Prose Before Hos

Oh Sarah, It’s Good To Have You Back

Oh Sarah, I was so worried about you… about us. You see, you gave us our best month ever in October. We spent an entire month insulting your ever-present stupidity, the constant accessorizing of your retard baby, your victimhood complex, and above all, the sheer force of your media-obsessed narcissism colliding with your ability to routinely embarrass yourself everytime you opened your mouth.

And so when you resigned last week, I thought to myself “That’s it, Prose Before Hos is dead”. But I was wrong. You are so firmly committed to being a self-centered, egotistical jackal that you will do anything to get attention. While I feel sorry for Alaska (sort of), I am happy to see you insert yourself onto my cathode-ray tube in another vain attempt to make America all about Sarah Palin — a full 9 months after the elections should have made you irrelevant.

You are America’s ho, Sarah Palin, and I’d have it no other way.

See Also: “Politically, If I Die, I Die”, Malkin Award Nominee, God and Sarah Palin, “Pals Around With Terrorists”: Palin Wasn’t That Rogue, After All, If Palin Were President Now, Sarah Palin: Right Wing Savior or Grifter?, Huffington Post Palin Attack again, The Fall, Bumper sticker of the times, The “Crucifixion” of Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin and the Scum of the Earth, Palin is Still Active in the Media, Sarah Palin is still an idiot, Your Future, and Sarah Palin Giant Slayer.

[tags]sarah palin, sara palin, sarah palen, ho of the week, america’s ho, self-obsessed jackal, egotistical nutcase, narcissistic, resignation, media-driven, money driven[/tags]



The Myth Versus the Reality of Adam Smith’s Political Economy

With the current economic climate, there has been much discussion about the origins of the financial crisis and the future of capitalism. In these typically hollow debates, Adam Smith is routinely and thoughtlessly invoked as the founder of modern capitalist though, based on unrestrained trade, limited government, and the mechanics of market economies. To this day, The Wealth of Nations is held up as the espousal tome for free-market ideology that decries government regulation, excessive taxation, and wealth redistribution (in whatever contrived shapes it may take).

But the myth of Adam Smith created by two centuries of advanced industrialization and capitalism is very far from the reality of Adam Smith. The majority of academics and pundits alike generalize on Smith’s observations about the invisible hand, the benefits of division of labor, and the growth of wealth through free trade.

Outside of these points, The Wealth of Nations serves as an of his time reaction to the impact of corporations and mercantile interests on economies and governments. More specifically, Smith spent much of his book reacting to the growth of the East India Company, whose stockholders were to be found on every level of government decision making in Great Britain and thought to be adversely effecting foreign policy and internal financial systems. Smith was also appalled at the exploitation under the reign of the East India Company, including the starvation of over 30 million people in modern-day Bangladesh due to British-imposed tariffs.

As Chomsky notes, Smith saw the East India Company and other stockholding corporations as bending state policy towards the good of the few at the expense of the many. Smith to this end was in favor of heavy-handed government regulation to prevent financial and corporate powers from manipulating government policy for their own ends. This led him to conclude on the nefarious impulse of corporate manipulation, that when “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.”

The legacy of Smith continues to diverge further and further from the reality of Smiths principles which were heavily influenced by Rousseau and other humanist figures of the Enlightenment. Smith advocated for a system of progressive taxation and a political economy centered on the freedom of creative pursuits but protective of the working class. Considering how his legacy is enshrined today, it seems out of place to realize that Smith’s chief concern was for economic policy to be secondary to moral and ethical concerns such as economic equality, freedom of speech, and dignified and just labor conditions.

See Also: Was Adam Smith a liberal?, Justin Fox’s new book: ‘Myth of the Rational Market’, “The Hottest Places in Hell are Reserved for Those Who, in Times of Moral Crisis, Maintain a Neutrality”, How the financial crisis has killed the governance reform agenda, A Fleecing Of The Sheeple, Another Comment on Bonuses and Benchmarks, Taking Stock: Economy and Government, and Now Lemme Tell You A Story, The Devil He Has a Plan.

[tags]adam smith, the wealth of nations, free markets, economics, capitalism, taxation, government regulation, evaluating smith’s legacy, what adam smith really believed, political economy, corporate influence, government[/tags]



Daft And Dimwitted Gets You Tenured At The Atlantic

So Megan McArdle, who has been on the wrong side of every financial issue since she started with the Atlantic, whose economic abilities are on par with a second-year economics major who can spout off rehearsed appraisals of current affairs through the dim lens of free market axioms, and whose writing style consists of the kind of mealy-mouthed observations you’d usually find buried in the Metro section of the Washington Post…. has this to say about Matt Taibbi’s article on Goldman Sachs:

What I think, sadly, is that Matt Taibbi is becoming the Sarah Palin of journalism. He seems to deliberately eschew understanding his subjects, because only corrupt, pointy-headed financial journalists who have been co-opted by the system do that. And Matt Taibbi is here to save you from those pointy headed elites….

The more dangerous thing is that Taibbi makes a lot of people feel like they finally understand how they were conned. Taibbi’s facile use of technical terms, his lengthy explanation of little-known secrets that have been endlessly rehashed on every financial page for going on a decade, gives people the illusion that they have acquired valuable information about the financial crisis. They haven’t. They’ve acquired a bunch of disconnected vignettes.

Yes, Megan McArdle, who has spent her lifetime on earth regurgitating the talking points from Business Week on how to solve economic problems, is calling out Taibbi for misuse of technical terms (who ever said he was an economist?) and committing the egregious error of making people angry about things they should be angry about.



Yah Yah, We Gave In

PBH is on Twitter now. You can also find PBH on MySpace, Alec and Kit on Facebook, and of course, you can find me on Reddit and Digg.




Hot On The Web