Category: Good Writing

Jon Stewart Must Love Newt

No Comments

He does look a bit stunned though

Because the obvious hypocrisy and venality that is Newt must make his job easier.

Stewart’s observation to Newt’s fake outrage:

You imagined your wife, while she was dealing with having MS, would be open to you having sex with another lady you’d already been having sex with for six f%$#king years!” Stewart said. “I think you’ve got a pretty good imagination dispicability-wise.

And then there is Gingrich’s claim to be running as an outsider:

You are the Washington outsider? When Washington gets its prostate checked, it tickles you.

Watch the video. It’s a good way to spend 8 minutes and change.

Jon Stewart is the Best Journalist in America

No Comments

Brilliant!

Stewart looks at Foxconn and what it does to its workers in order to make the iPhone.

He plays it for laughs, but he absolutely nails just how horrific the conditions are, and how little we actually save for the pain that we inflict.

He takes a complex issue, researches it, provides documentary evidence, and puts it all in context better than anyone in the news media today.

He is a national treasure.

Well, Damn! This is Interesting

No Comments

William Cohan, Bloomberg Columnist and former investment banker unloads on Mitt Romney with both barrels:

By bidding high early, Bain would win a coveted spot in the later rounds of the auction, when greater information about the company for sale is shared and the number of competitors is reduced. (A banker and his client generally allow only the potential buyers with the highest bids into the later rounds; after all, you can’t have an endless procession of Savile Row-suited businessmen traipsing through a manufacturing plant if you want to keep a possible sale under wraps.)

For buyers, the goal in these auctions is to be one of the few selected to inspect the company’s facilities and books on-site, in order to make a final and supposedly binding bid. Generally, the prospective buyer with the highest bid after the on-site due-diligence visit is selected by the client — in consultation with his or her banker — to negotiate a final agreement to buy the company.

This is the moment when Bain Capital would become especially crafty. In my experience — which I heard echoed often by my colleagues around Wall Street — Bain would seek to be the highest bidder at the end of the formal process in order to be the firm selected to negotiate alone with the seller, putting itself in the exclusive, competition-free zone. Then, when all other competitors had been essentially vanquished and the purchase contract was under negotiation, Bain would suddenly begin finding all sorts of warts, bruises and faults with the company being sold. Soon enough, that near-final Bain bid — the one that got the firm into its exclusive negotiating position — would begin to fall, often significantly.

Of course, some haggling over price is typical in any sale, and not everything represented by sellers and their bankers is found to be accurate under close examination. But Bain Capital took the art of negotiation over price into the scientific realm. Once the competitive dynamics had shifted definitively in its favor, the firm’s genuine views about what it was willing to pay — often far lower than first indicated — would be revealed.

And then there is the closing line:

I have no idea how Romney might behave in office. I do believe, however, that when he was running Bain Capital, his word was not his bond.

This guy has clearly been waiting for years to unload on Romney, and this take-down is truly a thing of beauty.

H/t The Shrill One.

Another Gem From Matt Taibbi

No Comments

His latest is called, “Wall Street: Everything You Need to Know.”

The nickel tour is that this is about one Jeffrey Verschleiser, who went beyond what Obama calls, “Immoral but not illegal.” He engaged in what was pretty much black letter fraud, and not only has he not been called to the dock, he is flush enough to buy all 94 rooms in an Aspen hotel for his daughter’s Bat Mitzvah.

This is a guy who was at the core of Bear Stearns’ corrupt financial transactions that took down the firm, and he was telling his associates that he was “putting lipstick on a pig”, and some of his actions appear to be straight out embezzlement.

Why he is not facing criminal prosecution is beyond me.

Read Taibbi’s piece. It puts it all in context.

Another Very Nice Takedown

No Comments

I love it when economists mud wrestle, but a number of the conservative fresh water* economists, Kantoos and Tyler Cowen, have complained that Krugman is being mean about them.

I love Krugman’s response to this criticism:

So Alex Tabarrok thinks I treat everyone who disagrees with me as mendacious idiots, and Tyler Cowen says that I always demonize my opponents.

I plead innocent. I only treat people as mendacious idiots if they are mendacious idiots.

Seriously: I have some big disagreements with Ken Rogoff, but if you use the little search box up there on the upper right and enter “Rogoff” I think you’ll find that I have always treated him with respect. On the other hand, enter “Heritage” and you’ll find me pretty scornful — but with very good reason! And I always document what I’m saying.

Now, what about people like Cochrane? You need to bear two things in mind. First, he and his friends entered this whole debate by declaring that Keynesian economics of any stripe was total nonsense, “fairy tales” that nobody serious believes. Then they proceeded to make howling, basic errors. And I was supposed to respond politely? I’ve never gone ad hominem on them — but I’ve called nonsense and ignorance when I see them. So?

I think that this is a valid response, and fairly straightforward, and measured.

On the other hand, Brad Delong goes seriously medieval on John Cochrain, and ends with:

What do I see here? A bunch of overheated and largely false rhetoric. A bunch of apparently false claims about the way the world works. A bunch of false claims about pretty basic economic theories. Occasionally correct claims that are then–almost invariably taken back–by something that claims (for reasons I do not understand) to be a refutation.

Overall, it does not seem to me to add up to a coherent argument.

Kantoos, what else do you want me to do with this?

Seriously, it’s a very nice Fisking.

It also proves a point that Krugman is wont to make, that salt water economists can cogently discuss fresh water economics, but fresh water economists cannot cogently discuss salt water economics.

Basically, when salt water economists teach, they teach both theories, and fresh water economists only teach their theories, which is why we see things like the walkout from former Bush Administration Economist Greg Mankiw’s intro to economics class at Harvard (yes, technically a salt water school, but Mankiw is a fresh water economist) because they found narrow and parochial.

This for a bloody introductory survey course that should expose them to the full range of theories.

But I think that I’m ranting here a bit.

*If you look at schools of economics, those in the center of the country, (fresh water) on lakes and rivers, tend to be extremely conservative, either Austrian, or Milton Friedman, while those on the coasts (salt water) tend to be more liberal.

John Stewart Goes Postal on Barack Obama

No Comments
Brutal!

John Stewart gives Barack Obama a righteous, and justly deserved, beat-down over the President’s signing of the “f%$# the Bill of Rights” indefinite detention defense authorization bill.

It’s remarkable how much eloquence he (and to be fair, his writers) gives to the absolute outrage through humor than the outrage expressed by other commentators.

If you want to show someone who doesn’t get why what happened is so wrong, this conveys it more succinctly than anything I’ve read from Greenwald, or Taibbi, or the Rude Pundit.

Stewart is a national treasure.

Damn! This Makes Matt Taibbi Look Like Thomas Kinkade!

No Comments

Mark Ames has just posted an epic take-down of bought and paid for pimp for mass murderers Joshua Foust, and by extension, his employer, Atlantic Magazine.

Here is a sample:

Last week, some troll named Joshua Foust attacked my article about the massacre in Kazakhstan on December 16. I really had no idea who Foust was until I started getting emails from readers telling me “some guy with a goatee is having a meltdown on Twitter.” What upset Foust so much about my article was that I dared to report a death toll number, “up to 70,” that differed from the official figure of 15 that the regime in Kazakhstan wanted the outside world to believe. Why did Foust take on the role of massacre-denier for Kazakhstan’s notoriously brutal, corrupt regime?

Foust, it turns out, has spent much of the past decade getting paid by defense contractors to front for them as one of their paid PR monkeys. One example: Last year, Foust published a hit piece in the Columbia Journalism Review attacking an award-winning Washington Post investigative series about the vast hidden defense contractor industry, without disclosing the fact that Foust was an employee of Northrop Grumman–one of the largest defense contractors in America.

Foust’s job is the opposite of journalism—he gets paid by war-profiteers to lie to the public, to cover for them while they soak the public for government contracts. That’s what Joshua Foust does for a living; and besides carrying the water for defense contractors as a “strategic communications” flak, Foust has spent the past few years talking up Kazakhstan’s despot-for-life, Nursultan Nazarbayev—and talking down the appalling human rights records both in Kazakhstan and in Uzbekistan.

This is truly epic.

It’s harsh, but perfectly justified, and it’s really a thing of beauty.

I love savage writing.

What Dan Savage Says…

No Comments

I don’t know how I missed this.

It is positively brilliant:

Bachmann and her ilk believe that woman who have sex—along with men who fail to purchase health insurance—deserve to die horrible deaths. That’s why they hate the HPV vaccine, that’s why they fought its introduction, that’s why they tell lies about it now. Because they want women to die.

Read the rest. It’s short.

It’s also true.

The majority of the people who who seek to criminalize abortion want to punish women for having sex, and anything that resembles freedom in their personal, in any way they can.

It’s an unalloyed evil that these folks see The Handmaiden’s Tale as a blueprint Rather than a warning.

I Will Write No More About Penn State, No More, Forever

2 Comments

Because I can add absolutely nothing to what Charlie Pierce has said:

It was midway through the pregame prayer session that the gorge hit high tide. There is always something a little nauseating in large spectacles of conspicuous public piety, but watching everyone on the field take a knee before the Penn State-Nebraska game, and listening to the commentary about how devoutly everybody was praying for the victims at Penn State, was enough to get me reaching for a bucket and a Bible all at once. It was as though the players and coaches had devised some sort of new training regimen to get past the awful reality of what had happened. Prayer as a new form of two-a-days. Jesus is my strength coach. Contrition in the context of a football game seemed almost obscene in its obvious vanity.

…………

If that blights Joe Paterno’s declining years, that’s too bad. If that takes a chunk out of the endowment, hold a damn bake sale. If that means that Penn State spends some time being known as the university where a child got raped, that’s what happens when you’re a university where a child got raped. Any sympathy for this institution went down the drain in the shower room in the Lasch Building. There’s nothing that can happen to the university, or to the people sunk up to their eyeballs in this incredible moral quagmire, that’s worse than what happened to the children who got raped at Penn State. Good Lord, people, get up off your knees and get over yourselves.

…………

This is a searing, and completely relevant, indictment of the hypocrisy surrounding the response of Penn States, and its apologists.

Read the whole thing.

Taibbi Explains it All

1 Comment

While I have been generally supportive of Occupy Wall Street, I’ve also had a problem wrapping my head about the specifics of what they want.

Well, Matt Taibb had the same problem, but he grocks it now:

People want out of this fiendish system, rigged to inexorably circumvent every hope we have for a more balanced world. They want major changes. I think I understand now that this is what the Occupy movement is all about. It’s about dropping out, if only for a moment, and trying something new, the same way that the civil rights movement of the 1960s strived to create a “beloved community” free of racial segregation. Eventually the Occupy movement will need to be specific about how it wants to change the world. But for right now, it just needs to grow. And if it wants to sleep on the streets for a while and not structure itself into a traditional campaign of grassroots organizing, it should. It doesn’t need to tell the world what it wants. It is succeeding, for now, just by being something different.

Just go read the rest.

Reuters Gets It

No Comments

In describing a new, “informal leadership directorate” in Europe, the “leaders of Germany and France, the presidents of the executive European Commission and of the European Council of EU leaders, the heads of the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the chairman of euro zone finance ministers, and the European Commissioner for economic and financial affairs,” is described as a “New Politburo“.

Heh.

Taibbi Gets It

No Comments

People are claiming that somehow or other Occupy Wall Street hates the rich because of envy of the wealthy.

Taibbi argues that it’s because they haven’t gotten rich by cheating, not winning:

And we hate the rich? Come on. Success is the national religion, and almost everyone is a believer. Americans love winners. But that’s just the problem. These guys on Wall Street are not winning – they’re cheating. And as much as we love the self-made success story, we hate the cheater that much more.

We cheer for people who hit their own home runs in this country– not shortcut-chasing juicers like Bonds and McGwire, Blankfein and Dimon.

That’s why it’s so obnoxious when people say the protesters are just sore losers who are jealous of these smart guys in suits who beat them at the game of life. This isn’t disappointment at having lost. It’s anger because those other guys didn’t really win. And people now want the score overturned.

Go read the rest.

Go Read the Shrill One

No Comments

Krugman is brilliant today:

So who’s really being un-American here? Not the protesters, who are simply trying to get their voices heard. No, the real extremists here are America’s oligarchs, who want to suppress any criticism of the sources of their wealth.

Go read the rest.

As an aside, the reaction of the 1% does not reflect the positions of people who feel that they truly deserve their prestige and power.

Deep down, they know that they are parasitic frauds, and they are terrified at being exposed.

The President Murders an American Citizen

1 Comment

One of the flat out most disturbing thing that Barack Obama has done is to claim that he has an absolute right to murder anyone, anywhere, any time based on his unilateral declaration that it is in the interest of national security.

Most recently, this was shown in the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki.

This was an extrajudicial killing with the only evidence made public being that he “inspired” people to wage war against us.

I really don’t have the words to describe just how awful this is, but the Rude Pundit does. (and the essay is completely safe for work as well)

Just go read him.

I’m just thankful that I live in Maryland, where my vote for President does not matter in 2012, so I won’t.*

*No, I won’t vote Republican, I just won’t cast a ballot for President, or I’ll write in Howard Dean.

Our Banking Model is Unsustainable

No Comments

Martin Wolf notes that banks current business model is predicated on a 15% return on equity, and this is fundamentally unsustainable:

According to a FT article last week, Lloyds’ bank has a target return on equity of 14.5 per cent. Banks like to argue that this is the level of return on equity they need to earn, in order to gain funding from the markets. Naturally, remuneration is linked to achieving such objectives. The question, however, is whether such objectives make any sense. The brief answer is: no.

Forget banks, for the moment. What would you say if someone offered you an investment with a promised real return of close to 15 per cent? You might say: “How much can I buy?” Alternatively, you might say: “What is the catch?” Sensible people must take the latter view. If you thought that you were being offered a reliable real return at such an exalted level, you would buy as much as you could. This must be particularly true now when real returns on the bonds of relatively safe governments are close to zero.

So what is the catch? The obvious answer has to be that the real return in question is extremely risky, because it is volatile and offers a significant chance of total wipe-out.

Indeed, it is perfectly obvious that these cannot be sustainable safe returns in economies growing at 2 per cent a year, for such a large and well-established industry. At a 15 per cent real return, the value of cumulative retained earnings would double in five years and increase 16-fold in 20 years. Pretty soon, bank equity would be the only real asset in the world!

He notes that at some point in the late 1970s, probably starting during the Carter era deregulation of the banks,* their return on equity diverged significantly from the overall rate of growth of the economy, and the way that they did this was by the same way that anyone increases return, by increasing risk.

They increased risk by both increasing risk inherent in each individual investment, and they did so by becoming even far more leveraged, raising the risk that even small setbacks would leave them illiquid or insolvent.

This doesn’t matter to the banks, because they are back stopped by government deposit insurance, so they are, in essence, gambling with the taxpayer’s money.

We need banking to be dull again.

In any case, go read the whole post, particularly the bit where he figures that the additional cost of capital from this is just 15 basis points. (0.15%)

*Yes, the last generation’s Barack Obama was the one who initiated the dismantling of the depression era banking regulations, and who stood idly by as the savings and loans went insane. Reagan was worse, but Carter got the ball rolling.