Paul Jacob at Common Sense has the line of the day:
Modern
Democratic Party economic policy is like the underwear — it quickly
creeps into uncomfortable places. Republican economic policy resembles
the Democrats’, but also the footwear. Take John McCain’s economic
policy: "flip flop, flip flop."
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 8 comments }
Good way to phrase it. Not much of a choice. Out of both groups, let's hope McCain's flip or flop will land more on the liberty side. (Obama goes barefoot – he doesn't have a liberty side at all).
It was Keynes you remember who said famously dismissed those who found fault with his evolving perspectives. Or as Emerson so eloquently put it:
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind."
But a foolish inconsistency is just as bad, or perhaps even worse.
At least when they are consistent you know what you are voting for. When they change their mind every week, you have to figure they will do whatever is expedient, not what is right or difficult.
A foolish consistency or a foolish inconsistency is foolish. My point, and Keynes's too I think, is of course that learning often depends on a willingness to admit error; it is foolish to cling, for example, to a theory when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Your point might be that it is foolish to gratuitously reject a standard paradigm that has been validated by observations again and again. I have no idea which kind of folly is worse.
If McCain, for example, were to change his perspective on drilling in ANWAR, this would be wise don't you think?
Did someone say “Dependence on Foreign Oil”?
This myth basically suggests that the problem with oil prices is due to America's "dependence" on foreign oil. One of the worst economic myths, it plays on economic nationalism and on xenophobic feelings that are sometimes pervasive in the United States.
The high price of oil has nothing to do with its origin; the price of oil is determined in international markets.
Even if the United States were to produce 100% of the oil it consumes, the price would be the same if the worldwide supply and demand of oil were to remain the same.
Oil is a commodity, so the price of a barrel produced in the United States is basically the same as the price of a barrel of oil produced in any other country, but the costs of labor, land, and regulatory compliance are usually higher in the United States than in third-world countries.
Lowering these costs would help increase supply. Increasing supply, whether in the United States or elsewhere, will push prices lower.
Importing a product does not mean you "depend" on it.
Let me say that again – IMPORTING A PRODUCT DOES NOT MEAN YOU "DEPEND" ON IT.
This is like saying that when we "import" food from our local supermarket we "depend" on that supermarket. The opposite is usually true; exporters depend on us, since we are the customers.
Also, importing a product usually means buying at lower prices, whereas producing in the United States often means consuming at higher prices. This point is proven when we see the cheap imports we can purchase from China and the higher prices of many of these same products manufactured in the United States.
The amazing thing is that the protectionists claim, on the one hand, that America should be "protected" from cheap imports, but when it comes to oil, they say we should be "protected" from "expensive imported" oil.
Most, if not all, of the higher price of oil can be explained by the expansion of the money supply or the debasement of the dollar. The foreign producers are not at fault; our national central bank is the culprit.
John,
No one said it; nor implied it. You get no disagreement from me on what you said. Still the argument for drilling in ANWAR need not stem from a irrational fear of dependence on foreign oil. There is an NBER paper (#13211) on it by Kotchen and Burger that makes an economic case for drilling there.
"At least when they are consistent you know what you are voting for. When they change their mind every week, you have to figure they will do whatever is expedient, not what is right or difficult.
Posted by: Hammer | Sep 11, 2008 2:50:31 PM"
Wouldn't a cosistent politician be an inconsistency?
Anyway, my long observation is that there is no such thing as a consistent politician. No way, no how.
Politics requires a politician to take different positions on different days as a matter of survival, anticipating that they will keep their word is the worst sort of self deception.
Honorable men would not chift positions for political expediency but honorable politicians may be a myth at best.