An illuminating post. For the record, I don’t think that jobs can be created that well by a chief executive. But they can be destroyed, or prevented from being created, and the president has been doing that with a vengeance since he took office (before, in fact, with his campaign rhetoric).
Category Archives: Media Criticism
An Overdue Apology
Better late than never. “Never” is when I suspect we’ll get anything similar from much of the American left.
“The Last Bastion Of Sanctioned Bigotry”
Stop attacking the evangelicals, writes Kirsten Powers.
Actually, while it is socially acceptable among leftists to be bigots against Christians (and southerners), Tea Party members are fair game, too.
The Neglect Of Communist Crimes
It should be just as socially unacceptable to wear a hammer and sickle, or Mao jacket, or Che tee shirt, as it is to wear a swastika.
[Update a few minutes later]
Yes, I know the piece is a couple years old. It’s worth reposting, though, given the proximity of the fiftieth anniversary of the Wall being erected.
“What Is Dutch?”
Multiculturalism is on the wane in the Netherlands, as well it should be.
[Update a couple minutes later]
This may be related: do excess welfare payments cause riots? There certainly seems to be a correlation.
Warren Buffett
…and his fiscal innumeracy. But he supports Barack Obama, so that’s OK.
[Update a while later]
The statistic I would like to see is the amount of tax paid relative to consumption. By that measure, it is possible that Buffett’s tax rate was more than 100 percent.
I do not care if he pays very little tax on saving. I would rather he pay zero tax on saving. His taxes are too high, not too low.
That doesn’t fit the narrative.
Give War A Chance
I quit reading Paul Krugman long ago, so I hadn’t realized that he was now advocating a war on space. Does he have an exit strategy?
I’ll let Maguire properly lampoon it, but I would note something that people rarely do about a payroll-tax cut:
My impression of the general economic consensus is that hiring people to dig and re-fill holes, or monitor for space aliens, does not provide any more stimulus than any other cash transfer to a person likely to spend it. Handing out money on street corners, the Bernanke helicopter drop, and payroll tax cuts should all be in play.
If a proposed stimulative shovel-ready project adds social value (e.g., a usefual bridge, or a useful bridge repair), then borrow the money for it; if the project adds nothing, it won’t be more stimulative than a cash transfer. Krugman’s belief in the power of make-work and his preference for that over tax cuts, is motivated by somethig other than standard economic textbook theory.
The payroll-tax reduction that we managed to get out of the Democrats was on the employee side (as is fitting with their insistence on demand-side, rather than supply-side economics). It is extra money in the employees’ pockets, which they presumably spend. But it does nothing to ensure that they have jobs. A cut on the employer side, on the other hand, would make it cheaper to hire people. This sort of encapsulates the economic divide between the two parties.
Will David Cameron Be Margaret Thatcher?
There appears to be a subtext in the piece: cometh the hour, cometh the man. But let us not forget that David Cameron’s first instinct, what he chose to promote to the first order of business in a recalled Parliament, was to blame social media, and moot the prospect of shutting down the country’s telecommunications systems at the first hint of a disturbance. Once again, the symptoms and not the causes are being addressed. This is because addressing causes is unpopular and difficult. It is depressing to note that the only prime minister since the Second World War who has had the honesty to candidly and repeatedly speak the truth about the consequences of our post-war welfare fetish was Margaret Thatcher: She pulled no punches, she did not dress up her sentiments or obscure the harshness of her message to such an extent that it lost its meaning, and she revelled in taking on who she saw as the enemies of liberty and of civilization (the socialists at home, the Soviet Union abroad). The result? The economy rallied and Britain was saved from what looked like terminal decline. Her reward? To be generally loathed for being “harsh,” even by many of those who would broadly agree with her.
Mrs. Thatcher’s great strength was that she did not particularly care about being popular — for which, let us not forget, she was rewarded with three election victories. And taking on the status quo is going to make the government unpopular. But David Cameron is no Mrs. Thatcher. The prime minister is not the man to stand up and say what needs to be said. He is still racked with guilt for his privilege and afflicted by that vacuous and peculiarly British concept of “One Nation” conservatism, which seeks to compromise between liberty and safety, and which has largely accepted the post-war settlement as being the foundation of a “civilized” society, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
Still, we can hope.
Space Lunacy On The Left
Tea Party in Space on Hatewatch? Really?
When Did Holder Know?
I think that it’s equally impossible to conceive that Obama didn’t know about Gunwalker. Of course, that’s partly because I agree with some of the commenters — this was never an operation that “went south” (well, it did literally, but not figuratively). It did exactly what it was intended to do all along. What’s amazing is that they thought they could get away with it. But actually, given how supine the gun-hating Obama-loving media has been on the story, they may well have gotten away with it had the Republicans not taken back the House.