Assorted links

Comments

I read Drum, Yglesias, and E Klein.

They are all pretty reasonable.

Different priorities, but pretty reasonable.

I agree, Fox should be allowed to attend.

Comments for this post are closed

I'm totally not getting the rule-of-law connection to Obama's capping of executive pay. Isn't it the "rule of law" when our democratically elected Congress passes legislation that gives Obama the authority to regulate the operation of government-controlled assets? Isn't it the "rule of law" when bondholders and shareholders to a bankrupt firm exercise their authority to make restructuring decisions, regardless of whether said bondholders and shareholders are the government?

I have no opinon on whether these pay cuts are sound policy, but I really don't understand the basis for complaining that the paycuts violate "the rule of law".

Comments for this post are closed

@5

Tyler's arguments are generalizable.

Perhaps when economists examine externalities for clues on the mechanisms most likely to generate positive externalities, they should think about neurodiversity and the autistic spectrum. Is the economics blogosphere disproportionately represented by aspies and NT's exercising ASD style internal orderings?

Henry and I share a desire for Tyler to write about "some general mechanism connecting the individual and collective benefits of self-ordering".

Comments for this post are closed

As for the Fox dustup, here's a different account.

Comments for this post are closed

"Rule of law" = "The rich must be kept rich at all costs"

It's nice to see the true colors come out once in a while.

Comments for this post are closed

I followed that "rule of law" post, and it talked about "Obama remaking the economy."

Is that a full and impartial view? I mentioned in another thread that the Fed has outright purchased $737 Billion in mortgage backed securities.

Why the heck is pay the high-flying discussion on MR and similar blogs? The arc of this story only has Obama in it as a minor character. The entire US government, under two radically different presidencies, has "remade the economy." To wake up only to complain that bank executives should still get their pay is absurd -n ot to mention blind.

Comments for this post are closed

On FoxNews, the White House is just being stupid with their pettiness. What they should have done is simply ignore them altogether, but not exclude them from traditional press briefings and pool coverage, or attack them publically. What they are doing is a boon to FoxNews, and I know that cannot be their goal. In addition, they make themselves appear small and thin-skinned.

Comments for this post are closed

"Pentagon to use cyborg flies to spy on people."

http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2009/10/pentagon-to-use-brain-dead-cyborg.html

Comments for this post are closed

Mike/Bernard,

The employment contracts at the bailed out banks were not renegotiated. They were unilaterally changed by the bank without the consent of the employee. A new private owner of a company has no right to do that.

Comments for this post are closed

You guys did notice that the "Fox News exclusion" was a fake right? Oh, I guess you didn't! Well it was: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/10/fox-update

Comments for this post are closed

I have called myself a libertarian, and I don't have much problem with the "renegotiated" salaries: money frequently has strings attached to it, those are the consequences.

But the idea that the government ought to be able to do what an ordinary citizen can is strange because, well, the government is not an ordinary citizen. I can turn down FOIA requests from my fellows for transcripts of my e-mail. I can decide to do only sole source contracts with people who are left-handed. I can make arbitrary decisions to keep my children from going out without a hearing or an appeals process. Those are things I don't think the state should be able to do. I also don't think that corporations are the same as ordinary citizens. Anthropomorphism can be fun, but it can also be dangerous. Please, don't let that stand in the way of wild generalizations, do carry on ...

Comments for this post are closed

If I am wrong and executives do have genuine employment contracts which guarantee future pay of x amount, then at the very least we should continue the loud booing and throwing of beer bottles from the bleachers for the dismal performance on the field.

(I suspect it was the booing that has caused so many executives to leave, not greener fields...)

Comments for this post are closed

CapitalistImperialistPig and Others,

Well, no, that link from TPM wasn't evidence that the event didn't happen. Fox wasn't initially included- no is denying this as far as I can tell. Now, this may have been an innocent oversight that was rapidly rectified, but it certainly wasn't "fake". Given the recent context, it is difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to the White House on this one.

Comments for this post are closed

wouldnt the economy be much better if everyone took a wage cut right now? isnt wage stickiness the main reason the unemployment rate is so high?

anyway, fuck the rule of law. Ill take chaos over law any day. the rule of law may be good for you, but it isnt for ME!

Comments for this post are closed

Libertarian howling at the Obama's administrations desire to regulate the pay of the bailed out financial firms will fall on deaf ears with the left. Remember this is their guy. They love this man. They are no different than the Republicans who tortured logic in every way imaginable way to try and make the Iraq war look like a good idea. Once you become a political person, and worse yet a political person committed to a party, you lose all ability to think clearly.

The democrats posting at marginal revolution are not going to care how much criticism Alex and Tyler dish on the current administration. They will show up like the dutiful little sycophants that they are and argue for their man no matter what.

Comments for this post are closed

On the Kevin Drum article:

I think that Fox's news coverage is atleast as bad as that of the Daily Show, or Alex Jones (with whom Fox news has sided when politically expedient). So why should they be treated like a real news organization and not a farce? It would be one thing if the administration was afraid of their hard-nosed brand of investigative journalism. It would be one thing if Fox was being targetted because of their revelation of hard facts that are inconvenient for the president. These conditions are not met.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Obama administration isn't changing or ignoring any laws, they are just breaking with relatively recent convention. Fox has only been part of this group of news organizations since 1997.

Comments for this post are closed

"In addition, they make themselves appear small and thin-skinned"

Even my wife said this.

1. and 3. They are who some of us said they were.

It's time to cut The Executive pay.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed