Depths of Stupidity in Financial Op-Editorialism

The refrain from Young Dr. Frankenstein, "Sweet Mystery Of Love, At Last I've Found You" is hammering on my head as I read Robber Samuelson at WaPo today. This is as truly delusional as it gets.

I can't help but follow Avedon Carol, who has nailed it this a.m., the WaPo has this morning kept its record up, in choice of op-eds that have wrong premises. I went on, after the Meyerson post accepting McCain as a real moderate, to try out the morning's essay on how perfectly Eat Thy Brother economics works.

Degrees in Economics are available at U. of Phoenix anytime you want to start in, but for journalist's credentials that you can sell WaPo's editors, you need to know Black is White and Up is Down.

As the economy weakens and the campaign intensifies, we'll hear more of James Carville's familiar refrain: It's the economy, stupid. Well, it ain't or, at least, shouldn't be. I'm not claiming that Carville is wrong about voting. People vote their pocketbooks. In the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, the economy overshadows Iraq as the most important issue by 39 percent to 19. What I'm saying is that this sort of voting is shortsighted. It rewards or punishes candidates for something beyond their power.

We have a $14 trillion economy. The idea that presidents can control it lies between an exaggeration and an illusion. Our presidential preferences ought to reflect judgments about candidates' character, values, competence and their views on issues where what they think counts: foreign policy; long-term economic and social policy -- how they would tax and spend; health care; immigration. Forget the business cycle.
(snip)
History's long view teaches the same lesson. No president tried harder, with good reason, to influence the business cycle than Franklin Roosevelt. When he took office in 1933, unemployment was roughly 25 percent. By executive order and congressional legislation, FDR effectively abandoned the gold standard, adopted deposit insurance, tried to prop up falling farm and factory prices, rescued many defaulting homeowners, regulated the stock market, and embarked on massive public works.

With what result? Well, leaving the gold standard aided recovery. But some economic research suggests that other New Deal measures may have frustrated revival. In any case, all of them together didn't end the Great Depression. World War II did that. In 1939 unemployment was still 17 percent.

No matter. When the economy is good, presidents claim credit...

Sammwich hasn't noticed that two wars have not sufficed to make this wagefree economy go uphill.

Forgive me, once again I will give a sampling of just a few commenters' rebuttals of this total misrepresentation of history and of economics as well as of reality.

perryc1 wrote:
Does Samuelson believe that our Democracy could have survived without the efforts of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the 'New Deal"? The Home Owners Loan Corp saved one million homes. The C.C.C. put three hundred thousand young people to work three months after Roosevelt took office. The W.P.A., in its lifetime gave millions of Americans meaningful employment. The New Deal pulled the country back from the abyss of a facist state symbolized by General McArthur driving the bonus army out of Washington and burning their camp. Remember, Hoover sent McArthur who beat them and Rosevelt sent Eleanor and she charmed them. Roosevelt with his fireside chats and real concern gave people hope. He certainly had an impact on the economy. He was also a victim of conventional wisdom, tightening things every time things got better and that caused regression. To think the President has no control over the economy is fatuous.

kstack wrote:
presidents--and congress--do control the economy in the long run. for instance, the tax and war policies of president bush have drained programs such as infrastructure repair that might have meant middle class jobs and consumer spending. the deliberate lack of regulation gave us the subprime crisis. ruinous trade policies have further devastated the middle class. lack of a rational health care policy has hobbled american business. and so on and so on.

My comment I will leave for you to find, it's jocabel at 6:50:30. There are some really excellent and informative, historically accurate comments that I just don't include as they will take up so much space. I recommend you look through the comments for the facts, which is where you will find the real information at the WaPo editorial pages.

Ruth Marcus is worth another screech of dismay. But you've suffered enough for today, Dear Reader.

On Sunday WaPo just gave us rational types some hope to lead us on, today's dismal assemblage of lies is the downwards spiral of disinformation, back in full strength.


********************************************************
Update on buyout of local media in TX by Macquarie post Monday - ASX, Aussie Stock Market group announces Allan Moss to retire in May, to investors' "dismay". see http://www.macquarie.com.au/au/about_macquarie/media_centre/20070213a.htm