My first and best economics "teacher", Henry Hazlitt, who wrote the classic "Economics in One Lesson" back in the 1940s graced the pages of the WSJ the other day with two very relevant paragraphs to explain bubbles. His entire book forms the foundation of how my brain perceives economic phenomena. The mind-numbing crap that passes for basic econ in high school and college textbooks and forms the popular conception of what economics is all about came across my eyes after I read Hazlitt.
As Obama looks forward with the prospects of facing Romney, his team is in search of some policy initiatives to build a campaign narrative around. Enter, the Buffett Rule.
This is the kind of story that makes a libertarian like me sneer and chuckle with delight in the same story:
It's truly remarkable. Regardless of what your personal or ideological feelings are about ObamaCare's mandate and overall plan, there is no denying that the arguments among the Justices in this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jVI-5FrT9rnC_jcuPxybOarMs47w?docId=00c0c0d18d914f6a80d3a6d43431c7c3 make it clear that "constitutional law" is not the point of debate between the factions.
Why can't they be mutually exclusive??
Most of these people don't even know what they are celebrating for or really care or understand what they are getting in return. In time, the predictable, corrupt process will pit opposition factions against each other as they scramble and jockey to secure power on the backs of the rubes who just helped them create enough hysteria to get Mubarak down.
Ideology or just plain dispassionate law?
I tend toward the latter. In a way, I don't think this is a matter of opinion. It IS unconstitutional. But that has rarely mattered before of matters of murkiness where judges who were so inclined would work backwards from a what they felt was an important or needed law and then twist the constitution to underpin it.
Hello all. Things are great. Hope all is well. While I haven't been following politics much lately, I have been peeking in at polls in the last week or so as the elections approach to see how the idiots clogging up my TV with silly ads are doing (ads that aren't any different in terms of solid content than late night infomercials promising you millions if you follow a few easy steps...what does "earn up to $10,000 per month or more" mean anyway?? Whatever.). Anyway, I am stunned at how well the GOP is doing.
Saga continues with Somali pirates . American captain attempted to escape but was recaptured.
Wells Fargo is looking good. Stock rises on positive profit news. Not all is dire.
Via Mark Thoma , a good article on bubbles and depressions.
Central Italy rocked by 6.3 earthquake . over 92 dead and priceless medieval buildings fall in ruin.
NY Gov. hits new low in approval rating.
No, not that one. This one : Fascism.
I know, I know... It's a bad, bad word to throw out there in serious discussion and a word that will surly get taken to mean something other than intended when talking about it in an economic context.
Obama gets quite active in the Auto Industry:
Some frustrated U.S. taxpayers cheered President Barack Obama's tough steps to shore up the reeling auto industry on Monday but critics called his decision to fire General Motors' chief a heavy-handed power grab.
Obama signs Omnibus Public Lands Management Act into law. (more below the fold)
Obama celebrates the Iranian New Year . See link for a clip of what was seen on TV in Iran this morning.
These are precisely the moments I'm glad he's the President and not McCain.
Obama on Leno . See transcript through the link. He doesn't support taxing the bonuses at 90%. I agree.
For a plethora of reasons, I'm generally sympathetic to and for the arguments of legalizing and/or decriminalizing drugs...especially marijuana. It's well covered territory on both sides of the argument but, in the end, the anti-legalization arguments fail to convince me that it's a better way to handle this issue. To me, it's not an issue of whether people can or will have access to these drugs because they do. So, "illegal" clearly does not mean "no access" or "diminished access" or "keeping us all drug free". Likewise, "legal" does not mean the opposite.
Greenwald's main point:
...there's absolutely nothing about Cramer that is unique when it comes to our press corps. The behavior that Jon Stewart so expertly dissected last night is exactly what our press corps in general does --
...only he doesn't seem like a real conservative in common usage of the term. (He seems more like the L word ;))
The governor from South Carolina has credentials...at least on a cursory level...to get me to finally vote GOP for President for the first time in my life.
Reason's Matt Welch has the story about new expose' on Sanford at the American Conservative magazine.
Highlights that caught my eye:
How to judge economic phenomena is often in the eye of the beholder. One man's problem is often another man's comfort. One country's helpful subsidies to a particular sector can be a bane to that same sector in another country.