

Latest 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? Donald Luskin." -- Brad DeLong"That's a guy who actually stalks me on the Web and once stalked me personally." -- Paul Krugman "I'm saying this...guy's a jerk." -- Charlie Gasparino
What I'm reading:

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.
Copyright 2002 thru 2008 Donald L. Luskin All rights reserved. "The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid" and "Krugman Truth Squad" are trademarks of Donald L. Luskin www.poorandstupid.com

"The road is cleared," said Galt. "We are going back to the world." He raised his hand and over the desolate earth he traced in space the sign of the dollar.
From Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen.
From Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick
"there is some shit I will not eat"
From i sing of olaf glad and big by e. e. cummings
Some of the sites that have linked to us! * recently updated



|
|
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!
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free.
Click here to sign up! |
MEDICARE BILL: THE ANTITRUST CONNECTION
The tax cuts were great. But other than that, the Republican economic
agenda continues to miss the mark. Here's a letter from our antitrust guru
Skip Oliva of Citizens for
Voluntary Trade, showing that (once again), the GOP has failed to grasp
the dynamics of regulatory reform:
"There is a major flaw in the Medicare bill that has not been discussed,
or, more accurately, an important omission: protecting physicians from the
antitrust laws. If the bill's scheme of having Medicare 'compete' with private
health plans takes off, it will provide a strong incentive to antitrust
regulators to expand their current policy of prosecuting physicians that
attempt to jointly contract with such plans. After all, we can't have doctors
raising costs through 'anticompetitive' means, can we?
"The Medicare bill does target physician-owned specialty hospitals with an
18-month moratorium. These hospitals often provide better services for
patients, since the specialist-owners are freed from much of the red tape
associated with larger hospitals. But the community hospitals lobbied
intensely to punish specialty hospitals in the bill. The argument is
reminscent of the anti school voucher argument: specialty hospitals skim the
high-reimbursement cases off the top, leaving only the low-reimbursement
patients for the larger hospitals. Better to make all patients suffer the same
level of mediocrity than allow some patients (and their doctors) to be better
off.
"Finally, the bill supposedly encourages the development of preferred-provider
organizations. But the FTC and DOJ have spent the past two years trying to
punish such networks under the antitrust laws, at least those networks that
have 'too many' doctors in the government's view. In North Carolina, the DOJ
forcibly dissolved (without a trial) Mountain Health Care, one of the largest
PPOs in North Carolina. To date, the DOJ has never disclosed a single piece of
evidence demonstrating Mountain's alleged antitrust crimes. I'm currently
appealing the case to the Fourth Circuit to compel document disclosure under
federal law."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:21 PM |
link
DELONG WETS HIMSELF
...with yet another hapless defense of Paul Krugman. You see, when you defend a liar you must lie, too. But Lying in Ponds has got the goods on DeLong. Worth a read.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:28 AM |
link
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free.
Click here to sign up! |
KRUGMAN ON DRUGS
Paul Krugman in
today's New York Times, on the Medicare bill:
"Meanwhile, the bill prohibits Medicare from using its bargaining power to
cut drug prices; drug company stocks have soared since the bill's details
became public."
From reader Jameson Campaigne:
"Can't Krugman even read the stock charts?"
One presumes not:

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:20 AM |
link
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free.
Click here to sign up! |
THE AARP ACCORDING TO KRUGMAN'S WORLD
Paul Krugman offers his prejudices as axiomatic arguments. Government
action is good, private action is evil. In his
New York Times
column a week ago, he characterized GOP initiatives to put any
limits at all on Medicare, at the same time as it is being vastly expanded, as
"bait and switch" and a "Trojan horse." He characterized budgetary disciplines
and experimental participation by private insurers as a "intended to
undermine the whole system." And
in today's column,
"...private companies have much higher overhead than Medicare...
"...Mr. Gingrich has long advocated turning the administration of Medicare
over to private companies...
"...drug company stocks have soared since the bill's details became public.
"...AARP has become much more than an advocacy and service organization for
older Americans. It receives more than $150 million each year in commissions
on insurance, mutual funds and prescription drugs sold to its members."
I would have thought that AARP would be beyond Krugman's reproach,
since it is not-for-profit (i.e., not-for-evil). And that $150 million is
revenue, not profit, anyway. But it turns out there's an overriding axiom
(make that an overriding prejudice). Democrats are good,
Republicans are evil.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:48 AM |
link
CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR FRIEND DAVID HOGBERG
Uhh... make that Doctor David Hogberg!
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:50 AM |
link
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free.
Click here to sign up! |
BALLSY CORRECTIONS AT THE TIMES
A friend points out
this
correction in today's New York Times. You can't make up stuff
like this.
"An obituary last Wednesday about Marvin Smith, a leading photographer of
Harlem who worked with his identical twin, Morgan, described the closeness of
the two men — it was said that they never used the pronoun 'I' — and recounted
an anecdote about Marvin Smith's response to the illness that caused his
brother's death, in 1993.
"The article said that Morgan Smith died of testicular cancer and that his
brother, in response, had his own testicles removed. That account was given to
The Times by a friend of both men. It should not have been published unless it
could be verified and attributed.
"After the obituary appeared, Monica Smith, the daughter of Morgan Smith, told
The Times that her father had had prostate cancer and that her uncle did not
have his testicles removed."
Oh, and on the same corrections page, there's a bit about the Times
mischaracterizing attitudes by Europeans about the United States
as being about President Bush personally. Naturally, they were not good
attitudes. And the Times mischaracterized them not just once, but twice.
"In article yesterday about the French government's effort to stop
anti-Semitic violence referred incorrectly to results of a recent opinion
survey sponsored by the European Commission. (The error also appeared on
Sunday in an article about European attitudes toward President Bush.)
Respondents were asked to identify the countries — not the leaders — they
perceived as the greatest threats to world peace. A majority perceived Israel
(not Prime Minister Ariel Sharon) as the greatest threat; the United States
and North Korea (not Mr. Bush and the North Korean leader Kim Jong Il) were
ranked No. 2."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 5:15 PM |
link
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free.
Click here to sign up! |
THE REAL FACE OF PAUL KRUGMAN
Steven Kirchner at Institutional Economics
points out the grotesque and distasteful dustjacket design for the UK version of Paul Krugman's book, The
Great Unraveling. This is not a joke. Does Krugman stand by this?

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 4:49 PM |
link
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free.
Click here to sign up! |
THE TIMES PROMOTES CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS AT THE GROCERY STORE
Alert reader Jesse Penny points out a follow-up to my posting yesterday about the New York Times' Saturday editorial purporting to support the permanent class of people called "grocery workers" against the evils of Wal-Mart. Penny notes this paragraph from a Times story yesterday about the spread of self-checkout technology in grocery stores: "Critics say the machines may also provide an all-too-easy escape from social interactions across class lines that may prompt some shoppers to wonder uncomfortably if a minimum-wage cashier has health insurance, or lead an employee to respond angrily to a customer." So tell me again when Howell Raines' resignation takes effect?
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 2:23 AM |
link
GONE FISHIN'
Paul Krugman didn't write a column today. Instead he did this.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:03 AM |
link
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free.
Click here to sign up! |
THE TIMES SEEKS 9/11 SUBSIDY
You know that $20 billion in post-9/11 federal aid to New York City that Paul Krugman is always saying that the Bush administration will never pay? No wonder he's always complaining -- and no wonder the New York Times prints the complaints. Turns out that the Times itself is seeking $150 million of that money in the form of Liberty Bonds to subsidize construction of its new high-rise headquarters -- in midtown (which, according to the Times, suffered no damage on 9/11). The feds are properly skeptical.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:12 AM |
link
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free.
Click here to sign up! |
THE CONDESCENSION OF PATRICIAN GENEROSITY
Just got back from a 3-day weekend in Los Angeles, where all the
grocery stores are being picketed by members of the United Food and
Commercial Workers union. Leave it to
Saturday's
New York Times editorial page to explain it (...expect the
world). According to the Times, it's all about Wal-Mart's plans to
open up 40 grocery supercenters in the region.
"Wal-Mart's prices are about 14 percent lower than other groceries'
because...Its workers earn a third less than unionized grocery workers, and
pay for much of their health insurance... Southern California's supermarket
chains have reacted by demanding a two-year freeze on current workers'
salaries and lower pay for newly hired workers, and they want employees to pay
more for health insurance. The union counters that if the supermarkets match
Wal-Mart, their workers will be pushed out of the middle class. Those workers
are already only a step or a second family income from poverty, with wages of
roughly $18,000 a year. Wal-Mart sales clerks make about $14,000 a year, below
the $15,060 poverty line for a family of three."
Superficially, the Times -- ever posing as the populist (and itself
heavily unionized) -- goes on to argue that it is the moral duty of grocery
customers and grocery store shareholders to subordinate their interests
to the class aspirations of the grocery workers. But whose class aspirations are
really being served in this editorial? In supporting the grocery workers this
way, the Times demeans them. The Times implicitly posits that
there is a permanent class of people who are "grocery workers" just as there is
a permanent class of bees called "drones" and a permanent class of ants called
"soldiers." By establishing the existence of the "grocery worker" class and then
defending its members, the editorialists at the Times drape themselves in
seeming generosity -- but, in truth, they establish their own class superiority
by the very gesture (and then, I have no doubt, instruct their servants to shop
at Wal-Mart to save a couple bucks without so much as a second thought).
The reality is that people are not bees or ants. No one is a
"grocery worker" for life unless he or she wants to be. How many Wal-Mart sales
clerks are young people at the beginnings of their careers, who will pass beyond
it once they actually have a family of three to support? How many are bringing
in a second family income? Lots, I'll bet. But that doesn't even need to be
considered, apparently -- for the Times, the test is whether these
congenital drones-for-life, these genetically type-cast soldiers, can support a
family of three on a single-earner Wal-Mart salary.
This is the key to the whole class-warfare "income maldistribution" theme
that the Times harps on so incessantly. It's the world-view of the
condescending patrician who wants to feel he's being generous to the underclass
-- while at the same time making sure that no one in the underclass could ever
actually rise out of it.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:02 AM |
link
KRUGMAN IS WARNED, COMFORTED, CHECKED
Robert Musil notes that Herr Doktorprofessor has been cherry-picked. Mickey Kaus reminds him that a Constitutional amendment would be necessary for the imagined next conspiratorial step of the "radical regime." And Steve Antler checks source biases.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:01 AM |
link
There's more...visit the archives!
|