4 thoughts on “NYT: Obamanomics

  1. michael lee

    many, but it’s late, and I’m vetting cello samples for an overdub session tomorrow. I want to get back to this later though. Thanks for linking it.

  2. harmonicminer

    um, I haven’t read the whole thing yet… I may respond in sections. This will respond to the premises of the article.

    I’d challenge the premises on two grounds:

    1) The author cherry picked his years of measurement. If he chose the part of 2000 that preceeded the late Clinton-era recession inherited by Bush, then he’s comparing the peak of the previous mini-cycle to the trough of the current cycle. Not fair, and bad analysis proceeds from bad presuppositions. But then, he couldn’t make his case if he picked a twenty year period, could he? And in picking such a brief period, and cherry picking measurement points at that, he ignores all the previous US economic history of cycles that last longer than that, but whose general direction is always up.

    2) The “consumer price index” is a crock, and everyone who studies this stuff knows it. It it seriously out of balance, which is why social security benefits, tied for cost of living raises to the CPI, have gone up consistently faster than the real inflation rate for years now… one of the contributors to the social security problem, in fact, though only one.

    When you’re starting a chain of argument from bad premises, the next refuge of journalistic scoundrels is to quote polls, as if they are real information about facts, and that’s exactly what the author does next, claiming “everybody knows it”. What everybody knows is that if enough people in the media cry, “The sky if falling!” then lots of people will keep looking up.

    Two central reasons for the current smashup seem to get short shrift:

    1) The price of oil is high because the USA has not produced what it should have, due to drilling/exploration restrictions. When oil is $130-150 per barrel for any length of time, everybody suffers, period. The cost is felt in just about every single thing people spend money on. If oil hadn’t cost so much for so long, we’d already be on our way out of the woods, even with the housing/financial crunch. As far as I can see, the world “oil” shows up once in the entire article, and it isn’t about failure of the USA to drill.

    2) The housing/financial crunch is directly attributable to the kind of “tinkering for social reasons” with which the Left is so enamored.

    These articles link to my sources:



    I’ll try to plow through the rest of the ridiculously long NYT article… but I’ll be surprised if the analysis can rise above the presuppositions, which are seriously flawed, in my judgment.

Comments are closed.