Monday, July 25, 2005

Two laws that may have been broken...

Regarding flag burning under mourning families' cars, I have these two points: 1. If burning a cross on someone's lawn is illegal, this is almost certainly illegal for the same reasons. 2. One can easily assume the flag burners have seen action films in which cars explode whenever they're situated too close to anything burning. What I'm suggesting is the vandals were trying to light up an impromptu car bomb, and ought to be prosecuted as terrorists for doing so. UPDATE: The facts emerge and calmer heads than mine prevail.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 1:14 PM

Bubble Alert

New home prices now appear to be rising precisely because they are rising. That's a classic bubble situation, and it can't last long. But heck, dont' worry too much. Bubbles are supposed to pop.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 12:11 PM

Nature always finds a way...

Via Milt Rosenberg, news on tuskless elephants in China.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 11:55 AM

Wish we could say different...

I was recently asked by a reader for an estimate of Eurozone price levels in or around 2030. My response was you might just as well take a pencil and ruler to any plot (like, for example, this European Central Bank data series showing average European price levels) and draw a straight line projecting out 'till 2030. And then I suggested I'd be willing to construct a trend using a single equation model if a few dollars appeared in the tip jar. Oops. A few dollars appeared in the tip jar. So be it. That's EconoPundit. "Will do econometrics for tips." The results are a good indication of why you can't rely on sound statistical technique for anything farther out than a year or two. When I workd on the numbers I found the best estimate was always given by a trend equation with a second-quarter seasonal adjustment and a one period adjustment for autocorrelation. The only question was whether a linear, or a quadratic, or a cubic trend was more appropriate. This table summarizes the dilemma. In terms of adjusted R-squared the quadratic and cubic trends are to be preferred to the simple linear trend. In terms of the Akaike and Schwartz criteria, the quadratic and cubic trends are separated by a coin toss. The AIC tells us cubic is better, while the SIC says quadratic is to be preferred. Okay let's look at the results. Here's the forecast, all the out to way out to 2030, with standard error bands, according to the quadratic trend: So what could be more reasonable? With 95% certainty we can say by 2030 the Eurozone price index, now at about 115, will be somewhere between 235 and 263. Sounds reasonable. The problem is if we choose the cubic trend (just as statistically sound a choice according to the test criteria) we get the following result: Yup. You got it right. Major deflationary collapse starting in or around 2015. With 95% certainty the index (by 2030) will stand somewhere between 130 and -260. Of course if forced to decide I'd choose the quadratic rather than the cubic trend as the more reliable model, but my point is the table of criteria suggests one is for all practical purposes as reliable as the other. Sorry. This far out -- 25 years or so -- and econometrics is a coin toss.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 10:26 AM

What are the costs of product differentiation in health care?

I like this idea a lot, but I'd add to it another simple proposal. At the core of the Clinton health plan was a sound idea: a standardized, "white-cover with black stripes" minimal health insurance package that did not vary from one insurance company to the next. We already legislated the idea once. It's called workman's compensation. For the most part the only difference between one worker's comp policy and another is price (which of course makes shopping easy). Why can't we do the same for individual or family health insurance? Notice what I'm proposing involves minimal government regulation. What's being mandated here is just that in addition to any other product each company must provide one basic policy with specified basic coverage exactly the same as the same product elsewhere. The price of this product is up to the company.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 10:11 AM

Sunday, July 24, 2005

Postal workers of the world, unite!

Here's a story worth watching closely. These data show an important weakness faced by both sides. If the public/private sector issue isn't addressed in some way expect little widespread support for either side. UPDATE: More (maybe too much?) here. UPDATE II: So far the most over-the-top, hilarious comment on the topic is from Knight Ridder's Steven Thommas: At stake are the financial and job security of 13 million people who belong to the unions that compose the AFL-CIO as well as the direction and health of the Democratic Party, which relies heavily on unions for financial support and an army of volunteers to work campaigns. So we're to understand all that stands between the 13 million employees and job oursourcing is the AFL-CIO? I doubt it. And further, how is it the Democratic party's "army of volunteers to work campaigns" is at stake? They're volunteers, right? UPDATE III: More of substance here.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 11:33 AM

Saturday, July 23, 2005

You never miss that petroleum, 'till the well runs dry...

These people eat, drink, sleep, (and everything else) peak oil production. Via Paul Engel. UPDATE: Just in case you don't get it, this is religion, not petroleum (or any other kind of) economics. If you want to understand the purpose of this web site tune into the recommended newsletter: [As world production peaks petroleum] does not cost significantly more to produce, so the high prices represent profiteering from shortage. The huge money flow passing to the Middle East governments can hardly be absorbed there, so it makes its way back to Western financial institutions, creating yet more unsustainable liquidity to be recycled as increasingly bad debt. It seems that the House of Cards is growing in height. End Time for USA upon Oil Collapse The fall of the U.S. may be the swiftest empire collapse in world history. It is obvious that the U.S. population and the nation's infrastructure is heavily petroleum dependent. The U.S. peaked in oil production (extraction) in 1971. The world may be peaking now, as some evidence indicates, or in a few short years. As a severe energy shortage is on tap as soon as the gap between supply and demand is felt by the market, and the Earth gives noticeably less oil than just recently, there will be a cascade of impacts on the economy and people's lives. So it will not matter how much oil is still in the ground, or if other ways of obtaining and using energy are more renewable and greener: A massive shut down of petroleum supply brought about by market panic and economic collapse will terminate corporate globalism and the political landscape as well. [As discussed in this essay and in links at the end, production of other forms of energy cannot substitute for petroleum and will not be maximized for readiness anyway.] Many aspects of modern society are at a breaking point already, whether one looks at the housing market bubble, U.S. debt and deficits, or the prospects of damaging weather from the fast distorting of the planet's climate. Not only will the sudden oil shortage ahead mean the Final Energy Crisis, the present economy only works on growth, so even a plateau of global petroleum extraction -- what seems to be happening now, although it is being called "insufficient refining capacity for poor quality crude oil" -- would mean the house of economic cards collapses on its own. Recovery from such an event, even if not from oil shortage, would appear impossible because supplies of oil would be among the commodities suddenly scarce, and this would have a terminal effect on much economic activity and people's lives. UPDATE II: There many hidden gems buried in this land of antiglobo-competing-kookiness. For example, did you know we're going to completely run out of petroleum before the really serious global warming scenarios can play themselves out? Damn! UPDATE III: Additional and more-reliable material from the Church of Peak Oil.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:39 AM

Friday, July 22, 2005

"I don't...think this will have a major impact on world financial markets or trade flows."

More from Malpass on China.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 12:39 PM

I had no idea...

It is not every day you discover an old and dear friend is Editor in Chief of the Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 11:28 AM

Sino-US Trade and Currency Manipulation

The nice folks at Chart of the Day are sending around this graphic. I wish they'd subject these numbers to seasonal adjustment. This early in the morning all those little up-down-up-down-up-downs interact with the caffeine and make me more jittery than necessary.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:15 AM

Really cheerful stuff, no?

Prof. Kassandra Krugman warns we're in for trouble: An end to China's dollar-buying spree would lead to a sharp rise in the value of the yuan. It would probably also lead to a sharp fall in the value of the dollar relative to other major currencies, like the yen and the euro, which the Chinese haven't been buying on the same scale. This would help U.S. manufacturers by raising their competitors' costs. But if the Chinese stopped buying all those U.S. bonds, interest rates would rise. This would be bad news for housing - maybe very bad news, if the interest rate rise burst the bubble. In the long run, the economic effects of an end to China's dollar buying would even out. America would have more industrial workers and fewer real estate agents, more jobs in Michigan and fewer in Florida, leaving the overall level of employment pretty much unaffected. But as John Maynard Keynes pointed out, in the long run we are all dead. In the short run, some people would win, but others would lose. And I suspect that the losers would greatly outnumber the winners. And what about the strategic effects? Right now America is a superpower living on credit - something I don't think has happened since Philip II ruled Spain. What will happen to our stature if and when China takes away our credit card? This story is still in its early days. On the first day of the new policy, the yuan rose only 2 percent, not enough to make any noticeable difference. But one of these days Chinese dollar purchases will trail off, and we'll find ourselves living in interesting times. What's wrong with this? Like much academic material growing out of a culture of elitism, it lacks vision. The real US economy has a personality that Paul Krugman -- to be frank about it -- simply doesn't like. It's the old fashioned country-club Republican who smiles and energetically talks about "challenge" and "opportunity" -- shops at WalMart, goes to church on Sunday, never smiles ironically, never sneers at the opposition, doesn't agree but thinks there might be a little truth to what those political opponents are saying. The trick to getting economic predictions right is to remember the energetic and optimistic American economy is much, much larger than your own imagination. UPDATE: And noticing a little detail I missed, Don Luskin says the opening of Paul's column shows it is apparently still okay to slur Asians. (As we used to say in high school, you better not "scrut" around with those guys!)

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:40 AM

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Heck, nothing's the same...

Fox News is reporting a California problem with available power resources versus actual demand, but the California ISO graphic isn't showing it. In the old days you could see the problem hours as they happened.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 4:47 PM

A Major Bush Victory

Lost somewhere in news of London bombings and ongoing lame attempts to peddle repackaged Rove news is this item. Ironically, it will probably be remembered as among the top ten stories of the year: BEIJING (Reuters) - China finally bowed to two years of political and market pressure on Thursday by revaluing the yuan by 2.1 percent and leaving the door open to further rises by abandoning the currency's decade-old peg against the dollar. Analysts described the long-awaited move as modest and said it would have a limited economic impact. But they said the shift, ahead of a U.S. visit in September by President Hu Jintao, made good political sense and potentially marked a critical step by China's policy makers toward giving more play to market forces. David Malpass reports the following: China will use an undisclosed basket of currencies to set the value of the yuan. It will announce the resulting dollar/yuan exchange rate on a daily basis. For July 21, this was 8.11 yuan per dollar, about 2% strong than the 10-year 8.27 yuan per dollar peg. It will limit intraday moves in the dollar/yuan exchange rate to plus or minus 0.3%. We think the basket is primarily dollars, and also includes euros, yen and several other currencies in relation to their trade with China. To maintain a basket, China would not in any way be required to change the makeup of its (now largely dollar-based) international reserves, but it may gradually match its reserves with the currency weights in the trading basket. Note, however, that some 90-95% of all China's foreign trade is denominated in dollars, minimizing the "need" to significantly alter its reserve composition. In its announcement, China stressed phrases that the U.S. encouraged. "Moving into a managed floating exchange rate regime based on market supply and demand... RMB will no longer be pegged to the U.S. dollar and the RMB exchange rate regime will be improved with greater flexibility."

Link posted by Steve Antler : 11:40 AM

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Cultural Stuff I'm Just Too Old For...

Saw the following sign posted at one of the more upscale Lincoln Park bars: TUESDAY is IPOD NIGHT -- Bring YOUR Ipod, play YOUR Music!

Link posted by Steve Antler : 2:38 PM

Much ado about...

Today's widely-quoted Murray Waas story isn't new. For all we know it is based not on new reporting but rather Waas' knowledge of the likely the source of this Sunday throw-away line from Howard Fineman: Rove did not initially discuss the conversation with Cooper in his first interview with the FBI, a source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because of the ongoing investigation, told NEWSWEEK. But Rove later testified about it, the source said. In Howard Fineman's context, the fabled "first interview" may have been nothing more than a "please-state-your-name-for-the-record" sort of thing.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 11:14 AM

We can suggest a reason...

John Zogby wonders why MSM are ignoring the fact that the "latest poll shows more support for impeaching Bush now, than there was for impeaching Clinton when Congress did so in 1998." Given world Islamofascism's tendency to parrot US left-wing opinion as their own propaganda -- not to mention the implications such propaganda boosts have for US troops abroad and terrorism at home -- maybe MSM have finally found a story they're willing to responsibly ignore? Via Memeorandum. UPDATE: Bruce Stram sends this: Another reason for the MSM to ignore Zogby's impeachment pitch is that it is a blatant attempt to manufacture news where there is none. Zogby's question seems to have been a pergorative "what if": what if it's proven Bush intentionally misled the country to get us into war. If that's proven I'd think about impeachment myself. But it is not proven and isn't going to be proven; it is a left fantasy. A parallel [example] would be to ask "what if it were proved Clinton raped a woman in the White House?"

Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:56 AM

Uh, maybe they didn't ask?

Okay I take it all back. If this new story is true Karl Rove is (a) history and/or (b) toast: White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove did not disclose that he had ever discussed CIA officer Valerie Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper during Rove's first interview with the FBI, according to legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the matter. The omission by Rove created doubt for federal investigators, almost from the inception of their criminal probe into who leaked Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak, as to whether Rove was withholding crucial information from them, and perhaps even misleading or lying to them, the sources said. Also leading to the early skepticism of Rove's accounts was the claim that although he first heard that Plame worked for the CIA from a journalist, he said could not recall the name of the journalist. Later, the sources said, Rove wavered even further, saying he was not sure at all where he first heard the information. Via Memeorandum. UPDATE: I guess this is where we are headed: It might not seem on its face like Karl Rove and SCOTUS nominee John Roberts have much in common, but there's one very important attribute they both share -- they're both political hacks. They've served their GOP master in different ways, but in the end, neither of them is any more than a political operative who fulfills a certain ideological role within the party...Whether it's the Downing Street Memos revealing that the administration was fixing facts and intelligence around the policy, or senior administration officials using their media operatives to discredit a critic (and compromising national security in the process), or an announcement of a GOP hack SCOTUS nominee politically timed to distract from an official investigation of the administration's misdeeds, it's all part of the same ugly picture. Our country's leadership is corrupt. They place ideology before truth, before international law, before national security, before justice. It's just more of the same. Expect lots more in a similar vein. UPDATE II: Wait just a cotton-picking minute! The story contradicts itself, suggesting something is not kosher in the State of Denmark. On the one hand we're told: White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove did not disclose that he had ever discussed CIA officer Valerie Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper during Rove's first interview with the FBI... but then we're told: Also leading to the early skepticism...was the claim that although he first heard that Plame worked for the CIA from a journalist, he said could not recall the name of the journalist... Leading to early skepticism was the news information regarding Plame was passed in one direction or the other? Sounds like Plame was actually discussed fairly early-on, in the context of further discussion and more detail. Is an interviewee bound to supply all later-emerging details during the first inteview or face prosecution? Honest, I really want to know. UPDATE III: And some people may soon be conflicted over their opinion of the FBI, no? UPDATE IV: And let's not forget that according to Murray Waas the FBI has looked with suspicion at others for changing their stories as well: Aside from the difficulty of obtaining...cooperation of journalists...there is also the possibility...a journalist might purposefully mislead prosecutors. Even if journalists do not testify in a criminal inquiry, they can mislead prosecutors in their articles or public statements...In his original story disclosing Plame's identity, Novak identified Plame as "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." But after it became known that the Justice Department had initiated a criminal investigation, Novak changed his story, claiming that his sources had told him only that Plame was an analyst...If Novak had misquoted his source, the investigators asked, why had he only changed his story more than two months after his column first appeared and after word of the criminal investigation leaked? It is, of course, traditional practice for journalists to correct mistakes in their stories as soon as they learn of them. Novak apparently did not do that in this instance, leading investigators to regard his mea culpa as not credible. Later, when administration officials, such as the one who spoke to Pincus, admitted to investigators that they had told reporters that Wilson had been sent to Niger only as a result of his wife's purported nepotism -- but did not know she had ever been a clandestine operative -- the investigators came to believe that Novak and his sources might be misleading them. Today's story, it appears, contains very little (if any) genuinely new information.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:53 AM

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Quietly, with discretion...

Buried at AndrewSullivan.com you'll find a link to this law, under which one can imagine Joseph C. Wilson IV and Valerie Plame could be prosecuted: Whoever, lawfully having possession of... any document...or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both....If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy. The conversation with Joseph Wilson reported by David Corn could easily have been a repeat of one or more hypothetical conversations Wilson had with Plame prior to his trip. After all, her undercover status was unclear at that time, and they probably imagined themselves safe so long as the whole thing was played out quietly and with discretion... UPDATE: I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV). In case it isn't clear from the above paragraphs, what I'm suggesting is Wilson's trip itself violated the law if -- as it appears to anyone with common sense observing his and his wife's attitude and behavior -- it was intended at the outset to embarrass (or damage) the administration. UPDATE II: Do I have to spell it out for you? Yes? Okay. Wilson went public ("communicates...to any person not entitled...") with information he legitimately gathered privately under legitimate government auspices ("lawfully having possession of"...). His aim was to weaken the administration's credibility, which had as its consequence the weakening of the United States' credibility internationally ("to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation..." Indeed, this weakened international credibility became one the center features of the Kerry campaign, which Wilson subsequently joined.) Anyone with a shred of common sense can see Wilson's actions as setting massively dangerous precedents. Do Republican CIA agents now go off and gather their own private data which they then leak to the WSJ in order to embarrass Democrats? More the the point, unless the whole thing was an airtight conspiracy the outrageous and dangerous nature of the project must have been pointed out to Plame by fence-sitting colleagues at the CIA prior to the trip's authorization. If these conversations took place Fitzgerald almost certainly knows about them. UPDATE III: No, don't talk to me about freedom of speech. This is about the overall validity of nondisclosure agreements, not freedom of speech. Wilson's only valid use of the information, the US Code seems to say, was to give it to superiors and shut up. Leaking it to NYT columnists and later using it in his own opinion columns was like a Boeing employee publishing his employer's trade secrets. Notice the truth or falsehood of Wilson's allegations is irrelevant here. Even if all his assertions were correct he had no right to make them because he was in effect giving away information belonging to his employer, not him. Hey, get on the bandwagon everyone. This is about intellectual property rights! UPDATE IV: Actually, his defense may be that the information released to the public was different than the information he actually gathered. Oops. The perfect crime. "I only intended to injure her the first time, so it wasn't murder. And after I changed my mind and tried to finish the job she was already dead but I didn't realize it. All I did was unwittingly choke a corpse. Not murder. Nope."

Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:44 AM

Monday, July 18, 2005

New research proves terrorism is caused by the fight against terrorism...

Don't be suckered by these "new" studies: ...which together constitute the most detailed picture available of foreign fighters [and] cast serious doubt on President Bush's claim that those responsible for some of the worst violence are terrorists who seized on the opportunity to make Iraq the "central front" in a battle against the United States. First, the "new" work appears to be based on the researchers' interpretation of terrorists' motives based on their own (i.e. researchers') subjective reading of secondary sources. Second, the Israeli study being cited as corroboration simply doesn't say what's being reported. For example: Particularly striking...is the absence of Egyptians among foreign Arab volunteers for the insurgency in Iraq, even though Egypt is the largest Arab country, with millions of sympathizers of Islamist groups. It is also known that many Egyptians, including professionals among them, arrived in Iraq looking for work, and some of them were taken hostage by insurgent groups. Hundreds of Egyptians also took part in previous Islamist battles in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya. The absence of Egyptians from the list may be explained by a significant decline in the influence of Jihadi groups in Egypt; the harsh oppression of Islamists by the Egyptian authorities; the mass trials of Egyptians who returned from other regions where Islamists staged insurgencies; and the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. While the Brotherhood does support the Jihad in Iraq, it advocates a strategy of propaganda only, demanding of its adherents to strictly refrain from physical participation in the Iraqi Jihad. and The intensive involvement of Saudi volunteers for Jihad in Iraq is also the result of the Saudi government's doublespeak, whereby it is willing to fight terrorism, but only if directly affected by it on its own soil. Saudi Arabia is either deliberately ignoring, or incapable and too weak, to engage in open and brave opposition to Jihadi terrorism outside of the Kingdom. In the future, the Iraqi experience of these mainly Saudi volunteers may create a massive group of "Iraqi alumni" that will threaten the fragile internal situation of the desert kingdom. In the past year, it appeared as if the Saudis were successful in limiting the Jihadi-Salafi terrorism on Saudi soil. Their blind eyes in the face of the Saudi Islamic establishment's support of the Jihad in Iraq may pose a greater threat in the future, as soon as the hundreds of volunteers return home. The present Saudi regime does not seem as firm as its Egyptian colleague in fighting its domestic Islamist opposition. While Egypt managed to put all returnees from Afghanistan, Bosnia, Albania, and Chechnya behind bars for a long time, at present the Saudi regime does not seem to have the willingness and wherewithal to do the same with its own returnees.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:44 AM

Terrorist as Troubled Teen

What appears to be emerging from this and similar articles is a new Columbine-theory of terrorism.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:25 AM

Well, we economists feel labor force participation ought to be higher...

Here's the paper Paul talks about but doesn't link to in this editorial. Judge for yourself. Underlying the whole thing is that silent, distasteful, and ever-present assumption we professors know best. UPDATE: The credbility of the current spin is undercut by a recent Katharine Bradbury paper arguing the then-current high labor force participation rate showed familes needed "to work more hours to move ahead..." Regardless of how the data fall -- high participation rate or low -- the angry portrayal of employees as victims remain unchanged.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 5:54 AM

Sunday, July 17, 2005

In Memoriam Punditwatch

Here's the ambush of the week on Meet the Press. Tim Russert interviews Ken Mehlman and John Podesta. Toward the end of the Mehlman interview: RUSSERT: You say you have tremendous confidence in Pat Fitzgerald... MEHLMAN: I do... RUSSERT: If in fact he indicts White House officials, will you accept that indictment and not fight it? MEHLMAN: Uh, first of all I'm the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, I'm not an attorney for anybody, the fact is I look forward to his getting to the bottom of this, uh... RUSSERT: ...but, but but if he... MEHLMAN: I can's speak for... RUSSERT: (CAMERA, ON MEHLMAN, SHOWS HIM SMILING AS IF PODESTA IS GETTING HIS ATTENTION WITH OFF-CAMERA INTERRUPTION) But if he indicts White House officials will you pledge today, because you have tremendous confidence in him that you will not criticize is decision? MEHLMAN: Uh, again, I'm not going to speculate, I have tremendous confidence in him, I look to getting to the bottom of this, uh, whatever he does I can assure you people are gonna follow, are gonna look to abide by PODESTA, OFF CAMERA: That's nonsense... MEHLMAN: I think it would be inappropriate for me, the RNC Chairman, to say, uh, what legal strategy people will... CAMERA NOW SHOWS ALL THREE. PODESTA LAUGHS, SMILINGLY SHAKES HIS HEAD TO SHOW HIS DIAGREEMENT, CONTINUES TO LAUGH IN DELIGHT AS RUSSERT CONTINUES THE QUESTION: RUSSERT: But if you have tremendous confidence in him then you respect and accept his decision... MEHLMAN: I look forward to hearing what he has to say, I respect what he has to say, but again, I'm not going to speculate on what he might do. An uninformed outsider looking at this would get the impression from this interchange this is a debate between Russert and Podesta strongly on one side, and Mehlman on the other.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 10:37 AM

Logic and economics...

In any struggle between absolutism and relativism, logic and economics dictate relativism must lose. As relativism spends resources dealing with its self-contradictions (its own principles inevitably come to be asserted as universal) absolutism spends resources in the battle itself. One side is continually battling and patching itself up. The other side is continually battling. We need to change our philosophy.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:22 AM

Saturday, July 16, 2005

Cover...

As the LA Times sanctimoniously lectures us about the importance of cover, let's not forget the NYT recently blew the cover of three companies running dozens of aircraft with, oh, maybe a hundred or so employees? From the NYT abstract: ABSTRACT - Central Intelligence Agency has rapidly expanded its air operations around world since 9/11, using rural hideaways, front companies and shell corporations to conceal its ownership of at least 26 planes; planes, regularly supplemented by private charters, are operated by real companies controlled by or tied to CIA; companies are Aero Contractors Ltd, Pegasus Technologies and Tepper Aviation; civilian planes can go places American military craft would not be welcome; most of shell companies that are planes' nominal owners hold permits to land at American military bases worldwide, clue to their global mission; CIA has used these planes to seize terrorism suspects in one foreign country and deliver them to be detained in another, including countries that routinely engage in torture; some cases detailed; despite difficulty of determining purpose of any single flight or who was aboard, pattern of flights that coincide with known events is striking; flight logs show CIA plane left Washington within 48 hours of capture of several Al Qaeda leaders, flying to airports near place of arrest; other instances detailed; photos; maps; chart (L)

Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:12 PM

Boycott Exxon, Mobil, E$$O!!!!

Add up all the above-brand gas stations, their employees, and all their friends and contacts at similar other-brand stations. Think about how this noble new political project will play among all these people, and how it will affect their interest in voting for the Democratic rather than the Republican party.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 10:13 AM

Lakoff (actually, doesn't sound like) and Chomsky

While looking around for background to this article on George Lakoff I encountered a few surprises. First suprise: Rush Limbaugh regularly mispronounces Lakoff's ("sounds like?") name. Second surprise: the main difference between Lakoff and Chomsky seems to be Lakoff's tolerance level for postmodernism is much higher than Chomsky's. Third surprise: when I read stuff like this I actually like Chomsky: I have spent a lot of my life working on questions such as these, using the only methods I know of -- those condemned here as "science," "rationality," "logic," and so on. I therefore read the papers with some hope that they would help me "transcend" these limitations, or perhaps suggest an entirely different course. I'm afraid I was disappointed. Admittedly, that may be my own limitation. Quite regularly, "my eyes glaze over" when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count. True, there are lots of other things I don't understand: the articles in the current issues of math and physics journals, for example. But there is a difference. In the latter case, I know how to get to understand them, and have done so, in cases of particular interest to me; and I also know that people in these fields can explain the contents to me at my level, so that I can gain what (partial) understanding I may want. In contrast, no one seems to be able to explain to me why the latest post-this-and-that is (for the most part) other than truism, error, or gibberish, and I do not know how to proceed. I suppose I should watch out for that "for the most part," though. Also, perhaps Rush should start saying "looks like it sounds like..." UPDATE: I suppose none of this should come as a surprise. After all, the Democrats represent "Europe lite" just as postmodernism represents "Marxism lite."

Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:15 AM

More frog marches predicted...

Here we have a casual announcement of an upcoming Sunday morning major violation of federal law? TIME'S MATT COOPER First interview Sunday morning - to discuss grand jury testimony -- on NBC's MEET THE PRESS. It'll be 'an exclusive network interview'... What am I missing?

Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:36 AM

New State Department Memo

This new document, as described, seems to support the Wilson deep throat theory ("Did Wilson out Plame to David Corn?"): The information in the State Department memorandum generally tracked the information Mr. Novak laid out for Mr. Rove in their conversation, according to the account of their exchange provided by the person briefed on what Mr. Rove has told investigators. But it appears to differ in at least one way, raising questions about whether it was the original source of the material that ultimately made its way to Mr. Novak. In his July 14, 2003, column, Mr. Novak referred to Ms. Wilson as Valerie Plame. The State Department memorandum referred to her as Valerie Wilson, according to the government official who reread it on Friday. (Emphasis added) UPDATE: And, as if to add a little puff of flavored powder to the coffee, it now emerges the two major protagonists in the story "Did Wilson out Plame to Corn?" are trading punches over Valerie's married-versus-maiden-name without seeming to notice the importance of the distinction, i.e. who called her what when: On his blog, David Corn attempts to rebut my NRO piece. I don't think he gets very far but it's here so you can judge for yourself. His major argument is that Bob Novak reporting that Joe Wilson's assignment for the CIA came about because Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA operative, recommended him, is no different from David Corn revealing that Valerie Plame was a "top-secret" CIA agent. He adds: "Once Valerie Wilson's name appeared in Novak's column, her days as a CIA undercover official were done." But why would that be? If the day after Novak's column came out, Valerie Plame, CIA analyst at CIA HQ in Langley, were to disappear, and Mallory Flame, arms dealer, were to arrive in Istanbul with a passport and contacts and a "legend," how would anyone make the connection? They could not, nor would anyone who had worked with Plame in the past know anything -- assuming that when Plame had been under cover she had used false identities. However, once Wilson told Corn -- and Corn published -- that Plame was not just a CIA analyst but a secret agent with an extensive network of contacts, and once she and Joe posed for pictures in Vanity Fair, her career as an undercover spy was indeed over. BTW, he also says I ignored his notes to me. In fact, I published them all, though not in the story but here in the Corner under the title "Reporters' Notebooks." He also continues to deny that Wilson was his source. So how did he know things that Novak didn't report? He doesn't tell us, he just says things like, "the story was that Valerie worked for an energy firm." The story? Whose story? Novak didn't tell this story. Who did? What was the source?

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:41 AM

Friday, July 15, 2005

Frog march alert...

John Dean is clearly a little behind in his reading, but the specifics don't matter. It is not beyond imagination -- according to Dean's reading of law and precedent -- that Joseph Wilson will be indicted for revealing (by innuendo) his wife's employment status to David Corn. Indeed, while Novak wouldn't have published had he known Plame was a covert agent (if indeed she was, as Dean assumes) Corn did precisely because he supposedly knew. So will he be joining Joseph Wilson in that little frog march to the van? UPDATE: Okay, here's David Corn's angry explanation. In this mess of lather and insult an important question is left unanswered: was it David Corn who first called Joseph Wilson, or Joseph Wilson who called David Corn? UPDATE II: Cliff May adds this: My friend David Corn is hopping mad and he's calling me names and questioning my motives. I understand that. I feel his anger. But he hasn't actually challenged any of the facts or analysis in my piece. Except one: He is arguing that providing the name of a CIA employee -- or operative -- is the same as exposing the identity of a CIA covert agent. Now that may play out in the boondocks among people who have never known anyone who worked at the CIA and who assume that everyone at CIA has a secret identity and works for a CIA front. But anyone with any knowledge or experience knows that is it doesn't work like that. The facts are these: (1) Bob Novak did not say that Valerie Plame was a secret agent; (2) David Corn did; (3) we don't know who Bob's sources were; (4) we know David's source was Joe Wilson. The rest is commentary.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 4:23 PM

Easy target, lazy journalist...

Amazingly (did we have a premonition?) at 9:10 this morning none other than David Corn became the central feature of WilsonGate. For all of EconoPundit's lifespan I've tried to keep a good attitude toward David Corn. But I'm toying with the hypothesis there's little or nothing to admire there. Let me explain with a bit of background thinking. Some of us are better with the written word than with TV or radio appearances. For example, anyone who's seen David Horowitz on television knows he's got a few rough edges. It takes a genuinely unprincipled opportunist to take lazy advantage of rough edges like these. A similar opportunism seems to have informed Corn's participation in the Wilson story.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 12:42 PM

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Ever since "Roger and Me" we've been interested...

Here's the latest commentary on unemployment and taxes in Michigan, and here's some background.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:29 AM

No. That phone call meant this. And this comment meant...

Does Timothy Noah have any idea just how unhinged this appears to anyone not completely consumed by Rove-hate? Shortly we will know what Fitzgerald has in mind. Until then keep breathing slowly... UPDATE: Re. Joseph Wilson on NBC Today: why didn't they ask the obvious -- if his wife's cover was so important, why didn't they simply send someone else? UPDATE II: Everyone is linking to this old essay and reproducing the words "aides there did, in fact, try to peddle the identity of Joe Wilson's wife". I think the context more interesting: The moment that piece hit the op-ed page of the New York Times, it was all-out war between the pro- and anti-war factions, and between the CIA and its critics. I am told by what I regard as a very reliable source inside the White House that aides there did, in fact, try to peddle the identity of Joe Wilson's wife to several reporters. But the motive wasn't revenge or intimidation so much as a desire to explain why, in their view, Wilson wasn't a neutral investigator, but, a member of the CIA's leave-Saddam-in-place team. And on Tenet's part, it was time for payback -- whatever his past relationship with the Bush's had been. First, he and his agency had been humiliated, caught by the White House trying to distance themselves from the president's speech. Then the CIA was forced to admit that it had signed off on the speech. Now one of its own investigations was coming under attack, as was one of its own undercover staffers. Are we to believe that it was a routine matter for the CIA to forward to the Department of Justice a complaint about the leak of Valerie Plame's name and job? Are we to think that Tenet didn't know that the complaint was being forwarded? Or that Tenet couldn't have shortstopped it if he wanted to?

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:37 AM

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Negative price spike soon?

Back in November we noted reports of Chinese and Indian petroleum hoarding. Drudge (with no link as this is written) now reports the following: Sudden, mysterious drop in China's oil consumption... Developing...

Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:13 PM

Either "Animal Rights" or "Economists Stink"...

There are numerous examples showing how dangerous and unreliable is the process of participant observation. Classic examples are found in law enforcement, anthropology, psychotherapy, and UFO research to name but four. Usually the problem is simple: there is an ideological basis for the research, and the researcher is indulging this ideology. Okay, so what is the ideological basis of this new example, and how is the ideology shared by the New York Times?

Link posted by Steve Antler : 1:21 PM

Well, actually...

You can't yell "laissez faire" abroad while crying "national security" at home.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 12:58 PM

Can it get worse?

"We will have peace with the Arabs when they will love their children more than they hate us." Golda Meier... more here.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:49 AM

You don't have to be very smart to predict this...

All those very old, dusty, and distasteful anti-immigrant tropes -- "they won't assimmilate," "they're disloyal," they're "clannish" -- now have massive, easy-to-find, and (frankly) scary objective supportive evidence : Yes, Muslim leaders have formally disavowed the violence, but what really matters is what they do, or don't do, informally. In such tight-knit communities, if the patriarchs and clerics were truly committed to rooting out the killers, a few suspects, at least, would have been identified by now. Some might say that Muslim community leaders are intimidated, too, by the killers. To which the proper response is: If a group can't be made, one way or another, to abide by the rules of its adopted home country, the group ought not to be living freely in that country. If that sounds harsh, the alternative, which is national breakdown, is even harsher. Meanwhile, the United States confronts problems, too. A warning sign is the noisy existence of a New York City group called the Islamic Thinkers Society. According to the New York Observer, its members set up street displays and then enter into yelling spats with passersby as they promote anti-gay, anti-female and anti-American propaganda. Sample sign: "Your Terrorists Are Our Heroes." As one woman who had been verbally assaulteddeclared in the story, "To me, it's synonymous with the Nazis recruiting on 42nd Street during World War II." Are the Islamic Thinkers just exercising their right to free speech, however hateful? Maybe. Although, of course, there's a fine line between speaking freely and inciting violence. How can anyone doubt all this will be combined in one irrational package with anti-globo job-loss-anger and resoundingly win the next presidential election for someone?

Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:09 AM

"Tony Blair ordered it..."

Via Milt Rosenberg, Ken Dilanian in the Seattle Times. UPDATE: Check out the comments at Matt Rosenberg's post on this subject.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:42 AM

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

From the O My Prophetic Soul desk...

Latest state of the art speculation regarding Rove, etc., now appears to be exactly what loyal EconoPunditistas saw right here at this blog about seven days ago. UPDATE: More here.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 5:11 PM

Friday, July 08, 2005

I will not cease from mental fight...

Via Pejman Yousefzadeh:

Link posted by Steve Antler : 2:08 PM

Discouraged worker effect rediscovered in new form...

When Reuters can't claim the U.S. unemployment rate understates the problem by newly rediscovering the discouraged worker effect they discover something else: June's tepid employment growth came in below analyst expectations for 188,500 new jobs in the month. But the decline in the unemployment rate to 5.0 percent was a nice surprise, since Wall Street had expected it to hold at 5.1 percent. The drop was mostly due to a paltry 1,000 increase in the work force, which includes those looking for work as well as those who have jobs. (Emphasis added) But as it turns out they're wrong. Check out BLS's trustworthy alternative measures of labor underutilization (which we've discussed before). All measures up to U-5 (Unemployed+discouraged workers+marginally attached workers as percent of civilian labor force plus marginally attached workers) have gone down, which means the actual labor force (not that "understated" one used by the BLS!) is increasing just about as fast as it can. UPDATE: Here's the actual BLS release.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:20 AM

In touch or out?

The day after the London bombings Paul Krugman thinks the most important thing to write is how it takes a village to fight fatness. On the positive side the article actually contains two links to pertinent material. Is this a first for Paul Kruman? Maybe. It shows signs he's getting less nervous about people looking things up to find out for themselves and see if he's right or wrong. And speaking about that, consider this little assertion: the ideological landscape has changed drastically since the 1960's. (That change in the landscape also has a lot to do with corporate financing of advocacy groups, but that's a tale for another article.) In today's America, proposals to do something about rising obesity rates must contend with a public predisposed to believe that the market is always right and that the government always screws things up. Isn't this interesting? I know elections continually betray lack of public confidence in big government, but don't polling results virtually always show strong public support for government's "doing something" about all those pressing issues like jobs and, uh, fatness? UPDATE: Here's the "ideology" expressed in the study Paul wets his pants over: Without evidence that food markets are failing to reflect consumer and societal preferences, food policy to curtail overweight and obesity could cause more harm than good. Hey, pretty ideological, no? Strong stuff! UPDATE: And is there any connection -- financial or otherwise -- between Paul Krugman and the matters discussed in this essay?

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:49 AM

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Why do they hate us?

Please note this is over a year old, so the narrator had plenty of time to leave the country and return: But it was the events of 11 September that crystallised Sayful's worldview. "When I watched those planes go into the Twin Towers, I felt elated," he says. "That magnificent action split the world into two camps: you were either with Islam and al Qaeda, or with the enemy. I decided to quit my job and commit myself full-time to al-Muhajiroun." Now he does not consider himself British. "I am a Muslim living in Britain, and I give my allegiance only to Allah." According to Sayful, the aim of al-Muhajiroun ("the immigrants") is nothing less than Khilafah - "the worldwide domination of Islam". The way to achieve this, he says, is by Jihad, led by Bin Laden. "I support him 100 per cent." Does that support extend to violent acts of terrorism in the UK? "Yes," he replies, unequivocally. "When a bomb attack happens here, I won't be against it, even if it kills my own children. Islam is clear: Muslims living in lands that are occupied have the right to attack their invaders. "Britain became a legitimate target when it sent troops to Iraq. But it is against Islam for me to engage personally in acts of terrorism in the UK because I live here. According to Islam, I have a covenant of security with the UK, as long as they allow us Muslims to live here in peace." HE USES the phrase "covenant of security" constantly. He attempts to explain. "If we want to engage in terrorism, we would have to leave the country," he says. "It is against Islam to do otherwise." Such a course of action, he says, he is not prepared to undertake. This is why, Sayful claims, it is consistent, and not cowardly, for him to espouse the rhetoric of terrorism, the "martyrdom-operations", while simultaneously limiting himself to nonviolentactions such as leafletting outside Luton town hall. UPDATE: Robert S. Leiken's current article in Foreign Affairs, Europe's Angry Muslims, is absolutely required reading for the next 36 hrs or so. So far it can only be purchased ($5.95, not really so unreasonable), but I will continue to look for a link to a free posting of the article. UPDATE II: More on the covenant of security.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:46 PM

Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:50 AM

London

Been watching Fox. A doctor reports 80 casualties at one of the blasts. There were seven. Is it over? UPDATE: This via The Corner: JERUSALEM (AP) -- British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before Thursday's explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the nature of his position. Israel was holding an economic conference near the scene of one of the explosions. Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was supposed to attend, but the attacks occurred before he arrived. UPDATE I: Who is liveblogging the anti-g8 demonstators? What are they doing? What are they saying? Just before the blasts, Scotland Yard called the security officer at the Israeli Embassy and said warnings of possible attacks had been received, the official said. He did not say whether British police made any link to the economic conference. Funny how in a situation like this you almost want to blame it on the Jews because, well, it feels better to be able to blame it on something.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 5:39 AM

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Environmental planning so farsighted that...

James B. over at Chief Brief has been doing some fun thinking on Oregon, Wal-Mart, and his favorite pseudo-academic newspaper columnist.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:25 PM

David Corn says...

Rove's not it. Heck, that's enough for me. UPDATE: What appears to be emerging is "it" is rumor or, as everyone seems to call it, "cocktail party chatter." Reporters passing along gossip to sources who confirm they heard the story from other reporters and on it goes around and around... But how about this: Maybe Judith Miller is actually "it?" Maybe she's really just protecting herself?

Link posted by Steve Antler : 2:32 PM

Did I miss something in biology class?

I continue to just not get this. In a natural environment, if (say) one golden eagle is shredded by a windmill, doesn't this leave more golden eagle food for the other golden eagles -- causing them to reproduce faster? And isn't it certain that with population variability there will be some golden eagles whose navigation apparatus allows them to navigate around windmills without getting shredded? And won't this latter group survive, pass their traits on to their little golden eagle children, all this without the inconvenience and expense of lawsuits?

Link posted by Steve Antler : 1:19 PM

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Find it at PSID online...

If blogging is light lately it is because I have been spending multiple hours learning the ins-and-outs of the University of Michigan Panel Study on Income Dynamics. The massive Panel Study is a primary tool for anyone interested in labor markets, returns to small business, mobility, intergenerational economics, and lots more. Also, like the Segway Human Transporter, it was apparently never tested for acronym. (For example, click here to read the PSID Guide.) UPDATE: But seriosly folks, just to prove this is on the level here are the basic mobility numbers between 1994 and 2001 (the most recent year available). As far as I know nobody has published these anywhere as of this date. (Table entries are percent of the 4617 households in the panel I drew, 1=lowest i.e. poorest, 5=highest i.e. richest.)

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:42 PM

You know who you are...

To all my "we should have stayed in Afghanistan" buddies -- check this out: Leaving Saddam in place, and declining to support the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings that followed the first Gulf war, begat more than a decade of Iraqi suffering, rancor among our war allies, diplomatic isolation for the U.S., and a crumbling regime of UN sanctions. All this led ultimately and inevitably to a second war that could have been fought far more easily -- and with the enthusiastic support of Iraq's Shiites, who to this day remain suspicious of our intentions -- in 1991. One recalls with dismay that the first two of Osama bin Laden's announced justifications for his declaration of war on America were the garrisoning of the holy places (i.e., Saudi Arabia) by crusader (i.e., American) soldiers and the suffering of Iraqis under sanctions. Both were a direct result of the inconclusive end to the first Gulf war. (Emphasis added) As the expression goes -- read the whole thing.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 1:18 PM

Just in...

What's new and hot amongst all the college majors? Why, Economics of course! UPDATE: But this is not for some undergraduates. Some must stick with previous committments to physics or at the very least engineering. Or else.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 12:49 PM

Politics in another form...

This just in from the folks at Protestwarrior.com: In January 2005, Jeremy Hammond and the hacker group collectively known as the "Internet Liberation Front" gained illegal access to the ProtestWarrior server. Thousands of customer credit card numbers were then stolen for the purpose of making millions of dollars in donations to various leftwing organizations. In early February, ProtestWarrior discovered the illegal breach and the identity of the criminals responsible. Using the hacker recruiting ground www.hackthissite.org, Jeremy Hammond put together and led a team of politically motivated "hacktivists" to probe the ProtestWarrior server for months until an exploit was found. When an obscure vulnerability was discovered in the PW server's newsletter subscription code, they managed to upload malicious files that gave them the ability to execute commands on the server. Upon discovering the hack, we immediately began collecting information on the breach and managed to penetrate Jeremy's inner circle. We then collected evidence that more than 5,000 credit card numbers had been stolen by Jeremy and the "Internet Liberation Front" and that they were planning on doing the following: *charge hundreds of dollars per stolen credit card number as donations to various left-wing organizations by using an automated donation submission script *send the entire ProtestWarrior HQ database (complete with usernames, passwords, and operation details) to left-wing groups hostile to ProtestWarrior (including the entire contents of our mail server) *upload all credit card numbers and other sensitive customer information to hundreds of anarchist and left-wing sites (specifically Indymedia) as a downloadable zip file *anonymously send press releases and material to thousands of media contacts to boast of the malicious hack and the millions of dollars defrauded, and to publish any and all sensitive information regarding the ProtestWarrior organization *erase the entire PW server *launch simultaneous attacks on other conservative sites Upon discovering their plans, we contacted the FBI and the Secret Service, who immediately began investigating the case. We were able to provide them with a tremendous amount of evidence regarding the breach, the criminals responsible, and their plans to commit massive credit card fraud. We also reported the incident to all credit card companies involved to make sure that ProtestWarrior's customers were protected. With our help, the FBI was able to thwart Jeremy and his army of "hacktivists". After contacting the FBI, we immediately hired a security consultant and removed all sensitive information from the server. We eventually moved the server to a new box, where we blocked off the system and data files from the web server and changed the online store software to a super-secure system that stores zero sensitive customer information. In addition, we hired an internet security firm to run a series of vigorous vulnerability tests on our server, which our server all passed. The reason we haven't made this announcement earlier is that our customers were already protected and we didn't want to jeopardize the ongoing FBI investigation of Jeremy and his "hacktivist" army. The reason we're posting this now is that Jeremy, in a desperate move, is publicly appealing to the internet community regarding his pending FBI investigation. Using his site www.freejeremy.com, he is trying to solicit donations for his defense fund and generate public sympathy while spreading slanderous disinformation regarding ProtestWarrior and the events leading up to the FBI investigation. We will soon be releasing much more information and details regarding the incident and the ongoing FBI investigation. Rest assured, justice will be served. -Kfir and Alan www.protestwarrior.com

Link posted by Steve Antler : 12:03 PM

And they're trying to accomplish exactly what?

Does China really think it gains points by using the rhetoric of competitive capitalism -- in threatening terms, no less -- to support a deal sponsored by one of the largest monopolies in world history? UPDATE: And here's Fu Chengyu asking why are Americans worried about a Unocal takeover? I'll tell you why. Even the most-friendly of buyouts/takeovers involve a weaker party interacting with a much stronger one. Ever since the 1960's, when young American socioeconomic thinkers of the future fried their brains with pot, acid, and lots else, our basic social model is simply this: the weaker party is always to be sided with, because weakness means virtue, and strength means vice. Easy, no? UPDATE II: For an example of what I'm talking about check out this little tidbit of pure hateful venom.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:52 AM

Block that historical metaphor!

Though I agree with the substance I reacted badly to the headline, which sent me off looking for Nef's old Scientific American article (hasn't anyone ever scanned and posted it?) which led me to this, which suggests I'm wrong -- the early energy crisis wasn't caused by enclosures, it would appear, but rather by the much earlier introduction of the spinning wheel!

Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:43 AM

Monday, July 04, 2005

I guess it takes a village...

Professor Krugman says: The first step is to recognize the industry-financed campaign against doing anything [to control obesity] for the cynical exercise it is. Remember, nobody is proposing that adult Americans be prevented from eating whatever they want. The question is whether big companies will have a free hand in their efforts to get children into the habit of eating food that's bad for them. (Emphasis added) So what I'd like to know is what happened to all the parents? UPDATE: And by the way, before he criticizes industry-financed research and writing shouldn't Paul mention those very private honorariums he got from Enron back in the days when he was writing those oddly-lauditory essays about that company?

Link posted by Steve Antler : 10:20 AM

Alexander Hamilton

Born in the West Indies. An autodidact. First Secretary of the Treasury. Practically invented the infant industries argument. And he funded the debt.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 5:48 AM

 
MajorAdvertiser Superior Table Pad

EconoWriters
Don ("EconoGonzo") Luskin
Bartlett/NRO
Bartlett/trendmacro
EverythingIKnowisWrong
Sowell
Steve Verdon
Truck&Barter
Musil
Picerno
Kling/EconLog
Galt/Asymmetrical
DeLong
Drezner
Hobbs
Kiesling
Brown
Samuelson
OMBWatch
MISES
ChicagoBoyz
Blankenship
Centrists.org
Krugman

EconoData
Economagic
BEA
BLS
FREDII
UNCLE SAM'S REFERENCE SHELF
EIA WORLD OIL PRICES & MKT
OMB
CBO
BUDGET HIST TABLES
U.S. Treasury Yields
TaxFacts
FAIRMODEL
OECD
CEE
CRB INDICES
Taxblog
Memri
EPI
EIA
ITEP
CATO
COMMANDING HEIGHTS
SBSC
NAM
ARGMAX
Reference Desk
Info Please
Google News
Economic Calendar
Babelfish Translation
Reporter's Desktop
Cost of Living Comparator

EconoPolitics
TechCentralStation
DRUDGE
CommandPost
WSJOpinionJournal
NationalReview
Instapundit
Rosenblog
Front Page
Nation
New Republic
Monthly Review
Kaus
Larry Kudlow
Milt Rosenberg

EconoArchives
06/01/2003 - 07/01/2003
07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003
08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003
09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003
10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003
11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003
12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004
01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004
03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004
04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004
05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004
09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004
10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004
11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007
06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007
07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007
10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007
11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007
12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008
02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008
03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008
04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008
05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008
06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008
07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008
08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008
09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008
10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008
11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008
12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009

EconoTipJar