My immediate take on this contrast was, Bush is really gone.
It’s not supposed to be about politics in a crisis like this, but getting us out of this means that we frame the debate a certain way, and that is politics. His turning attention to people doing the right thing, and asking that we do the right thing, rather than distracting us with some sort of feel good circus (not to take anything away from Sullenberger et al) makes me think we might have a chance.
Really, how does something like this get published? He doubts the multiplier and uses as proof the fact that consumption declined during WWII. I’ll admit to not having first hand knowledge, but I’m fairly certain there were programs in place to limit personal consumption during the war. Rationing, etc, and we weren’t borrowing from abroad, we were borrowing from us. Anyone who’s watched It’s a Wonderful Life knows more about what went on during the war than this guy.
Yes, these are ok and I had fun on the train this morning playing “how would I answer”. Maybe that’s what you’re always supposed to do, but today was the first time I caught myself doing it.
They’re all pretty straightforward; answer according to party lines, etc. Probably a grasp of economics helps, hopefully. I might not have that, or maybe, but a lot of them are political questions from political people. Mitt’s questions were particularly dumb and we really dodged a bullet there. I hope I get around to writing down my ideas about ‘our ability to compete globally’, or I might be too busy trying to put my portfolio back in order.
But moving on:
President Obama supports the estate tax. Why should a person who leaves his money to his children pay more in taxes than another person with the same lifetime income who spends all his money on himself? — N. GREGORY MANKIW, a professor of economics at Harvard
The attribution fails to mention that “From 2003 to 2005, Mankiw was the chairman of Ex-President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors“, according to Wikipedia and my own recollection. (as an aside, typing that ‘Ex’ made me smile)
As I got off the train and walked the couple of blocks to work I was thinking about that (the question, not the fact that we’ve been waiting for 1/21/09 for 7+ years). I liked the way he phrased it, and for a second I agreed. But then I realized there’s nothing wrong with fighting against an accumulation of wealth. We’re not fighting the American Dream, we’re not saying that you can’t acquire wealth. We’re just trying to stop some people from getting too far ahead, so we can all compete on a level surface. Do they hate competition?
So that’s not particularly profound, but I started thinking about it again with the Kennedy thing. I wish that the fact that she’s, you know, unqualified meant that we’d get some scrappy fighter from the Bronx. We won’t, but unless they appoint Bush we’re ahead.
More signs pointing to the demise. I’m shocked.
After all the time they spent in court defending their plans for condemning people out of their gentrifying homes in a ‘blighted’ neighborhood, it looks like Atlantic Yards is probably dead. That’s old news and it’s going to leave a huge hole in the middle of Brooklyn. Maybe in time we’ll fill it in with something less atrocious than Miss Brooklyn, or maybe it’ll just be a junkie’s delight.
But in terms of tear it down & then have developers back out, how about Coney Island? Coney Island of decades of entertainment for people who can’t afford the Hamptons fame. Fuck them I guess. They’ve started dismanteling, but does anyone really think that they’re going to get billions for the plan? Not going to happen, and we lose the history, the diversion, the fun. I wonder how the Cyclones will like being the only thing between the projects and the beach?
