Here’s a letter sent yesterday to the New York Times:
Paul Krugman is correct: the McCain campaign’s fabrications and
half-truths say much about what a McCain administration would do
("Blizzard of Lies," Sept. 12). But an Obama administration is
unlikely to be any better. Sen. Obama eloquently proclaims
platitudes. He gallivants around the country to perform for adoring
crowds – masses of people stirred by his mere presence and cheering his
empty bromides. Because it’s true, as Mr. Krugman notes, that "how a
politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern,"
a President Obama would be chiefly a messianic cult leader, promising
miracle cures and salvation-by-the-speech – and daily coming more and
more to mistake his own charisma for character, and his own rhetoric
for reality.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 23 comments }
Incentives count.
There are no incentives in the public election system to be specific and accountable. Much like advertising campaigns candidates are forced to create generic messages that synch with cultural expectations in an audience that will largely ignore whatever is said or done, but for major screw ups or the occasional home run comment.
The election is not held on tax day. Voting is voluntary, synchronous, and mass in scale. And the only real way to get information to voters is through mass media methods that rely on impact rather than substance.
Why does anyone expect anything different?
Miracle of miracles! Krugman is correct about something in an editorial!!!!
I don't know but at worst I'm still convinced this imperfect system of little choice still provides with at least a lesser of
two evils.
http://www.forbes.com/home/commerce/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720presidents.html
At some point, the lesser of two evils is too evil.
Martin a difference of 1% in the employment rate may not seem like much but with some 150 million workers the difference is a big deal to as many as 1.5 million families.
Democratic policies are consistently better at reducing unemployment.
And likewise for income data as shown in the Saez study when incomes rose 90% per capita for the post FDR era versus 64% per capita for the post Nixon/Reagan era and was arguably much better distributed. THAT's huge!
It's why in the 50's a single working dad could support his family, own a home, pay for his kids college and retire on a decent pension while currently those goals are much less attainable and requiring 2 working parents to even come close to such goals.
Somebody please invent ASAP a time machine and send muirgeo back to the 50's. It would definitively represent a Pareto improving reallocation.
@Badger
And he can be drafted into the Korean War, getting a first hand experience on what it feels like living under historically low unemployment rates.
muirgo, those types of studies are about an unconvincing as the numbers that dramatically show that Republican presidents are better for equal pay for women. There are larger factors involved.
The worst comment in the campaign I've seen comes from Sen. Obama, where he implied that support for free trade is unpatriotic:
"So, when American workers hear John McCain talking about putting 'Country First,'" Obama said, "it’s fair to ask –- which country?"
Friday afternoon Larry Elder was having great fun with a tape of a Matt Damon interview in which the illustrious actor said, in reference to Sarah Palin, something like "Do we really want someone who thinks dinosaurs lived on Earth 4000 yrs ago to have access to the nuclear codes?" My respone was "Do we really want someone who proposed a windfall profits tax on oil companies as a solution to the gas price "crisis" to have access to the same?" I think you'd actually be better off using the Bible as a biology text than using the Democratic platform as an economics text.
David,
You need to clarify who you are talking about with regards to windfall profit taxes on oil companies. Obama has made such a proposal while Palin actually passed such a proposal in Alaska and divvied up the tax money collected from the oil companies for each citizen to receive ~$1200 dollars from the tax.
muirgeo,
I see no basis for accepting the numbers in your first link as valid. There needs to be a scientific reason for why we should expect a lag time of zero and why we don't believe other events or conditions would have an effect on economic parameters.
Don Boudreaux said:
"President Obama would be chiefly a messianic cult leader, promising miracle cures and salvation-by-the-speech"
What a complete and utter idiot you are. Such simplistic, jingoistic bullshit is why America is one of its worst moments in history.
May you own lots of "free-market" Lehman Brothers shares.
RN,
I have seen the term jingoism but was not sure what it meant so I looked it up. Perhaps you should do the same and then explain how it has any relevance to anything Don said. At least I had the good sense to look it up before using it in a sentence.
Is your last sentence about Lehman Brothers some kind of a curse? Would we be better off if we owned "nationalized" Lehman Brothers or "hyper regulated" Lehman Brothers? Should failure be impossible? What is your point? Is it that Obama will save us? It seems you have reinforced Don's point.
So what? Your chart suggests nothing about the likelihood of unemployment under the next President, and McCain wants a higher unemployment rate more than Obama. I'm a lot more concerned about the expanding warfare state spreading to Pakistan, the Sudan, Georgia and God knows where else, not to mention the looming fiscal crisis as the payroll tax surplus collapses while the cost of the Medicare program explodes even more than it would have without the incredible prescription drug benefit. I couldn't care less which candidate cries most convincingly over the unemployment rate.
McCain wants a higher unemployment rate no more than Obama.
Maybe that's a Freudian slip, but I'm thoroughly disillusioned by the Obama message and won't be supporting him, not that it matters. None Of The Above is my candidate, and I'm an enthusiastic supporter.
The writer seems to suggest that he would trust Obama more if he were less popular and the crowds he drew less adoring.
That's an odd metric.
America needs a leader that can promote the idea that we all share some common interests. There will always be competing interests among us that are not easily resolved, but we need to get away from the constant culture wars and anti-intellectualism that have become the hallmarks of Republican rule.
I would hope any American president would be charismatic and capable of drawing large, adoring crowds. Those aspects aren't a necessity, but they are one way to be effective and, certainly, nothing to be ashamed or afraid of.
…but we need to get away from the constant culture wars and anti-intellectualism that have become the hallmarks of Republican rule.
As opposed to the culture wars and pseudo-intellectualism of the Democrats.
muirgeo,
I see no basis for accepting the numbers in your first link as valid. There needs to be a scientific reason for why we should expect a lag time of zero and why we don't believe other events or conditions would have an effect on economic parameters.
Posted by: DKH
Analysis by Larry Bartels in his book Unequal Democracy shows the following:
From 1948 to 2005 with a lag of one year to account for policiy implementation;
Dem President Repub President
unemployment 5.63% 6.26%
Inflation 3.97% 3.76%
Real GNP 2.78% 1.64%
growth
DKH,
Obviously other factors are involved but the consistent difference in Republican and Democratic economic outcomes is the difference between Supply side and Demand side economics.
Republican policies tend to focus on inflation and concentration of wealth at the top while Democratic policies stress low unemployment with less concern for inflation. The low unemployment creates increased wages, more money flowing through the middle class and a better overall economy as expressed in real GDP.
The data is pretty impressive in spite of the many confounding factors.
muirgeo,
Your chart shows an impressive decline in unemployment during the Clinton years. Certainly something to be proud of. So, if that's the case, why don't any other Democrats support the economic policies of the Bill Clinton presidency? (hint: free trade, work for welfare, low cap gains taxes)
One more on presidents and the economy.
NYT Alan Blinder8/31/2008
Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.
That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.
Alan Blinder
Maybe that's a Freudian slip, but I'm thoroughly disillusioned by the Obama message and won't be supporting him, not that it matters. None Of The Above is my candidate, and I'm an enthusiastic supporter. – Martin
Indeed. I wonder if the Comedy channel will rerun South Park's "Douche vs. Turd" episode again before the election.
Krugman's "fabrications and half-truths" tell us little about anything in general, and McCain in particular.