Endorsements, for your amusement
Everyone is in a rush to submit their endorsements for offices. While I don't know anyone who ever changed his/her vote because the PG editorial board said to, it is sometimes interesting to read the explanations for the endorsements. At least it provides insight into the culture that dominates the particular newsroom.
By chance I happened upon Slate Magazine's slate of endorsements (read it
here). Slate does something I think is unique by allowing each of its contributors to publish their own separate endorsements. Not surprisingly, Kerry was endorsed unenthusiastically by the vast majority.
Scanning halfway down the page, I came upon an endorsement for Bush from the Economic Writer, Steven Landsburg. It's worth repeating for you here:
If George Bush had chosen the racist David Duke as a running mate, I'd have voted against him, almost without regard to any other issue. Instead, John Kerry chose the xenophobe John Edwards as a running mate. I will therefore vote against John Kerry.
Duke thinks it's imperative to protect white jobs from black competition. Edwards thinks it's imperative to protect American jobs from foreign competition. There's not a dime's worth of moral difference there. While Duke would discriminate on the arbitrary basis of skin color, Edwards would discriminate on the arbitrary basis of birthplace. Either way, bigotry is bigotry, and appeals to base instincts should always be repudiated.
Bush's reckless spending and disregard for the truth had me almost ready to vote for Kerry—until Kerry picked his running mate. When the real David Duke ran against a corrupt felon for governor of Lousiana, the bumper stickers read, "Vote for the crook. It's important." Well, I'm voting for the reckless spendthrift. It's important again.
Hmmm, where to start. First, I thought it was the President's job to protect and promote the interests (jobs?) of American citizens. Second, It's hard to believe that anyone would look at the candidates and conclude that the Kerry ticket has the xenophobes.
Stranger still, this writer equates the protection of American jobs with overt racism as practiced by David Duke. (Somebody arrest Lou Dobbs.) Maybe I'm a xenophobe racist too, since I prefer low unemployment. If I didn't know any better, I would think this was a bogus endorsement planted by the Kerry backers.
After someone explains the word xenophobe to Bush, I think they ought to use this endorsement as inspiration for some new campaign slogans.
"Bush/Cheney...because its better than Bush/Duke"
"George Bush - Protecting civil rights by sending jobs overseas"
10 Comments:
We live in a global economy. This is not the world our parents grew up in where the unions and corporations kept one step ahead of each other. This has caused many US companies to be run out of business or bankrupt. We as a society must focus on eliminating waste, reduce production costs, and make to use technology. By sending jobs where labor is better/faster/cheaper this saves companies bundles on pensions, benefits, wages, etc. Even when a company sends its office/call center jobs overseas, this saves on the bottom line...thus resulting in lower cost which if you look at the economic formula for determining prices, lower costs return lower prices in the end. Lower prices, as a consumer, is my ultimate goal. Another goal accomplished here, as a stockholder, is increased share value. Any business school will tell you the main goal of any company is to increase share value. So by lowering costs the consumer is happy and so is the shareholder (higher sales, lower liability cost equate into larger net income and return on assets, which wall street analysts love, thus driving up the stock price).
another benefit of high unemployment is the stablilizing of inflation. less people to spend/make money = less money circulating, thus driving the value of the dollar higher.
Finally, this foreing competition, in a free market society, will force US corporations to compete on a broader scale and become better - oneday taking back in more jobs.
We cannot stagnate - we must change and force economies to do better. by sending jobs overseas we are sending a message to unions and businesses that the old ways of operating are over. we cannot survive unless we change.
did you actually argue that high unemployment is good for America? i think you did! somebody wake up herbert hoover and tell him he was the greatest president we ever had!
yes i did - it's good for a short time in times of high inflation (see R. Reagan). Less money to go around pushes inflation down. I didn't say it was good for America - just the economy.
oh and Herbert Hoover was a great president - even was mentioned in Ghostbusters.
Although my favorite President, or as they say in Pt. Marion "Pahrs-dent", was Calvin "Silent Cal" Coolidge. Graduate of Amherst College, class of 1894; President of the US 1923-1929. Lest we forget his inauguration address - sounding much like Washington's farewell address:
" It seems altogether probable that we can contribute most to these important objects by maintaining our position of political detachment and independence. We are not identified with any Old World interests. This position should be made more and more clear in our relations with all foreign countries. We are at peace with all of them. Our program is never to oppress, but always to assist. But while we do justice to others, we must require that justice be done to us. With us a treaty of peace means peace, and a treaty of amity means amity. We have made great contributions to the settlement of contentious differences in both Europe and Asia. But there is a very definite point beyond which we can not go. We can only help those who help themselves. Mindful of these limitations, the one great duty that stands out requires us to use our enormous powers to trim the balance of the world."
what you are saying is true, and at the same time misses the point.
high unemployment can help to reduce inflation, but at what cost? im honestly incredulous at your statements. high unemployment means less money is being circulated in the economy, thus it in turn acts as a hedge against inflation. but what good is low inflation if you dont have a job?
essentially, you are saying that the solution to the problem of your money losing its value is to not have the money in the first place!
the 90's proved that we can have low unemployment and low inflation at the same time. inflation wasn't even an after thought until energy prices went through the roof recently.
i'm speaking from purely a factual economic viewpoint. the repercussions i am aware of. the 90s by all bussiness standards were a fluke b/c of new technology that boomed. we can not always have a .com boom to boost our economy. inflation was low b/c everyone was investing as well as spending. high unemployment is a result to cool off the economy. it is not good for America, no...but in the long run it is. I want to see low unemployment, low prices, competitive free markets where the best product at the cheapest price wins. in today's changing environment, it has to happen. we are witnessing a change in how we do business similar to when columbus landed in the west indies and began trade routes all over the world. this is the next step on the evolutionary scale.
lets put it this way, higher oil prices force us to come up with alternate forms of energy so in the short run, it will suck, but long term we will benefit - necessity is the mother of invention. When you speak economically, you cannot consider social policies...which is tough b/c you have to when you are president along with financial and environmental...and educational, etc. finding the right balance is the key. one cannot please several masters. we will see as a result of the high unemployment a shift in america that will benefit in the long run.
imho, the low inflation/high employment of the 90's was due to the new higher yearly gains in productivity we enjoyed. i think the numbers show that productivity rose dramatically as employment increased...a remarkable feat made possible by technological and managerial improvements.
you can have high employment/low inflation IF productivity is high enough (ie...companies get more work for the same amount of pay, thus are able to pay more)
right...but there's a thing called the business cycle where production and consumption go through highs and lows. we're experiencing that low. it's a natural thing that can't be altered unless we make goods less durable. for example, if everyone needs refrigerators/washers/cars/computers production is up and so is consumption; but those things last 5-10yrs and now that most people have them, it will be a low point. we cannot enjoy high production/consumption for long periods of time. things must level off. now, in the next 5yrs, as more and more of the Gen X'ers are buying homes, graduating college etc., production will be up b/c of demand.
What a great site amid smaller rate hikes health insurer profits fall ccpit law office patent trademark Prescribing valtrex home insurance protonix medicine.com Live strip blackjack adult categories anime sex
Enjoyed a lot! »
Post a Comment
<< Home