Why not simply return to the property franchise? Say, $1m and up.

Unavoidable observation: I failed Corollary: Success is impossible (twist Fama beyond recognition, take him off the reservation and you have the beginnings of a rationalisation there ...)

"Economic Failure Causes Political Polarization - John Taylor" Yet again, another once-respectable republican economist getting causation 180 degrees wrong.

As an employee of a multinational, I can attest that high modernist central planning is not the exclusive province of government. I would add that governments address the problems of high modernist central planning in some measure, whereas my corporate culture is less constrained.

I stopped reading that fantasist, Cowen, at this point: "I’ll also assume that Republicans will acknowledge that a feasible rewrite of the bill cannot give the Democrats nothing." If we're into fantasy, why not consider as a possibility a US health care regime that resembles any of those in other first world countries -- take your pick -- none of which cost more than 2/3 per capita what the US regime costs, even allowing for the Heath Robertson contraption devised by the AEI known as ObamaCare. Yes, the notion that the US might do the obvious is, once again, fantasy.

A supermodel would be equally useless, though preferable. Mark's post sits well with http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/05/hoisted-from-the-archives-the-tribal-dislike-of-john-hicks-and-is-lm-history-of-economic-thought-edition.html

It's perfect, William. It's the best university money can buy.

But, sadly, the gods are late to the party, and half-baked. And they made Harvard mad before they turned to Ferguson. How else to explain his tenure?

"Would any right-wing intellectual whose reason does transcendently grasp objective reality do so? Is there any other kind of right-wing intellectual nowadays?

Think of it as an academic respectability sacrifice with a view to a wingnut welfare checkmate.

Why should a dependable, responsible, moderate, even-handed professional like Clive give up his centrist credentials? Be fair. The moment he succumbs to the temptations of logic and integrity, another dependable, responsible, moderate, even-handed professional will be found to take his place.

I might add that five Judge Judies in drag now constitute a Supreme Court majority.

Since this post uses a US GOP-framing word - "entitlements" - and enlists the rhetoric of a US tabloid TV program based on an imaginary worst case, I'll quote a US economist (Brad Delong)who is neither mathematically challenged nor prone to ignoring the mathematics in furtherance of ideology: "Go to Nick Eberstadt's A Nation of Takers and you discover him writing about: The breathtaking growth of [personal] entitlement payments.... In 1960, U.S. government transfers to individuals from all programs totaled $24 billion. By 2010, the outlay for entitlements was almost 100 times more... the nominal growth in entitlement payments... was rising by an explosive average of 9.5% per annum for fifty straight years... But of that 9.5%, 6.9% is a simply matches the growth of potential nominal GDP from inflation, labor-force growth, and productivity growth. That leaves excess entitlement spending growth of 2.6%/year. That excess has three causes. First, 38% of federal transfer programs are health programs. Few indeed drop out of work today and become moochers because they want to qualify for Medicaid, or they look forward to Medicare. A government that pays doctors for treating sick people does not a nation of takers make. Second, an aging population since 1960 is responsible for 1/10 of today's non-health transfers. And the depressed economy is responsible for another 1/7: more old people, families that don't normally qualify for food stamps qualifying for them because of unemployment, and workers who paid into the unemployment insurance system using it for what it was intended for. This is not a shift in the generosity of our safety net. Subtract off these, and you are left with the third cause: our non-health safety net has become more generous over the past two generations. By how much? The non-health aging- and cyclically-adjusted transfer spending of the federal government has grown since 1960 relative to potential GDP at a rate of 0.9%/year. It has grown from That is less than one-tenth of Eberstadt's headline number It is that less than 1%/year growth rate is supposed to have turned us from a self-reliant entrepreneurial people in 1960 into "a nation of takers", an "an incoherent amalgam of interest groups ... vying for benefits ... at the expense of other Americans" today? That dog won't hunt. That fish won't swim. That bird won't fly. The systemic crisis in right-of-center use of arithmetic runs far deeper than just polling."

Guy thinks the GOP will come to the party. What is he? Some kind of moron? Dem pitch should be "give us the House and 60% of the Senate or the country is screwed". Clear and highly credible. Also, finally, authentic.

Enough with the rhetorical questions.

and "endure" they did - hence the GFC

GOP tax cuts for the wealthy were a more potent form of class warfare than any amount of uncouth rhetoric. You may deplore class warfare that barks; I rather deplore the variety that bites. You may prefer the top-down variety; if any, I prefer the bottom-up variety.

"Can somebody please point me to someone, somewhere who likes it?" Broder, surely?