Eine Kürzerer

Why don't we have more green products?:

Cuz it's cheaper for manufacturers to not change their industrial practices and instead put out literature for hacks like Megan to gleefully regurgitate?

Lovely

Megan?
Linking to your boyfriend's crap is the kind of thing that would get you in trouble at an organization that had actual editors and some concept of ethics. It's just obvious considering you could have embedded the video in your post, but instead chose to link. If you had the slightest respect for the imprint you've ruined you wouldn't be so blatantly self-interested, but there's no reason to expect any better from you, is there?

You've Got To Be Fucking Kidding Me

Cuomo goes after Merkin:

It seems to me rather likely that J. Ezra was just doing what most of us do when it comes to investing in the market: figure it must be safe, because otherwise we'd have heard of it. I've never checked out the auditors of any of the firms in the indices I buy, because I figure that someone else has. Probably, J. Ezra thought the same thing about Bernie Madoff. Thus do frauds inflate to really amazing proportions. [Emphasis added]

To sum up, Megan's failure to do the kind of research you'd expect a supposed business and finance journalist to do, even when it comes to her own money, excuses laziness or incompetence by someone trusted to manage billions of dollars of other people's money. And it's just beyond the pale to even contemplate the idea he was corrupt.
Good grief.

Off Topic

n possibly mostly for Susan, in case she wasn't aware.
Dave Neiwert's new book The Eliminationists is out, and it's very good. Regular readers of Orcinus won't have their minds blown, but it's more organized and comprehensive than the usually scattershot work at the blog, and Neiwert has retained his accessible but concise and detailed authorial voice. I might order a copy for my parents, so they have some idea what I'm on about.
No snark, just the heads up.

I Like It When She's Lazy

makes it easier for me to keep up in a sort of timely manner.

Department of awful statistics:

I know more about formal logic than Megan, but does anyone know if it's possible to ad hominem a statistic? Sure, at heart she's engaging in standard issue sophistic false equivocation, but this goes deeper. It's like she's personally offended by the simple fact that in recent history Democratic Administrations have, with the somewhat qualified exception of Carter, been generally better at not fucking up the economy, and she's going after that fact personally. Megan might as well be talking about Naomi Klein in the following, she's so rabid;

But I expect that four years from now, we'll still be having the same conversations with proponents of "cancer clusters" and Democrats convinced that they can scientifically prove that Democrats are better for GDP by doing ham-fisted regressions of Democratic presidencies with a few tightly correlated economic variables. What's the mechanism? What makes electric power lines cause cancer, but not the earth's vastly more powerful magnetic field? What policies did Harry Truman and Bill Clinton have in common (but not with Richard Nixon) that caused this marvelous confluence? Well, maybe we don't know the mechanism exactly, but never you mind: just look at that bee-yoo-ti-ful correlation!

Yes, Megan is now an expert on the contributory causes of cancer. No, I didn't know she went to medical school and/or has a research PhD, either. Maybe she went MD/PhD and is just too humble to mention it.
Also, Megan? Truman and Clinton didn't enable the rich via targeted tax cuts and turning a blind eye to their financial shenanigans. (Ok, Clinton kind of did.) Truman went after war profiteers. Clinton kept the flat tax from becoming a reality, at least. If you let Federal money enter the economy as a whole, instead of going straight into the pockets of the already rich, the economy will tend to improve. I guess the obvious nature of this is what pisses Megan off so. Even she can clearly see how wrong she is.

Why Did so Many UAW Workers Stay?:

I can't even... wha....

Obviously, there's one big reason: few of them could earn comparable wages anywhere else. But there's also the problem of worldview. Management's fractious relationship with the unions over decades had built up a huge reservoir of distrust among the workers, as one of my commenters points out:

I've worked at UAW assembly plants as a supplier and the average UAW worker gets their news through "the grapevine." Up until recently one of the popular views was that the big 3 weren't actually in trouble and that management was cooking the books to show a loss in order to demand concessions from the workers and break the union. It may seem silly but I have heard this from several workers at several plants. I don't know how to explain it other then most UAW workers have an absolute distrust of management.

Yes, why didn't these unionized workers walk away from their jobs? Don't they realize they're in unions?
Shit, why don't restaurant customers get up and walk away from their tables when their entrees are brought out?
I'm dumbfounded. What is it Megan thinks UAW workers should do? Move to India and learn IT?
Oh, right, she thinks they should curl up and die. Because she's an asshole, and she's empty inside.

More Media Meltdown:

The ongoing implosion of the media is only funny when it doesn't involve members of Megan's network. These are her future career options going down the tubes, people! What if David Bradley's helicopter goes down? Can't you see Megan doing a Hudson from Aliens impression? It's game over, man!

Trickle Down Economics Cannot Fail

they can only be failed.

The rich really are different:

Matt Yglesias considers, and rejects, the notion that taxes on the rich impede capital formation:

Remember, folks, Matty Y. exists for two reasons; to put a 'liberal' seal of approval on war, and to be a punching bag for the likes of Megan. And to be cited by otherwise good lefty blogs because he makes weak versions of common arguments for websites that get lots of hits. Bah. Anyway, Megan.

It sounds deep and smart when you call it "capital formation", and stupid and crazy when you call it "the rich uncle argument", but they're essentially the same thing. And it should be noted that many, even most, liberals believe that this is true--or at least, they used to, back when they were discussing the Bush tax cuts. At the time, the ground was thick with liberals complaining that it was a terrible idea to cut taxes on the rich during a downturn, because the rich save their money, while the poor and the middle class spend it.

Nope, I didn't fail to reinsert links. Shockingly, Megan is making this ludicrous claim without the slightest bit of documentation, because documentation doesn't exist. Matty Y. and Ezra agreeing to stop her spazzing out at the lunch table doesn't count.
The only possible explanation is Megan, being a movement conservative at heart, thinks the MSM talking heads promoting tax cuts that benefited them, and the people signing their paychecks, personally a great deal counts as a liberal anything. Of course, this is a woman who thinks complaining about how gender based pay discrepancies affect her personally makes her a feminist, so let's not pretend to be surprised.
*Update* - I shouldn't have written this so late. I have to be honest, I effed up and misinterpreted what she wrote. Somehow I morphed what she was arguing into a claim that some liberals were in favor of the tax cuts, instead of opposing them because of some bizarro half belief in trickle down theory. My bad.

Then or now, saved money is where all the capital that funds startups--or any other sort of investment activity--comes from.
Of course, if we will have a government, we are going to have to tax someone to fund it, and the rich have more spare cash in their possession than anyone else. But of course, when we tax the rich, they don't just cut back on their yachts; they also cut back on their saving and investment activity, which in the long run means that we will all be a little poorer. Life is full of tradeoffs that can not be vanquished with even extremely biting sarcasm.

I guess it's biting sarcasm to state that trickle down economics demonstrably don't work. She takes it as a given, which must mean it is one. After all, Megan is on the cusp of being a homeowner, and it's thanks to the charity of a rich person, so that would work for everyone if they'd just work hard as an ass kiss for a decade or so so, like she has.
The sad part is that last bit isn't really snark. It's quite possible she believes such a pile of mush. I've known heirs of name brand fortunes who believe they earned their vast inherited wealth with hard work. Never underestimate the capacity of a human mind to contort itself to avoid self-recognition.

First Quarter Wrap-Up

Rehoused, in a working-class neighborhood. Where AT&T does not yet provide DSL service, but will charge your ass twice as much for dial-up as for their "new customer" DSL offer. Therefore, don't expect squat from this direction for another wk. or so. (Minimum.) Cable DSL, here we come!

And what has Ms. McArdle come up w/ of late? Nothing that founding ed. brad has not thoroughly covered (w/ the exception of Unemployment Continues Its Upward March) and no one could blame brad for such an omission, as it's about the least pointed thing on which Megatron's ever wasted electrons. (Does she think she's CNBC now, updating her legions of day trader viewers?)

Essence: Jobs lost, market not like.

No crap, cretin?

More Marathon Shorters

this will be most of Megan's output from Friday to today, with one post reserved for a longer look.

The LA Times copy desk is officially too small:

Megan still hasn't gotten around to reading up on the psychological concept of projection.

Rick Wagoner is stepping down:

On one hand, we should never blame any of the masters of the universe for the results of their actions, but on the other hand auto company executives have union cooties and David Bradley doesn't play golf with any of them so they're useful to bash now and then, like Madoff.

Whither GM?:

***IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT***

Megan McArdle has used the underpants gnomes analogy. It is now dead, may it rest in peace. Jonah Goldberg will be by to violate its corpse presently.

More secret bonuses:

As Susan noted, Megan has voluntarily forfeited any pretense of credibility she ever hoped to hold by uncritically citing Red State. That's actually mildly worse than Dan Riehl, maybe.
Of course, the cited words are bullshit, trying to compare required buyouts of many thousands of car dealers across the country who, notably, are not executives of the car companies in question to the AIG bonuses given to the people in the division which fucked the world economy.
Unions are such a bad thing it's worth it to sacrifice the American auto industry to kill the UAW, to conservatives.

Just say no to F-Bombs:

It seems economists in general, and not just Megan, don't know what the words fascism and socialism mean.
And only Megan gets to use "F-bombs", anyways.

The liberals who think that "Liberal Fascism" is somehow more definitionally stupid than "Conservative Fascism" are, I think, patting themselves on the back a little too hard. They didn't call themselves "National Socialists" for no reason, and pointing this out is, so far as I am concerned, God's work.

House prices: still free fallin':

30% of New Yorkers is a lot of people. And a fair number of them probably need to sell their largest asset so that they can get the heck out of New York, and the finance industry, and start over with a more sustainable life.

Of course her concern is misplaced, but I have to come out in favor of anything that gets current or former members of the financial industry "the heck out of New York". As many as possible. I'll chip in for a U-Haul rental fund.
No offense to those few such folk who read this blog, of course.

Department of non-leading indicators:

Megan should start a personal website like Gwyneth Paltrow, they're both like, totally awesome people with all sorts of, like, totally awesome advice to help people be just like they are, which is, like, totally something people actually want.
Also, because they're so awesome and important, everything that happens to them is meaningful.

Why we won't get an awesome appetite suppressant any time soon:

It's unfortunate Megan doesn't tag her posts according to categories, because it would have been useful for how I'd like to mock this one if she'd put it under "women's issues".

More Media Meltdown:

I know Megan's employment depends on David Bradley's whims and not the market, but how does she not realize that the pool of people waiting to swoop in and displace her is ever-growing? Eventually someone who can actually write is going to steal a moment with Mistah Bradley. There's far, far better liars than Megan out there.

Europe Free Rides, Again:

When Megan agrees with Paul Krugman, he's a brilliant Princeton Professor of Economics and winner of many prestigious awards. When she disagrees, his Nobel wasn't really a Nobel and the fact that it took a few years longer than he originally estimated for the Bush Admin to implode the economy shows he's a dummyhead. This time he's mostly a dummyhead.
Also, what the fucking fuck is this?

We pay for [Europe's] military protection, we pay for the profits that develop the drugs and consumer goods they happily consume, and now we're supposed to pay for their economic bailout too.

I'd snark it but I don't know what the hell that's supposed to mean. Does she think Europe doesn't have... ummmm, medical scientists and researchers and pharmaceutical companies and so on? It sure sounds like it.

Should I have called the market bottom last month?:

Oops, Krugman is smart again. Also, Megan's inability to get anything right, ever, about the financial markets which she is paid to cover means nothing. It's not even worth noting, especially in her own mind.

Fiscal Matters:

More support for Amity Shlaes: a New Yorker of my acquaintance who works with the finance industry reports that the massive fiscal crisis, and regulatory uncertainty, are having a big impact on how he invests for the future:
"Now when I buy Mega Millions tickets, I pick the lump sum option rather than the 26 annual payments"

... huh?
Also, her acquaintance who works in the financial industry plays the lottery regularly?
And only now has recognized that the one time lump sum is better than the installments which are not adjusted for inflation as time passes?
Really?

The Bankrupt Future of the Auto Industry:

It's odd. Megan, obviously, isn't a guy, yet somehow she's getting an erection at the thought of the death of the UAW. Good for her?

Now a pause while I consume calories, then a look at another post which deserves an extended response. And then we'll be all caught up.

Kissing Ass Isn't a Career Move, It's a Lifestyle

Please, take the "Work" out of networking:

Cliff Mason argues that while networks matter, networking doesn't. Amen. People with great networks aren't people who maniacally collect business cards while pumping every random acquaintance for possible signs of a career advantage. They're people who like other people, who talk to other people because they are interested in them, who seek to help other people because, well, that's just what a decent chap ought to do.

*gigglefit*
Let's ignore the issue of whether Megan actually knows what "chap" means and focus on the bullshit. Megan thinks not being a blatant careerist, which is to say a bad one, means she's not really one at all, she's just a people person. A fake polite people person who passive aggressively expects the people around her to kowtow to her definition of polite, most likely, but I'm just being a grump.

Other peoples' lives are interesting, even if they themselves aren't fabulous raconteurs. A good networker is someone who starts out on the presumption that you must be interesting, and looks for the things that make you so. Along the way, they naturally find out quite a bit about you--and because they genuinely care about other people, they will remember three months hence that you said you wanted to move into new media when their friend the new media consultant starts hiring. Maybe five years down the road, you'll help them out. And you will genuinely be glad to, because they were glad to help you.

Yep. I'm always finding jobs for my friends, and vice versa. It's just about all we do together. Oh, wait, she didn't say friends, did she? She's not talking about actual interaction between human beings, but careerists networking amongst themselves. There's no concept of knowing someone simply because you enjoy their company here, because where's the money in that?
The problem with most fake polite people is they don't really give a shit about the people around them, they just want to feel good about themselves via their own reflected glow. After all, it's Megan's network, not her community. But I'm still just being a grump.

In other words, it can't be faked, it can't be hurried, and you can't strip out the part where YOU are a person worth knowing. All the business-card warriors would do themselves a lot more good in the long run by focusing on getting good at their jobs, and helping other people when they can just because it's nice to be able to help.

In other words, you can't let the mask slip in public for even a moment, lest the people around you realize they're mostly being used. And remember, a good network is just testament to the fact that MEGAN is worth knowing. Isn't that what's really important?

Marathon Shorters

time to get off my ass and on Megan's case. I'm going to try for genuine shorters, if possible.

Institutional investment:

It's so much more fun for Megan to force people to play by her rules than accept the negative consequences her poorly considered and written output generates.
Or pointing out rank hypocrisy, like now claiming there isn't a "liberal gleichschaltung" in the university system. Or not, clarity and consistency aren't her goals or particular strengths.
Then she spends several hundred words on how because she was a bad student and knew nothing about the field she was trying to enter we have to retain the people who fucked up the global financial system to fix their mistakes, obviously.

Markets in everything:

Y'know, if you ignore the fact that actual people's lives are being fucked up and destroyed by the various economic crises, it can be fun to abstractly consider the shitty situations produced as reflections on the all powerful market which is the one true god praised be Greenspan before he fell into heresy.

AIG gets a French kiss-off:

The fucking French are trying to hold people at an AIG subsidiary responsible for their mistakes. Thankfully, these folk wrote convoluted contracts which are voidable if new management is put into place, and their cronies on the other ends of these bad deals have their backs. In no way does this resemble extortion, and all fault here rests with the French government for daring to interfere with these economic masters of the universe, and, somehow, the US Congress for (mostly pretending to) act on the outrage against the undeserved AIG bonuses.

What does a million dollars mean to you?:

A trillion is, in some sense, a meaningless number.

It's meaningless when it's part of the debt rolled up by Republican Administrations, but when it's a number involving Democratic economic plans, it's a monstrosity that will rape and kill our children.

GM gets a reality check:

Apparently Megan thinks the auto companies don't realize they're in dire straits, because they're trying to paint a rosy picture for the market. No company anywhere has ever engaged in such behaviors, because executives outside the auto industry are moral giants whose ethics will be studied as models for good behavior for centuries to come, as we now study the examples of such wise men as Socrates and the Stoics.

Foreigners + Money = Crisis?:

Let's skip the glaring editorial failures in this post and get to the meat. If I noted every copy mistake by Megan I'd never get to her claims and views.
The article she linked to reads as intelligent and reasonable, if you ignore one thing; it was written by a former IMF agent, a fact which should make the ears of anyone who's read The Shock Doctrine perk up. Of course, it turns out the countries the IMF was trying to help bungled that help and made things worse on their own. The former IMF agent then goes on to rail against the financial elites in the US and call for nationalization of banks, which sounds like something people should be saying. But you have to note that Megan is endorsing the conclusions in the article, which offers two paths out of our current crisis. The first is taking on the oligarchy and nationalization of banks. The latter might happen eventually, the former obviously never will. So, the second option is to let things collapse, then take advantage of the chaos to institute new models.
And once again, Shock Doctrine readers go hmmmmmmmmmm.

Next, a post which deserves individualized treatment. I will be caught up by the end of the day, dammit.