The great aim of education is not knowledge but action.
Herbert Spencer
Political Quote of the Day:
Mitt Romney finally finds his message
"I learned as the Governor of Massachusetts that the best achievements are shared achievements, that respect and goodwill go a long way and are usually returned in kind. That's how I will conduct myself as president," he said.
"I'll reach out to people on both sides of the aisle… do big things for the common good. I won't just represent one party, I'll represent one nation. I'll try to show the best of America when only the best will do."
Quietly, as if he couldn't quite believe it, he told the crowd that the president had "asked his supporters to vote for revenge". He paused without melodrama. "For revenge."
"Instead, I ask the American people to vote for love of country," he said.God Damn Harry Reid
If I was running the RNC, I would would run an ad featuring the dysfunctional leader of the do-nothing Senate. As per the Daily Caller:
Today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pledged to stonewall any attempt by Mitt Romney to pass his agenda if elected. “Mitt Romney’s fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his ‘severely conservative’ agenda is laughable,” spat Reid.The hypocritical Senate Democrats will try to say that the GOP has done the same, but the fact is that the GOP could not stop political hardball. Obama and Reid refused to compromise with the GOP on the stimulus, ObamaCare, and Dodd N. Frankenstein (I don't think al Qaeda could have designed worst pieces of legislation if they wanted to sabotage the American economy--23 million Americans unable to find full-time work, Food Stamp nation, doubled publicly held debt, etc.}
McConnell's widely quoted vow, to make defeating Obama his first priority , was after Obama and Reid repeatedly bypassed working with the Senate Republicans; this was after Obama was elected specifically running, promising to change partisan gridlock. in this case, Romney isn't even in office. Let's be clear: there's a big difference between halting an unaffordable activist agenda and halting reform, fiscal responsibility, and economic growth. if Romney wins, he will have a mandate. If the Dems hold the Senate after the election, chances are it will be by a smaller margin, and multiple vulnerable incumbents will be up in 2014. I suspect McConnell will be able to pull together a working majority.
Let me say I'm not happy with the incompetent partisan Reid trying to demonize the Tea Party. I'm about as Tea Party as it gets although I'm more pragmatic. I have written a one-off post on why I'm supporting Romney. I have repeatedly criticized Romney on China, foreign policy, individual liberty, etc. He pays lip service to progressitivity of the tax system. Reid is using Tea Party as a pejorative term to include even modest deferred reforms on Medicare most of us consider too little, too late.
 |
| Courtesy Common Cents blog |
 |
| Courtesy of Common Cents blog |
I have been a steadfast supporter of Christie, whom at times I've called my favorite governor. but scapegoating voluntary economic transactions may make for good populist politics, but it's lousy economics and public policy. I discussed the topic at the end of yesterday's follow-up segment. Nobody likes to pay high prices, but it's the law of supply and demand, but usually supply disruptions are temporary and high prices attract suppliers.
It reminds me of a prior oil squeeze after I started my IT career. The cheapest gas in my neighborhood was at a huge corner Exxon station maybe 5-10 cents a gallon cheaper; lines stretched into the streets. I remember one day seeing deserted pumps outside a 7/11--not as cheap as Exxon. If you believe time is money, you might be willing to bid up prices to get early fulfillment.
Follow-Up Odds and Ends
- miscellany:10/30/12: A Libertarian Critique: Obama/Romney the Same? Russ Roberts seemed stung by criticisms of his post, including his mom, whom seems to think--rightly so--that the original post was one-sided and focused more on rhetoric/policies than performance/record. (Roberts only paraphrases his mom's communication so this is my inference from context.)
I can't generalize about economists; I only encountered a few few in academia (as a student); I've emailed at least 3 I've cited--two of whom were openly dismissive of political bloggers--somewhat evasive, defensive or curt, if they didn't simply ignore me. In my limited experience they can come across as arrogant, condescending and dismissive of each other, not to mention others outside the profession.
To be honest, the same criticism applies to additional disciplines or academics. In my field there is a famous paper about the dimensionality of the concept of information. This study yielded some convoluted, unintuitive factors and I was working on a related but different measure for my dissertation. The scholar's dismissive reply consisted a markup of my letter. I later did a follow-up replication study presented at a national conference which showed his factor structure didn't hold on my own study data. When I delivered the paper--most of these are lightly attended--I found a full house--except for the original author whom I had seen in passing at other conferences. They loved my paper and knowingly laughed when I mentioned the scholar's scribbled excuses
Of course, the bloggers in question probably get several times more pageviews and dozens of unsolicited emails daily--I remember spending time in a conservative forum in spring 2008, McCain was very unpopular there and I found myself fending off wolf pack attacks. Years earlier I was in a low-carb forum and found myself similarly attacked by fundamentalist Atkins dieters. I could have spent all my time doing nothing but answering my critics, most of whom were more interested in flaming me than dealing with issues. (It's one reason I don't welcome blog comments; I don't want to get distracted from researching my next post.)
There's a weird thing about fellow libertarians/classic economics liberals. They seem more interested in condemning heretics than in combating real collectivist liberals/economic fascists like Barack Obama. For example, libertarians went after Rand Paul for endorsing Romney after clinching the nomination, a pragmatic decision. I personally don't respect anyone who puts Romney and Obama in the same category. It's intellectually lazy and dishonest.
So Roberts decided to write a follow-up post : Does Obama deserve a second term? No. And he's spot on:
Elsewhere Roberts implies Romney was a Wall Street financier--in reality, Bain was a management consulting company (an offshoot of BSG: every MBA student knows the BCG matrix (stars, dogs, cash cows, etc.)) Bain Capital did/does more than simply invest: it trains management in its methodology, in a variation of eating its own dog food, or as others might say, putting their money where their mouth is.
Roberts, in trying to compare Romney to Bush, buys into Obama's talking point that Romney is another Bush, whom he is still trying to scapegoat after all these years. Gov. Perry, Bush's successor in Texas, has been quite vocal that Bush was never a fiscal hawk. Bush almost never vetoed anything in Washington. Romney frequently vetoed things in Massachusetts.
And I think the China trade war rhetoric is overdone: it looks like Romney is angling on a WTO complaint of currency manipulation--one that is in doubt because exports to China and the currency have significantly appreciated since 2005.
As for casting doubt about Romney's ability to pass things like spending cuts, unlike Obama, Romney has every incentive to deliver by 2016, Romney is not a passive leader like Obama, and Romney has learned to negotiate in business and government.
I also pointed out that the 5-point Romney plan (during the debates) Roberts commented on was a distilled version of his original 59-point plan which has been available for several months; Romney at last glance had the support of nearly 700 economists, including Carpe Diem's Mark Perry (not in the blog itself). Roberts also fails to note that Obama's own plan was conveniently introduced late in the campaign, amounts to little more than more of the same, and Obama's campaign to date has not been based on his record (the stimulus, ObamaCare, Dodd N. Frankenstein, being underwater on GM stock at the expense of the American taxpayer, the highest unemployment since FDR, the first credit downgrade in US history, etc.) but on smearing Romney and making the GOP a whipping boy.
I find it curious that Roberts never comments on Obama's iconic justification of Big Government: "we can't afford to do nothing", or his disingenuous condemnations of Bush as an ideological deregulator and promoter of laissez faire economics. This is as phony as historians whom, in a complete departure from reality, argue that Hoover was a laissez-faire President. (In fact, just like Obama Hoover was a labor protectionist, ran up deficits, wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy, did public works projects, and considered himself a progressive.)
Guest Editorial: Bill Whittle: Thumbs UP!
Look, I understand that you are turned off by ubiquitous political ads, unrealistic promises, pandering, etc. Just like one of my nephews wrote back in 2008, I can't stop you from voting from you choice--even if you choose to vote for Doink the Clown (anyone planning to write me in--as if you could remember to spell my surname--please vote for Romney). If my nieces and nephews vote to reelect the Deadbeat-in-Chief, they'll pay for it one way or the other--higher taxes and/or inflation.
My argument is different than Whittle's. I have strong political views but I'm a realist. I look at professional executive experience, a good problem solver, a more proactive, inclusive decision making style, someone with a thorough, practical understanding of business and the economy. I do not underestimate the difficulty of passing legislation through a polarized Congress; an ideologue like Ron Paul rarely passed libertarian measures. Romney found ways of working with an opposition legislature
There's a saying in basketball: you can't teach height. Obama is not teachable. After the 1994 election, Clinton found a way to work with the GOP. The fact is the next House will be Republican; What has Obama accomplished over this session of Congress;what do you expect from the next session if Obama is reelected unaccountable to the public?
To be honest, the same criticism applies to additional disciplines or academics. In my field there is a famous paper about the dimensionality of the concept of information. This study yielded some convoluted, unintuitive factors and I was working on a related but different measure for my dissertation. The scholar's dismissive reply consisted a markup of my letter. I later did a follow-up replication study presented at a national conference which showed his factor structure didn't hold on my own study data. When I delivered the paper--most of these are lightly attended--I found a full house--except for the original author whom I had seen in passing at other conferences. They loved my paper and knowingly laughed when I mentioned the scholar's scribbled excuses
Of course, the bloggers in question probably get several times more pageviews and dozens of unsolicited emails daily--I remember spending time in a conservative forum in spring 2008, McCain was very unpopular there and I found myself fending off wolf pack attacks. Years earlier I was in a low-carb forum and found myself similarly attacked by fundamentalist Atkins dieters. I could have spent all my time doing nothing but answering my critics, most of whom were more interested in flaming me than dealing with issues. (It's one reason I don't welcome blog comments; I don't want to get distracted from researching my next post.)
There's a weird thing about fellow libertarians/classic economics liberals. They seem more interested in condemning heretics than in combating real collectivist liberals/economic fascists like Barack Obama. For example, libertarians went after Rand Paul for endorsing Romney after clinching the nomination, a pragmatic decision. I personally don't respect anyone who puts Romney and Obama in the same category. It's intellectually lazy and dishonest.
So Roberts decided to write a follow-up post : Does Obama deserve a second term? No. And he's spot on:
He’s not the first President to inherit a mess. See Reagan, Ronald. Or Roosevelt, Franklin D. Obama made the inexcusable decision to reform health care in the middle of that mess, despite its unpopularity with the American people. He signed a reform that years later is still not finished–the regulations are still being written. He has shown no leadership in dealing with either short-term or long-term fiscal problems of the United States other than to persistently insist on raising taxes on the rich. Raising taxes on the rich is not a horrible idea. It may be a good idea. But Obama has pursued this policy more as a moral crusade than as a fiscal imperative. (If it were a fiscal imperative he’d argue for raising taxes on everyone.) Unfortunately, his policies toward the financial sector have made it easier for some of the 1% to make even more money. As a moral issue, we should stop those policies instead of taxing all successful people.During his time in office, the Federal government has consistently spent a trillion dollar more than it takes in. This does not appear to have improved the path to lower unemployment. It may have made it worse. The best thing I can say about the President is that he has been remarkably unimaginative and passive over the last two years.But just in case you think he forgot about Romney:
And of course you might equally discount the “good” part of Romney’s economic plan–pledging to cut the deficit, for example, by cutting spending. Or reforming taxes to lower rates with fewer exemptions. Those too may just be talk. Who knows? Romney’s not a free-market guy by his nature. But will Romney be better? Not if he is serious about [inciting a trade war with China]. Maybe not if he cuts tax rates but can’t reform those exemptions and deductions in the middle of a trillion dollar deficit while leaving spending untouched.Oddly enough, Roberts ignores the early success of the GOP to balance the budget in the late 90's for the first time in decades under the Dems, the GOP demanded a spending cut deal in agreeing to raise the debt ceiling last year, and Romney has a track record of cutting taxes and spending in the blue state of Massachusetts. He also has a memory loss that Romney opposed the China tire tariff decision, he has talked about new South American trade deals and was a principled opponent to Obama's corrupt auto bankruptcy deals. He also opposed how TARP was transformed into a kind of slush fund
Elsewhere Roberts implies Romney was a Wall Street financier--in reality, Bain was a management consulting company (an offshoot of BSG: every MBA student knows the BCG matrix (stars, dogs, cash cows, etc.)) Bain Capital did/does more than simply invest: it trains management in its methodology, in a variation of eating its own dog food, or as others might say, putting their money where their mouth is.
Roberts, in trying to compare Romney to Bush, buys into Obama's talking point that Romney is another Bush, whom he is still trying to scapegoat after all these years. Gov. Perry, Bush's successor in Texas, has been quite vocal that Bush was never a fiscal hawk. Bush almost never vetoed anything in Washington. Romney frequently vetoed things in Massachusetts.
And I think the China trade war rhetoric is overdone: it looks like Romney is angling on a WTO complaint of currency manipulation--one that is in doubt because exports to China and the currency have significantly appreciated since 2005.
As for casting doubt about Romney's ability to pass things like spending cuts, unlike Obama, Romney has every incentive to deliver by 2016, Romney is not a passive leader like Obama, and Romney has learned to negotiate in business and government.
I also pointed out that the 5-point Romney plan (during the debates) Roberts commented on was a distilled version of his original 59-point plan which has been available for several months; Romney at last glance had the support of nearly 700 economists, including Carpe Diem's Mark Perry (not in the blog itself). Roberts also fails to note that Obama's own plan was conveniently introduced late in the campaign, amounts to little more than more of the same, and Obama's campaign to date has not been based on his record (the stimulus, ObamaCare, Dodd N. Frankenstein, being underwater on GM stock at the expense of the American taxpayer, the highest unemployment since FDR, the first credit downgrade in US history, etc.) but on smearing Romney and making the GOP a whipping boy.
I find it curious that Roberts never comments on Obama's iconic justification of Big Government: "we can't afford to do nothing", or his disingenuous condemnations of Bush as an ideological deregulator and promoter of laissez faire economics. This is as phony as historians whom, in a complete departure from reality, argue that Hoover was a laissez-faire President. (In fact, just like Obama Hoover was a labor protectionist, ran up deficits, wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy, did public works projects, and considered himself a progressive.)
Guest Editorial: Bill Whittle: Thumbs UP!
Look, I understand that you are turned off by ubiquitous political ads, unrealistic promises, pandering, etc. Just like one of my nephews wrote back in 2008, I can't stop you from voting from you choice--even if you choose to vote for Doink the Clown (anyone planning to write me in--as if you could remember to spell my surname--please vote for Romney). If my nieces and nephews vote to reelect the Deadbeat-in-Chief, they'll pay for it one way or the other--higher taxes and/or inflation.
My argument is different than Whittle's. I have strong political views but I'm a realist. I look at professional executive experience, a good problem solver, a more proactive, inclusive decision making style, someone with a thorough, practical understanding of business and the economy. I do not underestimate the difficulty of passing legislation through a polarized Congress; an ideologue like Ron Paul rarely passed libertarian measures. Romney found ways of working with an opposition legislature
There's a saying in basketball: you can't teach height. Obama is not teachable. After the 1994 election, Clinton found a way to work with the GOP. The fact is the next House will be Republican; What has Obama accomplished over this session of Congress;what do you expect from the next session if Obama is reelected unaccountable to the public?
Your Vote (Don't Throw It All Away)
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Carpenters, "Superstar". If American Idol contestants cover a Carpenters' hit, it's this classic. There have been a number of songs reflective reflective of singers or performers--e.g., Bread's "Guitar Man", Garfunkel's "All I Know", KISS' "Beth", Journey's "Faithfully", etc., but 20-year-old Karen set the mold. Karen's voice barely needs any instrumental accompaniment, which Richard brilliantly dresses around his sister's rich vocals--their third #2 on the Hot 100 (they would have 2 more near #1's along with 3 actual #1's), fifth straight adult contemporary #1. Reportedly Karen only needed 1 take--the vocal equivalent of doing a crossword puzzle in ink. just a timeless hit.
