• Post Article on Auto Industry Relies Exclusively on Sources from the United Auto Workers

    Okay, you all knew that one wasn't true. Any reporter at a major newspaper who wrote an article on the prospects for the auto industry and only talked to representatives of the UAW would quickly be out of a job. The question then is why is it okay for reporters to write a story on the state of the real estate industry and only to talk to representatives of the National Association of Realtors (NAR), an organization whose members make their living by selling houses? I should also note that one of the two sources was David Lereah, the chief economist at the NAR and the author of the 2005 bestseller Why the Real Estate Boom Will Not Bust And How You can Profit From It . -- Dean Baker

    NONE OF THE ABOVE. Nancy Pelosi has, thankfully, chosen to reject both Hastings and Harman , the obviously correct option. The evidence against Hastings is pretty compelling , and taking a bribe as a federal judge isn't the typically vacuous "character" issue; it suggests a lack of ethics and judgment in ways that can affect policy. Moreover, the political hit would have been immense, and it's not as if Hastings was so great on the merits it would be worth paying the price. Meanwhile, Matt is right that Hastings's only virtue was not being Harman: "Hastings shook some dudes down for $150,000 and ruined three FBI investigations. Jane Harman, by contrast, supported an invasion of Iraq based on bogus intelligence that's costs hundreds of billions of dollars and killed hundreds of thousands of people. Who do I have more doubts about?" Avoiding both of them was clearly the right call, and kudos to Pelosi for bucking the various caucus pressures and doing it. Alas, it seems as if the oft-...
  • The Simple Economics of Trade

    Economists like to make very simple propositions seem very complex. (How else could they command large salaries?) Trade is one such case. Since there seems to be so much confusion, let me lay out the basic story here. The gains from trade stem from the possibility of getting goods or services cheaper from abroad than they can be produced here. This doesn't mean that everyone or even most people gain, it just means that the economy as a whole is richer (I'm ignoring a few qualifiers here). Suppose we find a country where people will build cars for 10 cents an hour (it doesn't matter whether these workers want the job or are slaves threatened with death). We will get cheaper cars by purchasing them from this country. Of course the wages of autoworkers in the United States will fall until they can compete with the 10 cent an hour labor, or they will lose their jobs. In other words, bad news for autoworkers, good news for all carbuyers. Suppose we find a country where people will work as...

    ENOUGH! WE'RE ALL WRONG SOMETIMES. Nothing more about Tom Edsall, I promise. The ratio of commentary to original text now rivals The Waste Land . However, a meta-point: In the comments on the various posts here and elsewhere on the Edsall column, and on other sites , the critique jumps without hesitation from "he got it wrong" to a categorical attack on the writer, usually going straight to motive: He's "drunk the Beltway Kool-Aid," he's a "courtier servant...a silly, silly man," one blogger says, and a commenter demands that we "ask what it profits Edsall to lie...He is not a political pundit, commentator, or writer--he is a paid hack and propagandist." About half the comments have a similar tone.

    DID SYRIA DO IT? Never loath to leap to conclusions without evidence, the Wall Street Journal editorial page has already decided that Syria killed Pierre Gemayel, Jr. last week. The Journal is pushing back against the expected Baker-Hamilton proposal of talks between the United States and Syria, which seem to meet with widespread approval everywhere but the Bush administration . It's possible that Syria killed Gemayel, but given Lebanon's byzantine complexity, I don't think it's prudent to leap to any conclusions. See Josh Landis for more on that. I believe that talks with Syria are a good idea -- unless we come to a modus vivendi in the region, they will keep making trouble for us -- but only after Serge Brammertz , the UN investigator looking into the assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri , assembles more proof of Syrian complicity. His next report is due out in mid-December, around the same time the Iraqi Study Group will release its own findings. Syria is clearly uncomfortable about...

    STOP PICKING ON TOM. Of all the folks here, allow me step in to defend Tom Edsall for a moment, and I don't mean merely in the way Mark has done below and more so in private email communication -- i.e., that Edsall is a dexterous mind and a person with a long, impressive career. Rather, let me actually defend Edsall's thesis a bit -- even if I generally agree with Ben , Ezra , and Garance that Edsall's book would have been far more timely in, say, 1999, on the eve of the Bush-led GOP grabbing the full reins of power nationally in 2000, despite a rather thin plurality of popular support, and less than that in the presidential contest. Having appeared on both a panel and on national radio with Edsall in the past month or so, and having read his book, I think it's fair to say that he has diagnosed the problem correctly but the prescribed antidote (mostly) wrong. On the former, it is true that the Republicans are the "party of the dominant" (even if that dominant class casts too few votes...

    QUAKE ATTACK. Check out this interesting report on conventional bunker busting munitions at Defense Tech. It's a bit technical, but the upshot is that conventional munitions can do a remarkably good job of destroying underground bunkers, better, in fact, than extant nuclear bunker busters. Drop enough "Deep Diggers" and the result is an earthquake that will collapse just about any bunker or, at the very least, the access tunnels to extremely deep bunkers. Moreover, there's no reason to think that the limits of conventional bunker busting munitions technology have been reached, suggesting that additional research could produce even more impressive results. This makes me wonder why some in the Pentagon and in associated neoconservative defense circles remain committed to developing new nuclear bunker busting weapons. If conventional munitions can destroy or entomb just about any conceivable bunker, why would anyone ever need new nukes? The answer, it seems to me, is political as much as...

    IF ONLY I LIVED IN SWEDEN. The World Economic Forum recently released its Global Gender Gap Report for this year. The United States ranked 22 on the list. Although it (barely) ranked above countries like Tanzania, it fell short of South Africa, Sri Lanka, and Croatia. What really hurt women in the rankings were what the report called "educational attainment" and "political empowerment." Women are becoming the majority of undergraduate students at universities and colleges around the nation, but women still make up only about a quarter of professors nationwide. As for political empowerment, women have long made up the minority in decision-making power structures of government. The representation of women at the highest levels of influence are scarce. I think this harks back to what Ezra and Dana had to say about the topic of women putting themselves at the forefront of politics. Why women feel restrained in the United States from participating in politics is a topic for futher...

    YOU'RE WRONG, TOM. See what Matt has to say about Tom Edsall 's column in the Saturday Times . -- The Editors

    TRAGICALLY HIP. I'm afraid that this innovative ad campaign , which pokes fun at Lebanese sectarianism through billboards like "Parking for Maronites Only," is bound to be misunderstood. Maybe it's a little too close to Lebanon's reality for comfort? -- Blake Hounshell