Free Winona!
Jail Martha!
My T-Shirt idea of the week.
While it appears that Ms. Stewart is guilty as sin, her alleged crime is of much smaller magnitude than some other recent more notable white collar indiscretions..
Saturday, June 22, 2002
James Carville's Restaurant is closing. And, Lloyd Grove and/or his copy editor doesn't understand the difference between 'affect' and 'effect.'
"I don't disagree with that," Carville told us yesterday, interrupting a Roman holiday with wife Matalin to phone in. "We basically had a very quality place. But it's a risky business. You know, we had the affects of September 11, like a lot of people. We feel bad for all the people who work there. But we enjoyed it, and we love the people who came there."
"I don't disagree with that," Carville told us yesterday, interrupting a Roman holiday with wife Matalin to phone in. "We basically had a very quality place. But it's a risky business. You know, we had the affects of September 11, like a lot of people. We feel bad for all the people who work there. But we enjoyed it, and we love the people who came there."
Since everyone, Left and Right, feels free to comment about Cornel West's academic career, I'd appreciate a similar scrutiny of every other Harvard faculty member's recent CV.
As a well-respected citizen of Blogistan once said:
Sure, you can criticize Israel without being antisemitic. But when you criticize Israel for things you ignore in others, it raises certain doubts.
The general point seems to apply here.
As a well-respected citizen of Blogistan once said:
Sure, you can criticize Israel without being antisemitic. But when you criticize Israel for things you ignore in others, it raises certain doubts.
The general point seems to apply here.
Nathan Newman nails the Faux-Federalist Supremos:
One more example of the conservatives on the Court wanting to preempt state law where they can weaken protections for workers and consumers. In a decision yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld by 5-4 the ability of state governments to regulate some HMOs, but the conservatives in the minority deplored the "disparate state laws" that would undermine the federal goal of "uniformity in this area."
...Let's be straight about it; the conservatives aren't against federalism. They are just against laws they don't like and use federalism selectively to bash local or federal laws as needed.
One more example of the conservatives on the Court wanting to preempt state law where they can weaken protections for workers and consumers. In a decision yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld by 5-4 the ability of state governments to regulate some HMOs, but the conservatives in the minority deplored the "disparate state laws" that would undermine the federal goal of "uniformity in this area."
...Let's be straight about it; the conservatives aren't against federalism. They are just against laws they don't like and use federalism selectively to bash local or federal laws as needed.
I normally consider Privateer to be a reasonable and informative, if incredibly opinionated, source on the I v. P situation. But this post, which includes this statement:
There's only one solution to the Israel/Palestine issue, and that's to push all undesirable Arabs within the borders of Israel out, into Jordan and Egypt. No Arabs means no terrorism [...]
makes me reconsider.
Though he qualifies with "undesirable" (whatever that means), the rest of the post makes it pretty clear that he's referring to all Arabs (or Muslims? Muslim Arabs? it's all a bit confused). Last I checked 15% of Israeli citizens were non-Jewish Arabs, and some of them (shock!) are actually members of the Knessett. Are they among the undesirables?
Anyway, I hope Privateer has just had a few too many post-finals drinky-poos or that he's just posted in (understandable) anger.
There's only one solution to the Israel/Palestine issue, and that's to push all undesirable Arabs within the borders of Israel out, into Jordan and Egypt. No Arabs means no terrorism [...]
makes me reconsider.
Though he qualifies with "undesirable" (whatever that means), the rest of the post makes it pretty clear that he's referring to all Arabs (or Muslims? Muslim Arabs? it's all a bit confused). Last I checked 15% of Israeli citizens were non-Jewish Arabs, and some of them (shock!) are actually members of the Knessett. Are they among the undesirables?
Anyway, I hope Privateer has just had a few too many post-finals drinky-poos or that he's just posted in (understandable) anger.
Paul Musgrave introduces the hammer to the head of the nail:
But Glenn seems to be slowing down. What's more, all the libertarian blogs are starting to sound like Milton Friedman rewrites of Maureen Dowd columns: Shrill, unfunny, and repetitive.
And, I agree with his conclusion: Brad DeLong is a very smart guy and he's had one or two more courses in economics than your average Blogistan Economic Analyst.
But Glenn seems to be slowing down. What's more, all the libertarian blogs are starting to sound like Milton Friedman rewrites of Maureen Dowd columns: Shrill, unfunny, and repetitive.
And, I agree with his conclusion: Brad DeLong is a very smart guy and he's had one or two more courses in economics than your average Blogistan Economic Analyst.
For all the Euro-phobes in Blogistan who love to bash our pals across the pond, I suggest you take a look at the Italian (post-game) and Spanish (pre-game) media coverage of their World Cup matches against South Korea.
The ridiculous termination of the South Korean player who was dismissed from the Italian team he played for because he scored the winning goal against Italy (as discussed by TAPPED ) is just the tip of the iceberg...
The ridiculous termination of the South Korean player who was dismissed from the Italian team he played for because he scored the winning goal against Italy (as discussed by TAPPED ) is just the tip of the iceberg...
Friday, June 21, 2002
The Rittenhouse Review has a little fun with Lloyd Grove in response to his somewhat bizarre attempt to tarnish them for their quickly (and fully) retracted error. Without being too self-centered, I might suggest that this was just his roundabout way to attempt to take a swipe at me over this post. For the record, Grove didn't bother to contact me either although I'm still a little puzzled how my little hot dog stand is worth a mention simply for linking to someone else's website.
Wednesday, June 19, 2002
About to hit the road. Be back Friday or Saturday or so. If you didn't feel inclined to contribute to my holiday booze fund (perfectly understandable), perhaps you will feel inclinded to contribute to my post-vacation-I-am-broke-and-can't-afford-to-eat fund.
While I'm gone, please read from the the many fine Blogs off to the left.
While I'm gone, please read from the the many fine Blogs off to the left.
Charles Pierce on Dennis Pluchinsky:
From CHARLES PIERCE: All right, so now watch it happen. Dennis Pluchinsky publishes this rank idiocy which, in a more reasonable age, would have been one of those authoritarian wet dreams that somebody tapes to a lamp post in Washington Square Park, and that would've been the end of it. Watch now, though. He will be on at least five of the evening windfests in the next several days, along with some poor punching bag from the ACLU who will be forced to argue that, no, this is not Argentina. He will then move on to the more "rational" Sunday shows, where Tim and Sam and George and Cokie will chew their honorarium-fattened cuds, and gravely announce that Mr. Pluchinsky's views are "perhaps understandable" given how "we" are all so afraid these days. (Tim and Cokie likely will trot out the kids again.) And, like magic, into the mainstream debate go views that have as much to do with this ostensible democracy as a discussion of aliens in New Mexico do with the study of quantum physics. And anyone who thinks that Mr. Pluchinsky's views came oozing out of this Administration by accident hasn't been paying close enough attention since January of 2001. And, yes, I guess by Dennis Pluchinsky's lights, I am a traitor. Any free man would be proud to be.
from Medianews Letters.
From CHARLES PIERCE: All right, so now watch it happen. Dennis Pluchinsky publishes this rank idiocy which, in a more reasonable age, would have been one of those authoritarian wet dreams that somebody tapes to a lamp post in Washington Square Park, and that would've been the end of it. Watch now, though. He will be on at least five of the evening windfests in the next several days, along with some poor punching bag from the ACLU who will be forced to argue that, no, this is not Argentina. He will then move on to the more "rational" Sunday shows, where Tim and Sam and George and Cokie will chew their honorarium-fattened cuds, and gravely announce that Mr. Pluchinsky's views are "perhaps understandable" given how "we" are all so afraid these days. (Tim and Cokie likely will trot out the kids again.) And, like magic, into the mainstream debate go views that have as much to do with this ostensible democracy as a discussion of aliens in New Mexico do with the study of quantum physics. And anyone who thinks that Mr. Pluchinsky's views came oozing out of this Administration by accident hasn't been paying close enough attention since January of 2001. And, yes, I guess by Dennis Pluchinsky's lights, I am a traitor. Any free man would be proud to be.
from Medianews Letters.
We fight an enemy which is cruel and heartless and relentless. You just need to know that. And even though we've made some progress -- and we have; as I said the other night, we and our friends have hauled in about 2,400 of them -- there's still a lot of them out there, which means this country is in for a long war. Particularly -- and it's necessary because we're defending freedom. That's what you've got to know.
Terrorism? or visa violations...
ah, what's the difference.
Terrorism? or visa violations...
ah, what's the difference.
When California's energy "deregulation" was being planned, there were the following concerns:
First, the existing regulated monopoly utilities wanted to be given gobs of money to compensate them for their "stranded costs" (crap investments) in exchange for opening them up to competition. They were.
Second, economists who were involved with designing the program were concerned with the following two basic problems:
1) They were worried that competition would never develop -- that is, that a true competitive market would never come into being. Firms had to have incentives to enter the market, otherwise it would become a relatively unregulated monopoly/oligopoly, depending on your place on the grid.
2) They were worried about the possibilities of market manipulation.
In order to cope with concern 1), the economists involved recognized that in order to encourage entry into the market and develop any degree of actual competition they needed to somehow ensure that a spot market would exist. They figured that unless steps were taken in that direction, long term contracts between the existing energy producers who had a first mover advantage and their customers (specifically, the wholesale producers and retail providers as it turned out) would deter any entry by new firms. In order to get around this, they outlawed such long term contracts so as to force a spot market into existence.
This opened up the possibility for short run market manipulation. However, it was decided that opening up this possibility was a necessary measure to ensure the longer run development of a competitive energy market.
With hindsight, obviously, this was a bad move. But, contrary to the opinion of some on the Left who think it was an industry written bill (it was somewhat of course), or those on the Right who think it was bad government bungling (it was at some level that too, of course), the basic framework of the deregulation bill was designed by a well-known (and mainstream) economist.
Also with hindsight, one thing the deregulation Bill should have included was a provision for the establishment of temporary price caps in order to fend off the kind of market manipulation caused disaster we just faced. Of course, FERC should have done its job early on and used its power to do just that.
The main thing that went wrong, aside from some basic naivete, was the underestimation of the degree to which individual power plants in effect had local monopolies due to local market conditions and imperfections in the distribution grid, so that even in the absence of collusion individual plants and firms could threaten and cause shortages by temporarily reducing production. There was a lack of competition at the very local level, a situation that was largely overlooked.
As I say over and over, those who want to throw the blame on Wilson and his legislature are welcome to. One can also blame Davis, and even the Clinton administration, for failing to see the looming disaster. But, when the crisis erupted one regulatory body had both the power and the legal authority to impose price caps and solve the problem temporarily - FERC.
Most people in Blogistan who comment on these issues seem to have a Econ 101 view of the world. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. No one really disputes that the fact that the California dergulation plan was a bad one, so stop beating that dead horse. No one really disputes that fact that it wasn't "real deregulation", so you can stop beating that one as well.
What is disputed is this silly notion that the transition from regulated monopoly to unregulated perfectly competitive markets in this industry can happen overnight and that no transitional measures are necessary.
What is also disputed is the belief that the problem was the retail price regulation - as if there would ever be such a thing as a retail spot market - and the associated, and now very refuted, belief that market manipulation was not the problem.
And, the final thing that is/was disputed is the belief by some that price caps wouldn't have helped. The truth is that at the time the necessary and appropriate action was the imposition of (temporary) price caps on wholesale power trades.
First, the existing regulated monopoly utilities wanted to be given gobs of money to compensate them for their "stranded costs" (crap investments) in exchange for opening them up to competition. They were.
Second, economists who were involved with designing the program were concerned with the following two basic problems:
1) They were worried that competition would never develop -- that is, that a true competitive market would never come into being. Firms had to have incentives to enter the market, otherwise it would become a relatively unregulated monopoly/oligopoly, depending on your place on the grid.
2) They were worried about the possibilities of market manipulation.
In order to cope with concern 1), the economists involved recognized that in order to encourage entry into the market and develop any degree of actual competition they needed to somehow ensure that a spot market would exist. They figured that unless steps were taken in that direction, long term contracts between the existing energy producers who had a first mover advantage and their customers (specifically, the wholesale producers and retail providers as it turned out) would deter any entry by new firms. In order to get around this, they outlawed such long term contracts so as to force a spot market into existence.
This opened up the possibility for short run market manipulation. However, it was decided that opening up this possibility was a necessary measure to ensure the longer run development of a competitive energy market.
With hindsight, obviously, this was a bad move. But, contrary to the opinion of some on the Left who think it was an industry written bill (it was somewhat of course), or those on the Right who think it was bad government bungling (it was at some level that too, of course), the basic framework of the deregulation bill was designed by a well-known (and mainstream) economist.
Also with hindsight, one thing the deregulation Bill should have included was a provision for the establishment of temporary price caps in order to fend off the kind of market manipulation caused disaster we just faced. Of course, FERC should have done its job early on and used its power to do just that.
The main thing that went wrong, aside from some basic naivete, was the underestimation of the degree to which individual power plants in effect had local monopolies due to local market conditions and imperfections in the distribution grid, so that even in the absence of collusion individual plants and firms could threaten and cause shortages by temporarily reducing production. There was a lack of competition at the very local level, a situation that was largely overlooked.
As I say over and over, those who want to throw the blame on Wilson and his legislature are welcome to. One can also blame Davis, and even the Clinton administration, for failing to see the looming disaster. But, when the crisis erupted one regulatory body had both the power and the legal authority to impose price caps and solve the problem temporarily - FERC.
Most people in Blogistan who comment on these issues seem to have a Econ 101 view of the world. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. No one really disputes that the fact that the California dergulation plan was a bad one, so stop beating that dead horse. No one really disputes that fact that it wasn't "real deregulation", so you can stop beating that one as well.
What is disputed is this silly notion that the transition from regulated monopoly to unregulated perfectly competitive markets in this industry can happen overnight and that no transitional measures are necessary.
What is also disputed is the belief that the problem was the retail price regulation - as if there would ever be such a thing as a retail spot market - and the associated, and now very refuted, belief that market manipulation was not the problem.
And, the final thing that is/was disputed is the belief by some that price caps wouldn't have helped. The truth is that at the time the necessary and appropriate action was the imposition of (temporary) price caps on wholesale power trades.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)