Scott Spiegel

With the news that Frank Rich and Bob Herbert have left The New York Times, the selection of my 20 free Times articles a month couldn’t be less strongly affected if Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd decided to quit.

Recently John Gruber of Daring Fireball deconstructed the imbecilic, overly complicated pricing structure the non-business-adept Times has spent a year-and-a-half and tens of millions of dollars devising to undergird its new digital subscription plan.

The Times’ business model, in addition to being extraordinarily confusing, includes the following giant loophole: “Readers who come to Times articles through links from search engines, blogs and social media will be able to read those articles, even if they have reached their monthly reading limit.”

So if you find a story on the Times site that looks worthwhile (suspend your disbelief for a moment), but you’ve reached your monthly limit, you can just copy the title, paste it in a search engine, and click on it from a site that links to it.

Admittedly, this is too much work for most people to bother to find out, say, Dowd’s opinion on the rise of Mormons in popular culture, but some tenacious fans will undoubtedly make the effort.

Perhaps The Times hopes its free backdoor policy will lead more social media outlets to link to their articles.  Maybe they’re afraid they won’t easily be able to regulate access from third-party sources.  But either way, doesn’t this aspect of their plan defeat the purpose of limiting content in order to make people buy subscriptions?

All articles from the Top News section will continue to be available for free via New York Times smartphone and tablet apps.

Also, purchasing just the Sunday print version will give you the most comprehensive tier of unlimited access to digital content, including online, smartphone, and tablet.  This leads Reuters’ Felix Salmon to wonder, “[I]f you get a Sunday-only subscription and then suspend delivery of the physical newspaper while you ‘go on vacation’ for a month or two at a time, how long can you drag out your free access to the website before the NYT gets wise to what you’re doing?”

I guess we shouldn’t expect a sterling business model from a paper whose editorial board believes the way to create wealth is to blow up federal spending and increase federal regulation of the economy by an order of magnitude.

Isn’t The Wall Street Journal’s model much more sensible: everyone has free access to most online content, but key articles require a subscription?  Isn’t it easier to tie access to content, rather than try to tabulate the ephemeral surfing activities of millions of users out there in the ether?

The Times and Journal’s payment plans seem to reflect their ideological worldviews: The Journal, which leans right, offers general content funded via advertising and charges for premium content readers are willing to pay for, a typical capitalist arrangement.  In contrast, The Times, which leans left, will rely on a cadre of loyal followers willing to donate the equivalent of welfare to keep the sputtering paper going, regardless of how frequently the journal offers specific content worth paying for.

In the same way that liberal celebrities frequently announce how much they love paying taxes, soon I can imagine New York elites sanctimoniously defending the Times’ plan by declaring how much they adore shelling out for its superlative content.

Given the astronomical cost of the Times’ plan, only rich liberals will be able to afford it anyway.

At least the new digital subscription plan is an improvement over the short-lived TimesSelect debacle, in which the paper charged for online access to the site’s premium content—which included such must-read material as the repetitive, stale-as-a-cigarette-butt columns of Krugman, Herbert, Rich, and Dowd.

Borrowing language from President Obama’s State of the Union address, New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. announced in a letter to readers that the new subscription plan is an “investment in our future.”

In other words, Obama implied that taxpayers should subsidize inefficient, underused high-speed rail—so more people will be forced to use something they didn’t use when they didn’t have to pay for it, and other options hadn’t been driven from the market.  Similarly, Times readers will now have to pay for biased, slanted content so more people will be forced to read something they didn’t want to read when they didn’t have to pay for it, and other options hadn’t been driven from the market.

Except that The Times won’t continue to dominate the news market the way government-subsidized boondoggles like high-speed rail and ObamaCare will take over their markets.  Does The Times really think they’re the only game in town?  The Times is one of those papers everyone reads because everyone else reads it.  That won’t be true once people start getting charged hundreds of dollars a year to read it.

Unless the federal government steps in and gives The Times a giant bailout, consumers are going to wise up and start getting their content elsewhere.  Not only does the sclerotic, past-its-prime paper’s poorly conceived paywall fail to invest in its own future, it indirectly invests in its competitors’ futures.

Which is fine with me.

 Print This Post

Related articles

• Despite Paywall, NYT Readers Find Free Access (abcnews.go.com)
• Kindle Beats iPad with NYT Paywall Bypass (cultofmac.com)
• Another reason the NYT paywall is a farce (amanwithaphd.wordpress.com)
• How To Hack the New York Times Paywall … With Your Delete Key (mashable.com)
• Why Paywalls Are Good, But NYT’s Is Flawed (news.slashdot.org)

Liberals have generously treated us to a motley assortment of apologia for President Obama’s economy-wrecking fiscal policies over the past 19 months:

(1) The economy is doing fine (Ezra Klein)!  We should have expected the recovery to be agonizingly slow, and it is—hence, Obama’s policies worked.

(2) The economy isn’t doing well, but it would have been doing even worse without the stimulus bill (e.g., Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s and bona fide boob).  Without a Keynesian spending orgy—or as Obama puts it, “moving the economy forward”—unemployment wouldn’t have stopped at 10% and might have risen to 12 or 13 or 15%.

(3) The economy is doing poorly, and it’s because the Democrats didn’t do enough (the ever-certifiable Paul Krugman).  The stimulus should have been much bigger, and financial regulations should have been much harsher.  To compensate we need “a second big stimulus, plus much more aggressive Fed policy.”

In contrast, conservatives have suggested the following interpretations of events:

(1) The economy is going to improve soon (Larry Kudlow).  We won’t experience a double-dip recession and growth is resuming, so we should be more optimistic.  Obama’s policies aren’t helping, but American ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit are strong enough that we can recover anyway.

(2) The economy isn’t doing well, and Obama’s policies have made it worse (every other conservative on the planet).  Wasteful spending caused our debt to skyrocket and increased the chances of inflation; government takeover of private industries and burdensome financial regulations created an uncertain climate for investing and hiring that has prolonged the recession.

(3) The economy is doing poorly, and now is the time to discuss not only repealing Obama’s policies and ensuring that the likes of them never pass again, but undoing the policies liberals have inflicted on the nation since FDR under the pretense that once they were in place future generations would be too sheepish to touch them (Paul Ryan).  The impetus from the Tea Party movement should be used to revive talks about privatizing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

So liberals and conservatives are at a bit of a standoff over the fundamental economic principles behind their political strategies.  Who’s right?

Let’s see: economists have demonstrated, time and again, using common-sense reasoning, econometric modeling, and historical data, that increasing government spending yields less economic output than if government had left that money in the private sector to be spent, invested, or saved as those who generated it saw fit.

Economists have shown that increasing marginal tax rates counterintuitively decreases the gross domestic product, especially in the years immediately following tax increases.  Obama’s chief economic advisor, Christina Romer—who just retired over a conflict between her views and the administration’s—documented the effect of this negative tax “multiplier” using empirical data in a recently published economics article.

It doesn’t matter whether we accept Klein’s view that the economy is peachy, Zandi’s view that it’s doing badly but could be worse, or Krugman’s view that it’s doing badly and needs more Obamanomics.  All are based on the false premise that more government spending, taxation, and regulation are better for the economy than less.  (Hey—don’t Keynesians believe that spending lots of money on wars is a good way to revive the economy?  I guess Krugman will be admitting he was wrong about the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts after all!)

People like Klein bemoan the fact that corporate profits are back up to 2006 levels while hiring remains slow.  Liberals present the question of our tepid recovery as an intractable metaphysical mystery incapable of being penetrated by mere humans; as Klein puts it: “That is the catch-22 of the recovery: Businesses will start hiring when the economy recovers. And the economy will start to recover when businesses start hiring.”  Answer: And both will improve when the government gets out of the way!

As for the varying conservative perspectives, which are the only ones remotely connected to reality and thus worth considering, Kudlow is right that the American economy is resilient.  Perhaps he’s slyly making the point that more optimism on the public’s part not only better reflects the state of our economy but may improve it via increased investment and hiring.  Kudlow’s perspective is largely predictive, rather than focusing on how lawmakers should bring about a faster and more permanent recovery (though he often discusses those issues as well).

Every other conservative in the world who believes that we shouldn’t stand for the “new normal” of high unemployment and unexceptional growth is correct that Democrats’ policies are making the recession worse.  Repealing ObamaCare, preventing cap-and-trade legislation, and stopping or reversing the scores of other nasty things Obama and Pelosi have planned for our economy are mandatory undertakings over the next six years.

But Paul Ryan hits the bullseye when he notes that it is desirable, necessary, and possible to go further.  Train wreck legislation like ObamaCare is worth repealing, but if Medicare and Medicaid are quickly running out of money, and Social Security is already in the red, why shouldn’t we go after every entitlement shibboleth?

What principle, applied consistently, would nudge us to nullify ObamaCare but leave Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid shiny and intact?  Did our country survive and prosper before these programs were enacted?  Would we survive and prosper if we phased them out?  Might we prosper even more in their absence?

Ryan’s proposal is far from perfect—his main argument for the Roadmap to recovery is that it will keep our entitlement system solvent, and he doesn’t discuss eradicating entitlements once and for all.  Perhaps Ryan believes that talking about eliminating entitlements is too politically risky now, when even his Roadmap is audacious by today’s standards.  But Ryan deserves credit for having gone further than anyone else in Congress in working out the details of a plan that will help the country avoid a fatal insolvency.



 Print This Post

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Zombie Economy (weeklystandard.com)
• Rep. Ryan pushes budget reform, and his party winces (washingtonpost.com)
• Paul Ryan Strikes Back at ‘Intellectually Lazy’ Paul Krugman (newsbusters.org)
• Time to admit Obamanomics has failed (washingtonexaminer.com)
• The Stimulus Evidence One Year On (wsj.com)

Critics of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s performance in his first term blame him for failing to recognize the threat of the looming subprime lending crisis; his supporters laud the aggressive policies he enacted in response to the crisis.

I fault him for both.

Before the crisis, Bernanke helped Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives cover up their scheme to hide trillions of dollars in junk mortgages and give themselves enormous bonuses.  In the process, he failed to address the growing housing bubble that precipitated the financial crisis.

His solution was worse.  Having learned the wrong lesson from the Great Depression—that the government prolonged it by not intervening more, rather than intervening too much—Bernanke radically expanded government’s power and “reinvented the Fed,” as Time magazine put it mildly in their recent cover story on Bernanke.

Time glowingly continued: “[H]e conjured up trillions of new dollars and blasted them into the economy; engineered massive public rescues of failing private companies… lent to mutual funds, hedge funds, foreign banks, investment banks, manufacturers, insurers and other borrowers who had never dreamed of receiving Fed cash… revolutionized housing finance with a breathtaking shopping spree for mortgage bonds; blew up the Fed’s balance sheet to three times its previous size; and generally transformed the staid arena of central banking into a stage for desperate improvisation.”

“Conjured up,” “blasted,” “engineered,” “revolutionized,” “breathtaking,” “shopping spree,” “blew up,” “desperate improvisation”—somehow these don’t sound like particularly reassuring terms for investors in the world’s largest financial system.

Bernanke isn’t finished.  The Federal Reserve has been buying up Fannie and Freddie securities to try to keep mortgage rates artificially low and stimulate the housing market.  The program is set to end in March, but Bernanke is toying with the idea of propping up the housing industry indefinitely.  Sound familiar?

The question is whether the Senate will reconfirm Bernanke for another four-year term before his first term expires on January 31.

Dumb arguments for keeping Bernanke abound:

•    The Financial Times of London reports, “Economists warned that a rejection of Mr Bernanke could be seen as a threat to the central bank’s independence.  US Treasury yields were little changed but stocks fell more than 2 per cent” due to uncertainty regarding reconfirmation.

Come on—it’s at least as plausible that stocks plummeted last week because of Obama’s announcement that he was going to impose a new tax on banks to subsidize the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).  (Especially given that the Dow Jones Industrial Average slipped 219 points while Obama was still giving his speech.)

After Bernanke’s prospects improved over the weekend, Obama’s boosters at the Associated Press helpfully divined the trend in the stock market for us: “Amid the news, the Dow Jones industrial average rose 24 points.”  Well, the Dow was down 3 points on Tuesday—I think this means Bernanke’s chances are dimming.  What say ye, Associated Oracle?

•    Mohamed El-Erian, CEO of bond investor Pimco, declared, “A No vote on Bernanke would be viewed by markets as adding yet another uncertainty in an already fluid economic and policy environment.”

Give me a break: Ben Bernanke-Tim Geithner-Larry Summers form the very Axis of Uncertainty.  The Obama administration has demonstrated that it is capable of deciding, in any given week and depending on its poll numbers, to announce any manner of blanket economic policy to try to shore up its popularity.  This is exactly what causes uncertainty in the market: whimsical manipulations from disconnected puppet-masters on high.  Sowing a little uncertainty about whether King Caprice’s minions will remain in office is the surest prescription I know of for assuaging the market.

•    Obama’s team “saved” the economy, so it’s best to keep the same leadership in place.

Obama’s team didn’t save anything—it wasted a trillion dollars and slowed down the real recovery.  Obama claimed that unemployment would reach 8.0% if we didn’t pass his stimulus bill last spring.  We did, and unemployment is at 10.0% and projected to increase.  The last people who should still be in charge of our monetary policy are the people who helped Obama implement his disastrous recovery strategy.

•    Chris Dodd, the Senate banking committee’s chairman, announced that booting Bernanke would hurl our financial system into a “tailspin.”

Chris Dodd certainly knows something about sending the economy into a tailspin.  Given his role in the subprime lending crisis, I say his vote on any financial matter from now until his retirement next January ought to automatically count as a vote for the opposite of whatever side he’s on.

•    Dick Durbin, Senate Majority Whip, pointed out that conditions that led to the financial crisis were in place before Bernanke took office.

Yes, and if Noah had deliberately drilled a hole in the bottom of his ark, I think he could credibly claim that conditions that led to the Great Flood were in place before his time at sea.  But that doesn’t mean he would bear no responsibility for having made things worse.

Paul Krugman, whom I never thought I’d quote (except mockingly), recently wrote, “Before the crisis struck, Mr. Bernanke was very much a conventional, mainstream Fed official, sharing fully in the institution’s complacency.  Worse, after the acute phase of the crisis ended he slipped right back into that mainstream.”  Granted, Krugman is only partly talking about Bernanke’s failure to head off the imminent lending crisis.  He’s also talking about Bernanke’s failure to push for cumbersome bank regulations and inflate the currency, goals Krugman seems to think worthwhile (we are talking about a New York Times columnist, here); but the general characterization still applies.

Krugman continues, “During the run-up to the crisis, as financial abuses proliferated, the Fed did nothing.  In particular, it ignored warnings about subprime lending…  Mr. Bernanke didn’t acknowledge that failure, didn’t explain why it happened, and gave no reason to believe that the Fed would behave differently in the future.”

I’m mystified as to why so many in Congress are reluctant to sack Bernanke for poor performance.  Perhaps it’s because they fear it will remind their constituents that they may apply the same standard to their elected officials.

 Print This Post