in accusing the Bush administration of "crony capitalism" for its involvement with Enron -- but he rarely mentions his own involvement.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 4:22 PM | link
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
Krugman claims that Vice President Cheney's energy task force misdiagnosed the California crisis, while "yes, I am patting myself on the back for getting it right." But when, exactly, was Krugman "getting it right"? When he was paid $50 thousand to be a member of the Enron Advisory Board? When he was writing glowing puff-pieces on Enron for Fortune magazine? Or when he was accusing the Bush administration of "crony capitalism" for its involvement with Enron, without admitting his own involvement? Does he really think that by not mentioning the name Enron in a column about energy market manipulation that no one will remember any of that?
And does he think that, just because the Times doesn't fact-check him, that no one else will either when he grossly misrepresents a report released this week by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission? Krugman says,
"...the new report concludes that market manipulation was pervasive, and offers a mountain of direct evidence, including phone conversations, e-mail and memos. There's no longer any doubt: California's power shortages were largely artificial, created by energy companies to drive up prices and profits."
But, in reality, the report says no such thing. The second and third sentences of its executive summary say:
"Staff concludes that supply-demand imbalance, flawed market design and inconsistent rules made possible significant market manipulation as delineated in final investigation report. Without underlying market dysfunction, attempts to manipulate the market would not be successful."
Well, it's going to be tough for Krugman to honestly say what was in that report. The report was written "by order of the Commission, to determine whether Enron Corp. or any other sellers manipulated electricity and natural gas markets in California..." But we can't mention Enron, now can we?
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:18 AM | link
Thursday, March 27, 2003
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
So now the real debate begins: how much more than $350 billion will the tax-cut be? And exactly which of Bush's many proposed cuts will survive? The debate won't just be between Democrats and Republicans, either. The President's own party is deeply divided at a fundamental conceptual level about the dynamics of budget cuts, tax cuts, and deficits, and the trade-offs between them.
At the center of the debate will be the extent to which the proposed tax-cuts will contribute to budget deficits. Will they be a deadweight loss to federal revenues, or will the cuts stimulate enough economic growth to partially or wholly offset any revenue losses? Tuesday the Congressional Budget Office published an analysis of the President's budget and tax proposals that -- for the first time -- sought to answer that question in just those terms.
Some statements from the Bush administration have been very bold about their answer to that question. The President said in a speech earlier this year that "growth will bring the added benefit of higher revenues for the government." Vice President Cheney said "… the president’s package will generate new growth, it will expand the tax base, and thus increase tax revenue to the federal government ultimately."
Those are very politically incorrect statements. In these deficit-obsessed days the idea that tax-cuts could stimulate self-financing economic growth -- what used to be called "supply-side economics" -- can hardly be uttered without embarrassment. Today it seems supply-side economics is always referred to in the media as a "discredited theory." The conventional wisdom has it that it was responsible for the "catastrophic Reagan deficits." And the critics never fail to remind us that the first President Bush once dissed supply-side economics as "voodoo economics."
In its hey-day during the Reagan years, supply-side economics was embraced -- and, in the end, probably abused -- by very diverse political interests. There were those who believed (or pretended) that it promised a fiscal perpetual motion machine through which infinite government spending could be financed by infinite tax-cuts. And there were those who believed (or pretended) that it would be just fine if the tax-cuts reduced revenues -- because that would force a bloated government to cut spending. Bruce Bartlett has noted that the Reagan administration itself was always scrupulously circumspect in its supply-side claims.
Let's step back from the politics and ask one simple question -- does the idea of supply-side economics make fundamental good sense? Or doesn't it?
I say that it does. It's so simple: tax rates that are too high can be self-defeating, and so lowering them can increase total revenues. Bartlett tells me that this idea can be traced all the way back to Jonathan Swift, who wrote in 1728 that "in the business of heavy impositions, two and two never make more than one." He notes that economists and philosophers all the way from Smith, Montesquieu, Say and Mill to von Mises and Keynes wrote about the basic principle.
In the modern era, of course, no economist is more closely associated with supply-side economics than Arthur Laffer. He embodied the idea as the famous "Laffer curve," which illustrates that government will earn no revenues at all if tax rates are either zero or 100%. Somewhere in between is a tax rate at which government revenue is maximized. So when rates are too high -- too near 100% -- revenues can be increased by cutting taxes.
 |
| The Laffer Curve on a cocktail napkin, circa 1989 Collection of the author |
I spoke to Laffer last week, and his confidence in this simple idea is as great as when he first sketched the Laffer curve on a cocktail napkin in 1974 for by Richard Cheney, who was then assistant to White House chief of staff Donald Rumsfeld. He told me, "Prior to that it was presumed that a 10% increase in taxes would lead to a 10% increase in revenues. That was clearly wrong."
He's clear that the Laffer Curve itself is only "a pedagogic device designed to explain the feedback effects" from changes in tax rates. As such, it is hard to dispute that it is correct, at least in theory. But it doesn't say precisely what the revenue impact of any one particular tax policy will be.
As general guidance, Laffer gave me five common-sense questions to ask, to make an intelligent guess about whether a given tax cut is likely to lead to a supply-side revenue increase.
- Is the existing rate very high? Can it be assumed that it has been holding back economic activity?
- Are you are willing to wait for the incentive effects of lower rates to take effect?
- Is there a way that people can actually change their behavior to take advantage of the tax-cut? Can they work harder, invest more, and so on?
- Is there presently a lot of tax-evasion activity? Is the cost of that evasion high enough so that people will stop evading when the tax is cut?
- Is there some other tax mechanism that could receive the additional revenues? For instance, if capital gains taxes were cut would higher workers' wages cause income tax revenues to go up?
Applying these five questions to Bush's tax-cut plan gets you a mixed bag of answers. The elimination of the double taxation of dividends and retained earnings would score "yes" all five ways -- but allowing an above-the-line deduction for long-term care insurance may well score five "no's".
Overall, Laffer told me, "I love Bush's tax plan. It's great." But as the debate moves forward now, the winning strategy for the GOP will be to stay clear about which proposed tax cuts might pay for themselves, and which won't.
The best thing that could happen now would be for Bush administration to "compromise" by throwing out the tax-cuts that don't pay for themselves -- the ones that are really just another form of government spending. If what's left are the strongly pro-growth supply-side features of Bush's plan -- such as eliminating the double taxation of dividends and retained earnings -- the total value tax-cuts may look smaller, but their long-term contribution to the economy will be much, much bigger.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:50 AM | link
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
"The New York Stock Exchange has many useful functions, especially in turbulent times. Making foreign policy is not one of them."
An astounding concession to capitalism, coming from the Times -- that the NYSE has any useful function at all. But then whose "function" is it to make foreign policy? The Times' movie critics?
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 7:36 AM | link
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
- Reader Paul Philp of Radical Results writes, via email,
that no help was needed from Clear Channel to make the Dixie Chicks pay
for their lead singer's anti-war views.
"The Dixie Chicks have a very conservative audience that was outraged by Natalie Maines. The ex-fans of the Chicks used the Internet to organize the protest, just like the anti-war folk and every other grass roots movement in the world today.
"Here is a link to Free Republic where there are 55 message boards dedicated to kickin' some serious Chick butt: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/865158/posts
"It seems like country music fans aren't Clear Channel Stepford Wives. They have a mind of their own and they gave the Dixie Chicks a piece of it." - Tom Maguire at Just One Minute
complains that
"Professor Krugman comes out strongly today against freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. A big media company is engaged in an activity that is legal, visible, disclosed, and annoying to the Professor."
- John Weidner at Random Jottings (who, I have just learned,
has been operating his own "Krugman Truth Squad" for some time now)
sees Krugman's imagining of a corporate conspiracy centered on the Bush
administration as part of an "continuing tragedy."
"We are seeing a first-rate economist self-destruct as his partisanship becomes rabid and his dislike of anything Bush turns into blind hatred. To some of us, his columns are reminiscent of Oscar Wilde's 'Picture of Dorian Gray' as, week after week, they reflect a growing dementia, in this case political paranoia, that will eventually take him over. Other Squad members see Krugman as more akin to a hapless Robert Ludlum hero who finds that the bad guys (Republicans, the rich, corporate interests, etc.) are everywhere and control everything. There is nowhere to run, no place that is safe, and no one who can be trusted."
- Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs
says "My jaw dropped last night when I read Paul Krugman’s column in the
New York Times, comparing criticism of the Dixie Chicks to Kristallnacht,"
and has a conspiracy theory of his own -- he thinks that the word
Kristallnacht appeared in early on-line editions, and was later replaced
by an ellipsis.
Thanks to reader Mara Gold for the pointer.
- David Hogberg at Cornfield Commentary dismisses Krugman's comparison:
"I guess we now know why Krugman is a professor of economics, and not history. When the Nazis took over Germany, German democracy was a joke, Germany had no democratic tradition, and it had an economy that was in the toilet. None of that applies to the U.S. (Yes, the economy is a bit sluggish, but it’s nothing like that of the 1930s.) Sorry, but protestors in America and other democracies pull publicity stunts to promote a cause all the time. Heck, Krugman should take a look at his ideological brethren in San Francisco. There are many hallmarks of a society slipping into totalitarianism—a cheap publicity stunts isn’t one of them."
- Robert Musil at Man Without Qualities
says that Krugman's conspiracy theorizing puts him at odds with economic
theory.
"...Herr Doktorprofessor is entirely oblivious to the fact that he is writing a column about a topic which is informed by a fairly well-developed economic theory: regulatory capture. A lot of economic research has gone into analyzing what symptoms one should look for to determine whether a regulated business controls its regulators. But Herr Doktorprofessor ignores all that learning and structure to reach his unsupported conclusion that Clear Channel has put the fix in. But it can’t be ignored. If the 'fix' is so obviously a quid pro quo, how will other media competitors take it? And why aren't other competitors trying to do the same thing? Further, federal regulation and regulatory capture works mostly through the Congress – not the Administration. But Herr Doktorprofessor just entirely cancels Congress out of both sides of his equation.
"Introducing Congress into the equation would expose that Herr Doktorprofessor is also ignoring a second branch of modern economics: public choice theory - the branch of economic that concerns economic choices made by democratic societies. As so often the case with this columnist, resort to silly conspiracy charges substitutes for the hard work of applying difficult economics. He can leave that to real geniuses like Dr. James M. Buchanan, who won the 1986 Nobel Prize in economics for his contributions to public choice theory. A man has to know his limitations."
- Times Watch
notes that a
story by Douglas Jehl in the Times
yesterday on pro-war rallies focused extensively on the Clear Channel
connection, and noted that the company "has been criticized by those who
contend that media companies should not engage in political advocacy." Times
Watch is right-on when it says,
"One wishes the Times was equally concerned about the largest force behind the anti-war protests--the Stalinist organization ANSWER. The group, led by Ramsey Clark, former attorney general turned Saddam Hussein supporter, calls for President Bush’s impeachment on its web site."
I noticed that Jehl took the trouble to contact Clear Channel for a comment, and they responded that the events were "not sponsored by Clear Channel corporate." Krugman does not mention Clear Channel's denial.
Thanks to Orrin Judd at The Brothers Judd for the pointer.
-
Reader Roderic H. Fabian points out this message posted to the discussion boards at The Motley Fool. It's not about Krugman, but it's a fascinating glimpse into how the other members of the liberal media have dealt with the Clear Station story.
"I was listening to a conservative talk show host named Glen Beck this morning (WGST, AM 640 Atlanta) and he told the following story. Beck has a nationally syndicated talk show and suggested at some point that the people listening on the affiliate stations call their local stations and ask them to sponsor local 'Rallies for America' as a way to show support for our troops and as a counter to the anti-war protests that had been getting so much media attention...
"The Chicago Tribune ran a story about this that focused on the fact that Beck is an employee of Clear Channel Communications, a company that has lobbyists and could be attempting to curry favor from the Bush administration with these rallies. The person who wrote the story asked somebody in the industry what he thought about it, and the response was that there was no evidence that Clear Channel had anything to do with the rallies, but if they did it would be disturbing...
"...Beck gets a call from NPR who wants to discuss the rallies with him for a piece they will run on NPR. They tell him the interview will run 20 minutes. The interview starts with them asking him if he would describe himself as the 'typical conservative talk radio show host'. He says he doesn't think there is such a thing, and that as an example he voted for Bush for President and for Lieberman as his Senator. The NPR person consults with one of his associates and decides to pursue another line of questioning. He then asks about the rallies and how they got started. Beck tells him that he made a comment on his show one day, somebody called in, and it quickly became a groundswell. He said that some affiliates got so many calls that it temporarily shut down their switchboards.
"The NPR person then says that Clear Channel has legislation in Congress and isn't it possible that they had something to do with all of this? Beck tells them that Clear Channel had nothing to do with it, that he talks about whatever he wants to and if advertisers don't like it they can stop advertising, if Clear Channel doesn't like him they can fire him. He pointed out that one of the rallies he participated in was in Philadelphia for an Infinity station (I assume they carry his show). After talking with another couple of minutes, the NPR guy tells him his denial sounds plausible and he doesn't think they have a story after all. Beck asks him why the turnout at these rallies isn't a story, or the innuendo in the Chicago Tribune isn't a story. The NPR guy tells him they were pursuing the Clear Channel angle. End of conversation, no story on NPR."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 7:05 PM | link
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
There's a great gotcha, in which Kaus catches Leonhardt's pessimistic econobabble contradicting Paul Krugman's pessimistic econobabble. Here's the battle of the babble (emphasis is Kaus's):
"...according to Leonhardt:
"'the aging of the population will slow the growth of the labor force.'
"But wait. Wasn't it only five months ago that Paul Krugman was telling us rapid labor force growth was bad, because
"'an economy that is growing, but in which employment grows more slowly than the labor force, may be in recovery by some measures, but it will feel like it's still in recession.'
Then Kaus adds,
"Leonhardt also sounds an alarm because
"'baby boomers, who are approaching retirement -- are likely to increase their savings at the expense of spending.'
"But wait again! Wasn't it only a few months ago (and a few days ago, and a few years ago) that we were warned about America's "anemic" savings rate? And the dire possibility that boomers might not increase their saving? It was!"
No wonder Kaus calls Leonhardt "Downhardt". And he's right that these are examples of Easterbrook's Law: "All economic news is bad."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:28 AM | link
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
Since the subject is corruption, don't you think that it would have been the right thing to do to mention that Clear Channel is a competitor of the Times' parent, Krugman's employer: New York Times Company? The Times Company owns eight network-affiliated TV stations and two radio stations.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:07 AM | link
Monday, March 24, 2003
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
The background -- from a reminiscence by economist Irwin L. Collier, veritably overflowing with academic bonhomie, on the occasion of awarding Krugman an honorary Ph.D. in 1998 from the Freie Universität Berlin:
Advice taken, to be sure."One of the safety valves for the pent up frustration created during the pressure cooking of young economists that takes place in the MIT graduate program is an annual skit party at which each class and sometimes the faculty puts together a skit, typically a parody of some well known story, to lampoon economics and economists in general, but especially to lampoon those who inflict it on the young.
"Those evenings were fun, the jokes were silly and the bounds of good taste served as neither floors nor ceilings. One year our class put together a parody of that famous Judy Garland movie The Wizard of Oz.
"While it was fairly obvious that the great and powerful Oz could be none other than Paul Samuelson, there was understandably enormous hesitation among my classmates to actually play the Paul Samuelson role. Memory fails me to tell you whether Paul Krugman volunteered or was drafted by the rest of us to play the great and powerful Oz. I report to you today, well over twenty years after the fact, it was a most credible performance. I vividly recall Paul Krugman accurately capturing Paul Samuelson’s distinctive walk, more of a shuffle. One wonders if Paul Samuelson was able that night to catch a glimpse of the future Krugman behind the bow-tie of that Samuelson impersonator before him. My advice to you Paul Krugman: if the shoe fits, shuffle."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:34 PM | link
Sunday, March 23, 2003
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
Richs's lead story in today's "Style & Leisure" section is a lengthy comparison of President Bush's supposed manipulation of the Washington Press corps to manipulation by the fictional character Billy Flynn, the unscrupulous lawyer played by Richard Gere in the film Chicago. No light is shed either on the film or on political affairs by drawing this parallel -- it's just an excuse for moving bald-faced political opinion from the op-ed page to the news pages. Try these quotes on for size:
"The former Andover cheerleader had failed to convince America's friends to come aboard. The economy was tanking. But the journalists at hand were so limply deferential to the president's boilerplate script...
"One reporter, April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks, asked, 'Mr. President, as the nation is at odds over war, how is your faith guiding you?' — a God-given cue for Mr. Bush to once more cloak his moral arrogance in the verbal vestments of humble religiosity...
"As he knew — and said, in his one moment of truth that night — the entire show was 'scripted.' It has been from the start."
"Failed to convince America's friends" -- "moral arrogance" -- "one moment of truth" -- not something you normally see in a movie review, is it? Well, as Howell Raines said of Rich in January announcing his departure from op-ed, "...I'm delighted to welcome him back to the news pages."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 2:31 PM | link