The proper question is whether or not the administration's policies are helpful to growth, whether or not they contribute to the strength of the economy. The Times didn't ask that... They probably did ask but the answer didn't fit the narrative so it was cut.

Being constantly wrong at least has the virtue of consistancy.

I gotZ cRazy MAd skilllz wit da qUillz.

I remember reading a book some time ago which said that the American economy, once it transitioned into a knowledge/service economy, basically turned into a chaotic system where the old rules no longer applied (see: inverted curve). Too many economists (e.g., Kruggie) are trying to apply old economic models to an economy that doesn't follow the old rules. So far, America is the only nation to have successfully made this transition -- but it's clear that the science of economics has yet to catch up to the reality.

So, your complaint is that they didn't go on a tangent and bash Clinton?

I don't know that random Clinton bashing is what Ace was looking for, but you'd have to admit the NYT's interpretation of luck and how much affect presidential policies can have on the economy has changed a little bit in the last 8-10 years or so.

What a president can do to improve (or sabotage) and economy is fairly limited by structural restrictions (e.g., the Federal Reserve controlling interest rates, entirely out of the administration's hands) or political ones (e.g., there is only a limited range of tax rates the public will accept).

This is untrue for many reasons. Most of all, it assumes "freemarket" is the obverse of "regulation." All markets are created and maintained by"structural" management. Both parties in the postwar period have pursued policies (currency-trade policies, globalization, monetary policy, government spending, income tranfers and entitlements, labor law and compensation policy, education funding, etc.) favoring capital accumulation at the expense of middleclass and working poor, and at the expense of the "developing world."

somebody made a lousy reading comprehension score on his SAT.

I'm not sayin who.

well, fuck that!

Put another way: people say the "president" has little power to change "the economy" because saying so "naturalizes" what we largely believe to be a fact of life.

The market is not fact, but social construct.

Is that what people say?

Do tell.

The market is not fact, but social construct.

You'd be surprised at how extensive some constructs can be.

certainly. and when people say: "taxes are inherently unfair" merely restates this: within a system of formal exploitive inequality, taxes intending distribution of resources are "unfair" to those made unfairly unequal by the system.

it's called a tautology, and your "logic" is just that, dave.

If I had some eggs I'd have some eggs and ham, if I had some ham.

ergastularius, that sounds like you got a great education from one of our great institutions of higher learning, but the problem is your conclusion, not your analysis. Of course, any system, including that of a free market, has rules defining the way the game is played.

Here's a little curveball for you. If you want to really know why the "working poor" as you call them, and the lower middle class are getting screwed, it's not some cabal of right-wing rich folk that are taking their money away from them. Sixty years ago, a person who did not even have a high-school education could lead a solid middle class lifestyle, because the products our economy was producing at that time (steel, shoes, shirts, etc.) demanded a strong back and willingness to work, with very little higher education being necessary.

Now, our economy has changed, and what is demanded out of the labor pool is intelligence, technical skills, and other higher-level problem solving ability. Our schools are totally failing to provide our future labor force with the skills they really need, and it's not because of money spent on primary education, as a review of inflation-adjusted real primary education spending would show.

When we choose to educate students with more regard to genuine learning than women's studies and Eskimo history month, we will see a rise in the standard of living of the lower middle class. Labor is like any other market: provide a shoddy product and there won't be much of a premium paid for it. The haves and those who value a genuine education are on one side of the wage split you're describing, and the vast underclass who have no interest in educating children and are producing citizens with absolutely no marketable skills are on the other side. Do some hiring like I have to do on a regular basis, and you'll see what I mean.

heh. those big words sure are confusing. thanks for elaborating on my comment.

So ergs, which country has the closest to what you would consider the perfect economic system?

I think people with Latin screen-names are really, really kewwwwl.

social construct

Chomskybot alert! Chomskybot alert!

Aaahhh...postmodernist horseshit at it's most refined. A social construct. A narrative. Dare I say it? A text.

What a fucking load of PoMo monkey-puke. I hate that "social construct" phrase because it means absolutely nothing. Zero. Nada. According to the proponents of this theory (Marxist dimwits, mostly), our economy should have crashed and burned long since.

Go back to your "society as text" class and keep wondering why the ecomony keeps growing apace, dumbass.

What's the problem with constructs, anyway? Some like the way they taste.

I'm still mulling over an earlier thread where he said something like "the accumulation of capital defines the shape of the garrison state," giving the Marxist explanation of why we were pouring money into the military and contemplating military action against Iran. Later in the same thread he told us that China wouldn't interfere since we were sucking up so much capital from them.

So do we have so much that we need to dump it into military ventures, or so little that we have to borrow from questionable sources?

What I love is the denial. The 'experiment' has failed, ergy. It just didn't work.

I don't disagree w/ the need for training. the problem is globalization makes labor fungible, especially in knowledge work. why train american workers when doing so in bangalore and elsewhere is a fraction of the cost, and also where the transfers of knowledge capital are controlled by private-ordering and not nationalism? why bother w/ improving domestic work opportunities when u.s. can find others to financve service-economy consumption?

what a "construct" for sure.

geoff

to answer your question. u.s. militarism serves the interests of global capitalist class, not the abstraction "america." to the extent america matters is the expansion of consumption for imported goods and services financed by exporters. threats to this hegemony can, to be sure, be met by the threat of war, which partly explains OIF.

and no, this is not 'marxist' interpretation.

monty

postmodernism is you. I'm a realist.

which country, brew?

the world.

and no, this is not 'marxist' interpretation.

Well, "capital accumulation defines the shape of the garrison state" comes straight from Marx. As does "capitalist class," "exploitive inequality," etc. If you're not channeling Marx, then whence this lexicon and these classically Marxist interpretations?

to answer your question. u.s. militarism serves the interests of global capitalist class, not the abstraction "america." to the extent america matters is the expansion of consumption for imported goods and services financed by exporters. threats to this hegemony can, to be sure, be met by the threat of war, which partly explains OIF.

and no, this is not 'marxist' interpretation.

it is too. commie.

which country, brew?

the world.

I didn't actually expect an answer and it would appear I was correct in my expectations.

Geez Dave,

I blather on for 3 lines and you recast it into 4 words: 3 of three letters or less. A model of succinctness.

who cares what the terminology is? c'mon.

I assume anyone who takes these matters seriously reads them all: adam smith, ricardo, hume, kant, hegel, marx, jevons, pareto, mises, keynes, chicago, etc.

to answer your question. u.s. militarism serves the interests of global capitalist class, not the abstraction "america."

Is there a site that approximates the entirety of your world view? It seems from here to be a combination of Marxist economics and an Illuminatus/Bilderberger conspiracy theory. Big fan of the latter, by the way - the global, historical conspiracy theory is one of my guilty pleasures.

Anyway, I'd like to get a feel for the big picture all at once, rather than have you unveil it a piece at a time.

adam smith, ricardo, hume, kant, hegel, marx, jevons, pareto, mises, keynes, chicago, etc.

... but only Marx (or Gramsci) has the emphasis on class and the exploitation of the working classes, and the political-economic links you employ in your arguments.

just try and use the facts. otherwise, we're in dave territory, where happiness, orgasm, and right are discovered at the end of a gun.

"bush doctrine"

no, geoff. no. smith would be the first to find in our political class, the "mercantalism" he hated.

just one ex.

smith would be the first to find in our political class, the "mercantalism" he hated.

That seems like a huge stretch to me. First you had better define "political class," and then describe their mercantilist characteristics. Sorry if I'm slow here, but I don't think you and I share a common nomenclature.

eg,

blathering is a kind interpretation. you've gargled out hegemony, global economy, fungible labor, and china like Tom Friedman on a crack pipe. you've thrown out marxist terminology and cried "no they're not" as if saying it makes it so.

aside from boring the shit out of everybody, what's your point?

The New York Times only worth linning a birdscage with but no thanks not my cage SQUARK SQUARK