In addition, there is such widespread agreement on the need for fiscal stimulus at the levels of hundreds of billions that it might, paradoxically, become politically easier to slip another large programme into the mix, especially one that benefits ordinary people rather than bankers. Last, stressed American companies are actively backing radical reform, because the burden of health insurance costs is crippling their ability to compete abroad.The Economist also makes a slew of asinine arguments like these: that some kind of universal-healthcare-fiscal-stimulus-thingy might actually be good for the economy, that this might actually "cut costs" and reduce the burden of healthcare on American businesses, etc. At least it doesn't make any attempt at outright puncture the popular political perception, as it should. I WANT TO VOMIT. This is pathetic. The Economist should have torn this to shreds. When was the last time that throwing loads of taxpayer money, or any kind of money, at an industry ACTUALLY LOWERED COSTS? Housing bubble, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, anybody? How in the world does it reduce the burden on industries? Do people seriously think this stuff is not going to be paid for? Who is going to pay? Higher taxes, higher deficits, forever and ever... Yes, that's what is going to help America's "competitiveness." Oh yeah, and the Obama folks are apparently considering the creation of a "Federal Health Board," I suppose to add to the swelling ranks of the Central Planning Committee, err, I mean, "Presidential cabinet." I'm seriously considering removing The Economist from my list of recommended econ links. The only saving grace of this publication is its fantastic writing style, at least relative to other such publications, and its coverage of foreign news. Other than that, it is increasingly worthless, as its actual economics is ludicrous and its libertarian perspective is becoming progressively corroded. But I suppose, they do have to sell magazines to stay in business... Again, avoid the mainstream. It is simply a problem, once again, of economics. These publications need readership to make money, and they must do so by catering to previaling tastes, which are socialistically inclined, Keynesian, and authoritarian at heart. Its another case of popular culture and media feeding off eachother's mutually regurgitated perspective, in some hopes that somehow, if everybody agrees, if they are all swallowing eachother's vomitus and having their own vomitus swallowed, it must be correct vomitus. Don't waste your valuable time with this stuff. (why do I? I forget...)
Sunday, November 23, 2008
It appears that Tom "The Antichrist" Daschle has come back from the dead to haunt the halls of Washington once again. I had thought that the oaken stake through the heart planted by Jim Thune in 2004 would have driven his evil spirit far, far into the political nether regions. But it appears that his powers were stronger than I had thought, and he has now returned to seize the political pulpit with his clutching undead fingers and hurl his blasphemies and lies once again. It also appears from his picture that he's taken to wearing a pair of spectacles, perhaps to cut down on the glare from the demonic glow that emanates from his beady serpentine eyes. The Economist, as usual, hails yet another craptacular American politician for his supposed abilities to "get things done." Is it just me, or are there others out there who would seriously like to see Washington get much, much less done? If we complain to no end that these guys do absolutely nothing right, why in the world do we want them working harder to get anything done at all? Personally I'm all for giving them all lifetime appointments and sending them on permanent vacation to Tahiti at taxpayer expense, on the condition that they do absolutely nothing more to/for this country EVER, never return, and that their respective office permanently dies with them.