Slate can publish idiotic stuff like this essay by Daniel Gross, coyly pretending to describe the real “problem class” in America — the “dysfunctional overclass,” i.e., the super rich:

There are important differences between the underclass and the overclass, notes Susan Mayer, dean of the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy Studies. The overclass is better connected, and it can cause more damage. “Poor inner-city kids selling drugs to suburban kids can harm people,” Mayer says. “But financial markets can bring thousands and thousands of people to ruin.”

Do they study economics at the University of Chicago? I had thought so, once, when I went there to get a free lunch once. But gosh, what stupid reasoning. “Financial markets can bring thousands to ruin”? “Financial markets” — the ones that build trillion dollar economies? They’re more “dysfunctional” than drug dealers because sometimes some people on Wall Street make a preposterous amount of money, even when they don’t “deserve” it?

I love Slate. It’s the best magazine of thought on the Internet. But ultimately it still plays to deeply-held liberal class envy, and when that’s in gear cold analytical reasoning goes out the window. That’s usually the case whenever economics is the topic, too — unless, of course, the super-rich involved are highly-productive members of the permanent liberal political class (hat tip to Insty for that). Then being super rich is super cool, and of course, in the case of that model couple, Bill and Hillary Clinton… super, duper functional.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

RealClearMarkets:

In the last five years, the New York Times has declined in value by an astonishing 70 percent. There is no indication that things will get better any time soon. Indeed, as the specter of recession looms, there is every reason to believe that things will get worse. At some point here in the near future, the market capitalization of the New York Times will fall below $2 billion. At that point, a psychological floor will have collapsed and the company will be in play.

The company that has the most to gain from buying the New York Times is Google. If it proffered a Murdoch-like, no-auction bid of $4 billion, wouldn’t the Sulzberger family have to accept it? Every single class B shareholder would accept the offer. It’s their only exit. It is also likely that Times employees and retirees would enthusiastically support the deal; it’s their only exit as well. So it would all come down to whether the Sulzberger family (smaller in number and not as far-flung as the fractious Bancroft clan that owned Dow Jones) would accept the deal.

The choice for the family would be basically this: double your money or double down on “young Arthur,” as the NYT’s Chairman and CEO is sometimes called.

Yeah, what a choice. What a concept! The article explains that it’s really all about Rupert Murdoch. Fascinating.

The only question is, would such a move be final confirmation that Google has jumped the shark? Or could it just absorb something like this — and be a real estate player in Manhattan fast?!

UPDATE:  Ooh!  Ooh!