On the economic understanding of President Obama

Ouch:

So for 200 year rapid productivity growth didn’t cause any serious unemployment problems in America, but now, right after NGDP collapses, we are to believe it is producing mass unemployment, even though recent productivity gains have been rather low.  I’m at a loss for words.  We elected a Luddite as President of the United States.

As as been pointed out, it\’s not what you don\’t know that is so that\’s dangerous, it\’s what you know that ain\’t so.

This applies more generally than just to American Presidents.

11 thoughts on “On the economic understanding of President Obama”

  1. Obama is a socialist under a thin veneer he also has a massive chip on his shoulder over the way his race has been treated and the shortcomings in his upbringing . That is not a receipt for the making of a good and fair minded president or for good economic and social governance. We had Brown for thirteen years as chancellor and prime minister, the similarities are there to see . Another term of Obama and he will do for the USA as Brown has done to us. The consequences as we can attest are not going to be less than devastating.

  2. He’s more Lightweight that Luddite.

    Asking a man who, for all intents and purposes, has never held a job in the private sector (let alone manage or own a private sector enterprise) to come to grips with what is ailing that same private sector is a tall order. Clearly Mr. Obama isn’t up to the task. And he hasn’t helped himself in his choice of “economic advisors” either.

    Not so much a personification of socialist evil as another in a long line of overeducated, underendowed and generally clueless Ivy League presidential dunces.

  3. …another in a long line of overeducated, underendowed and generally clueless Ivy League presidential dunces.

    Underendowed? So he’s destroyed that myth as well?

  4. “Obama is a socialist under a thin veneer he also has a massive chip on his shoulder over the way his race has been treated”

    His race? What his English ‘race’ ancestry?
    Or are we to assume that a single drop of ‘black’ blood swamps all other ‘race’ blood so he can be ‘black’ because of his forebears but never ‘white’?

  5. I said in 2007 I thought he was an over-hyped poster boy that was acting as little more than a strain-relief valve for urban hipsters. I have never seen any evidence of genuine intellect or reflection in his actions or demeanour. Glib, throwaway pseudo-cleverness seems to be his metier. History will not be kind to this hapless chump.

  6. GeoffH:

    It’s not some “one-drop rule” that makes Obama (50% black Kenyan and 50% white English American) “black.” Rather, it’s his own decision to emphasize (and supposedly empathize with) blacks and, increasingly, seek the empowerment of militant blacks and the marginalization of whites.

    Pose or not, it’s been successful for him: first, in shoring up an indeterminate identity and then, in forging, for his political handlers, a difficult-to-acquire majority.

    Are you one who thinks his several instances of disrespect for the UK were simply the ignorant gaffes of a naive young man?

  7. Gene,

    “Are you one who thinks his several instances of disrespect for the UK were simply the ignorant gaffes of a naive young man?”

    No, I’m not. His disrespect is unnecessary but he’s not the only American to be similarly disposed and not all them are ‘black’.

    My question re Obama’s ‘blackness’ seems to apply to most if not all mixed-race people and it’s not a question, always, of self-identification but an assumption applied by the ‘race’ industry.

  8. Ah, the basic error of preferring the producer interest over the consumer interest. Maybe some Americans ought to run a campaign of mailing him Bastiat’s essays en masse.

  9. Geoff:

    My point, with which you seem in agreement, is that he’s Anglophobic and unnecessaily dismissive for no good reason derived either from his own life nor from history (that I can see).

    At least a half-dozen great men of our early history had far less contempt/animosity, though such feeling would have been enormously more understandable.

    We’ve had presidents who were, personally, turds. He’s first to be a turd also as president.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *