neoConMen

It is bizarre to see the Bush economic acolytes, the GOP pundits on cable news, and the Wall Street Journal celebrating the current stock market having posted “new highs.” As though--in a country so ravaged by inequality of wealth as ours now is--the stock market could ever serve serve as a fair representation of well-being for most average families. That said, --accepting the stock market for what it is and what it is not--let's examine whether what we see today is truly an economic miracle, a touchstone for validation of the current regime’s economic policies.

On Nov 29 the S&P 500 Index had advanced about 51.5 points from its close on January 20, 2001--the day before Bush’s First Inaugural.

That’s a cumulative gain of 3.8%--in 6 years! And yes, atop that 3.8% "gain” we should pile another 1.5% (net after tax) per year in dividends.

We are now about 2 months shy of Bush’s 6th complete year “in office.” So that cumulative dividend stash has grown to a whopping 9%.

Presto! Cue the Herald Trumpets! We now celebrate a combined investment gain of 13% in 5 years and 10 months: a total return of 2.2% per year!

By all means, let's ignore such ephemeral factors as inflation, job loss, stagnant wages and inequality in wealth. Is ANYONE spending LESS than 13% MORE than 6 years ago for that famous basket of life's incidentals—including food, heat, electric and gas, insurance, dental and health care, mortgage or rent, and school taxes and tuition?

For some perspective:

During the 8-year tenure of the previous occupant of the White House, we experienced a 200% gain in the S&P 500 Index--and yes, for dividends you can also add another 11% net.

OK, since we’re short-changed by missing-out on the last 26 months of Bush’s Economic Miracle, let’s take away that last 60% of the total gains under Clinton.
So we’re left with a much tighter race: +13% under Bush and +151% under Clinton.

Close, but no cigar.

Centre Media Values

Glen Greenwald has an excellent post today (Dec 1, 2006) on the insideous role that Tom Friedman played from his conspicuous perch on the Opinion page of the New York Times in selling Bush's Iraq War. This is a small excerpt. Read the entire critique on Greenwald's blog.

Friday, December 01, 2006
The Tom Friedman disease consumes Establishment Washington

(updated below)

Someone e-mailed me several days ago to say that while it is fruitful and necessary to chronicle the dishonest historical record of pundits and political figures when it comes to Iraq, I deserve to be chastised for failing to devote enough attention to the person who, by far, was most responsible for selling the war to centrists and liberal "hawks" and thereby creating "consensus" support for Bush's war -- Tom Friedman, from his New York Times perch as "the nation's preeminent centrist foreign policy genius."

That criticism immediately struck me as valid, and so I spent the day yesterday and today reading every Tom Friedman column beginning in mid-2002 through the present regarding Iraq. That body of work is extraordinary. Friedman is truly one of the most frivolous, dishonest, and morally bankrupt public intellectuals burdening this country. Yet he is, of course, still today, one of the most universally revered figures around, despite -- amazingly enough, I think it's more accurate to say "because of" -- his advocacy of the invasion of Iraq, likely the greatest strategic foreign policy disaster in America's history.
--------------