Revisiting “The Obama Economy”
The rhetoric you use to make your point says a lot about a) the strength of your argument; 2) you personally.
There is no better example of this then some of the OpEds about the current and past Presidents. They are rife with bad logic, political animus, and sheer partisanship. I don’t care id they are trashing George W. Bush or Barack H. Obama, they can be revealing about their writer.
The issue isn’t whether they are right or wrong; Hell, I’m wrong all the time. It is whether they are an honest broker of information — or deceptive weasels.
For example, on March 3, 2009 — 1 year ago — the WSJ OPEd blamed the market collapse on the newly elected President. They argued that the Dow was issuing a referendum on Obama:
“As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame. As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama’s policies have become part of the economy’s problem.”
>
Since that column, the Dow has rallied near 70%. Surely, if Obama was to blame for the Dow’s collapse during his first 5 weeks in office, then he most certainly must deserves an equal amount of credit for the Dow’s stupendous performance a year later?!? Somehow, the WSJ has never got around to giving a parallel credit equal to the blame they doled out.
Of course, blaming any President for a market rally or fall is a mug’s game. Market’s go up and down due to many factors; President’s have far less control over the economy than is widely believed.
Draw your own conclusions about this WSJ OpEd writer and their moral fiber.
Whenever you find an article or OpEd that is unusually strident or one-sided or misleading, cut & paste it into a calendar program . Diary it for an extended period of time. You may find it quite amusing to go back and reread a year or so later. I suggest you do it with whatever paper or pundit (or blog) you prefer.
>
Source:
The Obama Economy
WSJ OpEd
MARCH 3, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
March 4th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
I think both you and WSJ are wrong. You CANNOT attribute market performance to a single variable, ever. So for WSJ to attribute everything bad to Obama…and then you to state the 70% since can also be attributed to Obama, makes no sense.
March 4th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
You are missing the subtle sarcasm. I will clarify that above.
Of course you CANNOT attribute market performance to a single variable. But since these guys make that mistake, they should at apply the error even handedly. They dont, using ANY data point as a slegde hammer.
March 4th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
And I CALLED the guy who wrote the IBD story and lit into him. AND recorded it.
Anyone Seen the IBD Congrats to Obama?
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/01/anyone-seen-the-ibd-congrats-to-obama/
March 4th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
There certainly were silly, over-the-top condemnations of Pres. Bush… but there’s a massive imbalance of crazy right now. The GOP wallows in it from top to bottom. 100% of Republicans and some significant number of Democrats went along with Pres. Bush’s terrible, America-bankrupting ideas like invading countries and slashing revenues. Meanwhile the GOP won’t have more than 3 votes in both houses together for a health care plan that’s in line with what they claimed to favor up until a few months ago. Six months ago, Sen. Grassley favored an individual mandate; now he doesn’t merely oppose it as unsound policy, but claims that it’s unconstitutional!
Who knows why exactly that is– maybe the Dems really were the taxation-and-regulation-loving quasi-socialists that the GOP claims they were, once, so Republicans just came to take it for granted that they’re right. Or maybe it’s because being Republican is so bound up with ethnic identity that Republicans are willing to find any argument to oppose anything Democrats propose.
March 4th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
The WSJ Op-Ed page has become a parody of itself. It’s mainly why I didn’t re-up my subscription last year (that, and the huge hike in subscription price).
March 4th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
But that is what makes them partisan. They attempt to either blame or take credit for the situation at hand, playing on peoples emotions, fears, biases and of course political and economic ideology.
This is why I despise Larry Kudlow and others like him.
They simply are so sure that what they think they know is correct and never admit they are wrong and therefore never change. They also have a tendency to harp on the same themes regardless of the current environment.
March 4th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
The WSJ editorial page is such a mendacious suckhole (and was even before Australia’s Worst Export bought it) that it is difficult to take the rest of the paper seriously.
March 4th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Glad I’m not the only one thats gotten completely fed up by the partisan coverage. Murdoch has seriously turned the renowned paper into a fancier version of the NY Post.
March 4th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Agree 100%.
Used to be a good editorial staff. Amity Shales has taken it down the (brainless) Fox road.
Awsome points. Its already funny that Repubs think Barrack is going anywhere… do they realize the business cycle will be in full-growth mode for 2011, 2012? There best hope was for a very swift, strong recovery, 2-3 good years, and then a downturn. Looks like they are peaking right now. (I am 100% moderate, voted for Reagan, Clinton, Bush the first-term, Obama. My Chicago roots keep me in the middle.)
March 4th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
I pretend that Jan to June 2009 never happenned. The market was just flat and had six months to heal after the 2008 beating. the 24% return for the SPX makes sense for a recovery from the 2008 bear.
The decline from Jan 1st to the bottom (-28%) was heavily influenced, if not directly caused, by Obama, Pelosis, and Reid. The market and the economy was running in panic from Pork and Spend stimulus bill, higher taxes, and nationalizing the banks. Does anyone remember that Obama, Greenspan, and several senators suggested that the Swedish model of nationalizing the banks might be the best plan. Barry might even be on record that the Swedish model would be the best plan, it just would have been damn scary.
The way I score it:
The 2007-2008 Bear of 40% was all GW Bush, Greenspan, and the banks. with a little hedge fund leverage unwinding. Most technical analysts would say the bull was too old and bound to die.
Jan 2009 to Mar 2009 was an over reaction caused by Obama and Pelosi which reversed itself by June 2009.
The extended recovery from July 2009 – present is just the natural change in tide of the market. Pelosi definitely did not do anything to improve the environment for stocks.
March 4th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
I gave up on the WSJ Op Ed pages some time ago, just as I did CNBC. It is just another parade of egos on which I do not care to spend any of my time.
When it comes to Op Ed’s, I believe facts rule. Interpretations are always open to debate, but you can’t cherry-pick or change the facts without at least acknowledging the whole truth. As a case in point, I always liked Keith Hennessey’s elaboration of facts stated.
http://keithhennessey.com/2010/02/04/need-future-focus/
March 4th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
The forces at work to get the DOW, the economy, the real estate market to where they are right now are years if not decades in the process. To praise, blame individual presidents for all of it is lunacy.
Problem with the Market? Blame ERISA.
Problem with the economy? Blame Nixon when he took of us the Gold Standard
Problem with real estate? Blame the crazy loans offered
These may or may not be the reasons, but I can tell you the best reason of all this happened: Greed.
March 4th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
It should also be noted that Obama is perhaps one of the best market timers ever. I seem to recall him publicly stating that buying stocks in late February/early March was a good thing to do.
Maybe Obama should get credit for making a market moving call. After all, if Meredith Whitney says something and a stock or the market moves 5%, everyone gives her credit. She’s “just an analyst”. The President gave a public endorsement of the markets within days (could have been a week or two) of the bottom of the market and it turned around. Maybe a coincidence… but maybe not.
Has the President ever done that before?
March 4th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Barry, although you are certainly generally right that it makes little sense to blame market moves on a President absent serious legislation targeted at the market(i.e. huge tax increase on corporate profits could equal a rough market), I do think there is a pretty good argument that supports the WSJ in this case:
Obama has failed in all his major legislative goals. The fact the Cap & Trade (dead) and Health Care Reform (very near) have come nowhere near fruition can be viewed as a major plus for the market as a whole. So, along with other data points, the market has factored in these two items not getting traction.
March 4th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
This reminds of Paul Krugman’s Two Golden Rules:
#1 Everything in the WSJ Op-Ed page is wrong
#2 If you ever agree with anything in the WSJ Op-Ed page, refer to rule #1
March 4th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
@ Scott 6:17.
I can’t recall such advice either. (Though, I do remember being advised to “go shopping at the mall” by some prior president). Suppose BHO will be giving the Sell Signal?
March 4th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
I agree with poor opinions expressed. I noticed the decline of the Op-Ed section a couple days after Murdock bought the paper. I had never noticed pieces signed simply “staff” previously.
March 4th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
“Market’s go up and down due to many factors; President’s have far less control over the economy than is widely believed.”
Markets go up and down because of decisions made by buyers and sellers, be they “traders” or “investors, their relative numbers and their relative concerns or commitments. It’s all relative as for every ready seller there is a waiting buyer and price is determined. Those decisions reflect their expectations of the future vs. the present state. Those expectations are influenced by many factors. One of those factors is what the political powers that be are saying. That includes the President, Fed, etc.. If there is selling on “good news”, that tells you something (expectation fulfilled). If there is buying on bad news, that suggests something different (opportunity seen). As much as people want markets to be rational on some fundamental basis, it has and always will be a guessing game of the future expectations vs. the present state and how the many varied participants today will envision tomorrow’s future. The difficulty is that who is deciding today and their degree of commitment regularly changes day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month.
March 4th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Democrats controlled both houses the last two years of the Bush administration. Last time I looked, its the legislature that controls the spending. So all liberal whiners shut the fuck up and get your facts correct. Yes Bush spent a lot more then he should have, but the democrats were in control, they went along with the spending and pushed for more. With Obama in power, the presses are about to burn up. $3 Trillion plus budget plus the $1 tillion plus of Freddie and Fannie that us tax payers will have to cover for years to come thanks to Geithner and Obama’s Christmas eve gift to F&F.
$800 Billion Stimulus passed as Obama took office and only a third has been spent. Yet when Senator Bunning asked the idiots to pay for the $10 billion 30 day unemployment extension, very few were willing to back up their pay as you go bill they had just passed. How clueless must they be in Washington when they still have billions in stimulus sitting in a slush fund and nobody seems willing to use a little of it for the unemployed. Bunning was on hannity tonight. The guy has a bucket load of grandchildren. He doesn’t want to pass on to them our massive debt that’s growing to unsustainable levels. Marc Faber is correct, when he says were doomed.
March 4th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
For God’s sake: Obama economy is an oxymoron. First, the word economy implies a working economy. Second this f*cking moron and his minions have done anything and everything to exacerbate the problem, which for any idiot defending Obama that would be TOO MUCH DEBT.
Thinking you can create even more massive amounts of debt to fix too much debt is asinine. This thing has been in a nose dive for years, Obama came into the cockpit and pushed the levers to the firewall.
Insane.
March 4th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
The WSJ opinon page isn’t principled, it’s partisan. It’s easy to shred their sophistry.
March 4th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
A little off topic, but this interview with former LTCM General Counsel Jim Rickards is a must-read.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ltcm-general-counsel-us-stared-near-catastrophe-eye-ltcm-and-decided-double-down
March 4th, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Pay-go didn’t pass the Senate. It was filibustered by…..Bunning and his ilk. An Executive order is the only currently standing recommendation for pay-go. The Dems didn’t have a true majority until last year. Before last yr it was 49-49-2, with the 2 caucusing with the Dems, which means nothing considering the dems do not have the cohesiveness (meaning zombie-following) that he repubs have. Bush never actually signed a budget over the last 2 yrs of his presidency until the very end. The reason the debt “seems” more now is because all budget items are on the books not hidden away as “foreign war adventure” costs. In reality, the debt is probably lower now than under Bush (a guy who’s budget office would forcast massive deficit numbers so they could brag about lowering the deficit size by the end of the fiscal year). It is amazing the purposefully rewritten history that some spew online…..”but luckily we had reagan who would have been even greater had it not been for the evil Dems controlling congress….what do you mean the Senate was controlled by the Repubs from 1981 to 1987….oh well, if I stick my fingers in my ears, those facts will go away”.
March 5th, 2010 at 1:08 am
@foxmuldar “Democrats controlled both houses the last two years of the Bush administration. Last time I looked, its the legislature that controls the spending. So all liberal whiners shut the fuck up and get your facts correct. Yes Bush spent a lot more then he should have, but the democrats were in control, they went along with the spending and pushed for more”
So you seem to believe that all the debt was piled up during the last two years of the Bush administration? What about the previous 6 years which included two unfunded tax cuts, two unfunded wars and Medicare Part D?
And who was going along with all of that, without seeming to care about his grandchildren? Bunning.
March 5th, 2010 at 1:22 am
>> You CANNOT attribute market performance to a single variable, ever. So for WSJ to attribute everything bad to Obama…and then you to state the 70% since can also be attributed to Obama, makes no sense.
davewentzel, geez! Did you notice the *second* word in BR’s statement “Surely, if Obama was to blame…”?
March 5th, 2010 at 1:23 am
foxmuldar, how did you fit all that on your hand?
March 5th, 2010 at 1:26 am
Ah, davewentzel…sorry, I’m reading Barry’s edited work. Maybe the original was more difficult to parse.
March 5th, 2010 at 1:48 am
Barry,
I love the calendar idea.
March 5th, 2010 at 4:10 am
What’s with all of the “THIS:” happened stuff? At some point, you know (Saying this in the nicest way possible as not to offend our female readers) , you have to take the skirt off.
We’re all such great victims. Just stop being a victim and get on with it already.
“THIS” is the United States of America. We’ve done worse. The sun will rise tomorrow carried on Apollo’s golden chariot. The President of the United States will give a speech that makes most people fall asleep within 15 seconds.
McDonald’s will make french fries, with tasty salads of course!. People will hate taxes but still gamble like crazy. Summer will come back to the East coast. And we’ll find things to think and talk about other than health care.
Right now what you have is a magnifying glass absolutely searing the bejesus out of the small piece of paper it’s been left upon for way too long. Time to move on or watch the entire nonsense burst into flames.
March 5th, 2010 at 6:29 am
fox-news-nimrod-muldar Says:
“…Democrats controlled both houses the last two years of the Bush administration. Last time I looked, its the legislature that controls the spending. So all liberal whiners shut the fuck up and get your facts correct.
Oh good Lord , we got a live one again speaking as if the Republicans are the solution. Last I looked it was the Republicans control of both house of Congress since 1994 thru 2006 and the *simultaneous* control of the Presidency via George Bush-Wah that created the conditions ( not least of which the utter *failure* of the Bush admin’s so-called cops on the beat to enforce the regulations already on the books by that same GOP-controlled Congress ) that led to this Wall St. Apocalypse in the first place.
Add to that all of the same Fox news numbnuts commentators who endlessly carped on the *inherited* recession from Clinton/GOP C-controlled Congress that was eclipsed by 9/11. So the *failed* free-market ,anti-regulation and regulation *enforcement* conservatives can go stuff it and sod off. We’re left paying the bill for *their* mess.
Yes Fannie & Freddie’s policies contributed to this debacle , but then where was that same Republican-controlled Congress starting 1994 counter-acting the so-called liberal policies. I mean they had 12 frigging years
to investigate and then 8 of them to recommend and pass legislation for Frat-boy Georgie Bush-Wah to sign and then enforce any corrections and turning around any & all of Fannie & Freddie’s polices. So just where was this GOP-controlled Congress. Don’t tell they were taking money from the homebuilders’ lobby or the mortgage investment financial operators to keep the party going because Wall St. was making a killing and make the economy even more stellar than the so-called Reagan years.
Say it isn’t so , there Fox News Nimrod
March 5th, 2010 at 8:38 am
Barry,
I agree that it is clearly a ‘mug’s game’ to pin market performance to individual politicians, however, I believe that you must look at what was occurring at the time to understand a major thread of the editorial:
Obama and others in government had during the early months of 2009 targeted specific and vehement attacks on ‘bankers’ and ‘bonuses’. For the first time in my life (and I remember Ford), you had a president target a specific group of people and blame them for a both causing a disaster and profiting from it. Of course in the frenzy that followed Congress legislated to confiscate the bonuses and SEIU busses full of purple shirts were sent out to suburban Connecticut where individuals were threatened in a manner which at the time seemed, if it escalated, not unlike methods of a 20th century dictatorship.
People may feel that the attack on “bankers” (including those wholly innocent) was justified – however, the editorial is really highlighting a belief at the time that the attacks and partisanship from Obama were hurting sentiment and not solving the country’s problems – and that Obama was blaming others and not taking responsibility himself.
As an ex-hedge fund CFO thrown out of work in this crisis, it is particularly galling that the name calling has not stopped, while the business environment is paralyzed because of the singular focus on the windmill of healthcare reform at the expense of finalizing hedge fund regulation, taxation, and derivatives reform.
It is a good thing that most Americans have not travelled to Asia recently to see how far the area has progressed and how backward New York infrastructure. While we have our class wars and spin, they are moving forward, as the US did once when the words ‘progress’ and ‘production’ were used in political discourse.
March 5th, 2010 at 8:56 am
zyxwvuts Says:
” It is a good thing that most Americans have not travelled to Asia recently to see how far the area has progressed and how backward New York infrastructure….”
Well if by “Asia” you mean mostly China then do you also mean the Authoritarian *Big Central Gov’t* that not only comes with the *economic miracle* package , but *is* the package where the People’s Republic Army is as large a shareholder in so-called *private enterprises* as GoldSachsman Paulson made the U.S. gov’t on his bailout spending spree. I guess so long as a paranoid authoritarian not only make the trains run ion time , but provides *bulltet trains* so ling as that Faustian bargain includes *never* criticising that Big Gov’t nor the one party that rules like you can so freely here via the iNet then it’s all right.
” While we have our class wars and spin, they are moving forward, as the US did once when the words ‘progress’ and ‘production’ were used in political discourse. ”
Uhm , define what you mean by “class wars” ( Lou Dobbs has recast that convenient buzzword as “War *on* the Middle Class” ).
And while you’re at it do you define *political discourse* the way Beijing effectively disallows it with the police state enforcement to back it up ? I mean so long they have “progress” & “production” they you seem to favor more than basic “Bill of Rights” , like Freedom of Speech ,Assembly , Bare Arms, etc. which also defines our system?
Just seeking some apparently “inconvenient clarification”.
March 5th, 2010 at 8:56 am
@zyxwvuts
Maybe if we had been focused on progress and production all along, instead of colluding with Wall Street, we wouldn’t be where we are today.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Hi Taliesyn,
I refer primarily to Hong Kong and to a lesser extent Thailand & China (although other countries in the region have progressed as well). In Hong Kong you will find a vigorous pro-democracy movement which is allowed to protest freely, at least for the next 40 or so years. You correctly point out that this is not so in China.
As Americans, although we abhor the repression which occurs in autocratic states, we must acknowledge that there is a single minded determination in other parts of the world for ‘progress’ (measured in roads, bridges, infrastructure, increases in production). You rightly point out that these countries may be repressive, however, it would be very dangerous for us here in the USA to dismiss the material progress being made in these countries while our standard of living decreases, because the USA will need to compete with these countries for resources, jobs and ultimately military power to influence events.
As for ‘class war’, I find it interesting that more time in the USA is spent discussing how to take from one group and give to another than invest in the future in mundane ways such as roads, bridges, facilitating production and education. Look around you in NY, the infrastructure is falling apart and you cannot start a new business without going through miles of red tape!
The USA is being very short-sighted in terms of investment – this was not always so (just read political missives from the 1920s-1960s).
One example of class-war type legislation is the 2009 change in taxation of expatriate Americans (considered “rich”). By taxing expatriate American’s housing allowances the government has succeeded in having Americans in positions abroad be replaced by non-Americans rather rapidly. The result of this is not to increase tax revenue on the rich as originally thought, but to reduce the number of Americans receiving experience working abroad and passing on to others valuable foreign work experience.
March 5th, 2010 at 10:25 am
zyxwvuts Says:
” I refer primarily to Hong Kong and to a lesser extent Thailand & China (although other countries in the region have progressed as well). ….”
Which defacto means Communist China or did you think Hong Kong as somehow as separate a system as ,say , *Taiwan?*
“..As Americans, although we abhor the repression which occurs in autocratic states, we must acknowledge that there is a single minded determination in other parts of the world for ‘progress’ …”
1st of all no *spin* words please. *Authoritarian* regime works as *the* operative designation we should be able to agree upon right out of the gate.
2nd of all it’s a completely *false* argument to imply that by criticizing an *authoritarian regime* one is dismissing or denying the *material progress*. What I am calling attention to is calling into question the promotion of Asian economies as *progressive* that conveneiently always finds it hard to include in the faustian bargain of progress for its own sake under the Authoritarianism. It’s too close to bone of fundamentally saying
” You want progress , well Musollini made the trains run on time”. I assume you know where I’m going with this. Krupp was such ” an engine of prosperity” that , it as well as it’s host Germany, was being viewed as a miracle economy in the midst of a world depression. So much so Henry Ford himself , along with other industrialists and financiers ( on public record ) , went over there wanting to see if they could get in on “the miracle”.
Please know that this is nothing against you personally, but I am just *reality checking* with historical record the presentations of the issues you site in the way you present because I’ve heard & read all of this line of *free market uber alles* ideology before and I’m just not going to allow it to go unchallenged anymore.
And , Yes , I’m as made s hell and not going to take it anymore as much as you are , but for different reasons apparently. We just differ on identifying the causes.
Try reading Citizen Ritholtz’s book ” Bailout Nation”.
March 5th, 2010 at 10:41 am
Just as a follow-up here’s this before-market opening article from Bloomberg.com.
” Hong Kong’s Economy Overtaken by Shanghai in 2009 ”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a5kRCjqVUzIs&pos=5
So. parkj238 Says: , does this mean to you that mainland Authoritarian China’s economic hub Shanghai is the *economic miracle* because it has just *progressed * past Hong Kong’s model?
This is *not* an unfair question.
My job is done here.
March 5th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Hi Taliesyn,
I would like to point out that Hong Kong is run under a different system than mainland China, at least for another 40 or so years….it is centered on the Basic Law which is fundamentally different than the system on the mainland.
What I am saying is that Americans have to wake up from the matrix they are living in and realize that:
(1) spending on infrastructure is important and has been very badly neglected
(2) fighting over government handouts is not productive activity
(3) Asia is not just producing cheap toys anymore, high quality products are being made which will compete with ours and that of our children
(4) if we are to be successful competitors we must make it easier for business to thrive, have government be supportive in creating proper infrastructure and education
This is the case whatever political system our competitors have…..we should not be complacent.
The conceit of saying that other countries’ political systems should match ours or that we are better because of our political system will not lead to progress here but will only justify our failure. We should push other countries to have more open political systems but can only do so from a position of economic strength.
March 5th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
the Obama Rally is one of the greatest stock market rallys of all time!
March 5th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
zyxwvuts Says:
“What I am saying is that Americans have to wake up from the matrix they are living in and realize that:…
I wholeheartedly agree with *all* of your points except 4) “..we must make it easier for business to thrive …”
You are as specific as any politician blathering generalities without saying what precise solutions they support.
Now for the past 3 decades starting with the so-called Reagan Revolution ” making it easier for business to thrive
*always* meant cut corporate taxes when we already know we live in a corporate *welfare* state and *cut regulations* which we’ve all seen what happens when you A) Take the marketplace cops *off* the beat ( cut enforcement agency staff and allocations to do their respective jobs ) B) Tell the Wall St./Fannie& Freiddie/Investment Banking cops to go back to sleep or have another donut and we’ll ( Wall St. ) pick up the tab C) Get rid of regulatory legislation altogether to protect sacred corporate cows ( elimination of *Glass-Steagal* fr’instnace.
As far as “…have government be supportive in creating proper infrastructure and education…” , well if you’re all for cutting taxes , while fighting a totally wasteful 2 front war , absolutely *none* of this can be paid for except with *made-up* fiat funny money which drives the national debt up even higher. Sound familiar?
Other than that I’m all for not being complacent even since the Tiananmen Square massacre of which I v-taped off *live Feed* because this was before Beijing began its very effective control of *all* domestic information in no small part thanks to the likes of MSFT , Cysco , Yahoo , and Google…. that is until Google shouted out like they had a pair.
“..The conceit of saying that other countries’ political systems should match ours or that we are better because of our political system will not lead to progress here but will only justify our failure…”
OK, this sounds too much like the standard boiler plate Bush-Wah of the likes of Jimmy Rogers and Mark Moebius ( who BTW renounced his American citizenship in order to continue to do international business. Forbes magazine ).
Whether you are aware of this or not you’re advocating of this *Progress Uber Alles* line in reality justifies all government actions so long as it produces *progress* & ROI.
For my part I am incensed that the corporate welfare nanny state so favored the commercial/military aviation industry that here we are 10 years into the 21st century and *no* bullet train. This is no *We were promised flying cars* rant , but a serious agreement that Americahas thoroughly *falied* ,*Epically failed* , in bringing our infrastructure into the 21st century , but N.Y. has wasted so much of it’s taxes ( God knows who can account for the post-9/11 mega-billions allocated went ) on other crap that it is in the crumbling state it’s in.
Why do you think I bailed on it after the 2nd market crash at the end of the *Decade of Greed*.
Well it’s time for me to get ready to go out and do some Friday night R & R in northern Virginia.
As they say to one another in “Bladerunner” , “Have a better one ” ;-)
Another great quote form that landmark film : ” You know the score. If you’re not cop you’re little people”
Had to get that in.
Carry on.
March 6th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Facts and figgers are often the last refuge of a scondrel. Or more to the point, a cover for beliefs, hopes, and fears, the things that really make man what he is. There quite literally is not a single writer who isn’t using facts to grind his ax….not because objectivity is hard….(its impossible) but because any other kind of writing isn’t of interest to human readers…..