September 20, 2005

Never Pay Retail

Pssst... The New York Times says that as of yesterday, "To continue reading [Bob Herbert or Paul Krugman], you must be a subscriber to TimesSelect," their new $50-a-year service. But the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune and The Unofficial Paul Krugman Archive say that you can read 'em for free (if, for some reason, you want to). If the Times is going to make any money off this, "Herbert's Heroes" and the like are going to have to be a whole lot more interesting than they sound.

(For an earlier post on how syndication will render TimesSelect nonsensical, see here.)

UPDATE: Worried that a site called "The Unofficial Paul Krugman Archive" might disappear soon if they don't have their legal ducks in a row? Then try the Raleigh-Durham News & Observer. Registration is, ahem, free.

ANOTHER UPDATE: This situation presents an obvious niche for a blog dedicated to tracking down links to Times columnists' syndicated work. So I went ahead and started one.

Posted by John Tabin at September 20, 2005 02:06 AM

Once you pay for a web opinion service, e.g., NY Times, ESPN, you got to use it, which means spending even more time at the computer. Who has the time? But my biggest problem is computer-related. Invariably, passwords and unsernames don't work, or I forget them becsue I've been forced to come up with so many usernames and passwords for banking, my office, and my e-mail. I guess that's my fault, but it's a pain. So I don't subscribe to any paid services, and just keep scouring the web for free opinions, twisted as they may be.

Posted by: Steve Kusheloff at September 20, 2005 09:02 AM

I thank you for the tip.

Posted by: rebecca friedman at September 20, 2005 10:55 AM

I suppose "cut and paste" is iffy, but can one quote a published columnist?
For example,
I saw in the New York Times today that Thomas Friedman said,"................"
and then he also said,"............."
I was also clever when Maureen Dowd said,"................"

Or something. Slate couldn't pull it off and hopefully the Bad Times will fare poorly too.

Posted by: Larry OBrien at September 20, 2005 12:26 PM

What marketing genius came up with, " Our print circulation is down, so let's start charging our loyal web viewers for op/ed content. That should increase our readership!"
Sounds alot like the Bushie mantra of "We're in debt up to our eyeballs, let's cut taxes!"

Posted by: Molderon at September 20, 2005 01:27 PM

Good of the Times to make my reading decisions easy for me. The LA Times had a similar success when they put their book coverage behind the pay-only firewall. One less mess of reviews to bother with.

Posted by: Bill Peschel at September 20, 2005 03:50 PM

Excellent my friend. I have bookmarked your "NPR" page. Please keep maintaining this.

Posted by: kattaraguppe at September 20, 2005 03:51 PM


You show the leftie's normal third grade grasp of economics. It goes like this.

1. Cut taxes

2. More money in circulation for investment/purchases.

3. Economy grows

4. More tax revenue.

It's called Supply-side Economics. It was employed by President reagan to pull us out of the crapstorm left by the Carter Administration. Case in point...last quarter when the MSM was reporting an unexpected 100 billion dollars of extra tax revenue. The only people for which it was unexpected was the MSM and the third grade level economists of the Democratic Party.

Cheney in '08!!

Posted by: Chuck at September 20, 2005 03:58 PM

Thank you so much, I have been looking for ways to read the NYT columnists I really like - Krugman, Herbert, Dowd, occasionally Brooks, seldom Kristof or Friedman and no way Tierney... I will definitely come use these links!

And chuck, really... lefties know very well the theory of supply side but it is just that, a theory, that has NEVER been demonstrated to work! No economists believe in it, only idealogues.

Posted by: cass at September 20, 2005 04:35 PM


If Chuck's supply side theory review is wrong, what's the liberal alternative? What happends to tax revenue in the long run when taxes are RAISED?

Posted by: Bostonshepherd at September 20, 2005 05:05 PM


You're a self deluded faith based nutjob. Supply side doesn't work. Take this comment as fact:

"People on fad diets put their health at risk but rarely achieve the permanent weight loss they desire. Similarly, when politicians rely on the advice of charlatans and cranks, they rarely get the desirable results they anticipate. After Reagan's election, Congress passed the cut in tax rates that Reagan advocated, but the tax cut did not cause tax revenues to rise."

Some Marxist? Ted Kennedy? Dem economist? No it is none other than Gregory Mankiw who just happens to be Duhbya's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors

Chuck, the earth is round, we go around the sun, tax cuts have a mixed results...Under Bush, tax receipts ARE DOWN..saying they are up 100 billion is like saying I just got a D in my econ class, up from an F..

Posted by: King at September 20, 2005 06:12 PM

Here's Art Laffer explaining, with historical data, how the Laffer Curve has, in fact, "worked." And yes, Laffer is, in fact, an economist.

Posted by: John Tabin at September 20, 2005 06:56 PM


Its should be called a "Laugher" curve. Its been discredited. In fact, tax revenue rose faster under Clinton/Bush 1 when taxes were raised.

Another point, personal income tax make up about 42% of total revenue, with another 47% coming from social security taxes which have steadily risen and in fact account for the fastest growing segment of revenue.

Posted by: King at September 20, 2005 07:16 PM

No, King, the Laffer Curve hasn't been discredited, only the media-driven caricature has been. All the Laffer Curve says is that revenues will fall slower with a tax cut, and rise slower with a tax increase, than a static analysis would suggest. It never said you'd get more money in the first year after a tax cut than you did in the year before, only that over the long term tax cuts will in some cases generate more income than prevailing high tax rates. Says Laffer:

The Laffer Curve itself does not say whether a tax cut will raise or lower revenues. Revenue responses to a tax rate change will depend upon the tax system in place, the time period being considered, the ease of movement into underground activities, the level of tax rates already in place, the prevalence of legal and accounting-driven tax loopholes, and the proclivities of the productive factors.
(My emphasis on the oft-misunderstood point.)

Posted by: John Tabin at September 20, 2005 07:40 PM

If anyone wishes to continue the burgeoning economics debate, let's do it here and leave this thread for stuff directly related to the NYT op-ed policies.

Posted by: John Tabin at September 20, 2005 08:24 PM

[moved - JT]

Posted by: King at September 20, 2005 08:32 PM

Sorry for the above language.

I really do appreciate your linking the NY Times stuff.

Posted by: King at September 20, 2005 08:33 PM

Great idea!

I don't suppose you're also planning on tracking the non op-ed NYT folks (sports columnists, etc), as well?

Posted by: Adam Lipkin at September 20, 2005 09:45 PM

No comments on the Never Pay Retail site, so

Nicholas D. Kristof: Lining Up to Be Raped?

is at

September 21, 2005
Musharraf's statements outrageous

Posted by: James Fulford at September 20, 2005 10:05 PM

Thanks, James. You've inspired me to add an NPR-specific emailbox.

Posted by: John Tabin at September 20, 2005 10:47 PM

The Unofficial Paul Krugman archive has been around for years and has the tacit consent of Krugman (he links to it from his homepage). So it will probably be around for years and is safe to link to.

Posted by: Isaac at September 20, 2005 11:59 PM

I'll make a note of it. In the meantime, here's Friedman in the Houston Chronicle.

Thomas L. Friedman: Bush's Waterlogged Halo

Bush should look in his playbook and find a 'reverse'

Posted by: James Fulford at September 21, 2005 10:48 AM

Mickey Kaus picked up this item on Kasufiles. Contrats on putting it all together!

Posted by: Thompson at September 21, 2005 05:34 PM

Why doesn't the NYT just limit access to the columnists to hard copy subscripers? Or don't they have the ability to do so?

Posted by: Tom at September 21, 2005 07:25 PM

you can also link to anything in the NYT if you have access to lexis-nexis (I suppose that might be of limited use to most, but I thought I'd mention it).

they update daily, so you don't have to wait until later in the week when some of the syndication papers print the columns.

Posted by: beth at September 24, 2005 01:25 PM