Category Archives: Economy

UPDATED: Romney’s Debate Strategy: Try To Throw Obama Off-Scent (What Was Obama Doing? Winning)

Democrats, Economy, Elections, Foreign Policy, Republicans

Barack Obama has made a strong start to the final presidential debate at Boca Raton, Fla., and is already winning this foreign-policy debate. Where the one man’s policies start and the other man’s policies end is anyone’s guess. What we do know so far is that both Romney and Obama care a lot about women and democracy … all over the world. I don’t.

Romney is being smart in as much as he is throwing Obama off-scent and directing the debate away from foreign policy to the economy. Romney’s foreign policy, after all, offers nothing new.

Later.

UPDATE: FROM MY DEBATE NOTEPAD (transcripts are here):

What was Obama doing? Winning.

Romney took the place Barack Obama had occupied 2 weeks back: that of loser.

While Obama stutters each time he attempts to conceptualize about economic issues, Romney does a similar thing when trying to differentiate himself from the president on foreign policy.

The degree of convergence between the candidates? Romney, like Obama, loves drone action, loves nation building across the globe, bitch slapping China, helping da Afghan women, making foreign aid conditional (rather than eliminating it); approves of state-assistance following bankruptcy procedures and state investment in R & D.

Obama had a nice line (upon which I’ve riffed a bit): “No reason why Americans should die, if Afghans can do their own dying.” Romney was, obviously, a little reluctant. If Americans are not dying in defense of borders not their own—someone must be leading from behind. (All presidents should, in my opinion, lead from behind, unless they are taking the lead on how not to lead very much at all.)

Oh, and with heels, Michelle Obama is as tall as Mitt Romney. On the sartorial front: Mrs. Obama wore a cute dress; so did Ann Romney. (I’m glad Ann took off the red garments. While I love a deep burgundy, red is such an ugly color that it colors everyone who wears it ugly.)

O’s Argument From Inflation

Barack Obama, Economy, Energy, Federal Reserve Bank, Inflation

“Game. Set. Match, Mitt Romney,” last night, did not mean that the arguments made during the second presidential debate were not both tedious and hopeless for liberty lovers.

I did perk my ears, though, when Barack Obama made an argument from inflation. Mitt Romney failed or was prohibited from following-up (although I’m not suggesting that he had the philosophical wherewithal with which to respond).

Obama suggested that an earlier drop in gas prices was due to America’s economic straits (partially correct), and was thus a bad thing (completely incorrect):

CROWLEY: Mr. President, could you address, because we did finally get to gas prices here, could you address what the governor said, which is if your energy policy was working, the price of gasoline would not be $4 a gallon here. Is that true?
OBAMA: Well, think about what the governor — think about what the governor just said. He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney’s now promoting.

In Austrian economics, deflation, “a sustained decrease of the price level,” is a good and natural market response.

Writes Doug French “In Defense of Deflation”:

Lower prices increase demand; they do not reduce or delay it. That’s why more and more people own flat-screen TVs, cellular telephones, and laptop computers: the prices of these goods have fallen, and people with lower incomes can afford them. And there are more low-income people than high-income people.
Lower prices don’t mean lower profits; nor do they mean that employees will be laid off. More demand for a good or service means more employees needed to produce those goods and services. “There is no reason why inflation should ever reduce rather than increase unemployment”
“Deflation is one of the great scarecrows of present day economic policy and monetary policy in particular”…

And here’s Guido Hülsmann on “The Economics of Deflation”:

Andy Sullivan: Struggling to Stay Relevant

Barack Obama, Democrats, Economy, Foreign Policy, Healthcare, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Pseudo-intellectualism, War

Like the late Christopher Hitchens, Andrew Sullivan lacks a philosophical core. Unlike Hitchens, Sullivan is not a formidable intellect, rhetorician and writer. Hitchens didn’t have to struggle to stay interesting. Sullivan does. The fruits of Sullivan’s Struggle are splayed on the latest cover of Newsweek, provocatively titled, “President Obama: The Democrats’ Ronald Reagan.”

Like any liberal who doesn’t have to worry about a pay cheque, crunchy con Sullivan is still convinced that Barack Obama can “hold his staff out” over stormy waters, and divide the sea so that the people may pass through “with a wall of water on either side.”

Obama’s “tally of achievements is formidable,” declares Sullivan, who then proceeds to praise every thing BHO has done to cripple the American economy (including extending or entrenching US hegemony abroad):

…the near-obliteration of al Qaeda, democratic revolutions in the Arab world that George Bush could only have dreamed of, the re-regulation of Wall Street after the 2008 crash, stimulus investments in infrastructure and clean energy, powerful new fuel-emission standards along with a record level of independence from foreign oil, and, most critically, health-care reform. Now look at what Obama’s second term could do for all of these achievements. It would mean, first of all, that universal health care in America—government subsidies to people so they can afford to purchase private insurance and a ban on denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions—becomes irreversible. Yes, many details of the law would benefit from reform, experimentation, and fixes—especially if Republicans help to make them. But it’s still the biggest change in American health care since the passage of Medicare in 1965.

Sullivan’s piece tells you about the degree to which neocon and left-liberal political “thinking” have converged.

On war too.

Crunchy con Sullivan’s anti-war followers should not forget what was documented in “Confess, Clinton; Say You’re Sorry, Sullivan“:

Senator Hillary Clinton and neoconservative blogger Andrew Sullivan share more than a belief that “Jesus, Mohamed, and Socrates are part of the same search for truth.” They’re both Christians who won’t confess to their sins.
Both were enthusiastic supporters of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, turned scathing and sanctimonious critics of the war. Neither has quite come clean. Both ought to prostrate themselves before those they’ve bamboozled, those they’ve helped indirectly kill, and whichever deity they worship. (The Jesus-Mohamed-and-Socrates profanity, incidentally, was imparted by Sullivan, during a remarkably rude interview he gave Hugh Hewitt. The gay activist-cum-philosopher king was insolent; Hewitt took it .)
I won’t bore you with the hackneyed war hoaxes Sullivan once spewed, only to say that there was not an occurrence he didn’t trace back to Iraq: anthrax, September 11, and too few gays in the military—you name it; Iraq was behind it. Without minimizing the role of politicians like Clinton, who signed the marching orders, pundits like Sullivan provided the intellectual edifice for the war, also inspiring impressionable young men and women to sacrifice their lives and limbs to the insatiable Iraq Moloch.

UPDATE II: A Statistic That Tells A Lot About America’s Youth (Deifying Kids)

Economy, Education, Etiquette, Family, Labor, Technology

I’ve said it often: “The millennial generation will be another nail in the coffin of flailing American productivity.”

Via the senior producer at Varney & Co (Jake Novak) comes this startling statistic: “70 percent of all the jobs filled since Jan. 2010 have been filled by people 55 and older.”

Imparted in “Your Kids: Dumb, Difficult And Dispensable,” what I’ve gleaned from my sources in the high-tech industry, by way of an example, is that this “workforce—comprised as it is of local and outsourced talent—is manned, generally, by older people with advanced engineering degrees. The hi-tech endeavor is all about (older) Americans and Asians uniting to supply young, twittering twits with the playthings that keep their brainwaves from flatlining.”

UPDATE I (9/27): Deifying Kids. Excellent point is made by Tim Malone, on the Facebook thread. How often does one meet upstanding middle-aged parents, and in waltzes The Kid, who bears no resemblance to the parents in terms of manners, work ethic, alertness, etc. Malone makes the best point ever, and that what must be implicated is liberal (and I include most conservatives here, other than hardcore homeschoolers) progressive, child-centered upbringing, in which the parent cowers before the deity, The Child. Moreover, I so often see hardworking parents who seem to think that making the child learn what they do (be it bird-keeping or working on car engines) is below the miserable child’s dignity. Why do you think “your teenager can’t use a hammer”?

UPDATE II: Thanks to his old-school dad, who insisted that he hang out in the garage, doing every single thing the old man did there—from fine wood-work to fixing plumbing and installing window frames—my old man does everything in the house. Saves tons of money; is done to perfection, but it does mean that renovations take years. So what? Check out “the shower that Sean built,” his first tiling job ever: