The NYTimes at it again

Steven Hayward and John Hinderaker of Powerline both have posts here and here today on the Solyndra defense mounted by the NYTimes editorial page. This defense is a pluperfect example of the Times' take on the subject of economics.  Clearly and unmistakably the Times thinks the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers and that such decisions are far too important, or something, to be left to a free market solution.  It gets worse: the Times also thinks that the policy of increasing the cost of fossil fuels should be encouraged by government policies to continue to rise in order to make the renewable energy sources the viable alternative.  This attitude at a time when gasoline prices have doubled over the past three years of the Obama administration and unemployment has risen in spite of all the new government debt designed to bring it down.  The Times can't seem to put two and two together and come to the pretty obvious conclusion that rising energy costs actually causes unemployment. Duh! Most non economists can figure that one out.  It's no wonder there's so much ignorance out there about how the real world works when so many people take the Times as Gospel on almost any subject.  These two linked posts above are short and to the point.