I usually ignore Megan McArdle, but recently I made the mistake of clicking through to one of her posts. I learned years ago what an idiot she was, and usually save my poor brain cells for something more important.
That a conservative (or sorry, ‘libertarian’) could be a clueless as Megan is, of course, no surprise. What is probably more surprising is that Megan did not (to my knowledge) get her sinecure through nepotism. Which, at the depths of stupidity that she regularly plumbs, is a rare feat, and really raises a question: How did she do it?
It isn’t her analytical abilities, that’s for sure. She did work for the Economist, though, which is a mitigating factor. Heh.
Take this, from just a couple days ago:
What to say, beyond the obvious, about the administration’s decision to raise fuel economy standards?* It will raise the prices of cars, and make them less safe
* It will reduce our carbon emissions, but not by as much as advertised, because more fuel efficient cars make driving cheaper, so people will do more of it. This “rebound” effect robs about 25% of gains, and also means more congestion, and more wear-and-tear on roads
…
* If you want to cut down on the pollution from driving, this is about the worst possible way to do it. On the other hand, it may be the only politically feasible way to do it. If you take global warming seriously, as I do, it may be the best of a bad set of policy choices.
Right…why didn’t I think of that? Less safe! Worst way! Note all the other, better ways that Megan fails to mention. She apparently feels like her work is clearly done after writing that post. Maybe she should stick to obvious for now.
Sometimes I really wonder, how precisely does an English major become an ‘econoblogger’ in the first place? Yes, I know she got an MBA from the U. of Chicago. I have an MBA too, and I can tell you that it is not equal to a bachelor’s degree in economics (got that, too, so I know a little about it) by any stretch of the imagination.
The proof is right over at Megan’s blog, where she traffics in a constant stream of ignorance and misinformation. Now, I should dial that back enough to point out that she is no Jeffrey Goldberg, and doesn’t seem to have any deeper agenda that defending power and rationalizing the status quo, which she does…poorly, but that is apparently good enough for the Atlantic, which is a bit sad.
But its no TNR, at least! So that’s something, then.
Speaking as a card carrying Thatcherite, I have to say that I find her to be quite shallow. The fact that she poses as an economist (although, one who seemingly doesn’t know the most basic things about economics) is really what gets my goat about her. One of my most favourite online mags, the eXiled, had a beef with her over her support for the so-called ‘tea parties’, which were apparently organised by a right-wing pressure group associated with her boyfriend. Now, I wasn’t entirely cool about the way they approached it, but McArdle’s response was pretty much to throw a hissy-fit. I can’t believe anyone would take her seriously, but some apparently do.
PS – I keep getting told that I’m not a member of my blog by ‘open ID’ when I try to enter my URL, what’s with that?
Pingback: Time Lost, at All Cost | 工商法
Oh, sorry, I installed the Open ID plugin and didn’t configure it. I just went ahead and uninstalled it, pls let me know if you have any other problems.
Thanks for the info about that blogfight. Pretty interesting.
The best is when she tries to bring in legal issues, like this on the Teabagging flap:
“If Santelli or Koch sues, the rest of us big media bloggers are going to have to work hard to reassure our employers that we won’t put them on the hook for a lawsuit.”
Megan has never heard of Summary Judgment. I am still waiting for news of the inevitable suit. At one point she vaguely suggests evidence of maliciousness. Oooohh.