Thursday, November 18, 2010
This strikes me as a pretty good explanation for the recent strengthening of the United States dollar vs. the Euro notwithstanding QE2...
All due respect Gary, but Alaska's budget isn't even $10 billion and its revenues - and the state's economic fortunes - are mainly related to oil. I would look more the the example of Christie if you are looking for someone to clean up a complicated mess.
So despite their best efforts, Obama/Reid/Pelosi did not manage to hose over the US economy as badly as everybody else, because China still likes us.
So that leaves the question, "How will they peeve off the Chinese now?"
Bomber Girl, my intent was more to snark on the "gravitas boys" than to promote Palin. But I guess not even this will change your mind about Sarah. Drink in that sentence, "Mrs. Palin also exhibited a more sophisticated knowledge of monetary policy than any major Republican this side of Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan."
"Mrs. Palin also exhibited a more sophisticated knowledge of monetary policy than any major Republican this side of Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan."
Is that like saying "fast for a catcher"?
I think Ms. Palin is good at identifying simple concepts that will appeal to the average american but she is less good at backing up those concepts with valid data points.
I think there are valid arguments regarding the dangers of monetary easing but much of her "analysis" borders on anecdotes rather than data. It is appealing as politics but not so much as a policy tool.
I don't claim to be an expert in monetary policy but that link does not appear to me to be a slam dunk refudiation of Palin, BG. From what I've seen both sides (those who fear deflation vs. fearing inflation) have done some cherry-picking of statistics to prove their point. Palin is simply coming down on the side of sound money, a position which may resonate with the American people, including me.
My problem, often, with Palin is not that she doesn't exhibit some common sense appeal (is someone against sound money?) but that she seems to be learning everything on the fly and doesn't seem to have a problem saying whatever pops into her head based on a headline without having some backing beyond the sound bite or popular appeal rhetoric. Her recent claims about high food price inflation over the last year are inaccurate from a basic data standpoint (they have on average risen modestly by historical standards, although some items have gone up, of course, and others down.). What she probably could have said more accurately is that people are feeling the pinch more because of income loss or income insecurity. Even if price increases are modest, if you are out of a job, it still hurts.
She does seem to be in touch with the mood of much of the country which is looking for a return to fiscal sanity (...perhaps, until they realize their entitlements will be hurt too).
"I think Ms. Palin is good at identifying simple concepts that will appeal to the average american but she is less good at backing up those concepts with valid data point"--BG
To me that is an interesting comment. It could be that she is less good at it, and it could also be that data points, in the words of Gov. Awesome, "cause people to fog over."
I think the same comment could have been made, exactly the same comment, about President/Governor/candidate Ronald Reagan. There were a couple things about Reagan that made all the difference: he knew how to interpret the world and translate it for regular folks, AND, he knew what the really important (as in 3-5, not 25) matters needing attention were. Palin is doing something remarkably similar.
I remember Reagan and how he was received. He was seen as slow and likable by the press and unable to stand toe to toe with any intellectual.
In end, the latter deficiency, if it was even partly true, was immaterial.
I think credit must be given where credit is due, and I also think that Palin should be considered when the time comes with an open mind.
I do not disagree that Palin has weaknesses along with her strengths and I am certainly not committed to supporting her if she runs for President. What I thoroughly reject is the notion that she is somehow beyond the pale, that it is silly or unconscionable to think of her as a serious candidate for the office. She isn't running against Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt, in case you haven't noticed. I may have a little bit of extra sympathy for her because of the execrable way she and her family have been treated by the dishonorable ignoramuses of the MSM (no offense intended to our own Ignoramus here in TH's comments section).