Time for a new requests thread.
« Drinking Iraq's Milkshake | Main | Gymnastics super fit / Muscle in the gun clip »
Requests: The Return
10 Jul 2008 03:01 pm
Comments (66)
Updates on the beard.
Sonics. Move. OKC.
What would you do if the same thing happened to the Wizards?
How does the increase in cellphone-only users skew polling?
I also like phil's suggestion, but let's compare the beard to the best beards in bball.
What's John McCain's plan for Iraq? Is it to stay the course, to maintain a peacetime presence for 100 years, to withdraw most U.S. forces by 2013, to withdraw when the Iraqi government asks us to withdraw or to reject the Iraqi government's call for a timetable for withdrawal and withdraw our troops whenever we can secure peace with honor? Because McCain has proposed all of those.
The best beard in basketball is Andrew Gooden. The best beard in sports is Braylon Edwards. Damn, that is one fine looking black man. The second best beard in football is Jeff Garcia's wife.
I just read something on Halperin's page about McCain and the RNC outraising Obama big time. I'm guessing this is part "McCain campaign psych-out" and part "Wow, Obama doesn't have that much money after all". Write about that if you would.
What would your ideal Presidential Cabinet be? That is to say, who would you put in the following positions:
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security
Over the past week or so, a collection of statements made by Senator McCain (e.g., Social Security is a disgrace......) have convinced me that this man, who could conceivably be the President of the United States (oy vey), is a loose cannon, is woefully uninformed on most issues that concern the US and the world, and has some serious memory problems.
Discuss.
I can't remember ever reading your thoughts on the anthrax attacks, their significance, the way it was all handled/exploited by the admin, whodunnit, etc. Since the govt recently settled with the scapegoat dude, I expected a brief re-visit to that bizarre episode, but nada.
I just read something on Halperin's page about McCain and the RNC outraising Obama big time. I'm guessing this is part "McCain campaign psych-out" and part "Wow, Obama doesn't have that much money after all". Write about that if you would.
Seconded, and could you take a closer look at where that money is coming from? About a month ago, I speculated that Obama's recent turn to the right (particularly on FISA), would result in a significant dip in cash coming from his netroots or otherwise high-info base.
I'd be interested to see how this prediction panned out, and since I don't get paid to blog and [gasp!] research political topics, it'd be nice if you could pick this one up.
Daniel Henninger of the WSJ thinks that Obama's distance from the 60's is what's allowing him to succeed as a lefty.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121565453755941531.html?mod=todays_columnists
That, and a complete lack of irony.
Wouldn't it be ironic if Obama's lack of irony endeared him to Stewart/Colbert crowd who feed on it?
I want to hear about the possibility of $300 oil in the event of - what appears to be, but we've gone through this before - an attack on Iran. I want to hear about how this will utterly ruin our economy and possibly push us into a depression. With gas at $9 or 10 a gallon, rural/suburban middle-class workers with long work commutes will be devastated. Skyrocketing fuel prices will filter throughout the economy causing massive inflation as the economy simultaneously starts shedding jobs at a huge rate. We'll be f*cked.
Have you lost any weight since you started biking?
While John McCain's ill-advised comments on Social Security, and his nonsensical health care plan are important issues for many of America's seniors, I think the coveted over-65 demographic really needs to be informed of how awesome the new Girl Talk album is. I'd also like to see more outrage over Girl Talk apparently only playing festivals in support of his new album. Abandoning Webster Hall for All Points West Festival-- that's not change we can believe in.
What Scythia said, and there's always room for another bit on Obama's Rightification, since he keeps coming out with these [for some] appalling positions.
Which Bush newspeak can we hope or expect an Obama administration to undo? Renaming the Department of Homeland Security would be a start. Or is this the kind of no-upside fight we can't expect him to tackle?
Isn't the rise of the price of oil an unmitigated disaster for the climate? Sure, some people may drive less, but in global terms, humanity will burn every drop of oil that is removed from the ground one way or the other, and higher prices encourage greater oil removal.
Put differently, if OPEC could make money pumping oil when it was $15 a barrel, what possible policy prescription would cause OPEC to stop pumping oil at any higher price?
Cap-and-trade schemes for carbon regulations have a benefit of using market forces to produce efficient outcomes. Theoretically, the government would simply have to set the total amount of carbon it wants the economy to emit, divide it up into permits, sell those on the market, then check on firms to make sure that polluters have the proper permits.
The problems with this scheme are that firms have the ability to buy more permits than they need, artificially driving up the cost of permits. This means that firms can potentially drive out competition by market manipulation of permits rather than by efficient means. It also has a problem where environmentalists (or other firms) can purchase and then destroy permits, which in effect means that we under produce goods.
How would you go about fixing these flaws in the cap-and-trade system, and how is this better than a simple carbon tax (if it is, in fact, better)? If the flaws in the cap-and-trade system seem to go towards consolidation and underproduction, why is this favored by industry over a carbon tax?
I'm sensing MASSIVE over-confidence from some of the Democratic Parties most committed activists. My impression is that they are so confident of victory they no longer feel the need to give the Presidential race their primary attention. Instead, we've got feminists bashing Obama for his abortion positioning, civil libertarians bashing Obama for his FISA vote, and civil rights activists bashing him for talking down to black people.
Sure, Obama is up in the polls and has an electoral polling lead that would give him victory if it's ever realized by actual votes.
But is it time to take our eyes off the ball here and demand our pet issue concerns be dealt with, NOW!, by Obama?
My own thought is no. The Republicans still retain a massive advantage on TV, Radio, and in Newspapers. Outside the internet, Obama will be fighting a Republican messaging headwind.
But that will all be blown away by Obama's massive fundraising advantage right? That's the conventional wisdom that's been with us for months. But recent reports cast that into doubt as well.
So ... the request is this. What is the true state of the race? Will Obama really be able to outspend McCain? Can Democrats feel comfortable enough here to deride Obama as a "flip-flopper", as a "liar", and as a deceitful, pandering politician? Is this growing disenchantment with Obama going to diminish his enthusiasm advantage, his ground advantage, and his turnout?
Why is it twenty times more likely if you see an African-American political strategist on TV that they will be a REPUBLICAN strategists? Do cable news executives and producers get off on cognitive dissonance or something? It's really shocking.
Two or three weeks ago, you off-handedly mentioned Girl Talk in a couple of posts. Why not explain why you think Feed the Animals is so good? Is Gillis' music art? If it surely is, where does the art lie? Is he "just a DJ?" Could a machine do what he does this well? Will/should he get sued?
Ok, so I generally agree with your grand theory of political outcomes (people vote based on party affiliation and macro events, campaigns promote talking points), but there's one thing that bothers me about it:
There's all sorts of talk about how Obama's money edge helps him put states "in play." But if people vote on party ID and macro events, how does spending money do this? And, more broadly, if all campaigns do is give talking points to the true believers, why do they cost so much?
When you've mentione philosophy/philosophers in past posts, to my knowledge you've limited your references to Anglo-American, analytical philosophers. I wonder what your thoughts are, if any, on the Continental school, post-structuralism, critical theory, etc. (and perhaps their relevance to contemporary politics?)
Perhaps you can do a class analysis of why, when a bank uninsured by the U.S., say Bear Stearns, the Fed rushes in to help merge it, while when a manufacturer, like GM, is close to bankruptcy, the government and the nattering nabobs take a "it is all your fault" attitude. As if we can just toss out our car manufacturers and have any control over the auto industry of the future. Just wondering why we've come to the point of rewarding predation, irresponsibility and the sky high salaries of immoral hedge funders against, say, making things. Is it cause its so cool and contrarian?
But is it time to take our eyes off the ball here and demand our pet issue concerns be dealt with, NOW!, by Obama?
Hey, what's up? I'm a former Democratic Party activist. Wanna know what my pet interest is? Winning elections. By any means, and by as wide a margin as possible.
To do this--winning big, and laying the groundwork for future wins in the process--I feel the Party has to change the whole political narrative, especially by finding candidates who have the ability to frame issues in such a way so that liberal policy solutions can again have mass appeal.
So here's my question to you: why has the candidate who ran on this platform of change, who has the most gifted rhetorical skills we've seen in a generation, and who seemed to understand the importance of frame control in the primaries, suddenly forgotten all of this?
Why is he adopting Republican frames? Why is he compromising his own beliefs, invalidating voters' perception of him as strong? Why is he trying to erase distinctions between him and his opponent, despite the fact that he is much more popular? Why is he trying to triangulate at a time when the opposition party is falling apart?
Why is he undermining the narrative of hope by reverting to a campaign based around fear--fear of looking "too liberal"? Why, after years of failure, has he started taking the advice of those who were responsible for these failures?
And could it have anything to do with those new supporters he picked up after Clinton dropped out?
There, Matt, blog about that.
Urban Homesteading
The concept of growing a lot of your own food, using and collecting your own rain-water, and grey-water, inexpensive solar solutions for heating and cooling.
All of this ties-in to today's issues of oil/gas prices, water scarcity, energy independence, and salmonella outbreaks.
Matt,
I would like you to address "Missile defense". As I understand it (from a source who works for an un-named missile making company) a "missile shield" is a lot like trying to hit a bullet with another bullet. The defense against our "missile shield" is far simpler and far easier to achieve than our actual defense. So why are we spending ten billion a year (or way more?) on something that is unproven? Why is every Republican politician in the land an enthusiastic supporter? It aggravates countries like Russia and China, piles money on the national debt and enriches companies that benefit from government largess. What's your take?
So, cars vs. trains, private vs. public transportation. Significant socio-cultural value is derived from private conveyance as you are no doubt aware. Would the sexual revolution, as one example, have been possible without the mobile private space automobiles afford?
How does policy address the benefit of privacy that the automobile provides?
Why is every Republican politician in the land an enthusiastic supporter? It aggravates countries like Russia and China, piles money on the national debt and enriches companies that benefit from government largess.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
Why is he undermining the narrative of hope by reverting to a campaign based around fear--fear of looking "too liberal"? Why, after years of failure, has he started taking the advice of those who were responsible for these failures?
The spin you put on Obama's positioning depends on what are your pet issues.
Gay Marriage? Then you are very happy with Obama since he sided with the left in opposing the California initiative to block gay marriage. He went left at that fork in the road.
FISA? Yeah. I agree. Disappointing. The junior senator from Illinois stayed in the pack on this one.
Abortion? I'll side with Kevin Drum here and say I don't see what the fuss is about. Candidate Obama, although not presenting himself as an abortion rights flamethrower is certainly not siding with the right-wing here and is firmly on the side of abortion rights.
Iraq? Tough problem that Obama has been generally very good on.
Environment? He stood against McCains gas tax pander. Offshore drilling and ANWAR? We'll see about those but Obama is no head-in-the-sand right-winger on the environment either.
Separation of Church and State? Mixed bag here. I am firmly against Faith-Based Funding by the government and Obama has endorsed the general idea even while he tells the right-wing they can't hire and fire based on religion in the areas that receive government funds.
Social Security. Still on board the progressive train here as he's been slamming McCain over his "disgrace" comment.
Health Care. Still talking about increasing coverage for Americans and still being much more honest about it than McCain. Many want more ... but that battle will be fought in the next Administration.
The list goes on. No, he isn't a flame-throwing, fire-breathing progressive. He has a history, going back before he was a candidate, of occasionally using right-wing language in a way that angers lefties. Has angered me in fact. But Obama certainly throws red-meat my direction too.
My own view of Obama is that he is a political compromiser who will nevertheless give us great progress on many important issues. Yeah, the compromises will disappoint us, and the times he scoots for cover are going to anger us, but making Obama the President is going to make our country more stable, stronger, and more prosperous.
The question other Democrats need to be asking themselves is whether they really want to keep spanking Obama for every tactical decision he makes in his attempt to put together a winning electoral coalition.
How long will McCain be able to keep up the balancing act of telling fiscal conservatives/economic & tax experts privately that he doesn't support the things he talks about publicly?
I'm referring to the TNR peice "McCondtradiction", the politico report that what those 300 economists actually signed made no reference to key facets of his plan, and most recently Larry Kudlow being told that Cap & Trade is just there for show but no longer operative.
I also second Obama-fundraising-trend predictions.
I bet it goes poorly for a bit. The drama of the primary through its elections and debates created an emotional connection to giving online. I would predict that the lack of those high impact emotional moments make it harder for supporters to know whether or not the money is really vital.
I assume some poor fundraising stories or the general election debates could serve as new motivation.
So ... the request is this. What is the true state of the race? Will Obama really be able to outspend McCain? Can Democrats feel comfortable enough here to deride Obama as a "flip-flopper", as a "liar", and as a deceitful, pandering politician? Is this growing disenchantment with Obama going to diminish his enthusiasm advantage, his ground advantage, and his turnout?
And I wonder how real this "growing disenchantment" is. Where's the evidence? Do we have to wait to see at the convention?
Seems to me the "disenchanted" are mostly Edwards/Kucinich fans who are crestfallen/outraged because Obama isn't trying to impeach Bush. These types who don't care about winning might be vocal, but is there a critical mass? Weren't they already "too smart to be takin in" by what Obama's selling? They never were enchanted.
I'm not a blind Obama fanboy, nor am I in the tank for Obama. I just have utter contempt for those who attack Obama with lies. Obama singlehandedly gutted the Constitution? Please.
Scythia:
Why is he adopting Republican frames? Why is he compromising his own beliefs, invalidating voters' perception of him as strong? Why is he trying to erase distinctions between him and his opponent, despite the fact that he is much more popular? Why is he trying to triangulate at a time when the opposition party is falling apart?
To me, you are blowing it out of proportion. I don't see the evidence that it's so drastic and if elected I bet he will move back Left. That's his record. I do wonder how many people feel like Scythia.
Good Lord Yglesias, the answer is easy!
A post on the current status of Australian basketball and a comment on ZZ Top's latest tour.
Everyone would love both.
So, cars vs. trains, private vs. public transportation. Significant socio-cultural value is derived from private conveyance as you are no doubt aware. Would the sexual revolution, as one example, have been possible without the mobile private space automobiles afford?
How does policy address the benefit of privacy that the automobile provides?
1. Tell us whether Sully is in any way self-aware; does he realize just how much *everyone* is lauging at him, such as because of this: peekURL.com/zazist7
2. Revisit BHO's recent remarks, this time in an intellectually honest fashion. Discuss his full remarks; don't mischaracterize those remarks; don't misrepresent the concerns of those who oppose his schemes. Also discuss the fact that the video (youtube.com/watch?v=BZprtPat1Vk) has over 229,000 views and will probably end up much higher after everyone emails it around.
There are eleven appellate vacancies on the federal judiciary, including 4 on the 4th circuit. Who can/should Obama nominate? What kind of priority are these nominations likely to have, relative to other administration goals?
Curt, I'm out for a little while, so I'm gonna limit my response to the broad and symbolic rather than delve into details:
1) I'm aware that overall, on questions of substantive policy, Obama is to the left of McCain. My criticism is about his style of campaigning, particularly in setting the narrative.
2) I have no problem with co-opting right-wing language, but it needs to be done in a such a way as to subvert the frame ("I'm for fiscal responsibility, which is why we need to kick big-government spenders like John McCain out of Washington"), and not to distinguish yourself from other Democrats while accepting the previous definitions (FISA, abortion, etc.)
3) There are only two defenses for the FISA vote: Obama truly wants to expand executive power (matt's view) or Obama didn't really support it but didn't want to give McCain any ammo to allege he was "weak on terror."
Either one of those rationales is UNACCEPTABLE.
The question other Democrats need to be asking themselves is whether they really want to keep spanking Obama for every tactical decision he makes in his attempt to put together a winning electoral coalition.
4) LOL. Let me know when he makes a tactical decision. All I see now is Obama running the Al Gore-tested, John Kerry-approved Brave Sir Robin playbook. As an activist, why would I put my own ass on the line, six hours a day standing up for this man, just to get sandbagged nightly and have more shit to explain away in the morning?
And as for your "winning electoral coalition?" LOL. Who's he gonna pull with that abortion bullshit? Johnny Bible Belt? Dream on.
Wanna see a candidate flip a traditionally red state to blue, standing up to right-wing attacks without compromising his message?
Guess what? According to the Obama campaign, this state is in play. These voters can actually be swayed. But if all they're given is Republican Lite, I guarantee you they're gonna stick to full flavor.
Offense, please. Defense of principles, please. We give the campaign time and money for free; I'd like to get something in return.
I just realized my first post was accidentally posted as being authored by "Presidential Fundraising". Not sure how I managed to get that pseudonym in place but it should have been Curt M. Which wouldn't ordinarily matter but since I responded to scythia's response to that post I thought I should make it clear that it was me.
Actually, speaking of scythia, I am also curious about your prediction that:
speculated that Obama's recent turn to the right (particularly on FISA), would result in a significant dip in cash coming from his netroots or otherwise high-info base.
The blogs are LEADING on this position. Kos, in a front-page posting, explicitly withheld his $2300 from Obama because of his vote. That kind of blog leadership is definitely part of what I'm concerned about and I'm also curious what trend is being seen in netroots donations to Obama.
Can you offer an assessment of why the media is not covering any of McCain's flip-flops, lies, mistakes, or very few, if any, negative stories about him. For example, where was the media coverage over McCain's failure to pay taxes on their property in California? Why do they allow pundits/strategists to lie, unchallenged, on air about Sen. Obama' words and postions. I can't tell if they want Sen. Obama to lose (not so much for McCain to win) because they don't like him; they're afraid that if he's elected, their taxes will go up since a majority of them more than likely earn more than $250,000 per year; or they're racists and want to put the black guy in the worst possible light (not saying that's the case, I just don't know). Even on most of their websites, if you try to post a negative comment about McCain, they don't let your post go through. Like Faux News, CNN, (on occasion) MSNBC, and Politico (they actually edited, three times, a link that I included with my comment regarding the McCain camp throwing the 61-year old librarian out of an event). What is going on with the media? Thank you.
Will they - or won't they?
Will they make war with Iran - or won't they?
And if they will - when would be the favourable timing?
Would starting the war shortly before the election be good for McCain and bad for Obama?
Would Obama support the start of the new war? (... maybe telling us that "Iran's provocation needs a strong answer" --- as we can assume that the USA will find or fake some pretext for their next war of aggression?)
Can you offer an assessment of why the media is not covering any of McCain's flip-flops, lies, mistakes, or very few, if any, negative stories about him. For example, where was the media coverage over McCain's failure to pay taxes on their property in California? Why do they allow pundits/strategists to lie, unchallenged, on air about Sen. Obama' words and postions. I can't tell if they want Sen. Obama to lose (not so much for McCain to win) because they don't like him; they're afraid that if he's elected, their taxes will go up since a majority of them more than likely earn more than $250,000 per year; or they're racists and want to put the black guy in the worst possible light (not saying that's the case, I just don't know). Even on most of their websites, if you try to post a negative comment about McCain, they don't let your post go through. Like Faux News, CNN, (on occasion) MSNBC, and Politico (they actually edited, three times, a link that I included with my comment regarding the McCain camp throwing the 61-year old librarian out of an event). What is going on with the media? Thank you.
Will they - or won't they?
Will they make war with Iran - or won't they?
And if they will - when would be the favourable timing?
Would starting the war shortly before the election be good for McCain and bad for Obama?
Would Obama support the start of the new war? (... maybe telling us that "Iran's provocation needs a strong answer" --- as we can assume that the USA will find or fake some pretext for their next war of aggression?)
Will they - or won't they?
Will they make war with Iran - or won't they?
And if they will - when would be the favourable timing?
Would starting the war shortly before the election be good for McCain and bad for Obama?
Would Obama support the start of the new war? (... maybe telling us that "Iran's provocation needs a strong answer" --- as we can assume that the USA will find or fake some pretext for their next war of aggression?)
Can you urge CAP or similar to get funding for a study to develop a government agency that would assist blog commenters, such as providing educational opportunities for those who comment here that when the comment doesn't appear to go through they should just copy the URL into a new page and refresh that page to check whether the comment was posted rather than refreshing the original page which may - and does - result in the comment being posted multiple times? While seeing a comment repeated about eight times in a row has a certain artistic appeal, it is also rather annoying. And, like Sully, I'm easily excited and annoyed.
I do wonder how many people feel like Scythia.
Not many, I'm sure. But guess what? We're the base. We staff the phone banks, we walk the precincts, we raised millions of dollars in online contributions, setting records in the process. We won Iowa, we rallied the caucuses, and we're the ones whose labor and cash can turn this election into a landslide. Do not FUCK with us.
We're not stupid. We see John Roberts and Sam Alito. We see the millions of dollars doled out in faith-based funding. We see the spread of abstinence-only education like a plague. We want some meat of our own, and if you're not going to pull it out during the GE, fine--but at least blow the whistle once in a while.
Again, FWIW, I'm all about winning. My personal politics are kind of off the chart, and I have no expectation of ANY politician coming through with them. I've worked campaigns, and done quite a bit of canvassing, and I have no patience for Dems who would sacrifice the forest to save their favorite tree.
If I thought the "run-to-the-middle" strategy was a winning one, I'd keep my mouth shut. But it's not. This is a LOSING strategy. Obama's not putting any dents in McCain's popularity. Obama's not setting the tone or the issues. He's not defining the parameters of the debate. All he's doing is saddling himself with a bunch of sound bites which are going be thrown back at him in October.
It's bad politics, playing not to lose--and it smacks of the advice of Democratic Establishment, who can't imagine a world where Ronald Reagan isn't the most formidable political figure in America.
Matt, please get to the bottom of the terrorist fist jabbing nonsense for me.
It was orginally referenced in the comments to a column at humanevents.com, but that comment has been deleted.
Here is another person referring to it in on the same website.
"For those who have been "snowed" by the Obamas--(Barack, a "silver-tongued" Muslim by birth, due to his Father--and Michelle--who jabs her fist in the air, Hezbollah style, as she screams anti-white--anti-American garbage)--might want to take a "closer look" at this pair! And INFLUENCE WISE, they ARE a pair! "
I don't think the original person was referring to the first bump either, which is what everyone in the media and popular culture thinks. I didn't think so when I saw that original comment, but now I can't check for sure. I think everyone has misinterpreted that, and now it's caught on and everyone thinks that's what it meant. They meant the fist in the air while speaking, because that is what Hezbollah does. I've never heard of them doing a fist bump, Obama style. How has nobody realized this?!
Here's what I would like to know...
Assuming we do someday withdraw from Iraq, has Obama, or anyone else for that matter, said what will become of the "enduring bases" that we've built? How about Obama's vision for the largest Embassy on earth? Any changes to that arrangement, or will it simply be a kinder, friendlier hegemony?
Transit!
Since you and Klein and Krugman have been on a welcome transit kick recently:
I'm out here in Los Angeles, transit wilderness. So I've long had this hunch that if it was legal to hail taxis on the street here, as it is in NY, that could potentially go a long way to fixing our traffic problems. If people in congested areas like Downtown, Century City, etc. knew they could reliably hail a ride home, they wouldn't have to drive. People often just don't think of ordering a cab; and since other transit options like buses are often either unpleasant or simply infeasible, they just fall back on "oh well, guess I have no option but to drive".
Could you comment on (a) why so many cities apparently have no-hail laws. and (b) my hunch that having lots of cabs roaming the streets significantly cuts down on traffic/parking problems.
Transit!
Since you and Klein and Krugman have been on a welcome transit kick recently:
I'm out here in Los Angeles, transit wilderness. So I've long had this hunch that if it was legal to hail taxis on the street here, as it is in NY, that could potentially go a long way to fixing our traffic problems. If people in congested areas like Downtown, Century City, etc. knew they could reliably hail a ride home, they wouldn't have to drive. People often just don't think of ordering a cab; and since other transit options like buses are often either unpleasant or simply infeasible, they just fall back on "oh well, guess I have no option but to drive".
Could you comment on (a) why so many cities apparently have no-hail laws. and (b) my hunch that having lots of cabs roaming the streets significantly cuts down on traffic/parking problems.
McArdle has some good thoughts on boundary issues in a recent post, including one about the uncertainty of the optimal level of taxation in society.
You've written before that you're generally in favor of higher taxes (on the wealthy) and higher spending on social programs, infrastructure, education and the like. All of your thoughts on these issues have been sensible to me. But where would you peg federal tax rates on income (at each margin), capital gains, estate, etc...?
Also, you said the center-left technocrat approach to corporate income is to cut corporate taxes entirely and replace the revenue by jacking up the marginal income tax rate of the rich. I'm not so sure: Felix Salmon had a post about this a month ago, where he writes that if corporate taxes are cut then "top-earning individuals will figure out a way of turning themselves into corporations. In other words, a cut in the corporate tax rate is a cut in the income tax rate, even if you hike income taxes at the same time." Here is the link: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/06/05/corporate-taxes-vs-income-taxes
Gotta agree with David Appell's smackdown mentioned above:
With no evident local knowledge whatsoever -- even admitting as much -- Yglesias nevertheless offers a solution to this enormous, complex problem, a solution based purely on some political theory he read in a magazine somewhere last year and which has absolutely no naunced understanding of the complexity of the true situation on the group or its many years worth of layered complexity or what privatizing water supplies would mean for hundreds of thousands of southwestern ranchers or the million living there facing ever rising water bills.Who is this brilliant detailed analysis supposed to convince? Anyone? Anyone whatsoever? Yglesias's blog post is so extremely brief and vapid, so without context or insight or passion or concern, that it's just a complete waste of everyone's fucking time. Yglesias is only writing it so he can get on to his next post, which will mean just as little as this one, and only written because his employer requires 20 posts/day of semi-intelligent prose that appears to intelligent but which conveys nothing at all.
Why am I wasting my time reading this? Nothing Yglesias wrote there matters to me in the least. Nothing about it teaches me even the slightest thing, offers the slightest insight, solves even the smallest problem. I would be far better off reading anything by John Fleck or Charles Bowden or Colin Fletcher or or even Edward Abbey. It's only designed to get him some hits and maybe an appearance on MSNBC some night, and then tomorrow it's off to stories he'll cover equally vapidly.
Matt, one thing struck me watching your diavlog with Kirchick: the crux of disagreement between Yglesian doves and Kirchickian hawks appears to lie in the perception of Iran's foehood. To hawks they are implacable and irrational -- cf. this British commentator:
The self-proclaimed anti-war movement is an obstacle to a pacific resolution of this crisis, to the extent that it portrays Iran as behaving reasonably. The regime is not behaving reasonably: it is deceitful, it is fiercely antisemitic, and it explicitly anticipates the extinction of a member state of the UN. We can't and mustn't accommodate this.
-- and to doves they are enough like any other developing nation that we can conduct good-faith negotiations with reasonable hope of success, while in matronly disgust eschewing the 'military option'.
My question is whether you hold this view of Iran because the evidence obliges you to (or of course why you interpret the evidence this way), or whether the matter comes down to a liberal bias of personality: if the evidence (examples please!) does suggest that the Iranians are as you perceive them, why do you think intelligent hawks believe them unappeasable madmen?
As you may have read, AirTran sent out an e-mail to its customers about oil speculation and how it affects fuel prices.
Well today I also got an almost identical e-mail from United. I guess they're all supporting this "Open letter to All Airline Customers."
Key graph:
Over seventy years ago, Congress established regulations to control excessive, largely unchecked market speculation and manipulation. However, over the past two decades, these regulatory limits have been weakened or removed. We believe that restoring and enforcing these limits, along with several other modest measures, will provide more disclosure, transparency and sound market oversight. Together, these reforms will help cool the over-heated oil market and permit the economy to prosper.
how about a comment on this TPM Cafe piece ("Do Blogs Take Labor Issues Seriously"?):
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/10/do_blogs_take_labor_issues_ser/
What's your take on Obama's 'turn to the right' (Madeleine Albright, Jason Furman, FISA, etc.)? Is he joining the Borg?
What's your take on Obama's 'turn to the right' (Madeleine Albright, Jason Furman, FISA, etc.)? Is he joining the Borg?
"why do you think intelligent hawks believe them unappeasable madmen?"
There are no "intelligent hawks".
Contradiction in terms.
why not write about bloggers who don't renew their personal domain names after they've been hosted by a national magazine for a while?
I still want to know how you feel about writing about Middle East policy without knowing Arabic.
Now that you've stood up for tradeable water rights, what do you think about road and highway privatization schemes that use things like tolls and sensors to pay for maintenance? Isn't this a great way to get drivers to pay for at least one class of the externalities they generate, and get road maintenance and construction out of the hands of bureaucrats to make it more responsive to (perhaps declining) popular demand?
C writes:
"Felix Salmon had a post about this a month ago, where he writes that if corporate taxes are cut then 'top-earning individuals will figure out a way of turning themselves into corporations. In other words, a cut in the corporate tax rate is a cut in the income tax rate, even if you hike income taxes at the same time.'"
The same point also works in the other direction: back in the good old pre-Reagan years the top income bracket rate was much higher than today, 70-90%, but the corporate rate wasn't, so high earners took their income as corporations. Which means that the high marginal income tax rates didn't have the awful incentive effects one might think, since they weren't the effective marginal tax rates people actually faced.
One of the reasons raising income taxes on the rich isn't that bad.
Technically it is a bit more complex than this, but that's the blog comment version...
Request: Stop having request threads. This is easily my favorite blog, but your by-request threads have definitely been the worst. Stick to what you've been doing as has been.
Comments closed July 24, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Stop having requests threads. It seems as though you want people to beg you for knowledge. And while I do, I'll never give you the satisfaction.
Love ya bitch,
Darryl
Posted by D.A.R.R.Y.L | July 10, 2008 3:08 PM