Vox explains tax reform for Tax Day plus taxes and economics for the eighth year of Crazy Eddie's Motie News

"Happy" Tax Day!  Instead of writing about Tax Marches today, which I might do tomorrow, I am following up on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Vox explain how tax brackets work with more videos from Vox about taxes.

I begin with The 70% top tax rate, explained with potatoes.

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for a 70 percent top tax rate on the super rich.
...
While it might seem like a radical idea, it's actually based on an economic theory that tries to make everyone as well-off as possible.

How can we make all citizens as well-off as possible? That's the simple question behind something call "optimal tax theory." It starts from this idea that, to a rich person, one dollar is worth almost nothing. Take away the dollar and he'll be just as well off as he was before. But that dollar is worth a lot to poor people. So, if the government wants to optimize the well-being of its citizens, it should tax that money from the rich and give it to the poor. But at a certain point, we can't keep taxing the rich more. To find out why, watch this video.

That's a good explanation of why 70%.  Personally, I'd settle for 50% as the top tax rate.

Next, A better way to tax the rich.

American wealth inequality is staggering. A wealth tax, which would hone in on the money people actually have, rather than just the money we earn and spend, could be a solution.
...
An astounding amount of American wealth lies with very few ultrarich people. But it isn’t taxed by the federal government. That's because most of the taxes we pay only happen when money changes hands — when we earn it or spend it.

This is what a recent proposal from Senator Elizabeth Warren tries to fix. Her plan is to tax fortunes greater than $50 million at 2 percent each year, and wealth greater than $1 billion at 3 percent. When you add it all up, those tiny slivers of massive fortunes would raise enough revenue to pay for huge programs for everyone else.

My opinion of a wealth tax is that it is a good idea that might be unconstitutional.  This is why I voted against term limits in Michigan in 1992.  I thought it was a good idea at the time (I have since changed my mind) but the provision for U.S. Representatives and Senators was blatantly unconstitutional.  I wouldn't vote for a ballot measure that would cause the state to spend money in a losing effort to defend it, which is what ended up happening.  Therefore, I'm not supporting a wealth tax without a constitutional amendment.  Better to lower threshold for the estate tax to reduce intergenerational transfer of wealth and its subsequent concentration.

Finally, Why Republicans failed to fit taxes onto a postcard.

For years, Republicans have proposed making the tax code so simple that Americans could file their taxes on a single postcard.
...
So when they got the chance to reform taxes in 2017, they made sure to design and implement a postcard-sized tax return.

In reality, the postcard isn’t what they say it is. While it’s half the size of the old form, the new form is more condensed than simplified. Important deductions and tax credits, still exist, but they’ve been moved onto other forms. In order to file taxes with the new form, you could end up attaching six or more extra pieces of paper.

Republicans didn’t really simplify the tax code, but they still tried to simplify the tax return form.

Add that to the reasons I think the 2017 tax bill was a bad idea.

This entry is part of a series of retrospectives on the most read entries of the eighth year of this blog, so follow over the jump for the stories behind the page views of the two most read posts about taxes and the economy from last year.

Anderson Cooper shows other politicians besides Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dance on The Rediculist

For today's Sunday entertainment feature, I'm taking a brief look at the nontroversey over a video of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dancing when she was in college.  As Reuters reported, the attempt to use it to shame her backfired.

An attempt to embarrass newly elected U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with a nine-year-old video showing her dancing while in college backfired when it drew a wave of support for the liberal lawmaker on social media.
...
Twitter comments broke along partisan lines, with opponents describing the dance video as showing immaturity while supporters saw it as cute.

The failed attempt maked The Rediculist on CNN last week as Anderson Cooper showed that Ocasio-Cortez wasn't the only politician known for dancing in Ocasio-Cortez gets praise from 'The Breakfast Club'.

After an old video of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dancing surfaced, CNN's Anderson Cooper takes a look back at other politicians who have busted a move on camera.

I'd rather watch Ocasio-Cortez dance than Rick Perry, that's for sure, although his inclusion demonstrates that young liberal women aren't the only politicians who can look silly while dancing.

Cooper wasn't the only one to have a good laugh at the incident.  Watch as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Dances, People Lose Their Minds on MSNBC's "All In With Chris Hayes."

An old video of newly sworn-in Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dancing as a college student emerged - but didn't quite land as the attack it was intended to be.

I'd also rather watch Ocasio-Cortez dance than Paul Ryan flex.

While the anonymous Twitter troll botched this attack, that won't stop people on the Right from continuing their efforts.  To that I say, better luck next time — or maybe not.  I'll rather watch them blow it as hilariously as they did this time.

Examiner.com article on Milliken endorsing Driskell

State Representative Gretchen Driskell, seen here addressing the Lenawee County Democrats, earned the endorsement of former Governor William Milliken Wednesday in her campaign for Congress.
Credit: Gretchen Driskell for Congress on Facebook, with permission.

Republican former Governor Milliken endorses Democrat Driskell for Congress

Former Governor William Milliken, a Republican, has a long history of crossing party lines to endorse Democrats.  He continued that tradition on Wednesday by endorsing State Representative Gretchen Driskell of Saline, a Democrat, in her effort to unseat U.S. Representative Tim Walberg of Tipton, a Republican who represents a district that includes the rural and exurban western, northern, and southern portions of Washtenaw County.
...
"We need people in Washington who work to find common ground and common solutions to our problems. Based on her record of achievement, I believe Gretchen Driskell is that person. I urge the voters of the 7th Congressional District to elect Gretchen Driskell as their representative in Congress," Milliken concluded.

Driskell thanked Milliken for his endorsement.  "I am very honored to have the endorsement of such a well-respected Michigan leader" she said in the same statement. "I have always admired Governor Milliken's commitment to working together to address our state's challenges and his long-standing service to our Michigan families."

More at the link, including Milliken's history of endorsing Democrats for state and federal office, the most recent poll, which is from September, and a video of Paul Ryan meeting with but not yet endorsing Donald Trump.  I couldn't resist pointing out a Republican not endorsing another Republican while a Republican endorsed a Democrat.

The Trumpenstein Munsters

When my wife said that "the torches and pitchforks came out for the Trumpenstein monster last night," my first response was to write The torches and pitchforks came out for Trump last night and call the incident "a Weimar moment" in my comment to Bull Run at Kunstler's blog.  That was a serious response that ignored the "Trumpenstein monster" part of my wife's remark.  Now for a silly one that puts that phrase front and center, The Republican Munsters.


For good measure, here's Ted Cruz as Grandpa, along with my favorite Republican as Eddie Munster, Paul Ryan.


Keep laughing, because it hurts too much to cry.

ABC News panel on presidential debates

In last night's Overnight News Digest: Science Saturday (2012 Nobel Prizes edition) on Daily Kos, I included this press release in the tip jar.

University of Virginia: U.Va. Miller Center, ABC ‘This Week’ Team To Air Discussion of Presidential Debates October 10, 2012

A special edition of ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” produced with the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, will air this Sunday and focus on the question, “Do Presidential Debates Change Elections?”

Panelists are scheduled to include:

• Newt Gingrich, 2012 Republican presidential candidate
• Chris Dodd, 2008 Democratic presidential candidate
• Martha Raddatz, moderator of Thursday’s vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan
• Richard Norton Smith, presidential historian
• Donna Brazile, campaign manager for Al Gore’s 2000 campaign
• George Will, Pulitzer Prize-winning commentator

Broadcast before a live studio audience at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., the program will be moderated by ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jake Tapper.

That program has now been broadcast. Follow over the jump for the segments of This Week that composed that special roundtable.

WXYZ thinks Michigan is being left out, then Ryan and Ann Romney visit

WXYZ asks "Why aren't the candidates spending money or time in MI?"


The answer to the question is that Michigan has not been competitive for most of this year, even after Willard's the Rat's improved standing in the polls after the debate. Advertising and campaigning here would be a waste of money better spent elsewhere.* However, Michigan isn't being completely ignored. After all, Paul Ryan made an appearance here Monday.


Ryan's visit included a rally at Oakland University, where the debate for the Michigan Republican primary was held. Much to my amusement, I received two robocalls inviting me to it. Of course, I didn't go. After watching the WXYZ report, I had no regrets.


In addition to Eddie Munster and Kid Rock rallying the troops, Ann Romney made a stop here.

Ann Romney visited familiar ground Friday afternoon when she stopped at the Franklin Cider Mill to address about 300 people supporting her husband, Mitt Romney, for president.

Romney said it was her first visit to the cider mill since she was "16 or 17" and the warm doughnuts "tasted exactly as I remember."
...
"Every fall it was our family tradition to come here," Romney said, drawing applause. "My husband and I both grew up, just not far from here."

She didn't discuss policy at the stop, which focused on Romney's ties to Michigan. His father was a governor and ran American Motors.

I drove within a mile of Franklin Cider Mill yesterday. I had no idea she had even been there until now.

So, even though there are no TV ads being run here by the two major party campaigns and Willard the Rat hasn't shown up, Michigan is not being ignored. I suppose that the Romney campaign would like to at least win Oakland County. It's my job to frustrate that desire.

*Speaking of wasting money, there is one candidate whose ads I saw on MSNBC--Gary Johnson. His ad money is wasted in Michigan because he is not on the ballot here. Thank you, Ruth Johnson. Also, the states where those advertising dollars are better spent are still Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia, with the addition of Wisconsin since Wednesday.

Nate Silver and others on the VP debate

Last night, I wrote that "I should post something for tonight's VP debate, but I'm not up for it right now." I'm up for it now.

Nate Silver's first read of the debate was "In Polls, Biden Gets a Hold."

News media narratives tend to group horse-race developments into one of the three basic categories: win, lose, or draw. Sometimes, however, a political event falls into the awkward middle ground between those realms.

Thursday night’s vice-presidential debate in Danville, Ky., is a potential example of this. Instant polls conducted after the debate are suggestive of something between a tie and a modest win for Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

A CBS News-Knowledge Networks poll of undecided voters who watched the debate found 50 percent giving the advantage to Mr. Biden, 31 percent to the Republican, Representative Paul D. Ryan, and 19 percent calling the debate a tie.

A CNN poll of debate-watchers, however, had 48 percent giving the debate to Mr. Ryan, and 44 percent to Mr. Biden.

That CNN poll was among all viewers, not just among undecided voters. For a comparable sample to the CBS Snap Poll, here is a video of CNN's focus group of undecided voters.

Erin Burnett is with a Focus Group of undecided voters in Norfolk, Virginia with their reaction to the V.P. debate.

The good news for Biden is that he won when it came to beating expectations, while Ryan underperformed what the viewers expected of him. Also, Biden won the empathy question. However, Ryan won on substance. The end result was that it was a tie, with a third saying that Biden won, a third that Ryan won, and another third declaring the debate a tie. As for who won the most important prize of the night, votes, that was a tie, too, with each candidate gaining three votes.

Erin Burnett is with Focus Group of Virginia undecided voters as they review the best and worst moments of the debate.

The best thing about this debate for Biden is that his low point was on foreign policy while Ryan's was on abortion. I suspect abortion is a bigger deal for most people.

MSNBC also had a focus group. That one gave Biden a clear victory.

What about enthusiasm among already committed partisans?

The social media sentiment during the debate also seemed to flow along these lines. The liberals in my Twitter feed seemed a bit more satisfied with Mr. Biden’s performance than the conservatives were with Mr. Ryan’s, but it wasn’t a slam dunk.

That difference in enthusiasm can be seen in this WXYZ interview with the heads of Michigan's Democratic and Republican parties. Brewer is much more enthusiastic about Biden's performance than Schostak is about Ryan's.


As for how it affected me, check out this idea from Nate.

There is a plausible hypothesis, however, that some of Mr. Romney’s recent surge in the polls reflects a growing “enthusiasm gap” between Democrats and Republicans. To the extent that Mr. Biden’s performance re-energized Democratic partisans, he may have left President Obama in a slightly better position than where he started the night.

That's how I feel. I saw this debate as a clear win for Biden, and it helped me feel less panicked than I did Tuesday morning. Nate, on the other hand, isn't convinced.

My best guess: perhaps Mr. Biden can be credited with what in baseball statistics would be termed a “hold”: something a bit shy of either a win or a save and which will probably seem perfunctory with the passage of time, but which might have done his team a bit of good.

I'll take a hold over the slide of the past week, thank you very much.

Finally, I have this to say to Eddie Munster and Willard the Rat--Malarkey and stuff!

Science crime scenes 6: Accidental and intentional responses to GOP war on science

As I wrote yesterday, after skipping last week, it's time to post another installment of a continuing series. Today, it's science crime scenes.

I'm going to skip the usual archeology stories about atrocities from the past and modern day smuggling, looting, and vandalism. That's not because I don't have any; I have quite a lot of them from Overnight News Digest: Science Saturday (Curiosity's first destination edition) on Daily Kos that I'll post in another edition. Instead, I'm going to focus on stories about crimes against science, the planet, and society from other disciplines, including psychology, sociology, and technology, along with a dose of policy, all but one of which come from the public research universities of Arizona, where there will be a primary election this coming Tuesday, according to Politics1.com. It turns out that all of these stories either directly or indirectly comment on the GOP's science policies or the party's top candidates.

I begin with a story from Science Magazine that is about a potential crime against science itself, a law from the state of Todd Akin and one that bears the stamp of the religious wing of the Republican Party.

Missouri 'Right to Pray' Law Could Limit Teaching Evolution

Last week, Missouri voters gave themselves the right to pray without state interference. But some science educators are worried that the seemingly innocuous referendum on the 7 August ballot, which passed overwhelmingly, could also undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Amendment 2 "is a lawyer's dream" because of its vagueness, says Joshua Rosenau, programs and policy director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which tracks efforts by groups that oppose evolution. While the amendment begins by declaring that all residents "have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences," it also lists several situations in which that right must be protected. Rosenau is worried about one particular clause: "that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs."

Those words give students the legal right to skip assignments related to evolution if the subject matter conflicts with their beliefs, Rosenau says. And that exemption could extend throughout their scholastic career, he adds, since evolution is not just taught in one lesson but remains a recurrent theme throughout science education. The amendment also leaves a hole in their coursework, he says, as it provides no guidance on any substitute lessons.

Hat/tip to CharlesInCharge on Daily Kos, who included the above excerpt in You've Got to Show Me: The (New) Epistemological Crisis and commented about the law's greater significance.

We face a new epistemological crisis in this country. The crisis has been brewing for well over 50 years but, I would argue, since the advent of the internet has reached epidemic proportions. In an age where every URL is created equal and where precedence goes not to knowledge which is tested in the cauldron of the scientific method but rather by which spurious link comes up first in a Google search, how are we to evaluate statements and data to see whether they accurately represent truth or reality?

Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, argued that the history of science could be explained by anomalies in a prevailing paradigm reaching the point where a 'crisis' occurs, such that the existing paradigm must be overthrown and replaced by a new paradigm. Think Einstein replacing Newton or Darwin replacing the Biblical account of Creation. The point is that internal contradictions within an older established order reach such a fever pitch that the older order no longer suffices. That crisis now besets the very mechanisms by which our culture arbitrates what it calls knowledge. The epistemological crisis is now upon us and it is hard to forsee the new paradigm that will replace the ancien regime.

Scientific revolutions are almost always advancements in our understanding of the universe. I have my doubts that what is happening qualifies as one.

Follow over the jump for the rest of the past week's stories, all of which bear on a weakness of the Republican presidential ticket.

Tom Tomorrow on Ryan and Rand plus bonus anagram

I know I promised "a post reviewing WXYZ's reporting about how the Dream Cruise fuels tourism," but I that will take some time to watch video I don't have right now. Instead, I have some more about Paul Ryan and his relationship to Ayn Rand.

First, Tom Tomorrow at Daily Kos posted this last night.


Full-sized version here.
That prompted a couple of commenters to post some macros to point out how the members of the ticket accidentally highlight the relationship between Ryan and Rand.


That's a much more impressive version than the one I first saw on Facebook courtesty of Nebris, who got it from Failbook.


In case you doubt the veracity of this anagram, another commenter from Daily Kos prepared this demonstration.


Sweet.

Finally, a diary at Daily Kos describes how Ryan has had to run away from Rand.

A Love Rejected: The Strange and Tragic Story of Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand

Too bad for Ryan that the Atlas Society has preserved Ryan's remarks about how important Rand was to him and reposted them. With friends like that, Eddie Munster hardly needs enemies.

Time for a Paul Ryan label

In The future of the Olympics, I made the following prediction.

As for more speculation about the future, I think it's time I gave Paul Ryan his own label and a post introducing it.

Time to follow through.

To mark Willard Mitt Romney selecting Paul Ryan as his running mate, I'm sharing all the posts I've written about Ryan so far.


'Atlas Shrugged' gets the reviews and box office it deserves (Part I of a series)

Weekly roundup and sustainability news from national commercial sources for the week ending June 11, 2011

Weekly roundup and sustainability news from national commercial sources for the week ending June 11, 2011

Now S&P thinks it's a Satan Sandwich

A Day in Exquisite Insults of Objectivists

More Krugman on Paul Ryan

I was one of "about a dozen" yesterday

I'm sure I'll have more Paul (Krugman) vs. Paul (Ryan) posts. Until then, here's a macro of Paul Krugman calling Ryan's budget plan a fraud.

The future of the Olympics

I closed my previous post with:

I'm going to compose an entry speculating on the future of the Olympics. Hey, what do you expect for a blog with a science fiction slant?

Here are the stories on this topic I originally included in Overnight News Digest: Science Saturday (Opening of London Olympics edition) on Daily Kos. Welcome to the best speculation British science has to offer.

First, Nature magazine predicts Olympics: Genetically enhanced Olympics are coming.
Future Olympic Games may allow handicaps and gene therapy for people born without genes linked to athleticism, predict Juan Enriquez and Steve Gullans.
July 19, 2012

Olympians can run faster, leap higher and lift more than 'normal' humans. Of course, such elite athletes earn their titles with an astonishing amount of hard work and support. But many also have some unearned advantages: the right genes.

There is growing evidence that world-class athletes carry a minimum set of particular 'performance-enhancing' genes. For instance, almost every male Olympic sprinter and power athlete ever tested carries the 577R allele, a variant of the gene ACTN3. About half of Eurasians and 85% of Africans carry at least one copy of this 'power gene'. The billion or so other people who lack the 577R allele might wish to reconsider their Olympic aspirations.

More and more genes are now being linked to athletic prowess, and future Olympic officials will have to wrestle with the implications. Are the games in fact a showcase for hardworking 'mutants'? And if Olympic rule-makers admit that the genetic landscape is uneven, should they then test every athlete and hold separate competitions for the genetically ungifted?

Not to be outdone, New Scientist has a slideshow of possibilities in Olympic extremes: The winning formulas for London 2012.

ONE-HUNDREDTH of a second. That could be the difference between an athlete representing their country in this year's Olympic Games in London and one staying at home. Even finer margins can separate medal-winners from also-rans.

The Olympics is the ultimate goal for many sportspeople, and they will go to great lengths to get there. Ever since the modern games began in 1896, any research that might give athletes a boost - no matter how small - is leapt on by coaches. Behind the scenes, every athlete relies on a legion of psychologists, physiologists, engineers, biologists and nutritionists. Their work is a closely guarded secret: nobody will know whether it has been successful until long after the medals have been awarded. But it is possible to make educated guesses about the latest crazes...

Finally, in the spirit of speculating about the Olympics, here is Next Media Animation's funny forecast for tonight's closing ceremony.

The closing ceremonies of the London 2012 Summer Olympic Games are here already! That was fast. Besides the "A Symphony of British Music" theme, there is little else known about the ceremony.

As for more speculation about the future, I think it's time I gave Paul Ryan his own label and a post introducing it.

I was one of "about a dozen" yesterday

Paul Ryan came to town yesterday to be the main attraction for a fundraiser for Pete Hoekstra, who is running for Senate.  Since I've had my share of things to say about Paul Ryan, it was an easy sell to get me to be one of the people demonstrating his visit. A bunch of us carried signs about protecting Social Security and Medicare. The protest even made the Detroit Free Press.

Candidate Pete Hoekstra rallies support

About a dozen protesters, including some senior citizens, picketed the event at the Westin Hotel in Southfield and were more than happy to talk about their fear of spiraling health care costs.

“All I have is Social Security and my husband’s pension and now I feel like I’m being squeezed out,” said Deanna Tachna, 73, of Birmingham. “I always thought that I was part of the middle class, but with this, there’s not going to be a middle class anymore.”

The reporter came at the end of the demonstration as people were starting to leave. If she had counted five minutes earlier and included the people demonstrating by the entrance to the parking garage less than 100 feet away, she would have recorded twice as many. That's not the only error in the report.  She identified Paul Ryan as an "Illinois Republican."  He's not.  Paul Ryan is a representative from Wisconsin, not Illinois. He represented my wife when she lived in Kenosha County, not when she lived in the Chicago suburbs.

On the subject of followers of Ayn Rand, there is a diary about their ill effects on U.S. politics and society over at Daily Kos: Book Review: Ayn Rand Nation, by Gary Weiss. I recommend you read it.

And now, the macro I keep on hand just for mentions of Ayn Rand.

More Krugman on Paul Ryan

Remember this?

Paul Krugman quoted Jonathon Chait, on the revelation that Paul Ryan is an Ayn Randite:

Ryan clearly has a passion for ideas and isn’t just interested in short-term positioning. It would be nice if the party had people like that who didn’t also happen to be loons.
...
Last week, I called Republican budget sorta-kinda point man Paul Ryan "crazy but honest."

It turns out that Krugman has since figured out that Ryan isn't honest, either.

One crucial thing you need to understand about political journalists is that with some honorable exceptions, they don’t know or care about actual policy. In a way, that makes sense — the skills needed to cultivate contacts, to get the inside scoop on what’s going on in Congressional scheming or campaign war rooms, are very different from the skills needed to interpret CBO spreadsheets. The problem, however, is that all too often political journalists mistake the theater of policy for reality (or don’t care about the difference).

Hence, the awful decision of Politico to give Paul Ryan an award as healthcare policymaker of the year.

Even if you like the thrust of Ryan’s ideas, even if you think privatizing Medicare and turning it into a voucher scheme is fine, what became painfully, embarrassingly clear during the debate over the Ryan plan was that Ryan is, well, incompetent; the plan was a mess, from its invocation of ludicrous Heritage Foundation projections to its crazy assertions about what would happen to discretionary spending. It’s true that the plan “got everyone talking”, as Politico says — but mostly it got people talking about what a mess Ryan’s effort was.

Oh, and it was pretty clear that Ryan wasn’t being honest about his own numbers.

What’s going on here, I suppose, is that Politico is mistaking theater for policy. Ryan isn’t an important health care reformer, or even minimally competent in his attempted wonkery, but he plays a deep thinker on TV. And the people at Politico either don’t understand the difference, or they don’t care.

Here's what I had to say in response.

As you've figured out, Paul Ryan isn't an intellectual, although he plays one in Congress; he's a salesman who uses the pretence of being an intellectual to sell himself and what passes for his ideas. As Gaius Publius on AmericaBlog wrote in response to your comment last January that Ryan was being "intellectually lazy" in not knowing the truth about the pre-crisis debt status of European countries:

Unfortunately, you can't be intellectually lazy if you're not an intellectual. Ryan's a Movement Conservative operative, one with good enough hair to get him into Congress.

Intellect is not his playing field, it's his "act", as Krugman correctly points out (or his "USP" in sales parlance, unique selling point, like "squeezably soft" or "doesn't leave a ring"). Ryan's playing field isn't intellect, it's power, and his tool is "Say anything to win". It was Rove's tool, Bush's tool, Rumsfeld's tool; it's Newt's tool, McCain's tool, Boehner's tool; and it's Ryan's tool.

You can't be an intellectual if the mind doesn't matter.

So Ryan isn't "crazy but honest," he's just another politician who will lie in the service of his "higher ideal" Based on what I've posted about Ayn Rand and Objectivism, you can tell what I think of his "higher ideal"--not much!

A Day in Exquisite Insults of Objectivists

On February 11th of last year, Paul Krugman quoted Jonathon Chait, on the revelation that Paul Ryan is an Ayn Randite:

Ryan clearly has a passion for ideas and isn’t just interested in short-term positioning. It would be nice if the party had people like that who didn’t also happen to be loons.

The rest of Chait's post read as follows:

Last week, I called Republican budget sorta-kinda point man Paul Ryan "crazy but honest." Today, some of the intellectual influences behind the first half of that description are coming out. TPM reports that Ryan is a big fan of Ayn Rand and "Atlas Shrugged." The Daily Beast, interviewing Ryan, reports that he was influenced by Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism."

What do those works have in common? They're written by people who don't understand liberalism and the left at all, and are thus unable to present liberal ideas in terms remotely recognizable to liberals themselves. The specific lack of understanding lies in an inability to grasp the enormous differences between American liberalism and socialism or communism, seeing them as variants on the same basic theme. The historical reality is that the architects of American liberalism saw it as a bulwark against communism, and communists and socialists in turn viewed the liberals as in implacable enemy. (Yes, you can cherry pick a few data points of commonality, but these are the exceptions rather than the rule.) The result is a tendency to see even modest efforts to sand off the roughest edges of capitalism in order to make free markets work for all Americans as the opening salvo of a vast and endless assault upon the market system.

One of the commenters on Chait's piece posted the following about the comparison between Rand and Goldberg:

Jonah Goldberg is no Ayn Rand. Indeed, they are opposites. Ayn Rand's books are appealing (forget the politics), but her personality was nothing less than looney. Jonah Goldberg's personality is appealing (forget the politics), but his books are nothing less than looney.

Krugman also quoted the late Paul Samuelson on Alan Greenspan:

You can take the boy out of the cult but you can’t take the cult out of the boy.

We've seen this quote before. We've also seen the complete version of it in context.

And this brings us to Alan Greenspan, whom I've known for over 50 years and who I regarded as one of the best young business economists. Townsend-Greenspan was his company. But the trouble is that he had been an Ayn Rander. You can take the boy out of the cult but you can't take the cult out of the boy. He actually had instruction, probably pinned on the wall: 'Nothing from this office should go forth which discredits the capitalist system. Greed is good.'

While Krugman was done, his commenters weren't:

Quotes about Objectivism from the snarky to the serious

Yesterday, I remarked about my tardiness in following up.

Back in April, I started a series about Atlas Shrugged and how Objectivism is contributing to collapse.  It's been seven months, so I'm way behind.  In fact, I'm so behind and so many new people have started reading this blog that I'm going to review what I rewrote back then.  That it helps explain the nature of the hornet I'm swatting is a bonus.

Time for the next section of relevant quotes from that entry.

Now S&P thinks it's a Satan Sandwich

Earlier today, I abstracted the last three Satan Sandwich entries and posted the result as It's been a wild couple of days on the_recession on LiveJournal. It looks like I spoke too soon when I wrote that headline.

Reuters: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P
By Walter Brandimarte
NEW YORK | Fri Aug 5, 2011 9:53pm EDT

The United States lost its top-notch AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor's on Friday in an unprecedented reversal of fortune for the world's largest economy.

S&P cut the long-term U.S. credit rating by one notch to AA-plus on concerns about the government's budget deficits and rising debt burden. The move is likely to raise borrowing costs eventually for the American government, companies and consumers.

"The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics," S&P said in a statement.

The decision follows a fierce political battle in Congress over cutting spending and raising taxes to reduce the government's debt burden and allow its statutory borrowing limit to be raised.

The odd thing about this downgrade is that the markets weren't calling for it.

Weekly roundup and sustainability news from national commercial sources for the week ending June 11, 2011

So much for my plans.

Part three up later today, then a post for the readers of Clusterfuck Nation.

As you can see that didn't happen. I decided to watch TV with my wife, then played a MMORPG with her. Both of those deserve more attention, but not here. If you really want to know, read my LiveJournal or Dreamwidth accounts. Those activities fit perfectly this month's "Fan" theme for Nablopomo. Consequently, I'm posting part three today, not last night. Hey, I can't be all SRS BZNS all the time!

As for something special for Kunstler's readers, it's not going to happen this week. Not only did I not get around to writing one, but his blog has become more persnickety about links in comments, so I could only post a comment that had a bare link to the blog as a whole, not a formatted link to a particular post. Ah, well, Aimlow Joe and The Leibowitz Society are still going strong as commenters over there, so I'm not worried about being banned as a spammer. For starters, no one is complaining about me in comments; the trolls get all the attention. Second, Leibowitz Society and Aimlow Joe are good company. The first is a serious if eccentric sustainability blogger that I just followed. The second is more of a clown, but still worth reading. I'll review the former in a future post; the latter is worth reading, but not worth reviewing.

That written, I now provide a weekly roundup for the readers coming here from Kunstler's blog.

Three posts comment on sustainablity news from The Oakland Press. In Gas prices back above $4.00/gallon in metro Detroit, I describe the reasons and effects of the midwest's gas prices bucking the national trend of slowly falling prices. Gas is now cheaper, but the economic damage has been done. There's good news in Motie News Brief: GM's Orion plant to go green--good news as long as you like cars. Both of the above were originally supposed to be part of a larger linkspam, but I decided both of those items deserved their own posts. What remained of that planned linkspam were all the sustainability-related poltical posts, which ended up in Linkspam Leftovers: Sustainability News from The Oakland Press for June 6, 2011. All of the topics discussed about scrambling for pieces of a smaller pie, whether it's the rapid dissolution of the city of Pontiac, fights over school budgets, or the process of redistricting.

On a more cheerful note, one of my favorite local news sources is Model D. In Model D Media, fans of Detroit, I let one of the founders describe the outlet's philosophy, which I summarize as "Optimism, but not business as usual," in his own words in a video.

Finally, there are the linkspams of news from major midwestern research universities. Part one, Sustainability news from Michigan's research universities for the week ending June 11, 2011, includes a treasure trove of research and announcements, including one about how anger motivates voters more than fear or hope. Keep that in mind when one is worried about the American people electing corn pone Fascists. Speaking of corn pone Fascists, both Representative Eddie Munster Paul Ryan and Governor Scott Walker made cameos in part two, Sustainability news from midwestern research universities for the week ending June 11, 2011. As you can see, I don't care much for either of them.

With that, it's time for part three of the linkspam. All of the following, along with most of parts one and two, were originally posted to Daily Kos as Overnight News Digest: Science Saturday (HIV/AIDS at 30 edition), along with a bunch of science news not related to sustainability.

Sustainability news from midwestern research universities for the week ending June 11, 2011

Last night, I concluded my post with:

Next up, stories from Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin!

It's time!

'Atlas Shrugged' gets the reviews and box office it deserves (Part I of a series)

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."~Voltaire (1694 - 1778)

Allow me this moment of schadenfreude, which I'll eventually demonstrate to be related to the main topic of this blog.


 
Box Office Mojo: 'Atlas Shrugged' Derails?

Atlas Shrugged: Part I was the top-grossing limited release of the weekend, generating an estimated $1.7 million at 300 single-screen locations.

For a pure independent release, Atlas Shrugged: Part I's opening was fine. But for the first-ever adaptation of Ayn Rand's influential mega-selling 1957 novel that had far more media hype than any other independent movie could dream of, it was disappointing.

There aren't many direct comparisons, because it's rare that an adaptation of such a famous book gets such a modest release. Atlas Shrugged: Part I opened higher than recent limited Christian movies The Grace Card and To Save a Life, and it was distributor Rocky Mountain Pictures' third highest-grossing launch, behind End of the Spear and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. But none of those movies are significant in the grand scheme of things. They're all still blips, even if Atlas was a slightly bigger blip than many.

What's more, Atlas Shrugged: Part I's box office dropped six percent from Friday to Saturday, further indicating niche appeal. The movie would require exceptional holds moving forward to right its course.
...
Boosters of Atlas Shrugged: Part I might point to the movie's per theater average to spin it as a success (ex. "it did almost as much per theater as Scream 4!"), but spin is all it is. It's a common ploy to cling to per-theater average to rationalize a soft run. Obviously, it's generally easier for a small release to have a higher per-theater average than one at over 3,000 theaters (at any rate, Scream 4 was a disappointment itself).

That's really crappy box office, which makes me happy. Of course, the movie was only produced for $10,000,000, so it might actually turn a profit, enough to get parts 2 and 3 into theaters. That would make io9's reviewers happy.

Atlas Shrugged: A movie this demented ought to be against the law

Charlie Jane Anders — Every cult needs its own wacky trainwreck of a movie. Scientology got Battlefield Earth, and now the cult of Ayn Rand gets Atlas Shrugged, Part 1. But how does Atlas stand up to Battlefield Earth?

I have an entire canned list of quotes on the similarities between Objectivism and Scientology, but this isn't the post for me to regurgitate all of them. I'll just post this one.

Wasn't Ayn Rand a pseudonym of L. Ron Hubbard?~Mike Huben

Also, if io9, a science fiction site, didn't see the resemblance, I'd be disappointed.

Back to the review.

Quite well, actually. Atlas Shrugged Part 1, which just opened in theaters today, is a grand addition to the roster of movies that are both kooky and clunky. A movie this hideously wonderful really ought to be against the law.
...
Actually, scratch that. The federal government shouldn't outlaw dreadful movies like Atlas Shrugged – rather, the feds should just regulate them. For example, we could have a federal mandate that all such movies must star Nicolas Cage or a comparable actor – someone who knows how to bring the right level of gravitas to dialogue like, "Which do I sacrifice: an excellent piece of smelting, or this Institute?"

Call it the Nicolas Cage Full Employment Act. Or better yet, since Nic Cage is a precious national resource that's currently being distributed unevenly, the Nic Cage National Equalization Act. It should be up to the federal government to make sure that as many ludicrously insane movies as possible have access to the vital panacea that is Nic Cage.

Lots more lulzy remarks at io9. At least that reviewer enjoyed the movie, even as a train wreck (and trust me, there are lots of train wrecks in Atlas Shrugged). The same can't be said of most of the rest of the reviewers.

The Nation: Rand Appalling: New 'Atlas Shrugged' Movie Booed Off Planet

It takes a lot to get a 0% at the mass market critics' consensus site Rotten Tomatoes. Pick an awful movie you can think of and it probably managed a 5% or maybe even a 25%. Somehow, Atlas Shrugged, Part I (yes! more to look forward to!), which opens Friday, has at this writing achieved the rare feat.

In other words, not a single critic to date, from major and minor outlet, high or lowest of low of lowbrow, likes it one bit. I like the headline over the Chicago Tribune review: "Taxing Indeed." Still waiting for "Don't Go (Galt) There." Or "Born Under a Bad Ayn."

ETA: The movie's rating has now risen to 8%, which still makes it the lowest rated movie out of the top 50 currently in theaters.

My favorite was from Roger Ebert.

"The most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Capone’s vault. I suspect only someone very familiar with Rand’s 1957 novel could understand the film at all, and I doubt they will be happy with it. For the rest of us, it involves a series of business meetings in luxurious retro leather-and-brass board rooms and offices, and restaurants and bedrooms that look borrowed from a hotel no doubt known as the Robber Baron Arms."

The pithiest came from Bill Goodykoontz of the Arizona Republic.

"It has taken decades to bring Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" to the big screen.They should have waited longer."

Time to add those to my collection of anti-Objectivist quotes. Speaking of which, here are some of my favorites about the movie.

"There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood ...in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs."~Raj Patel in The Value of Nothing.

This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.
~Dorothy Parker on Atlas Shrugged

"Who is John Galt?" A two dimensional character in a third rate novel written by Alan Greenspan's dominatrix.~Inventor on Daily Kos.

Ah, yes, Alan Greenspan. This is where the post turns a little more serious. The late Paul Samuelson had the following to say about him:

And this brings us to Alan Greenspan, whom I've known for over 50 years and who I regarded as one of the best young business economists. Townsend-Greenspan was his company. But the trouble is that he had been an Ayn Rander. You can take the boy out of the cult but you can't take the cult out of the boy. He actually had instruction, probably pinned on the wall: 'Nothing from this office should go forth which discredits the capitalist system. Greed is good.'

Yet again the similarity between Objectivism and Scientology appears, and not in a funny way, either.

Greenspan also makes a cameo in Maureen Dowd's comment on Atlas Shrugged, along with Paul Ryan.

Congressman Ryan has said the reason he got involved in public service was “by and large” because of Rand, and he has encouraged his staffers to read “Atlas Shrugged.”

You’d think that our fiscal meltdown would have shown the flaw in Rand’s philosophy. She thought we could derive morals from the markets. But we derived immorality from the markets.
...
What Rand and acolytes like Alan Greenspan failed to realize is that if everyone acts in self-interest and no one takes into account the weakness to the entire system that occurs when everybody indulges in the same kind of risky behavior, the innocent and the guilty are engulfed.

Ms. Dowd brings me to the serious point of this post (gloating is not a serious point), Objectivism is a philosophy that is contributing to our problems. Worse yet, it is becoming a response to our problems, making them even worse.

What, you say, Objectivism causes collapse? Yes. It's all there in the manual. But that's the subject of Part II.

Stay tuned.