Posts Tagged ‘Megan McArdle’

Does the New Bill Cover Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

Apparently responding to criticism of her very dumb response to healthcare reform passing last night, Megan McArdle writes:

Obviously, yes, I was upset yesterday.  I’m glad that this could bring so much joy to peoples’ hearts, and of course to know that for many people, the happiest part of passing health care reform seems to have been knowing that it made people like me unhappy.  The people wondering why I was so upset should contemplate that first, I think you people just screwed up both our health care system, and our fiscal system (even further), and that if I’m right, that’s not really funny.

Now I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me personally the happiest parts of passing healthcare reform are, in no particular order, that people with pre-existing medical condition will no longer lack adequate access to care, that entrepreneurship will no longer be stifled by the fact that striking out on your own represents a tremendous risk of health coverage for the rest of your life, that tens of millions of people who don’t have/can’t afford insurance will now be covered, and that insurance companies won’t be able to reduce costs by cancelling policies when people get sick. That it’s also driven McMegan, and people like her, completely insane is just an added bonus.

Also, I really can’t understand why McMegan’s critics accuse her of being self-absorbed.

Megan McArdle Has A Breakdown

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

I make it a point to ignore Megan McArdle, or at least not concern myself with her enough to bother writing about her. McArdle is so regularly so detached not simply from sound logical reasoning, but basic facts in evidence, that arguing with her simply isn’t worth the effort, even if she somehow manages to hold a job as editor of a magazine like The Atlantic. But her reaction to the passage of healthcare reform is such a classic, I can’t not take note of it. Her basic complaint is this:Roblox HackBigo Live Beans HackYUGIOH DUEL LINKS HACKPokemon Duel HackRoblox HackPixel Gun 3d HackGrowtopia HackClash Royale Hackmy cafe recipes stories hackMobile Legends HackMobile Strike Hack

One cannot help but admire Nancy Pelosi’s skill as a legislator.  But it’s also pretty worrying.  Are we now in a world where there is absolutely no recourse to the tyranny of the majority?  Republicans and other opponents of the bill did their job on this; they persuaded the country that they didn’t want this bill.  And that mattered basically not at all.  If you don’t find that terrifying, let me suggest that you are a Democrat who has not yet contemplated what Republicans might do under similar circumstances.  Farewell, Social Security!  Au revoir, Medicare!  The reason entitlements are hard to repeal is that the Republicans care about getting re-elected.  If they didn’t–if they were willing to undertake this sort of suicide mission–then the legislative lock-in you’re counting on wouldn’t exist.  
Other people have pointed out that McArdle doesn’t really seem to understand what “tyranny of the majority” refers to. Basically it’s mostly been applied to things like racial majority groups denying civil rights to minorities. It’s never really been applied to disparage the idea that duly elected legislative majorities shouldn’t have the authority to enact their agenda. Moreover, the idea that there’s “no recourse” is transparently silly, even containing ourselves to McArdle’s reality. If Megan is right that Republicans have turned the public against healthcare reform, then the recourse is pretty easy; they lose Congress, and Republicans repeal the effort. As to McArdle’s contentions about Republicans repealing Medicare an Social Securty, again, she disproves her own premise; such a move would cost Republicans control of government and Democrats would set about re-creating the programs. You can call this a lot of things, but “tyranny” is hardly one of them.
But the more strking thing about this to me is the way that, per usual, McArdle s just completely ignorant of basic reality surrounding her topic. To point out what should be obvious, yes, the House of Representatives has always been a majoritarian institution. And where the Senate is concerned, the bill in question cleared all of its normal counter-majoritarian hurdles, which is to say it overcame the filibuster. 60% of the Senate voted for it, which is more than voted for any number of major bills that have come out of the Senate since 1980. McArdle is simply angry that she lost, especially, I imagine, after she was supremely confident that the reform effort was dead, and she simply isn’t letting any sort of attachment to objective reality get in the way of venting about it. Which is fine, I just continue to wonder why The Atlantic continues to want to pay her for work of this quality.

Technorati Tags:

Is McMegan Jealous?

Monday, February 9th, 2009

by Brien Jackson

Because she sure seems to be doing her best to mimic Amity Shlaes.

So that I don’t get accused of being “churlish,” I’ll go ahead and take a second to point out the obvious stupidity at work here:

What does this mean for the stimulus?  Union labor is more expensive.  Every project that uses a PLA will cost more, and many of those jobs will use as much capital equipment as possible to minimize the demand for labor.  That means that we will get a lot less employment for every dollar of stimulus spent than we would without the PLA.

But, of course, firms are always trying to minimize labor costs, and every other kind of cost for that matter. There isn’t a firm anywhere in the world who is trying to incur more costs than they have to. And one assumes that McArdle, who holds an MBA (and an English degree for that matter), is familiar with that concept.

Also it’s worth pointing out that the impression McMegan is trying to give, that non-union labor will mean more jobs, is just silly. In keeping with the cost minimizing model, no firm is going to hire more people than they need. So with that in mind, non-union labor doesn’t mean more jobs, it means lower wages. And lower wages means lower aggregate demand, which means a less effective means of fighting the recession.

At this point the only question left about McMegan is whether or not she actually believes the nonsense she publishes daily.