Columnist Bill Kristol warned against being too trusting of economists, noting how they have been all over the map with their prescriptions for the ailing economy. Still, Kristol is optimistic about the economic team Barack Obama is assembling. “They’re sober and competent people who know we face a real crisis – and who, importantly, may be more willing than many of their colleagues to adjust their thinking early and often.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- littlejohn on Health care reform would save state money
- littlejohn on Health care reform would save state money
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- gster on Open thread 11/23
- LonnythePlumber on Health care reform would save state money
- aldenrw on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Too many exemptions
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
22 Comments
The big question is why bother listening to Bill Kristol who has been consistently wrong on every issue he blabbers about?
Over the last year instead of quarterly reports coming out and about a month later an adjustment released (business as usual), there were adjustments to the adjustments which were adjusted (ad naseum). It was obvious the numbers were being “controlled,” and that bushco was wanting badly for the numbers showing how poor a job he had done to not be known. bushco wasn’t even able to “cook the books” successfully!
1 month, 12 days, 21 hours, 52 minutes, 30 seconds
Ever wonder why Economics is called the ‘dismal’ science? Yet, many of these types are serious in their study; unlike, I might add, those financial gamers whose sole purpose is to extract the most amount of loot from our pockets into their pockets (the best example of many-to-one that I can think of) and whose reward we are all reaping now and into some unforeseeable future.
Obama, and crew, need to think about getting something physical behind money. Or, at least, get the subject revisited in a reasonable manner. It does not have to be gold that plays the role.
Not that the Economist magazine speaks for all economists but after a yearly subscription of it, I have a pretty dim view of the entire profession. Why is this? It is too mixed up with politics and cultural ideology to be of any real valued contribution.
Take for instance the decision the magazine made to support Barrack Obama for President. Upon close review of the article, it gave absolutely no economic reasons for why they chose to support Obama.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12516666
However, it mentions how McCain called the religious right “agents of intolerance” in the past but did not do the same during the campaign (I know this is REALLY important from a economist’s perspective). This made the economist magazine very unhappy.
Essentially, they supported Obama since basically the whole world did. They also disagreed with McCain on cultural issues. A president that the whole world supports in their view, would be much better tooled to enact their vision of peace and prosperity. Reasons for how his stand on the economic issues would do this were barely mentioned because there were none to list that they strongly agreed with.
In the end, cultural ideology and political visions were more important then any economic reality.
McCain lost. McCain never expressed any economic ideas other than those of bushco. He favored staying the failed course. That could have had an impact on his loss. He ran back to DC suspended his campaign to ‘tackle’ economic woes, and when he arrived no one wanted to talk to him, he had no ideas, no solutions, nothing.
You state, “it gave absolutely no economic reasons for why they chose to support Obama.” You give a link that is supposed to support your statement, but doesn’t. Did you read the entire article? Among other economic reasons the article stated these:
“The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them.”
“The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday.”
“Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).”
“Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.”
“It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.”
“On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.”
McCain lost. Cancel your subscription to every publication that endorsed Obama for the presidency if that helps you. Concentrate on all the negatives if that adds to your life.
Most Americans are ready to help President Obama address our many challenges!
Love my Economist, the magazine that calls itself a newspaper.
http://www.economist.com/help/DisplayHelp.cfm?folder=663377#About_The_Economist
It is older than Wichita.
Beside insightful analysis, the rag offers humour, good coverage of world events (with an economic flavor), wonderful reviews of science and technology, and a chance to read pokes directed toward the G8 ego.
“Cancel your subscription to every publication that endorsed Obama for the presidency if that helps you.”
Does anyone know who the Wichita Eagle endorsed for president?
Linda can’t explain what economic issues the paper endorses of Obama so she copies and pastes snippets in the article which provides idle chatter but little else.
“The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them.”
Obama proposed tax cuts too. Advantage: Nil.
“Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception)”
Exactly which issue is this in reference to? Since when does having a particular person on the payroll of a campaign equal standing on any one issue?
“Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well”
Again, which economic issue is this in reference too?
McCain lost the election.
Obama won.
1 month, 12 days, 20 hours, 15 minutes, 12 seconds
Concentrate on all those negatives. Find some more, shouldn’t be difficult for someone of your superior intellect! Are the helicopters hovering over your house yet?
By the way, Americans have been living in an economic dreamworld. We’ll have to wait to see how the new team does in this manner.
But, everyone ought to read, at least scan, Fallows’ talk with a Chinese banker (one of the guys who are funding US).
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200812/fallows-chinese-banker
Note, in particular, the guy’s remarks about some financial modes (supposedly given to us by the best and brightest) being like a mirror game. When he told this to the old timers, they were incredulous that what we’ve sold (yes, unfortunately) to the world is a house of cards (actually, shell game would be more apropos).
Derivatives were the particulars which are not categorically bad; rather, we need to get them under some type of control.
So, Obama’s team needs to have an international economic focus (I’m not talking globalization, the scam of the modern colonialist, necessarily) as well as that related to domestic stimuli (and reigning in those financial fanciers away from their totally unrealistic bent).
Ahhhh..Linda is suddenly miss Positive. After 8 years of loathing the President of her government, she is bright cheery and positive again.
That is the best part about November 4 2008, it has given all the sour faced democrats a chance to dry up their tears and crack a smile once again.
Welcome to our world Linda!
“, she is bright cheery and positive again.”
You left out farting rainbows.
Looks like the market is responding favorably to Obama’s ideas to jump start the economy, and to bring back oversight and regulation to the financial community. Not a bad start since he hasn’t even taken office yet!
Billy Kristol, isn’t he one of the three amigo’s? Now he’s a repub. economic genius? These guys will listen to anybody.
Does anyone know who the Wichita Eagle endorsed for president?
They plan to announce New Year’s Eve.
“Ahhhh..Linda is suddenly miss Positive. After 8 years of loathing the President of her government, she is bright cheery and positive again.” — RFL
——–
I’ve always tried to be fairly cheery and positive. Most of the time I succeed.
I loathe bush, and everything he has done to America. He deserves no respect, he earned every iota of disrespect most people hold him in.
If President Obama fails as miserably as bush did, I won’t respect him either. If President Obama leads America down the path of ruin the bush did, I will loathe him as much.
bush wasn’t always disrespected, but he did everything in his power to deserve being the Worst President In America’s History Ever! In that endeavor he was successful.
There is nothing that can be done to change the past, there is much that make the future better. I am looking forward to the end of bushco and the beginning of a new day for America and the world. Positive and cheery enough for you?
I suggest you continue on in your quest for all things negative if it helps you. Everyone has to do what it takes to get on in this world.
If President Obama fails as miserably as bush did, I won’t respect him either.
It’s hard to see how that could even possible.
A fond remembrance:
I’m Really Gonna Miss Systematically Destroying This Place
By George W. Bush
December 1, 2008 | Issue 44•49
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/im_really_gonna_miss
Maggotpunk asks why we should believe Bill Kristol when he’s been wrong on everything. That’s a good point.
I have my own questions. Why should we believe the Economist when it fecklessly champions clowns like Bjørn Lomborg, or the Atlantic when it publishes the dumb rantings of a nut like Gregg Easterbrook?
(Observant readers will note I recently took the Nation to task as well)
Rage, I posted a link to that same Onion piece on the Open Thread. Got them all riled up! It was fun to see them running helter skelter attempting to vindicare bush in some way. ;-)
that word would be vindicate if it didn’t have an ‘r’ in it.
vindicare noun: The vindictive, ruthless, money-driven healthcare system which thrived to the point of collapse under the presidency of George W. Bush.
;-)
Personally, I long since stopped worrying about intelligible ytpos. :)
Economists are a fairly recent addition to the long line of haruspexes and seers and meteorologists that the human race has long depended on to foretell the future. Unfortunately they can only guess at general trends; the specifics we need elude them whether they use goat entrails or supercomputers. The only sure thing they know about the future is that they will continue to be hired to predict it.
I suggest you continue on in your quest for all things negative if it helps you. Everyone has to do what it takes to get on in this world.
-Linda
Thanks for the “encouragement”. Linda is a testament to how well the “quest for all things negative” can help someone make it through the day.
Linda is a experienced role model for negativity, and therefore she proudly encourages everyone else to follow in her example.