Willingness to Listen

August 23rd, 2009

Whole Foods Market is one of those stores that conscientious and affluent liberals shop to maintain their health and  assuage their collective guilt. The store offers organically-grown vegetables, biodegradable washing agents, as well as catering to those who prefer specialized diets from diary-free to vegetarian to gluten-free. It would be unfair to assume anything about all Whole Foods Shoppers, but it is not unreasonable to assert that on average they are further to the Left than the average shopper.

Recently, Whole Foods CEO. John Mackey, wrote a op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare,” opposing the Obama health care plan and the socialization of health care provision. The article offered a list of mostly free-market policy options that he believes could mitigate health care concerns. Interestingly, he notes that when given a choice, Whole Foods employees in Canada and the UK, models of health care policy often held up  by the Left, prefer:

“…supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments.”

Mackey’s particular recommendations can and ought to be debated. What it is interesting in this case is the response of some on the Left. Rather than engaging the issues raised in the the op-ed piece directly, the reaction was to boycott Whole Foods.  Of course, no one is or ought to be forced to patronize Whole Foods. Anyone can decide to not shop there for any reason and even try to persuade others not to. What makes this case relatively unique is that no one is arguing about Whole Food practices.  Those who are want to boycott Whole Foods want to punish the company for the expression of an honest opinion. Mackey’s op-ed was thoughtful and not mean-spirited, descriptions that do not apply to all those who are trying to boycott Whole Foods.

The next time, we hear complaints about town hall participants shouting others down,  remember those who use their dollars to punish those who have different ideas.

Posted in Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »

Projection by the Left

August 16th, 2009

It is hard to be too critical of the Left for the natural tendency to interpret events in the context of their own experience. Since the 1960’s in the United States, and even earlier elsewhere, the Left has made an fine art of organizing political protests. They have developed the organizations institutional and cultural frame works for protests and disruptions. Indeed, disruptions of public events are an honored tradition on the Left.

The Left favors the current structure and direction of the proposed healthcare reform. Hence, when Democratic (and some Republican) politicians conducted town hall meetings on health care legislation, most expected them to be rather perfunctory. The Right does not do protests, at least not well.  Moreover, town hall meetings, conducted in the heat of summer during the Congressional hiatus, are not usually well attended, and rarely controversial. This summer, the meetings have become raucous and passionate as many, particularly elderly Americans, complained about various features of healthcare reform. This is a particularly grave achievement, since there is no definitive bill yet.

The instinctive reaction on the Left is to project angrily their own tactics on to the protesters,  and to assume that the crowds were “manufactured” by Republicans and others. The people who opposed the proposed healthcare plan were called “un-American” by the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority leader Steny Hoyer. Democratic Senator Dick Durban suggested that protesters at town halls are pawns of health insurance companies. There was even the ugly suggestion that opposition to the Obama health care plan in rooted in racism against the president.

Democrats have argued that people at town hall meetings were inhibiting debate by shouting. It is always better to have calm discussions, but the purpose of town hall meetings is not only information exchange but also making clear to politicians the fervor of feeling. The argument of Democrats for deliberate informed debate would appear less disingenuous, if they had not try to rush through a complex, 1000-page bill. If Democratic plans had not unexpectedly crashed into a wave of popular discontent, a healthcare bill would have passed with little debate before the Congressional hiatus.

Almost certainly there were some activist Republicans  at these town hall meetings, but  Republicans only wish that they could organize well enough to fill town hall meetings with passionate partisans. Many Conservatives, particularly those of a Libertarian bent, are not the most hospitable to top-down organizations. No, the feelings at the meetings were generally authentic. Speaker Pelosi could not even acknowledge that the emotions at the meetings represented a “grass roots” movement and disparagingly referred to the movement as “astroturf.”

The tactic of the Left to impugn the intelligence or motives of Conservatives is sometimes effective. Ask former Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Some are hesitant to defend such politicians lest they too be considered uncool or stupid. However, with regard to the town hall meetings, Democrats and the Left were not insulting politicians. This time, they insulted regular Americans, people who looked much like family or neighbors. The public felt that those in power where not only not listening, but disputing motives and even the right to challenge their Congressional representatives. That is one reason why the chant “You work for us!” secured quick popularity. Indeed, average people are more sympathetic with the protesters, since the protests began. Even more importantly support for Congressional healthcare plans has plummeted. If Democrats wish to revive the chances of passage of their healthcare proposals, the supposed party of the low and middle class must learn to respect their charges — at least in public.

Posted in healthcare, Politics | 3 Comments »

Radical Past

August 9th, 2009

One of the advantages enjoyed by President Barack Obama when running last year for president was his deliberately opaque past. The electorate wanted “change,” and Obama’s pleasant and moderate demeanor allowed people to project whatever qualities they wanted on the young senator. Senator McCain had a long political record that was right-of-center, but often (too often for Conservatives) crossed the aisle and voted with Democrats. Obama’s political associations in Chicago, by contrast, had been far Left, but neither the polity or the media much cared. Indeed, to ask the question seemed mean-spirited.

Now that the country is considering an overhaul — perhaps radical overhaul — of the US health care delivery system, some of Obama’s radical past may be coming back to haunt him. One key issue in the present health care (now the Administration has decide to call it “health insurance”) debate surrounds the “public option.”

The public option is the provision of a separate, government-run health insurance. The theory is that the government will provide competition to private insurance companies, driving down costs. The fear among Conservatives is that a subsidized pubic option will drive out private insurance options and create a Canadian-style, “single-payer” system.  Ultimately, choice will be effectively eliminated. Liberal House member Barney Frank produced evidence supporting this fear view by publicly promising exactly that outcome as an outgrowth of a public option.

New suspicions are growing about Obama’s intentions in this regard. A 2003 video of Barack Obama as an Illinois State Senator saying, to cheers, that he supported a single payer option has emerged. A later video has Obama explaining that it make take many years, but he want to move toward elimination of employer-provided insurance.  It does, therefore,  seem reasonable to question the intentions of Liberals supporting a public option as a Trojan Horse.

It is possible the Obama has changed his mind on the health-care system since he claimed support for a single-payer system, or that he was carried away while speaking to labor groups. Changing one’s mind is not a failing, and can indicate intellectual growth.

If Obama wants a single-payer system, like he publicly claimed in 2003, he should admit as much and explain to us his reasons for such a plan. If he doesn’t he should explain why he changed his mind. What has he learned in the interim? However, the Administration is not owning up to Obama’s previous positions. If the Administration does not recognize and explain the change, if there has been one, in Obama’s position, it will serve to undermine public trust.

Posted in health care, Politics | No Comments »

Whale Wars: A New Ahab

August 2nd, 2009

Like most people, I am sympathetic to the plight of whales, particularly endangered varieties. Once whales were an important source of oil and the pursuit of this resource radically reduced whale numbers. As the need for this resource diminished and countries recognize the need for conservation, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was agreed upon in an attempt to keep some whales from extinction. Current international agreements allow for some whale harvesting, for example for indigenous peoples and for scientific research. The Japanese have been accused of violating these agreements by using the “research” exclusion to harvest whales for the real purpose of providing a popular Japanese foodstuff.

The Whale Wars is an Animal Planet channel show detailing the exploits of the Sea Shepard organization to stop the Japanese whaling. The show has miraculously succeeded in transforming a natural sympathy for the whales into rooting interest for the Japanese whaling ships. This transformation is a consequence of antipathy for Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepard Conservation Society, who comes across in the show (I am sure unintentionally) as a petty, arrogant little Napoleon, whose Ahab-like pursuit of self aggrandizement puts others at dangers.

Watson captains the Steve Irwin, a ship named after the popular television conservationist killed in a tragic accident. Though there are some crew members with experience, the ship operates in the dangerous Southern Ocean with young people largely equipped with more zeal and eagerness for adventure than experience. Watson sends these people out in small Zodiacs, often out of contact with the Steve Irwin in attempts to throw glass bottles of foul smelling butyric acid aboard the decks of whaling ships or racing in front of fast moving whaling ships trying to deploy lines to foul the props of these ships. One can not doubt the bravery of the young people enlisted by Watson, but it is a bravery girded by the expectation that the Japanese whalers will not use lethal force in self defense.  Thus far, the Japanese have confined there responses to water cannons an disabling acoustic devices.

The publicity seeking Watson, exaggerates every defensive effort by the Japanese as deliberately endangering his crew, when it is he who puts the crew in danger. Last year two crews member so the Steve Irwin managed to board a Japanese vessel a serve papers protesting whaling. The Japanese detained the individuals, while Watson quickly called the media claiming these people were be held hostage. One gets the impression, that Watson would eagerly exploit the accidentally injury or death of one of his crew for all the publicity he could. Indeed, last year Watson tried to claim that he was shot at by the Japanese.

It should be remembered that Paul Watson has a reputation as an eco-terrorist having advocated the use of tree spikes to deter logging. Tree spikes embedded in trees can damage equipment or more dangerously injure people. Tree spiking is a felony in the United States.

I have to admit that the series Whale Wars is exciting to watch. So now I have two unwanted guilty pleasures: Finding my self rooting for Japanese whaling ships for whom I would normally have a strong antipathy and giving positive ratings to publicity seeking old fart.

Posted in Social Commentary | No Comments »

The Cop and the Professor

July 26th, 2009

The title “The Cop and the Professor” sounds like a romantic comedy on Hallmark television channel, but has turned out to be an illuminating window onto contemporary American culture. For those who have been under a rock for the last few days, on July 16  the Cambridge police were called when a passersby, according to police reports “observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks” and “one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry.”  The neighbor did not realize that the two men were Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and his driver returning to Gates’s rented home. The good professor had locked himself out. The police arrived. After this the details get murky, but Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct. According to the police, Gates was unruly while Gates says he was treated with disrespect as a “black man in America.”

When people are confronted with stories of an incident with insufficient information from which to draw a definitive conclusion, there is a tendency to draw from personal experiences. African Americans who have experienced unfair police treatment in their past would be inclined to believe the account of Professor Gates. Those who have met Harvard professors might not be surprised to find one that was loud and arrogant in response to a perceived insult. One is reminded of William F. Buckley’s oft quoted remark that he would rather live in a society governed by the first 2,000 people listed in the Boston phone book than the 2,000 members of the Harvard faculty.

Unwisely, when confronted with a question about the incident at a press conference, President Barack Obama volunteered both that he did not have all the facts and that the police “acted stupidly.” While reluctant to comment on the Iranian unrest because of a lack of information, Obama, neglecting his obligations not to bias a case as the chief law enforcement officer in the country, was willing to opine on this particular incident. Conservative commentator Bill Kristol has suggested that Obama’s touchiness on the issue may be less an act of racial solidarity than class identity. Obama just feels more comfortable with Harvard professors and is willing to believe the worst about working-class police officers.

As the facts have sorted themselves out, the police officers involved are looking vindicated. Sgt. James Crowley as turns out is unlikely racist who valiantly tried to save Boston Celtics Reggie Lewis with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation 16 years ago. Lewis unfortunately died of cardiac arrest.

Obama has offered an apology of sorts calling Sgt. Crowley a “good man.” At this point, most have reached the conclusion that if Professor Gates had a cooler head he never would have been arrested and if Obama had declined to comment on a case on which he had limited information he would have lived up to his promise of being a transitional figure in US race relations. The unfortunate part, is that police officers will continue to feel defensive, real incidents of racial bigotry will be given less credibility, and Professor Gates will have one more tale of victimhood with which to regale his students at Harvard.

Posted in Law, Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »

Soft Despotism

July 19th, 2009

One of the problems with Liberals is that they often look for tyranny in all the wrong places, and are blind to real conspicuous threats to liberty that come with a smile. While I disagree, there is some value of the Liberals clamoring  to extend full Constitutional criminal rights to terrorists at war with us when captured on the battlefield. It is certainly of value to question the limits of enhanced interrogation techniques. Conservatives would like to return the favor to Liberals. We remind them that if the US were to experience tyranny it would likely not be of the jacked-booted variety. Such a despotism would not wrap us in chains, but a warm blanket from which escape would be difficult. Many have pointed out that French scholar Alexis de Tocqueville described this after his visit to the United States in the early nineteenth century. I repeat his words here, this week in the shadow of health care reform, because of their uncanny accuracy and eloquence.


I want to imagine with what new features despotism could be produced in the world: I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. .  .  .

Above these an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves provided that they think only of enjoying themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that; it provides for their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances; can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living?

So it is that every day it renders the employment of free will less useful and more rare; it confines the action of the will in a smaller space and little by little steals the very use of it from each citizen. .  .  .

Thus, after taking each individual by turns in its powerful hands and kneading him as it likes, the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills but it softens them, bends them, and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which government is the shepherd. .  .  .

I have always believed that this sort of regulated, mild, and peaceful servitude, whose picture I have just painted, could be combined better than one imagines with some of the external forms of freedom, and that it would not be impossible for it to be established in the very shadow of the sovereignty of the people.

Posted in Economics, Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »

Economic Calculations

July 12th, 2009

There is a broad consensus that when the economy is in a downturn, the government can mitigate the effects by stimulating the economy. There are at least three ways to stimulate the economy: (1) the Federal Reserve can increase the money supply reducing interest rates to encourage economic activity, (2) the government can reduce taxes in the hopes that this will spur economic activity, and (3) the government can increase spending to pump up economic demand.

In general, option (1) is preferable. The Federal Reserve can act quickly and potentially nip incipient downturns early. Admittedly, the money supply is a blunt instrument, but compared to tax decreases or spending increases variations in the money supply can act as a scalpel excising he effects of downturn. Sometimes, actions by the Federal Reserve may not be sufficient and one of the other two alternatives are necessary.

In general, Conservatives prefer tax decreases, in part because of their stimulative effect and in part because of the conviction that money in the private sector is more efficiently spent and is a greater spur for economic activity. Liberals believe that the government can act as an engine for economic growth, helping those at the bottom of the economic ladder, and that sometimes the government can allocate resources more equitably than the private sector.

However, discussions about a long-term strategy for growth are less important in dealing with the immediate impact of a severe downturn. The urgency has long been recognized.  Last winter, even before inaugurated, President Barack Obama was emphasizing (and thus perhaps contributing to) the severity of the downturn. In arguing for his stimulus package which passed in record time in February, Obama “wanted to shine a spotlight on how severe this downturn is all across the country, and to make sure that members of Congress understand the sense of urgency that I feel in getting something done.”

There was a common understanding that something should be done quickly and the Obama Administration took advantage of the “crisis” and decided that spending increases were the best approach. Conservatives argued that tax increases, by contrast, could be felt in pay checks almost immediately. The Obama Administration responded that there were “shovel ready” projects that could inject money in the economy. Indeed, the Administration predicted in January that if nothing was done, the unemployment rate would peak at 9% and with their stimulus package unemployment would reach no more than 8%. It is now only several months after the prediction, employment has reached  9.5% and is still increasing. Just given economic momentum and the current derivative of employment with respect to time, it is not unreasonable to expect double-digit inflation values. Those shovel-ready projects are, as anticipated by Conservatives, taking longer to implement than expected.

Stimulus packages of whatever variety are meant to be temporary expediencies.  The large deficits created should be alleviated when unemployment abates and economic growth accelerates. However, given the slowness of the economy to respond, certainly slower than promised by the Administration, the current deficit hole being excavated will be far deeper and require exceptionally large growth rates to overcome. It also calls into question the ability to afford Administration health care initiatives and to economically accommodate the climate proposals. The Administration’s response that the inherited economy was worst than they anticipated does not ring true given the alarmist arguments they were making both during the election and the rush to pass their stimulus package. If they can be so wrong so quickly about the economy, how can their judgments about the health care and the environment be trusted?

Posted in Economics, Politics | No Comments »

Thoughts on Hypocrisy

July 5th, 2009

“He is a hypocrite who professes what he does not believe; not he who does not practice all he wishes or approves.’’ — William Hazlitt.

“Hypocrisy is the homage which vice pays to virtue.’’ — François de la Rochefoucauld.

During a plenary session at  a large scientific conference I attended last year in Boston, Dr. Berrien Moore, a member of the International Panel on Climate Change, gave a thoughtful presentation on the dire consequences of global climate change. His well-received presentation suggested that unless there were radical reductions in future carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, the world would experience grave environmental consequences. It is not clear how many others were conscious of the irony of the situation. We were all at a conference having flown hundreds or thousands of miles from many parts of the world fretting about the consequences of modern society’s large carbon footprint. If we all took the thesis of the presentation seriously, why were we all flying many miles to attend a conference that might have been held virtually?

Now, I fully appreciate the benefits and importance of face-to-face contact at scientific meetings, but should not those who appreciate and understand the impact of climate change be the first, buy their example, to adjust their lifestyles as a witness to the importance placed onminimizing the impact of man on the environment. The fact that we ignored this implicit hypocrisy does not make the case for concern about global climate change any less or any more valid. Hypocrisy, however, corrodes credibility. If former Vice-President Al Gore can refer to the passage of the cap-and-trade bill as a “moral imperative’’ and Nobel prize-winning economist can describe opposition to the bill as “treason against the planet,’’ it seems little to ask that we save the fuel by conducting a conference virtually.

This distinction between personal behavior and public pronouncements was also conspicuous this week as Governor Mark Sanford admitted ignoring his marital pledges and jetting off to Argentina to spend time with a mistress. Sanford had publicly argued in favor of traditional family values, but clearly has difficulty in meeting these aspirations. It thus afforded an opportunity, for those who prefer a world where traditional family values are given less weight an opportunity, to ridicule Sanford. Given some of Sanford’s peculiar post-scandal behavior, it is hard to imagine a character easier to ridicule.

Pointing out the hypocrisy of advocates represents a convenient way to avoid dealing with very real issues. The high carbon footprint of those who argue for limiting carbon missions does not make the threat to the climate any more or less severe. The inability of those who argue in favor of traditional family values meet their own aspirations does not make the attenuation of these values any less socially destabilizing. Indeed, when people harp excessively on the hypocrisy of others, it is reasonable to suspect that they are motivated less by aversion to hypocrisy than the opportunity to score political points. Perhaps a better measure of consistency would be if those who fundamentally agree with an advocate of a certain position are first to criticize deviations. For example, do environmentalists take to task those of their own who live high carbon footprints, or are traditionalists quick to criticize those of their own who do not live up to their aspirations?

In Mark Sanford’s home state of South Carolina, 13 of 27 Republican Senators are calling for Sanford resignation. However, at a meeting of those who take the possibility of global warming seriously, there was nary a concern for the carbon footprint of the meeting. The latter, at least seems a bit too convenient.

Posted in Economics, Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »

Viva Canada

June 28th, 2009

A wit once remarked that Canada was a large and diverse country, united only in their belief of moral superiority over Americans. While there is some strain of that in the Canadian disposition, for the most part Canadians (if they have any common trait) are exceedingly polite. They seek to avoid conflict by drowning contention in as sea of good cheer and cordiality.  Some of thus cordiality has been codified in a misguided attempt to limit offensive speech through Human Rights Commissions (HRCs). The job of these commission is ostensibly to maintain a culture of civility by limiting what can be printed and broadcast. Because of  cultural pleasantness is so much part of the Canadian character, it is hard for them to recognize when this pleasantness is being exploited.

A small fraction of Islamic radicals in Canada have turned these commissions into government sponsored inquisitions seeking to eliminate criticism of Islam. While it costs nothing to make an accusation, if a Canadian Human Rights Commission begins an inquiry it can cost the accused thousands in legal fees, even if the case is one that is ultimately dismissed. The net effect is to chill free expression.

One of the most conspicuous cases of this type was brought against Mark Steyn. Steyn wrote the bestseller America Alone, which made the case that declining birthrates would cause the substitution of traditional Western values for Islamic ones, particularly in Europe. An article “The Future Belongs to Islam” in McCleans caused Steyn to be brought up before the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The Ontario HRC claimed that it did not have jurisdiction over the national McCleans. It did not hold a hearing but nonetheless “strongly condemn[ed] the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims.” Without due process, Steyn’s reputation was tarnished by a government body.

The National Human Rights Commission acquitted Steyn, saying that when taken as a whole, the article was not extreme. However, the ruling left open the possibility that a Human Rights Commission could punish more extreme views. The National Human Rights Commission retained on to itself the authority to regulate speech

More recently Ezra Levant, a Canadian political activist of Conservative conviction, was able to turn the tables on an HRC. Levant in the Western Standard magazine republished the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammad that caused violent clashes in Europe and elsewhere. Syed Soharwardy of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada filed a complaint to the Alberta HRC because they found Levant’s publication offensive.

When Shirley McGovern a member of the Human Rights Commission interviewed Levant, he had the presence of mind to record a video of the meeting and to post in on YouTube. Levant eloquently stood up to the clearly dazed commissioner and challenged the right of the commission to dare restrict the rights of a free citizens to publish whatever he wants without answering to any government authority. The video was a YouTube hit embarrassing the Alberta HRC. In light of the publicity, Soharwardy withdrew the complaint. One wonders whether that would have been the final disposition if there had been no video.

Levant is a true hero for freedom and Canadians should be proud to have so eloquent a spokesperson.

Posted in Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »

By the Numbers

June 21st, 2009

Unless you are Babe Ruth, it is risky to point to the fences to predict a homerun. Economic predictions are even more precarious then baseball ones. especially when made by politicians. Nonetheless, in the course of selling their stimulus plan early this year, Obama’s economic team confidently argued that without Obama’s Recovery Plan, unemployment would peak in 2010 at about 9%. If, however, the country adopted the Obama approach, unemployment would peak this year at less than 8%. Why would anyone oppose the Obama Recovery Plan? Congress, dominated by Democrats certainly did not stand in the way and the stimulus package passed.

The evidence is in. As of May 2009, the unemployment rate reached 9.4%, above what the Obama team claimed would be the case without the Recovery Plan at all. The economic predictions were way off even over the very short term. The blog Innocent Bystanders has been following the numbers carefully. The plot below is a reproduction from The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, published January 9, 2009, by Christina Romer, Obama appointee to the Council of Economic Advisors, and Jared Bernstein, from Vice-President Joe Biden’s office. The two lines indicate the Obama team’s prediction of unemployment, earlier this year with and without the Recovery Plan. The points plotted in red are the actual number published recently by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.



Clearly, the Obama Team overestimated the positive impace of the stimulus plan. Despite this pathetic performance, the Obama Administration is still claiming that they are creating jobs. One wonders how one can make any assumptions about the effect of policy over a year a two when predictions for a few months ahead were so wrong.  Even a straight line prediction would have been more accurate than the considered modeling of the Obama economic team.

From an historic stand point, it is interesting to compare this recession with previous ones. The plot below shows the unemployment rate for the 48 months following the minimum unemployment point for the pass recessions back to 1960. The line for the current recession is plotted in bright yellow.



This recession has experienced a far sharper increase in a shorter period of time from previous recessions. Now, we can never know what would have happened had the Obama Recovery Plan not be implemented. It is not persuasive or even plausible, however, for the Administration to argue that in face of an unprecedentedly rapid rise in unemployment, that its policies are working. Maybe they will sometime in the future. Maybe, the economy will recover in spite of the Administration.  But given the recent evidence, the Administration’s economic crystal ball is opaque.

To even have drawn the first plot above, projecting unemployment rates for a few years, with its implied precision, required an overabundance of arrogance. Prediction is hard, yet Obama’s economic advisers cavalierly assumed that they could make such predictions, and that these predictions could guide them as they expertly steer the economy. As the government seems to be running an ever expanding portion of the economy, we hope that Obama’s adviser’s hubris has been alleviated in the face of evidence of just how complicated and hard it is to predict future of the economy. Somehow, we doubt it.

Posted in Economics, Social Commentary | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »