I Help Paul Krugman Find His Reading Glasses

Playing a variant of "the debate is over", Paul Krugman lauds the new Pikkety book while ignoring and deriding the critics:

The Piketty Panic

“Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” the new book by the French economist Thomas Piketty, is a bona fide phenomenon. Other books on economics have been best sellers, but Mr. Piketty’s contribution is serious, discourse-changing scholarship in a way most best sellers aren’t. And conservatives are terrified. Thus James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute warns in National Review that Mr. Piketty’s work must be refuted, because otherwise it “will spread among the clerisy and reshape the political economic landscape on which all future policy battles will be waged.”

Well, good luck with that. The really striking thing about the debate so far is that the right seems unable to mount any kind of substantive counterattack to Mr. Piketty’s thesis. Instead, the response has been all about name-calling — in particular, claims that Mr. Piketty is a Marxist, and so is anyone who considers inequality of income and wealth an important issue.

I’ll come back to the name-calling in a moment. 

Let me save you the suspense:

So what’s a conservative, fearing that this diagnosis might be used to justify higher taxes on the wealthy, to do? He could try to refute Mr. Piketty in a substantive way, but, so far, I’ve seen no sign of that happening. Instead, as I said, it has been all about name-calling.

I guess this shouldn’t be surprising. I’ve been involved in debates over inequality for more than two decades, and have yet to see conservative “experts” manage to dispute the numbers without tripping over their own intellectual shoelaces. Why, it’s almost as if the facts are fundamentally not on their side.

Hmm, who is name-calling now? Since I offered help with the reading glasses, let's start with Scott Winship, writing in Forbes. One of his main points - some of Pikkety's charts are upside down:

Whither The Bottom 90 Percent, Thomas Piketty?

While Piketty’s efforts to improve our understanding of income concentration have been invaluable, the tax-return-based estimates that he and others have compiled are not without problems for certain applications. 

Basically, the tax data is more useful for very high incomes but much worse for the 90 percenters:

At the same time, it is no less true that tax return data cannot be used to assess trends in income below the top—at least in the U.S., and I suspect elsewhere. The Piketty and Saez data for the U.S. indicate that between 1979 and 2012, the bottom 90 percent’s income dropped by over $3,000. However, the official Census Bureau estimates indicate that the bottom 80 percent of households saw an increase of nearly $3,500. Median income—the income of the household in the middle of the distribution—rose by $2,500. If you are underwhelmed by these initial differences, stick around.

I need some help here. Mr. Winship is linking to this Census Bureau table. The key line is replicated here:

           Lowest   Second    Third   Fourth  Highest    Top 5    Top 5
    Year    fifth    fifth    fifth    fifth    fifth  percent  percent*
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
2012 Dollars
   1979    11,808   29,369   48,422   71,060  127,526  194,491  214,767
   2012    11,490   29,696   51,179   82,098  181,905  318,052  433,937

These are in inflation-adjusted 2012 dollars (the nature of the inflation adjustment can be improved, as Mr. Winship explains), but pressing on, I see a decrease for the bottom quintile of ($318), an increase for the next quintile of $327, an increase for the middle quintile of $2,757, and an increase for the fourth quintile of $11,038. That sums to a lot more than the $3,500 cited by Mr. Winship. In fact, if he is describing only the bottom three quintiles the increase is $2,765. Either number buttress his argument, but confusion about his numbers weakens it. [Wow, my bad - obviously, I need to average the four quintiles, not sum them, which gets me back to $3,500. Scary. They say this coffee is half-caf, but I suspect it is half-decaf.]

So why should we favor the Census Bureau numbers?

The Census Bureau figures are superior to the Piketty and Saez estimates when looking below the top ten percent in two ways. First, the measure of income derived from tax returns excludes a significant amount of income, and people below the top are disproportionately recipients of that income. Most importantly, in the United States, most public transfer income is omitted from tax returns. That includes not just means-tested programs for poor families and unemployment benefits, but Social Security. Many retirees in the Piketty-Saez data have tiny incomes because their main source of sustenance is rendered invisible in the data. The Census Bureau figures include some transfers, though even they omit non-cash transfers like food stamps, school lunches, public housing, Medicare, and Medicaid.

You might think that that means the Piketty-Saez data still does a good job capturing “market income”—what people make before the government steps in to redistribute. But their data also excludes non-taxable capital gains (such as those accruing to middle-class households when they sell a home), employer benefits (like health insurance), and other sources of non-taxable income. More subtly, it is impossible to get an accurate read on trends in market income concentration when retirees (with little to no market income) are included in the data (as they always are). The share of retirees has been growing for some time, and that puts downward pressure on the market income trend.

Hmm. There are other wrinkles:

The second reason that tax return data are inferior to Census Bureau estimates for incomes below the top is that tax returns—or “tax units,” which essentially means potential tax returns if everyone filed—are different from households. The Piketty and Saez data include as tax units all returns filed by dependent teenagers with summer jobs and undergraduates with work-study positions. They count roommates and unmarried partners as separate tax units rather than as one household, ignoring all of the shared living expenses that make living with someone cheaper than living alone. As a consequence, incomes are much lower among tax units than among households.

So when my seventeen year old got a summer job and filed a tax return he was contributing to the gloomy income inequality statistics in America? I did not know that. Nor, based on the lack of changes in his lifestyle, did he.

More grist:

It’s also worth reiterating that there are ways of improving on income measurement that none of the above figures incorporate. Income trend estimates should account for declines in household size—fewer mouths to feed for a given income—and they should use a better cost-of-living adjustment. When I raised these issues with Saez recently on a conference panel in which we both participated, he agreed that in principle, incomes should be size-adjusted, though he favored adjusting them according to the number of adults rather than the convention of adjusting by the number of adults and children. He also agreed that the inflation measure favored by the Congressional Budget Office and targeted by the Federal Reserve Board (the “Personal Consumption Expenditures deflator”) is more appropriate than the adjustment used by the Census Bureau and by himself and Piketty.

Another improvement to the above income estimates would incorporate non-cash public benefits and employer-provided health insurance. Finally, particularly if we are concerned about inequality, income measures should account for the redistribution that occurs through progressive taxation (as Piketty and Saez have done in less-cited work).

And some bottom-lining:

When I incorporate these improvements using the Census Bureau data, I find that median post-tax and -transfer income rose by nearly $26,000 for a household of four ($13,000 for a household of one) between 1979 and 2012. If you don’t like the household-size adjustment, the non-adjusted increase was over $20,000 at the median.  If you think that valuing health care as income is problematic, that figure drops to $10,400 under the implausible assumption that third-party health care benefits have no value to households. The income of the bottom 90 percent rose nearly $12,000 under that assumption instead of dropping by $3,000 as in the Piketty and Saez data, and it rose by nearly $21,000 if health benefits are included. For a household of four, median market income for non-elderly households (not counting employer-provided health care as income) rose $9,400.

That suggests the Pikkety effort may be disoriented:

In short, Piketty seems to draw too strong a conclusion (“terrifying,” in his words) about what continued rising inequality would entail for the bottom 90 percent (at least in the U.S.). Rising income concentration has not been accompanied by stagnation below the top, and there is no reason to think that it will be in the future. (In fact, there are reasons to think that income concentration might level off in the future and incomes lower down might rise more robustly, a point to which I will return in a future post. Those of you who heard my question at Piketty’s Tax Policy Center event already can anticipate it.)

The Winship effort lacks the snark we had expected from Krugman's typically thoughtfully commentary. However, back in 2011 I penned a snark-filled blast at Ezra Klein noting the many problems with the "rising inequality" figures, so maybe that will do. The Times (eventually) mentioned the similar result of a Burkhauser paper from June 2011. From the Times:

Research led by the Cornell economist Richard V. Burkhauser, for instance, sought to measure the economic health of middle-class households including income, taxes, transfer programs and benefits like health insurance. It found that from 1979 to 2007, median income grew by about 18.2 percent over all rather than by 3.2 percent counting income alone.

Mr. Winship takes another bite of the apple here, explaining the many and subtle problems with tax data and capital gains. This passage inspires a mini-rant:

Since top income tax rates have fallen since the 1970s, the concern is that the incentives for tax avoidance and evasion have fallen. That would cause more income to show up on tax returns rather than being hidden in tax-exempt or tax-deferred forms, or otherwise sheltered from the view of the IRS. In other words, it is possible that part of the apparent increase in income concentration is simply the result of a more transparent picture of incomes at the top. Combine that with the capital gains issue, and it is easy to imagine that Piketty’s view of income concentration trends may be distorted by shortcomings of the data.

Back when income tax rates were much higher executives had country club memberships paid for (for entertaing, natch), a generous expense account that was only lightly monitored, company cars, and all sorts of perks that amounted to untaxed compensation. Malcolm Forbes was famous for his "business" entertaining on sumptuous yachts operated as a business expense; the executives at RJR were bought off by corporate jets, and I like this mini-review of Barbarians At The Gates, about the RJR takeover:

It is incredible to hear about the shear amount of corporate excess that Russ Johnson (CEO of RJR Nabisco) created at the firm with the company covering his golf club memberships at 12 different clubs (one of which including the famous DeepDale course), 8 corporate jets that he allowed any of his friends and directors to use, corporate apartments he had the company pay for him, and trips to NYC that he would have the company pay for to foot his expensive food and drink bill.

Hmm, "shear" like in sheep? Maybe! But none of that compensation showed up on his taxes, so go puzzle on that, Mr. Pikkety. [Mickey Kaus wrote on actual receipts versus high marginal tax rates back in 2012; Tyler Cowen comments on Pikkety here and at Foreign Affairs.]

Clive Crook at Bloomberg takes aim at the premise that capital concentrations can only increase, and delivers the most amusing line I have seen in this debate. He quotes Pikkety:

The inequality r>g [the rate of return on capital is greater than the rate of economic growth] implies that wealth accumulated in the past grows more rapidly than output and wages. This inequality expresses a fundamental logical contradiction. The entrepreneur inevitably tends to become a rentier, more and more dominant over those who own nothing but their labor. Once constituted, capital reproduces itself faster than output increases. The past devours the future. The consequences for the long-term dynamics of the wealth distribution are potentially terrifying ...

However, says Mr. Crook:

[C]apital will outpace the economy only if owners of capital save a sufficiently large part of the income they derive from it. (Suppose they save none of it: Their wealth won't grow at all.)

History is oddly reassuring:

Wolf offers this clarification: Piketty "argues that the ratio of capital to income will rise without limit so long as the rate of return is significantly higher than the economy’s rate of growth. This, he holds, has normally been the case." That's better: The gap between r and g has to be "significant." The bigger the gap, the more likely it is that saving will build capital faster than output rises -- and Piketty does show that the gap usually has been big.

The trouble is, he also shows that capital-to-output ratios in Britain and France in the 18th and 19th centuries, when r exceeded g by very wide margins, were stable, not rising inexorably. The same was true of the share of national income paid to owners of capital. In Britain, the capitalists' share of income was about the same in 1910 as it had been in 1770, according to Piketty's numbers. In France, it was less in 1900 than it had been in 1820.

What about the 21st century? Perhaps the capitalists' share will rise inexorably in future -- and that's what matters.

Perhaps it will, but Piketty advances reasons to doubt this too. He expects r to be a bit lower and g a bit higher than their respective historical averages. There are many other factors to consider, as he says, but on his own analysis the chances are good that the future gap between return on capital and growth will be smaller than the gap that failed to produce an inexorably rising capital share in the two centuries before 1914.

And a punchline:

This book wants you to worry about low growth in the coming decades not because that would mean a slower rise in living standards, but because it might cause the ratio of capital to output to rise, which would worsen inequality. In the frame of this book, the two world wars struck blows for social justice because they interrupted the aggrandizement of capital. We can't expect to be so lucky again. 

Maybe global warming can provide the devastation of a world war or two. Here's hoping!

Kevin Hasset of the AEI delivers many snark-free thoughts. My takeaway - the growth in the capital-to-income ratio in the rich countries has been primarily in the housing stock; concentrations of productive capital are not dramatic.

That is a bit of a reading list for the prof. I assume Krugman will want to find some foolish comment from some unknown Congressman (or shock jock!) and claim that it exemplifies the entire conservative reaction.

I CAN QUIT ANYTIME: This from Krugman's column is a burr under my saddle:

For the past couple of decades, the conservative response to attempts to make soaring incomes at the top into a political issue has involved two lines of defense: first, denial that the rich are actually doing as well and the rest as badly as they are, but when denial fails, claims that those soaring incomes at the top are a justified reward for services rendered. Don’t call them the 1 percent, or the wealthy; call them “job creators.”

I'd feel a lot better about adopting the socialism of Pikkety's proposed global wealth tax if its advocates could point to a system anywhere that was advancing the human condition as successfully as the quasi-market capitalism that is moving the ball today.

SOCIAL CAPITAL TRANSFERS: David Brooks thinks this is a scuffle between the holders of financial and cultural capital:

If you are a young professional in a major city, you experience inequality firsthand. But the inequality you experience most acutely is not inequality down, toward the poor; it’s inequality up, toward the rich.

You go to fund-raisers or school functions and there are always hedge fund managers and private equity people around. You get more attention than them at parties, but your whole apartment could fit in their dining room. You struggle with tuition, but their kids go off on ski weekends. You wait in line at the post office, but they have staff to do it for them.

You see firsthand the explosion of wealth at the tippy-top. It really doesn’t help that you have to spend your days kissing up to the oligarchs and their foundations to finance your research, exhibition or favorite cause.

Think of Bill Clinton before he made his hundred million and had to rely on the kindness of rich strangers to enjoy a summer getaway. Where's the justice - do we know who he is?!?

However, Mr. Brooks goes awry here:

This is a moment when progressives have found their worldview and their agenda. This move opens up a huge opportunity for the rest of us in the center and on the right. First, acknowledge that the concentration of wealth is a concern with a beefed up inheritance tax.

The inheritance tax prompts the super-rich to put their money in a foundation with their heirs in charge. In the longer term progressives can capture these pots of money, since spending other people's money is what they do. But in the short run, the heirs will enjoy the power associated with controlling the distribution of great wealth even though they don't formally "own" it. Does anyone think that the heirs of Bill and Melinda Gates will lack for Davos invitations, White House dinners, or lovely vacations just because they no longer "own" a big chunk of Microsoft but merely sit on the board of the Gates Foundation? Please. 

Or try this - suppose the Dreaded Koch Brothers did a NY Times like reorganization of their hodlings so that they retained voting control of their enterprises but the bulk of the (newly-created, non-voting) dividend-paying shares were tossed into the various Koch family foundations directed by the same evil brothers and their spawn. Would liberals cheer this dissipation of wealth? Why not - per the Pikkety numbers it would be a blow for income equality. 

Comments

[matt]

Picketty went to the Foucault - Derrida Institut d' Pensee' Magique at L'Ecole Polytechnique from what I understand. How could he ever be wrong? 10,000,000 Minitels can't be wrong!

As to Hillary she has been racking up tens of millions in speaking loot, just like her purported hubby, saying how unfair it all is on her way to the bank.

As to Gates, he rooked the software designer and IBM with DOS. Quite the con. He didn't own the rights when he began negotiating with IBM and conned the developer, who basically got bupkis. He is driven but his ethics were definitely lacking. My IBM buddies were part of the PC development team, which basically revolutionized the world.

We put the the Jon Voight - Cary Elwes movie on John Paul II on last night at our local cathedral (now 2nd largest Catholic after St. Pete's)and had close to 300 Catholics and others there. It was a great film. I truly believe that JP II did more to change the world for the better than almost anyone in the 20th century.

Noonan's column today was excellent. At his age and from his milieu, priests were the heroes. They gave hope to Poland through the Nazi and Russian depredations and could never let up their guard because the secret police were always after them. The sex scandals just didn't register because they were incomprehensible to a very frail man from a very different background.

It is no excuse because the archbishops who covered it up should be cast down into purgatory, if not hell itself, for a great long time. But understanding can offer some closure.

One of the things that charms me about Poland is the level of critical thinking and liveliness in the intelligentsia. They have been harshly disabused of the false promises of communism and totalitarianism.

JP II's efforts to heal the wounds with other religions, especially Judaism could have, I think, come only from someone with his life experience and intellect.

[Danube on iPad]

Meet Donald T. ("as in Terrific") Sterling:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/26/donald-sterling-racist_n_5218572.html

Four roughly four decades one of the great assholes in sports.

[Jim Eagle]

Well, matt, we do have Saint Maximilian Kolbe and the 108 martyrs. Poland has made many contributions to the freedom of mankind and John Paul II is one of the most prominent. Our young priest is in Rome for the next few weeks since John Paul II was his "dedicator" for his ordination last May. He is just turned 30 and from our parish.

I knew him back in 2003 when he was one of our greenskeepers and was preparing to go into the seminary. Still has a good golf game but a more energetic intelligence and devotion to his parish family. His biggest test is saying funeral mass for those he has known all his life. Tough kid.

[Danube on iPad]

For those who wish to feel sick:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/26/its-official-at-dartmouth-the-word-fiesta-is-racist-and-white-people-cant-use-it/

[jimmyk]

Why is it bad that a side effect of this--or any other innovation generated by the capitalist profit motive--is that some people get rich?

Boatbuilder, I was half joking about Gates, and of course I agree with your general sentiment. Apart from my dislike of Windows, I think of Gates as more of a skilled mass marketer, not a great innovator. Like George Eastman or perhaps Henry Ford, he mostly took others' ideas and figured out how to capture a large market. The result was a flawed product that many of us have to grit our teeth and use anyway. But I don't begrudge him his wealth.

[James D.]

DoT, that's just mind-blowing.

Even knowing how insane our universities are, that story shocks me. I suppose it shouldn't.

[Centralcal on iPad]

Events in Iowa May affect Rand Paul:

https://twitter.com/melissatweets/status/460137240987844609

[Jim Eagle]

DoT,

But, if history is any indication, those assholes in Darthmouth won't be the ones in the Armed Forces saving our collecrtive ass from time to time but they will be the wrench in works every time. For some reason, Darthmouth is where Frederick has his sights on since we spent 4 good days there a few summers back. I have my work to make sure he understands that place is not for him.

[DrJ]

If I were part of that Dartmouth group, I think I'd reschedule the "Phiesta" as "Dead White Guys" day (only to raise funds, of course). Play Wagner, and pass out togas and German WWI helmets at the door.

[Jim Eagle]

Want to go to MIT and get your engineering degree? Go here.

I taught a semester there and often wondered how those poor souls did in the real world.

[Marlene]

ccal @ 4:17...interesting. Rand Paul is speaking at the Maine State GOP convention tonight in Bangor. Bangor has a beautiful new convention center,both parties are holding their conventions here. The Bangor Daily has a picture of Sen. Paul holding a lobster at McLaughlin's Seafood (best seafood casserole in town). It was thrown into a boiling pot of water and was his lunch. Someone call PETA! Ha!

[narciso]

Well Dartmouth was kind of crazy, when D'Souza, and Ingraham were attending there
thirty years ago, and wrote about it, in the review, it's been turtles all the way down, since then,

[NKonIPad]

Matt-- i agree about JPII, he is one of the great heroes for late 20th century freedom, with reagan thatcher, friedman and lech w.

JIB-- dartmouth is done, it s as bad as brown. My nephew goes why I don t know, he s a science geek, I guess he got a boatload of money. He s a oph and has already been indoctrinated.

BTW is daniela orthodox catholic and takes offense at the gutter use of the word for christian religious feast? No? I didn t think so.

[anonamom]

If you've lost the English PhDs in Massachusetts as far as
Common Core goes, then its days are numbered.
Her (very smart) seventh grader couldn't make heads or tails out of the test questions--nor could I.
Watch out Arnie!

From Insty:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/04/23/parent-to-obama-let-me-tell-you-about-the-common-core-test-malia-and-sasha-dont-have-to-take-but-eva-does/

[jimmyk]

I thought Dartmouth used to be, at least, one of the few Ivy league schools that had a strong conservative voice with the Dartmouth Review.

There are some organizations that are fighting back, including these:

http://www.thefire.org/

and

http://www.campusspeech.org/

[Beasts of England]

I'm gonna take a siesta before that's deemed racist, too!

[Jane]

At the grocery store earlier Veterans were soliciting donations. As I donated I asked the guy how the VA in MA is. He said it is just like all the other VA's across the country. It bummed me out.

[narciso]

Steyn does provide his spin;

http://www.steynonline.com/6293/how-now-white-cowman

[Jim Eagle]

anonamom,

Thanks for that. I am a very critical opponent of common core while being the president of our school board! This is another arrow in my quiver to use which I have no trouble doing. The Diocesan school superintendent is so put up with me she has shut down my email account. That's okay because I now harrass the bishop himself who is a cuban refurgee. He knows all about one size fits all.

[Jim Eagle]

Jane,

Be careful, those guys are scams. We had to chase them our ther in Florida.

[miss Marple]

Good evening, all!

Scored some swell stuff at the auction, including cheapo Waterford crystal. My sister got an almost new Toshiba flat screen for 60 bucks.

I am tired and sunburned ( gratefule for the sun) and am watching the prelims to the canonizations of the popes on EWTN.

Just wanted to stop in to say hello.

[glasater]

Had a photoshoot with a reporter from our local newspaper a few years back that was at our local VA.

The biggie program in our local VA is for treating alcoholism and drug addiction. There is a nursing home for the aged vets and the whole complex gets pretty good marks for service as a whole. Doctors are good and not too much waiting time.

The fellow we were profiling was a Iraq War vet who was trying to get his life back on track after being homeless and on drugs and living on the streets after he got out of service.

One of the program directors who was trying to get more government funding was using our article to help get people to understand that homelessness is a big problem and that they're not just men. There are quite a few women vets who have drug and homeless problems also.

[DrJ]

Since John Paul II has come up a few times today, the following is well worth reading:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304518704579521591597022058?mod=hp_opinion&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304518704579521591597022058.html%3Fmod%3Dhp_opinion&fpid=2,7,121,122,201,401,641,1009

[Danube on iPad]

I have nothing but admiration and gratitude for the VA here. They are unfailingly courteous and helpful, and give the impression of doing the best they can with what they have. They are, of course, a huge govt bureaucracy, with all that entails. I use Medicare and a supp, but get my meds (lots of them) from the VA.

[narciso]

Reason why he has a ready chair at Morning Joke;

http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/04/20/in-troubling-disarray/

[Jim Eagle]

DoT,

You go to VA? I admire your paitience and commitment.

Here in mid Florida we prefern to avoid the death lines. Good to know that some where the VA is doing what they should do.

[narciso]

So in retrospect, the glorious victory at the Malabar front, was not as advertised;

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/26/reminder-healthcare-gov-is-still-a-hot-mess-and-the-8-million-enrollees-figure-probably-needs-some-revision/

[anonamom]

From Dr J's WSJ article on Pope John Paul:

"He believed that Judaism was a living and an abiding faith and that the tie that binds Jews to God is unbroken and is not diminished by the advent of Jesus or the advent of Christianity," says Mr. Levine. "And that's a phenomenal insight and phenomenal gift because it allows the sustenance of both Judaism and Christianity without diminishing either one. And I have Jewish friends who still think, you know, 'What is this Christian nonsense?' Who are you to say? Who are you to think that?"

[narciso]

Christianity stands on the foundations of judaism, Isaiah told of his coming 500 years before;

http://therightscoop.com/watch-live-at-1pm-nra-ila-leadership-forum-featuring-mark-levin-and-many-others/

[Jim Eagle]

I remind Frederick eveyday, we are all Jews but just another forward order. I have noticed over the years how Catholics have become the greatest protectors of the holy land and the Israeli naiton as well as teh Jewish orthodoxy, much thanks to John Paul II.

[Danube on iPad]

Wow. See the end of Mavs-Spurs?

[Danube on iPad]

Only for meds, JiB.

[narciso]

she really can't catch a break;

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/04/dccc-war-on-women-defense-doesnt-even-pass-the-smell-test-ma06/

[Captain Hate]

So in retrospect, the glorious victory at the Malabar front, was not as advertised;

That 8 meeyun number was such a hot steaming pile that anybody believing it should be incarcerated for being a felonious level dumbass.

What happened in the game, DoT; I like both teams so I'll be upset that either lost.

I went to a nice piano trio concert this afternoon at Case Western Reserve U featuring the head of the music department, David Ake. It was the first time he's played in a concert setting in about a year and he sounded outstanding. He released a disc last year that got very positive reviews from Downbeat that obviously I have to pick up.

[Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself]

an update - Gosnell Movie
A historic crowdfunding campaign for a movie about America's biggest serial killer, abortionist Kermit Gosnell and the media cover-up.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gosnell-movie#home

$1,394,764USD
raised of $2,100,000 goal
66%
16 days left

[Captain Hate]

Never mind; I saw that Vinsanity hit a three at the buzzer. Both #1 seeds are down 2-1.

[Danube on iPad]

Indy is now at 2-2.

I'm hoping to see Sterling get kicked out of the game.

[Captain Hate]

Yeah I didn't realize the Pacers played this afternoon.

[narciso]

They probably didn't either, lol;

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/04/major-obama-donor-who-beat-girlfriend-beats-the-rap/#comments

maybe if he had signed a prop 8 petition, it would matter,

[Jane on Ipad]

Huckabee is doing a segment on Justina. He would be a hell of a lot more persuasive if he learned how to pronounce my state.

She has been held almost as long as the Iranian hostages at this point.

[Captain Hate]

This is worse vetting than for the JEF:

http://weaselzippers.us/184142-liberal-naacp-set-to-give-lifetime-achievement-award-to-la-clippers-owner-caught-making-racist-comments-about-blacks/

[jimmyk]

"And I have Jewish friends who still think, you know, 'What is this Christian nonsense?' Who are you to say? Who are you to think that?"

For what it's worth, I'm around religious Jews a lot, and I've never heard such attitudes, only respect for Christians and gratitude for their support of Israel. I'm guessing he hears that from liberal Jews who are not particularly respectful of any religion (including Judaism).

[Captain Hate]

I'm sure TMZ's Top Men are furiously working on this story:

http://weaselzippers.us/184084-obama-transportation-secretary-defends-kuwaiti-airlines-ban-on-israeli-jews/

[narciso]

they told me if I voted for McCain, journalists would be indicted;

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/04/justice-department-urges-scotus-to-pass-up-reporters-187455.html#.U1uTFf32IOB.twitter

[Captain Hate]

Just say No:

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/rick-santorum-unsure-2016-tough/2014/04/26/id/567893/?promo_code=FF89-1&utm_source=WeaselZippers&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1

[narciso]

there have been more then a few 'winning the future moments' in recent months coming from him;

http://20committee.com/2014/04/26/slovyansk-is-the-center-of-the-bermuda-triangle/

[DrJ]

I would encourage you to read Wretchard ("Belmont Club") if you haven't over the last week or two. His dripping contempt of Obama's foreign policy simply has to be read.

Today's is lighter than most, but very similar in tone:

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/04/26/debasing-diplomacy/

[matt]

I saw that George Clooney is now engaged to what seems to be a virulent anti-Semite who is Druze. Figures. Leftists are so predictable.

It is interesting in that the major support group for Israel's right to exist these days is a bunch of evangelical Christians and Catholics.

The secular liberals have bought into the Arab - Russian - European anti-semitism. So it will be a bunch of Israelis and probably a bunch of those "benighted PTSD/halfwit/stooge" American soldiers defending Israel and kicking Arab ass next time.

Even now with the Syria mess and Iran ascendent the Saudis don't seem to have made the deal with Israel that would have been so logical.

One of the quickest ways to settle down the Eurasian landmass would be for Russia to get its nose bloodied again. But there is no one to stand up to the bully. And that pretty well sums up our world these days.

[Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself]

I would encourage you to read Wretchard ("Belmont Club") if you haven't over the last week or two.

Agree. Here is a link to yesterday's post - http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/04/25/if-the-phone-doesnt-ring/

a bit - "Obama’s been willing to use force, he’s just never leveled about why he does it and who he is ultimately supporting. ... supply arms to nameless “rebels”; or engaging in kinetic military action in places like Yemen, Pakistan and Libya for which no declaration of war exists. ...— who was Obama actually backing? Darned if the public knows."

[Jane on Ipad]

Wow Janet, that is truly great.

[narciso]

We she is Druze, has represented Assuange in the past, I don't get the antisemitism bit,
compared to Elizabetta Canalis or Stacey Keibler, she looks ok,

[daddy]

I remember when Sarah Palin in that gotcha' interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson was snottily asked "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?", and then was asked to explain it.

Anybody have a single clue what "The Obama Doctrine" is?

Would love to have that question asked of those pompous Media jackasses.

[Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself]

from Dr.J's 9:13 link - "Obama symbolized the triumph of style over reality, where nothing mattered except whether you could sell a lie to gain a permanent majority. And for that the West threw aside its founding principles, discarded its ancient moral codes and embraced the Moment. Now the Moment is biting back."

[narciso]

as compared with Cohan's tree murder, here's another tome which will not get 1/100th of the attention;

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EN8SZ7U/ref=r_ea_s_t

As compared to that odious Becker book, which whitewashes the assault on traditional marriage,

[Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself]

"It was all very careless and confused. They were careless people … they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made." ~ The Great Gatsby

[daddy]

Perfect quote, Janet.

Lately I've been thinking that we here at JOM are becoming stenographers for the collapse of our Constitutional Republic.

[rich@gmu]

Posted by: matt | April 26, 2014 at 02:59 PM -

matt. that comment was too long because I've been drinking. when I'm sober i'll take it under consideration.

[rich@gmu]

oddly, since that is how jomers roll, I went on an adventure to find the book (to make the author part of the 1%) but was unable to find it. one store it isn't ordered and one was sold out (Tysons Corner ... wtf).

so I decided drinking heavily was in order ...

[Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself]

stenographers for the collapse of our Constitutional Republic.

Yes, daddy. I think so too.
...& what a great point about Palin & the Obama Doctrine. :(

[rich@gmu]

>>>
She has been held almost as long as the Iranian hostages at this point.

Posted by: Jane on Ipad | April 26, 2014 at 08:09 PM <<<

would a habeas motion on the 13th amendment in federal court starting moving the ball?

i would contribute (not much, but something) if a lawyer wants to take it up.

people need to be jailed over this.

[narciso]

Which book, are we talking about,

[DrJ]

Meanwhile, a Strawberry-Rhubarb pie is being prepared here. The latter is from the garden. The Strawberries ripen a bit later.

[Gus]

The masses have been bought with free stuff. That's why Obama is still King.

[narciso]

the rebels in Libya and Syria were more often than not, tied to AQ, but if you don't define it,

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/report-obama-admin-never-defined-al-qaeda/

[narciso]

And now for something completely different;

http://freebeacon.com/blog/pushing-back-against-the-kate-upton-haters/

[daddy]

OT.

Last night I was reading a very interesting history of the founding of Melbourne, Australia: 1835: The Founding of Melbourne & the Conquest of Australia

Fascinating book, and valuable to me in finally providing a decent handle on the hardcore effort at taking over the continent beyond the early Sydney and scattered Penal Colony efforts.

Anyhow, the guy who essentially went in and cut a treaty with the Aborigines for what became Melbourne was a son of a convict named John Batman. Bit of an unsavory chap, as this description by his artist neighbor: ...a rogue, thief, cheat liar, a murderer of blacks and the vilest man I have ever known."

The author tho' mentions this:

A further spur for (Batman's) action over prudence might have been provided by the fact that Batman was afflicted with syphilis, which was to claim his life just four years later. As Alistair Campbell has pointed out, 'Cerebral syphilis in it's early phase has a stimulating effect, and some artists, explorers and others have realized their greatest achievements under its influence.' Cecil Rhodes, for example, had the same condition. Perhaps more pertinently, by 1835 Batman's disease was far enough progressed for him to know that if he was to fulfill his long-held dream of colonizing the new country, there was no time to waste.

I had no idea there was any sort of stimulating effect associated with syphilis. I thought it just killed you while sometimes driving you mad. Perhaps so, as I think Oliver Wilde also had it. Had any of you guys ever heard of that?

I suppose it caught my eye since it seems to be the number 1 malady that Dr Maturin deals with in every Patrick O'Brian novel.

[rich@gmu]

so anyway my book shopping (before I get into trouble) ...

couldn't find "Capitalism the 21st Century" (and figure it is a new Marxist track and don't really need to read it) so I picked up "Who Owns the Future" by Jaron Lanier which takes up some of the themes. I'll pick up the other book soon enough.

My note at first blush ...

Consumers are undervaluing information and producers are overvaluing information which has been the cause of growing "inequality" in recent decades. The information producers, the "Siren Servers" as it were,are producing (generating...i'm drunk, and brainstorming, so watch out) an economic profit, which isn't dissimilar to the railroads in the 1850s. People are consuming their privacy for convenience and enriching the new tech elite at the consumers expense (eg. like auto safety ... consuming the margin of safety or risk ... and Risk is an awesome deftones song).

An easy example would be the AOL buy of Huffington Post.

jamming out ... and heading to the bar for more drinking.

[daddy]

stenographers for the collapse of our Constitutional Republic.

"I am Sparticus Tacitus."

[rich@gmu]

>>>Which book, are we talking about,

Posted by: narciso | April 26, 2014 at 10:35 PM <<<

i have no idea ... and what the hell. anyway ...

[rich@gmu]

and it is Capital in the 21st Century ... i'm a college student and drunk, but mostly drunk. watch out.

[narciso]

Well that's very good insight, I use coffee to fire the neurons, but different strokes,

[rich@gmu]

thanks narciso. i'll get out of here in a minute. just looking for my place.

thought i could make some economists misty eyed.

but given **everything** these last few weeks and just rather drink.

[narciso]

Jaron Lanier, was hawking the 'brave new world' of virtual reality, and missed the internet, 20 some years ago, William Gibson came closer in some ways, farther in others,

[narciso]

so much inanity, could generate it's own singularity;

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/

[daddy]

i'm a college student and drunk, but mostly drunk.

If you're drinking tequila I think that makes you a racist:)

Which reminds me---did the Aussie Abo's have alcohol?

We know the Incan's and mayan's and Aztec's had alcohol, but how about the North American Indians? I'm confident there was no alcohol among the northern Canadian/Alaskan tribes.

We know the Mongolian's had alcohol (fermented horse milk) and the Hindu's and the African's north of the Sahara, and I think also the Polynesians had a form of alcohol.

The Tierra Del Fuegians did not. Anyone know if the sub-Saharan Africans had alcohol, or the New Guinean's, and I also have to wonder about the Pre-Columbian Brazilians.

Wonder if that's all laid out conveniently on some website?

[Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself]

I've been looking through old posts on my FB page. So many good articles...but it is like we're shouting into a void.
Where's the TV channel with Richard Fernandez, VDH, Glenn Reynolds, Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell, Dennis Miller, Mark Steyn, Daniel Greenfield, the Powerline guys, Bill Whittle,...??????

[rich@gmu]

narciso-

a bit to strong on Lanier. he was part of the technologist movement but he is looking for a more humanist approach and should have opened eyes with his "digital Maoism" essay. He coined the term "virtual reality" before anyone else had gotten their.

[Captain Hate]

Anybody have a single clue what "The Obama Doctrine" is?

Support al-Qaeda and lie about it.

[DrJ]

Janet,

Where's the TV channel with Richard Fernandez ...

You mean that racist, reactionary Fox news? Ewwwww!

Seriously, I agree.

[daddy]

I use coffee to fire the neurons, but different strokes,

The only reason I've been a tad skeptical of the oft repeated claim that Voltaire drank up to 80 cups of coffee a day is the unavailability of toilets in 18th Century Paris.

I am a frequent guzzler---5 to 10 cups a day on average, but I'm only able to get away with it because I'm off in the backwoods of Alaska disturbing nobody but the bears:)

[rich@gmu]

daddy-

i'm turning that into a tee-shirt.

now i'm really out.

[Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself]

Hey Rich...don't get drunk.
Come meet me at church tomorrow. 9:00 am McLean Bible Church. Tysons campus - http://www.mbctysons.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=82584

I'll wait by the front door. Jeans, cowboy boots, & a long black sweater.
Come...

[daddy]

Yes Mam, Janet. Concur completely with your 11:14.

We all recognize it, but seem unable to do anything about it.

Very frustrating.

[narciso]

Now reading Lanier, would drive me to drink, he sneers at the free market, as if there is an alternative, he ignores the foundations that promote a statist vision, an anti Western vision,

Back in the 90s, I was reading Misha Glenny in the New York Review, and he was ra ra to get involved in Bosnia, when we actually did get a few airstrikes in, he was less enthused, back then, the Spectator was much more skeptical, although they did not become openly oppositional till Kosovo,

[Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself]

Here's one from Dec. 2011 - EPA Ponders Expanded Regulatory Power In Name of 'Sustainable Development'

"From the article - "It defines sustainability in sweeping fashion as the ability “to create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.”" What are the economic requirements?...heck, what are OTHER requirements?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/19/epa-ponders-expanded-regulatory-power-in-name-sustainable-development/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29

[daddy]

Am shocked to learn that this NBA racist Team Owner has been a supporter of Dem Politicians.

Off to drink. Later.

[narciso]

since then, he's become an expert on organized crime, and hopefully he understands better the links between paramilitary organizations and the former, the first being the sinews of AQ, which was operating in the Balkans in that time,

[daddy]

Best scene in the Simpson's Movie:)

[narciso]

Top Men, with their 'cunning, cunning, plans'

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/042514-698502-clinton-library-doc-dump-reveals-role-in-subprime-bubble.htm

[Gus]

And Obama has a SPINE OF STEEL, without a hint of Negro dialect. He's wonderful.

[Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself]

shouting into the void for years -

from narciso's link - "To satisfy CRA examiners, Clinton mandated "flexible" lending by large banks. As a result, CRA-approved loans defaulted about 15% more often, the NBER found."

more -
""Since 1992, nonprofit community organizations estimate that the private sector has pledged over $1 trillion in loans and investment under CRA."

Other documents reveal how the community-activist group ACORN and other organizations met with Rubin and other top Clinton aides on "improving credit availability for minorities.""

[Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself]

more - "In 2000, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo lit the fuse on the subprime bomb by requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase subprime, CRA and other risky mortgages totaling half their portfolios.

A 1993 memo, "Racism in Home Lending," captured the tone of Clinton's affordable-housing crusade. It proposed coordinating with the Washington Post and Congressional Black Caucus on bank investigations."

What?...coordinate with the WaPo! Why would they think the WaPo would go along with THAT?

[narciso]

I mentioned how the Center for Biological Diversity is the real point of the story;

http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/04/26/the-new-york-times-turns-tabloid-and-how-context-matters/

[narciso]

When they complain about the repeal of Glass Steagall, they have a point, but not in the way they think;

Memos also reveal how Clinton aides held repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act hostage to strengthening the CRA. They gave Republicans deregulation of banking activities in exchange for over-regulating how those banking activities applied to low-income communities.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/042514-698502-clinton-library-doc-dump-reveals-role-in-subprime-bubble.htm#ixzz303YaltBh
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

[narciso]

the earlier link is from the successor to the Green Room, the not 'in fairness' part of Hot Air;

[narciso]

And to sum up:

[narciso]

From the event last night;

http://barracudabrigade.blogspot.com/2014/04/sarahpalinusa-having-great-time-at-nra.html

[Bori]

Great pieces Clarice, as always. I think that while the Government policies started the ball the rolling it was the hijacking of the Civil Rights movement by the Black Power movement that sealed their fate.

As the anarchist and mostly atheist Black Power movement veered away from any form of authority but Black authority. When the Democrats and the Black Power leaders joined forces it was the beginning of the end all AA's around the country.

Anyone who is not Black cannot provide any dissent without being labeled racist, which immediately ends any discourse on the subject.

[anonamom]

It's a beautiful morning in Roma!
(per my television).

[anonamom]

800,000 people--past The Bridge of Angels to the second bridge, all the surrounding piazzas filled--standing for hours.

The visual representation of humanity's yearning for connection to the best that is in us all.