October 11, 2009
Britain's Central Planning Death Panels
October 11, 2009
Free Market M.D.
October 11, 2009
Economies of Scale in Compliance
October 11, 2009
Balan's Challenge
October 10, 2009
The Pleasure of Telling Others What to Do
October 10, 2009
Gonick the Great - and How He Could Have Been Greater
October 9, 2009
More Scott Sumner
October 9, 2009
Not From The Onion
October 9, 2009
Thoughts on a Second Stimulus
Great post, Arnold!
(For newcomers, the last paragraph in the post is sarcasm.)
Kudos to the Washington Post.
When I lived in DC I read the post everyday and found them to be one of the fairest and most moderate of the major papers.
Also they took their job as a watchdog on the Federal government serioulsly regardless of the party in power.
They are more liberal/statist than me, but I find them to be more fair and dispassionate in thier analysis compared to say the Wall St Journal editorials who I agree with more ideologically and the New York Times who I tend to disagree with.
You certainly got that right!
Unlike Chrysler (which is in bankruptcy and secured bondholders can make there case), some GM secured bondholders apparently are CDS-protected and have a preference for liquidation over reorganization. It is not clear that this is the best outcome.
In addressing Social Security, WPO apparently accepts Tyler's view that "dollars are fungible"-e.g., that the SS trust fund is more like the highway trust fund, rather than like other government trust funds--e.g. the VRS or TSP. The Treasury may (and does) borrow funds from the G-fund in my TSP leaving an IOU but that does not make 'dollars fungible'.
Gotta love that tongue in cheek humor.
Am I the only one who finds himself confused by feelings of respect for the Washington Post editorial staff?