Commentaries appear at regular intervals. If you would like an invited commentary for your publication, please let me know!

Great minds think alike...and so apparently do small minds. Just as our local newspaper substitute railed against the stock market for not falling into lockstep with the current administration, so too does Molly "gee, golly!" Ivins.

Miss Molly (gee, golly!) seems dumbfounded (this time) because the stock market fell recently. She assumes that it is because her (pardon, the Clinton) administration is doing just great and "they" (she likes to stereotype, calling stock owners "speculators" even though there is a distinction between investors and speculators) don't like that. Her confusion comes from thinking the stock market is merely a visible appendage of "the evil rich"--celebrating when economic news is bad and falling when economic news is good. This muddled viewpoint comes about from her prejudices against those who have achieved economic security. She believes that anyone who is rich has cheated, lied, stolen or in some other way "prevented" the average person from earning more money. Thus when the average person is not unemployed, the rich sell their stocks, "causing" the market to decline. Apparently passing by her narrow viewpoint is the evidence that inflation is stirring and that values of stocks are becoming too high (that's where speculators come in, dear Miss Molly (gee, golly!)).

Thinking that people who own stock are evil is a strange viewpoint, and not one that holds up under scrutiny, but she holds to it nonetheless. (Don't bother her with facts, they get in the way of a good rant!)

What everyone who actually understands the stock market knew was that people were reacting to the consequences of the news, not the substance! Since the economy was doing about the same in terms of unemployment, and wage-push inflation is helped along by increases in the minimum wage, there is the possibility that inflation will increase and/or wage rates will grow across the board, thus potentially lowering the profits of companies. Far from speculating, which is investing with style, but not substance (something Miss Molly (gee, golly!) can relate to) this is investing: using facts and economic data to determine whether your stocks are a good value.

Not content to remain an also-ran in the lying weasel department, Miss Molly (gee, golly!) throws in some bad math to add weight to her claim on the blissful ignorance award as well. She states that only 51 million Americans own stock, thus 200 million don't. Well, gee...only if you want to claim the spouses and children of stock owners don't benefit from said stock! Her claim that thus "fourth-fifths" don't own stock is obviously a lie. While the stock I own is in my name, you can be sure that my wife also owns it (just ask any lawyer!).

She then goes on to conclude that a vast majority (her 80% figure) don't care what happens on Wall Street, and calls the participants of stock trading "Vegas hustlers". Talk about chutzpah, I guess the liars and lies really are bigger in Texas! Sorry Miss Molly (gee, golly!) but a vast majority of Americans do have a stake in the ownership of American companies and do give a "rat's behind" what happens on Wall Street. You see, a vast majority of Americans are educated enough to know that by owning part of a company, the benefit when the company benefits. Having lived through the wretched inflation of the 1970s under Jimmy Carter, we know what inflation does to an economy, and many people sell their stocks and buy gold with inflation rears its ugly head.

Miss Molly (gee, golly!) compounds her errors by taking pride in her ignorance of all things financial, calling stock buying "roulette" and claiming that companies don't build bridges or make widgets. (!) One thing she is correct about is that companies don't care for children...at least not yet. If she had her way each company would have to pay for the care and feeding of the children of the surrounding countryside, dutifully marched off to (re)education camps run by the government. Mixing her stock market un-knowledge, she makes a comment about planting tulips in the South Sea bubble...once again proving that she doesn't understand the difference between investing and speculating. If the market were to continue to go up, simply because she wants it to (because of the current co-president) then that would be speculation, and akin to planting tulips in the sea.

Trying to make the case that she isn't waging class warfare (she is), she claims that she is only waging war against Ivan Boesky style people, making her point in reply to the strawman that "greed is good" with bad grammar: No. It's. Not. Sorry, dear Miss Molly (gee, golly!) but you aren't arguing against greed, you are arguing against investment, without which this country would grind to a halt. You may let your envy of the successful get in the way of the facts, but the facts are clear: it was only during the Reagan years in the past quarter-century that all income groups gained. In all other years, only the rich got richer. So much for your allusions to the decade of "greed". And. That's. A. Fact.

Miss Molly (gee, golly!) gets in her usual digs at the Republicans (it's all their fault, doncha know!), claiming that Mr. Newt is trying to repeal all kinds of laws that protect workers, thus Wall Street doesn't like workers either. (Really!) Perhaps she should ask her superior (boss? supervisor? enlightened benefactor who currently ranks ahead of her but in an oh-so-egalitarian way?) how many people her paper needs to operate. Want to bet she'll be surprised when (s)he says "exactly enough to run efficiently, no more, no less". But...but...there are so many people unemployed (well, not really) and the evil rich company has bales of money lying around (from all that speculation) so they have a duty to employ a lot more people! No. They. Don't.

Concluding her sad tale is the claim that "quality, customer service, product loyalty [(?)], research and development" and long-term success are not of interest to companies, only profits. Sorry, Miss Molly (gee, golly!) but that may hold in the world of the liberal newspaper journalist, but not in the world of business. Only the companies that are successful over the long term survive and attract all those evil investors. Only a speculator would go after the equivalent of a story with "anonymous" sources. Shall we conclude that every journalist suffers the same problems with judgment and analysis that you do?

Fortunately, that is not yet the case. Though it is an uphill battle, the truth will finds its way, even in places where only the shrill whine of Miss Molly (gee, golly) is the only voice to be heard.

Great minds think alike...and so apparently do small minds.

Not content to remain an also-ran in the lying weasel department, Miss Molly (gee, golly!) throws in some bad math to add weight to her claim on the blissful ignorance award as well.

Miss Molly (gee, golly!) compounds her errors by taking pride in her ignorance of all things financial, calling stock buying "roulette" and claiming that companies don't build bridges or make widgets.

Concluding her sad tale is the claim that "quality, customer service, product loyalty [(?)], research and development" and long-term success are not of interest to companies, only profits.