“The Artist” as wunnerful

The Catholic New World movie critic “left the theater dancing” after watching “The Artist.”  (I hope no one saw her.)  I did not (leave dancing), as I indicated already
 
She concedes that “the story is too light to ever be wrenching” (to engage one’s interest, I’d say).  It’s “accompanied by . . . a delightful, old-timey, bouncy, Depression- era, “silver lining,” “sunny side of the street,” orchestral sound track.”  (Music was good, yes.)  “Its tender moments are truly [tender].”  (Treacly?) 
 
But I disagree with her in this:
“The Artist” focuses on visual storytelling, which is precisely what film is supposed to be. Anyone who has gone to film school will appreciate the forceful message here, summed up by the last word of the film: “Action!”
 
If visual storytelling is the essence of film, why do so many movies use talk?  She explains:
 
Filmmaking true to its pedigree tells the story visually. Lazy filmmaking tells the story through words and plenty of voice-over. “The Artist” must tell the story visually, you see, because it’s a silent film.
 
Yes, I see.  I still find it mannered, precious, even exhibitionist.  It’s an adorable film for people who went to film school and other buffs, but its silence, like charity and sin, covers a multitude of faults.

How Taxing the Rich Harms the Middle Class

If Obama knows this, why does he talk like he does? If he doesn’t, why doesn’t he?

Using data on more than 100 countries, we found that higher corporate taxes lead to lower wages. In fact, workers shoulder a much larger share of the corporate tax burden (more than 100 percent) than had previously been assumed. The reason the incidence can be higher than 100 percent is neatly explained in a 2006 paper by the famous economist Arnold Harberger. [Arnold C. Harberger, “Corporate Tax Incidence: Reflections on What
is Known, Unknown, and Unknowable,” in Fundamental Tax Reform: Issues,
Choices, and Implications, ed. John W. Diamond and George R. Zodrow
(Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2008)]

Simply put, when taxes are imposed on a corporation, wages are lowered not only for the workers in that firm, but for all workers in the economy since otherwise competition would drive workers away from the low-wage firms. As a result, a $1 corporate income tax on a firm could lead to a $1 loss in wages for workers in that firm, but could also lead to more than a $1 loss overall when we look at the lower wages across all workers.

Leftist-cocoon syndrome of he doesn’t, vote-scavenging if he does.