Friday, October 31, 2008

The Economist Magazine Endorses Obama

It's here. Among other things, the editorial says

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).

This is a strange sentence. The "but" implies there is some contradiction between McCain's lack of interest in economics and the fact that his slate of economic advisers is made up of Phil "Deregulator" Gramm, Kevin "Dow 36,0000" Hassett, Carly "Golden Parachutes" Fiorina, Nancy "Petro-flack" Pfotenhauer, Donald "I Am Wrong About Everything" Luskin, and Arthur "Forget Evidence" Laffer.

Wouldn't it seem, however, that his lack of interest in the subject is the reason he picked these clowns?

As for the sad case of Doug Holtz-Eakin, he may have been a good adviser when he was brought in to the McCain campaign, but he has now been thoroughly hackified. Here's the latest evidence.


pants said...

all right!

I really wish that the mainstream media had picked up more on Phil Gramm's role in the financial crisis. I get that it is hard to explain regulation of CDS and the CFMA etc. but it's a shame they did not.

I think Donald Luskin's nickname is awesome. That guy is nuts. But I have always preferred Nancy "Pfake Virginia" Pfotenhauer.

Anonymous said...

First, while I like Obama, and I believe he is sincere, my problem rests within his fundamental policies or the "change" he espouses (and has since the 60's). The tactics he plans to employ, are not new. They are fundamentally socialist. These tenets have not worked in Cuba, Russia, China or any other socialist or communist country.... I ask you to play out the scenario of his intended economic policy, namely lets assume that you own a mid sized business that employs 150 people, and that you make a product, lets say socks...(could be any product or service). What happens when your taxes are raised 38%? As a businessman, what are your choices?
1. Do nothing, and embrace paying more of your "share".
2. Lay off a few people, and raise your prices, in order to offset this new expense, and hope that you can continue to make a profit so you can give your employees bonuses or raises, or perhaps add that new office in a neighboring city.
3. Move your company to Mexico, where wages, taxes and workforce are abundant and cheap.

Now lets say you choose option 1. Unfortunately, the yarn manufacturer chose option 3, and the packaging company chose option 2, so therefore you are now paying higher prices for your raw materials, and also since the packaging company downsized, it will take 2 months longer for your products to hit the shelves. you bleed further, and must consider option 2 or 3, or close your doors alltogether.

Option 2, smart business move, unfortunately you had to lay off 30 people (who are now collecting gov't monies until they find a a new job...if they can find a new job, given that most $250,000 and up sized companies have had marked layoffs and the pool of workers is staggering, they will remain on gov't monies, now switching over from unemployment (which the employer paid into) to welfare, foodstamps, heat assistence, the govt dime...paid for by your taxes.....unfortunately, now no one can afford your you make more cuts in personnel in order to lower your prices....forget about opening that new office, in fact you have to close two.

Now at this point in time, people are screaming for lower prices, jobs and money. What is a government to do in a crisis like this?

1. Lower taxes on business and industry, so they can hire more people and lower prices on their products, assuming there are any midsized businesses left (traditionally republican approach)....OR

2. Increase taxes further on the "rich" so that welfare benefits can be extended, workers hired in new gov't positions to administer the funding to the people, and food prices can be subsidized by the government, in order to lower food costs....this is traditionally what the democratic party does, and what Obama wants to continue to do, only instead of small steps like the dairy industry has unfortunately taken, he wants to speed this process up dramatically! They do want complete control of every dollar that is spent in this country......they will expand the ranks of the poor and control and medicate them with a few "perks", giving everybody a little something for nothing. 11 Trillion dollars of tax money thus far spent on social policies has failed in this we really want to expand that model to middle america too?

Now, given that congress is controlled by the democrtatic party, namely the extreme liberals of nancy pelosi and harry reid, this perfect storm is set to occur if obama wins....I encourage people to look down the road a ways at his policies in all areas, and compare them to similar tried and failed attempts globally.... you do not have to look far, just google cuba, or here at home our own social policies of welfare.

Just consider the real prospect of his policies, please. History points the way.

Don Pedro said...


Obama's has proposed cutting taxes for 95% of working Americans and raising tax levels on corporations and wealthy individuals to levels at or below where they were during the Clinton years.

In Cuba, there is no such thing at private property.

It is completely absurd to say that there is any relationship between Obama's proposals and Cuba.

As to whether his proposals would hurt the economy, here's what I wrote in our FAQ on taxes:

Won't raising taxes on corporations and the wealthiest hurt the economy?
Obama would return tax rates to at or below where they were during the 1990s, an era during which the economy thrived, median income grew by $6000, and 22.3 million jobs were created. In contrast, McCain would extend the Bush tax policies, which have brought us 30% lower economic growth, anemic job growth, and a decline in income and wages for the typical American.

See that post, with links to sources here:

B. S. E. said...

To above: "The tactics he plans to employ, are not new. They are fundamentally socialist."

Please look up the world "socialist." Did I miss something? How is Obama going to nationalize the "means of production." The current bail-out is a step towards socialism (though a small one) by nationalizing enterprises (conducted by the neocons mind you). But Obama has nothing socialist planned. Redistribution is certainly not socialist, nor is expanding the social saftey net. If these were socialist policies, than why were we fighting the cold war? Between 1932 and 1979 the American welfare state grew from virtually nothing to 20% of GDP and yet I wouldn't class 1950s or 60s America a socialist country - funny, uh?

Anonymous said...

We are no longer a Republic.

We are now a Mobocracy.

When the dollar is worthless it won't matter if you can withdraw it from your bank or not.