Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Inexcusably Lame - And - Romney, version 2009, gets it...

Like I said after the first debate, "you know your man's lying when he starts moving his lips". "Politicians lie, it's their thing"—and I don't suspect there's a single exception amongst them.  That in mind; below are excerpts from two articles worth reading—the oft-here-quoted Don Boudreaux's No Debate, Both Men are Economically Illiterate, and Matt Coldagelli's A Long Island Brawl.

Here's the incomparable Don Boudreaux. He has a knack for illustrating commonsense (as well as complex) economics like none other. His blog should be daily reading for anyone who thirsts for brutally honest economic commentary. And I highly recommend his book Globalization:

"By this logic, the President’s policy is inexcusably lame.  If creating more jobs in U.S. tire factories justifies forcing consumers to pay higher prices for tires, the Obama administration should also outlaw the sale of used tires (which, like low-priced imports, are “flooding our domestic market”).  Indeed, the president should seek legislation mandating that all rubber used to make tires be non-vulcanized.  The resulting decline in tire durability will, by ensuring that our market is no longer “flooded” with long-lasting tires, create even more jobs in U.S. tire factories."

Matt Coldagelli nails both men as well. But if we surrender to the truth that neither care much for truth, and then catch one, off-guardedly, out of campaign mode, we just might be inspired (as you'll see below). Candidates are not into educating, they essentially form their opinions as to what the populace believes (for example: that trade and outsourcing are hurting our economy—per one of last evening's questioners) and try to convince us that they're on our side. Then, once elected, they effort to impose their core  (assuming they have one) positions, incognito. If I'm right, and should Romney become our next president, when it comes to outsourcing to technology—and I'll bet (as his private sector history suggests) to foreign labor as well—I'm [guardedly] encouraged.

Here's a snippet from the article, which is a snippet from another article. This is Romney in 2009.

"A simple example — let’s pretend there’s a little country with 200 people. This is a long time ago –  100 people raise the food, 100 people build the homes. Someone comes up with the idea of making a plow, hitching it to a farm animal and now they only need 50 people to raise the food. Is that a good idea or a bad idea? To the 50 people who lose their jobs, it’s a very bad idea, and they will resist with great energy and passion the idea of allowing horses to draw plows because it will make their life far more uncertain, at best. Those of us who stand back a bit say, no no no, don’t you understand that by having these plows and releasing those 50 people that someone, one of them or someone else is going to come up with something else for them to do? Making chairs, making movies whatever that is going to make everyone better off. More productivity will make everybody wealthier and more successful."

And thanks to Matt for the plug. But Jeff Goldblum? Really?

1 comment:

  1. Thanks, Marty - I'm honored to be included in the same reading recommendation as Don Boudreaux. His letters to the editor alone are such enjoyable exercises in brief yet devastating broadsides.

    Standing by the Jeff Goldblum comparison - maybe you could whiteboard chaos theory someday so we know definitively: