Welcome to the Jane Galt Line
wLive from the WTC
Erasing the fine line between genius and insanity since November 15th, 2001 at 9:54:07 AM (EST)


wWho Am I?

Frequently Asked Questions about Jane Galt



wEmail Me!

janegalt -at- hotmail.com




wDaily Quote
"Best they honor thee
Who honor in thee only what is best" --William Watson



Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

9-11 Memorial Page

EconoBlog

wLinks
InstaPundit
James Lileks
Overlawyered.Com
Joanne Jacobs
Doug Turnbull
Brian Linse
Steven Den Beste
Rand Simberg
William Quick
Stuart Buck
Norah Vincent
Unremitting Verse
John Ellis
VodkaPundit
Unqualified Offerings
Tony Woodlief
Coyote@Dogshow
Protein Wisdom
Richard Bennett
The Sarge
Commons Sense
Objectionable Content
Ted Barlow
LGF
Kolkata Libertarian
Brink Lindsey
Oliver Willis
Radley Balko
Dr. Weevil
Arnold Kling
Hawk Girl
Amy Langfield
Mindles H. Dreck
Elizabeth Spiers
Hegemon's Shadow
Amygdala
Virginia Postrel
Happy Fun Pundit
Lynne Kiesling
Lagniappe
Eugene Volokh
Kevin Holtsberry
Patrick Ruffini
Brad Delong
Benjamin Kepple
Samizdata
The Illuminated Donkey
Cut on the Bias
No Watermelons
Cranky Professor
John Braue
Pejman Yousefzadeh
Jay Zilber
Paul Orwin
Andrew Olmsted
Mini-Me
Evil Princetonian D. Tepper


wwwThe Media Industrial Complex
Wall Street Journal
The New York Times
Washington Post
Washington Times
Philadelphia Inquirer
Chicago Tribune
LA Times
Financial Times
New York Post
The Village Voice
The LA Examiner
Time Magazine
Newsweek
US News
Weekly Standard
New Republic
National Review
The Nation
American Prospect
Reason
Atlantic Monthly
The Economist
Salon
Slate
Tech Central
Business 2.0
Wired


wIf you're looking for WTC info. . .
Donations
Memorial Quilt
Graphics/Pictures
Virtual Tour
Post 9/11 Photos
Photos of 9/11
Survivor Stories


w Book Review Bullpen
cover




wArchives:



-- HOME --









This page is powered by Blogger. Why isn't yours?
wThursday, August 01, 2002


Someone wants to buy Janegalt.net!

So I'm having a reader contest: what should my asking price be?

posted by Jane Galt at 4:36 PM |


w


You've been wondering where I've been.

At least, I hope you have. Didn't you miss me at all?

The answer to where I've been is "busier than a one legged man in an ass-kicking contest". I'm installing a network for my father's firm, and as with all installations, we've had vendors who apparently move their merchandise by strapping it to the backs of New York-bound tortoises, equipment that was DOA, and the ordinary host of small compatibility issues and randomly appearing problems that mysteriously disappear only after you've spent hours trying to break them down. I'm also trying to write a couple of pieces and hold down my other job. All in all, medical residents have more free time than I've had over the past couple of weeks.

But the light at the end of the tunnel is ahead, and hopefully I'll be posting by tomorrow or the weekend. So tune in tomorrow, same bat time, same bat channel.

posted by Jane Galt at 4:35 PM |


wMonday, July 29, 2002


I genuinely can't believe that this hack job made it into print.
Does another Bush not get it? Sure, the son has got to focus on a war to preserve the nation's security, as his father did. But like Dad, he misjudges the nation's economy at his peril. Bush has shown a willingness to inject politics into some economic decisions. He imposed tariffs on foreign steel and signed a subsidy-laden agricultural bill, tinkering with markets in order to placate crucial constituencies. But faced with corporate scandals and a market meltdown, our first M.B.A. President hadn't found an easy remedy. He could draw from his own business defeats some empathy for the everyday victims of the current market malaise. But one day he is ducking questions, insisting all that matters is the economy's reviving fundamentals. The next he is doing what an adviser calls "his Charles Schwab imitation"—discussing price-earnings ratios and suggesting that bonds might be a good buy. Even his speech to Wall Street on corporate misconduct, which was promoted as proof that he shared investor outrage, was unconvincing to some. "You can tell when he really cares about something, when he's into it," says an adviser to the President's father. "And he didn't look into it."

That may be because Bush doesn't believe the market's gyrations have much to do with the basic vitality of the economy. For plenty of Americans, especially the 60% who own stocks, they're one and the same. But Bush's view is "more old-fashioned," as an adviser puts it. To him, corporations and businessmen who produce things are the backbone of the economy, while the markets and investors are a vaguely sinister sideshow. Bush's first reaction to revelations of corporate misconduct was to assume the best. Yes, corporate America tripped up here and there, but the subsequent hysteria was stirred up by the overheated media. He didn't want to overreact lest he hamstring honest executives. "He didn't want to do something that would hurt the real economy just to fix a perception problem," says a senior adviser.

Bush came to his benevolent view of corporate America by way of Midland, Texas, where the young Harvard Business School graduate landed in 1975 hoping to strike it rich in the oil business. There, Bush recalls, businesses were filled with "good men" who would strike a deal on a handshake or the strength of a family name. When the oil boom went bust, as it did for Bush in the mid-1980s, small-business men didn't cash out their stock options and run; they took pay cuts and tried to help their employees. To Bush, Enron and WorldCom were aberrations, the fault of a few bad actors in an otherwise sound system. "We were, like, What in the world?" says Commerce Secretary Donald Evans of his conversations with Bush. "We were just kind of bewildered. It is unbelievable to us."

The source is not The Nation or The American Prospect; it's Time magazine. And it's not an editorial; it's the cover the story.

Now, you may disagree with Bush's economic policies; I do with many of them. But he's not a bumbling idiot who doesn't understand how the stock market works, any more than the fact that I disagree with much of Clinton's foreign policy means that he was a bumbling idiot who doesn't understand what all those people in funny hats are up to.

You do not get through Harvard Business School by exhibiting the kind of ignorance and distaste for capital markets or the fundamentals of economic policy that the authors paint Bush as displaying. The liberal press likes to pretend that attending HBS is pretty much like getting into the right nursery school; come from the right family and your admission and easy passage is pretty much assured. Not quite. Even in those more free-and-easy days, Harvard graded on a forced curve; 10% of the class flunked. 4 flunking grades and you're out. If you're the kind of idiot these Time folks are trying to make out, you will flunk out no matter who your father is (and remember, at the time, his father wasn't even Vice President). It's not like, say, majoring in English. And it's pretty damn rich coming from two reporters who almost certainly couldn't make it through one quarter of business school.

[I am under no illusions about the difficulty of business school as compred to, say, a graduate program in Physics. However, I have been an English major. I have taught GMAT courses to media types. Your average newsweekly reporter couldn't muster the math score -- median averages equate to getting a 720 or 730 on the SAT -- to get into a top-ten business school, much less master the basic calculus and statistics necessary to stay there.]

And generally I refrain from saying things like "Would the press have written this about Clinton?" because usually my answer is "I dunno, maybe". But this story would not have been written about Clinton or Gore. Time was more respectful about a president who got caught high-tailing interns into a closet off the Oval Office than they are about a president who has faced more crises in his first two years of office than his predecessors faced over their entire terms. (I speak, of course, of crises that they did not manufacture themselves.)

I'm sure that Dems are going to start screaming that I'm wrong, wrong, wrong! But c'mon, deep in your own rosy-hued hearts -- wouldn't you be jumping on me if I'd written something about Clinton in a tone this snotty? And I'm a free market libertarian weblog; it's not like I'm proclaiming my "just the facts, ma'am" non-partisanship while I dish this stuff out. And if they'd written something like this about Clinton I'd find it inappropriate, even about his sexual hijinks, which invite sniggering if anything does. A news magazine is supposed to strive for a certain detached dignity. Of course, it's their magazine, and they can write anything they want. But then I'm going to treat it as another partisan advocate, not a news magazine. Which is not, I think, what the folks at Time were hoping for.

It's not even good snotty advocate journalism. The second page is better than the first, but only marginally. With its one-sided quotes, nasty innuendoes, and failure to present a coherent picture of what Bush should be doing (probably because there's not even marginal consensus among the experts; admitting this wouldn't bolster their carefully crafted picture of Bush as a back-country rube who's dropping the ball because he Doesn't Get It) it's too obviously a smear job; there are no compelling attributed quotes or factoids for the Devoted to hang their cocktail-hour arguments on.

I'm not sure whether we still have a subscription, but I certainly won't be renewing. Not because it's against Bush, but because I already subscribe to five or six advocate-type magazines, from the National Review to the Nation. I don't need any more. And besides, if Time charges more than my partisan fare. If they want to join the ranks of the advocates, they're going to have to cut their rates to competitive levels before I consider taking it up again.

posted by Jane Galt at 5:18 AM |