I did something similar in re Paul Hodes last fall after his voting to censure Move On. I had contributed several hundred dollars, maybe a bit more than a $1000, to him, and he used to call to fundraise 2-3 times a year, both during the last couple of campaigns and since the last election. Since last fall, I've been giving that money to Move On. I'll vote for him, but I no longer feel any enthusiasm for him. This vote (Move On censure) gave me the impression that he's been too long in D.C.

Posted at April 16, 2008 5:32 PM in response to GOP Senator Sununu Has Big Financial Advantage Over Challenger Shaheen

I don't the Times was implying a quid pro quo; more of a quim pro quo.

Posted at February 23, 2008 1:21 PM in response to For the Times, Self-Doubt on Image Poses Its Own Risk

So how about we forgive the good voters of Wisconsin and Ohio if they appear less concerned than the economic elites about killing the golden goose? It’s been crapping all over them for years.

I lived in the midwest for many years, and I always thought that the green poop on the grass and playing fields was from Canadian geese, not Golden geese. Live and learn, I guess. Do I still need to tell my daughter not to do slide tackles?

Posted at February 20, 2008 11:50 AM in response to Obama and Clinton’s Economic Populism Is As It Should Be

and why, now that I mention it, am I not a superdelegate?

I don't think that DNC rules allow candidates, even for Veep, to be superdelegates.

Posted at February 20, 2008 11:44 AM in response to A Clinton Attack Plan?

Seems to me that we went through something like this 16 years ago, when Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court. IIRC, civil rights organizations, esp. the NAACP, were split, and as a result, so were senators who were sensitive to civil rights.

With this kind of identity politics, been there, done that, look what it got us.

In his memoir, "And I Haven't Had a Bad Day Since", Rep. Rangel describes his meeting with John Kerry before the 2004 campaign, where he told Kerry that he could not support someone who voted for the AUMF. Hell, Kerry had by then admitted that it was a mistake, something that HRC has yet to do (so it's not clear to me why Rangel is supporting her, although his wife has come out for BHO). There are plenty of reasons to vote against HRC, some of them good and not all of them having anything to do with feminism one way or the other. I'd say the same thing about voting against BHO if there were a hue and cry about the racist treachery of his opponents. Haven't heard that yet.

Posted at February 7, 2008 1:19 PM in response to Ain't I a feminist?*

I'm not sure how I feel about someone of Canadian extraction in that office. After all, the Canadians burned the white house once before; this may be part of their long term plan to do it again. Berube's Irish-Canadian background strikes me at least as scary as O'bama's Irish-Islamic heritage.

Posted at January 29, 2008 2:26 PM in response to Teddy Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, Toni Morrison -- and me!

Wow! Max Speaks, we listen!

That is you, max, no?

I've missed your blog. Econospeak has not matched the high bar you set. Perhaps you could blog under cover (wearing a beard, so to speak).

Posted at January 29, 2008 1:59 PM in response to Teddy Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, Toni Morrison -- and me!

I was going to post a joke, but on googling it to make sure I'd gotten it right, I found that I was beaten to it, and by funnier people than I:

We don't care. We don't have too. We're the telephone company. Snort!

Posted at July 3, 2007 8:33 AM in response to The I Phone and Me (or my company)

But Keynes entirely rejected the labor market analysis of unemployment, on logical grounds. In particular, he denied the existence of an upward-sloping supply curve of labor.

You should be clearer here. What is on the vertical axis, real wages or money wages?

My understanding was that Keynes rejected a link between changes in money wages and changes in real wages. But since labor is paid in money wages, the graph has to be constructed with money wages on the vertical axis. A willingness on the part of labor to cut money wages involves a shift in the labor supply curve, and then competitive pressures in product markets lead to a (roughly) equal shift in the labor demand curve, leaving the intersection of the two curves at (roughly) the same level of employment. Then follows the whole discussion of the Pigou effect, which, if I recall correctly, was shown to be remarkably weak.

Posted at June 1, 2007 10:49 AM in response to Invasion of the Name Snatchers

May 31, 2007 - 2:04pm amike said:
"As one reader on another post informed me, in 1971 top salaries for baseball stars were in the $30,000.00 range."

According to this page,

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=mayswi01

Willie Mays was making $100K in 1958, $120K in 1970, and $180K in 1971. A bit more than $30K.

The same site shows Steve Carleton making $40K in 1971 with the Cardinals, but $167K 2 years late after he had moved to the Phillies.

Yaz was making $125K with the BoSox, in 1970 (no data for 1971).

Pete Rose was making $105K in 1970 (no data for 1971).

Posted at May 31, 2007 12:47 PM in response to Straw Men and Low Bars