hi clo,
i suppose it may do some good. but honestly, their assessment of o was full of mythology and as usual, the economist condescends where it should remember with humility its own history of appalling economic misjudgement.
show me in which way o is anti-business?
apparently they think the saving of the auto industry expresses an anti-business attitude.
or that increasing us oil production and investing in alternative energy is harmful to business.
honestly, where are the anti-business actions, other than fox news type propaganda?
regulating wall street is not anti-business. wall street was predatory on the economy, providing little value and tremendous harm to main street - and the economy as a whole. he managed to pass a little (not enough) regulation to curb some of these excesses. and he ended the financial armageddon he inherited.
the economist also indulges its own prejudice when it says it wants smaller government, as if o is the antithesis of their view.
evidently they are unaware of the shrinkage of government employment under o. it is mostly government rather than business job shrinkage which explains the high unemployment rate.
a realistic critique of o is that he has permitted the states to shrink government, which (i) harms consumption just when we least need it, and (ii) tends to harm children disproportionately - because the "government" cuts we are talking about here are in the main to teachers. so much for the critique that we don't want to burden our children with our generation's debts. we take away their future by having them less educated than children elsewhere.
anyway. it's fine that on balance they prefer o. but really. what a bunch of smug, lemon-lipped prats they are. i forgot why i stopped reading the magazine. now i remember!!
no criticism of you here, clo.
| 