Reassure This

Sullivan keeps holding out for a sane Republican party, which is causing him to lose his sanity and pen things like this:

One tiny part of me hoped that after the GOP spending binge of the Bush years, and the alleged Tea Party commitment to turn the page on growing government, the Republicans, like the Tories in Britain, would run on a clear platform of massive spending cuts to reassure the markets of long term fiscal stability.

What does this even mean, “reassure the markets.” I’d give them a damned reach-around if it would bring a booming economy, but what kind of nonsense talk is this? Haven’t we gone through months of being bent over by the markets who were worried about inflation, and it turns out… the “market” was wrong about that, too?

You know what? Screw the damned markets. How about we start crafting economic policy that makes sense for Americans, and the market thing will take care of itself. How about we get people back to work so they can start spending and investing and saving, rather than worrying about the fee-fees of our “producers” on Wall Street. I’ve got a basic premise here I’m working off of- if more people are working, more people are buying shit and paying taxes, the market will be just fine.






80 replies
  1. 1
    Culture of Truth says:

    would run on a clear platform of massive spending cuts

    also ponies. and unicorns.

  2. 2
    Violet says:

    You know what? Screw the damned markets. How about we start crafting economic policy that makes sense for Americans, and the market thing will take care of itself. How about we get people back to work so they can start spending and investing and saving, rather than worrying about the fee-fees of our “producers” on Wall Street. I’ve got a basic premise here I’m working off of- if more people are working, more people are buying shit and paying taxes, the market will be just fine.

    This. The markets are not exactly tuned to the good of the American people at the moment. Massive layoffs means markets go up, but people hurt. Why does that make sense?

    Someone yesterday posted a great explanation about how in the 1950’s companies were encouraged by economic policy to reinvest in their infrastructure. They were penalized for keeping cash around. So were rich people. So the economy boomed. I thought it was fascinating and something perhaps we should be looking at now.

  3. 3
    Corner Stone says:

    Can we please agree on something? Sully knows absolutely nothing about anything.
    Nothing.

  4. 4
    Dork says:

    I’d give them a damned reach-around if it would bring a booming economy

    /searches for Booming Economy in Halloween costume aisle.

  5. 5
    whiskey says:

    As a recovering libertarian capitalist, the one lesson I learned is that the “free market” – i.e., the notions of marginal utility, non-zero-sum trade, impossibility of objective valuation – teach that there is no such thing as “the market.”

  6. 6

    I’m no financial guru or anything but from how I understand things I can see what he’s talking about kind-of when he says “reassure the markets”…..

    If our debt became completely unmanageable, and say if inflation started to kick in or something and interest rates had to go up to combat that, returns on treasuries would go higher and other countries that are purchasing our debt might be reluctant to do so….

    I’m talking long term here though, not in the next year.

  7. 7
    Michael says:

    Thirty years of spitReaganism hasn’t worked to spread prosperity, ensure fiscal stability or promote real job or wage growth.

    Obviously, we’ve not given it enough time to work.

  8. 8
    Steve says:

    Reassure the markets? Let’s look at the infamous bond market. Interest rates on Treasury bonds are ridiculously low right now. Do you know what that means? It means the markets are extremely confident about the long-term fiscal stability of the U.S. government – at least in comparison to everything else!

    The stock market, of course, is indifferent to the long term and can safely be ignored.

  9. 9
    morzer says:

    Well, it’s not like Sullivan is qualified to discuss economics or policy. After all, he’s no Megan McArdle….

  10. 10
    Catsy says:

    if more people are working, more people are buying shit and paying taxes, the market will be just fine.

    It continues to utterly baffle me beyond measure why so many people cannot grasp this simple truth of cause and effect. Probably because it really is that simple, and economists generally can’t cope with simplicity. It’s how to get people there that’s the sticking point, but those who won’t even acknowledge that this is the goal have nothing of value to add to the debate.

  11. 11
    Jamie says:

    The Dems of late usually seem to behave in the manner of a battered spouse. It very depressing to watch.

  12. 12
    Culture of Truth says:

    in Sully’s mind “reassure the markets” sounds like something a grown-up money talking daddy would say.

  13. 13
    DougJ is the business and economics editor for Balloon Juice. says:

    How about we start crafting economic policy that makes sense for Americans, and the market thing will take care of itself.

    My banker friend says this is in fact the basis for all sound economic policy. A strong middle class makes a strong economy and that makes a for healthy markets.

  14. 14
    bobbo says:

    Wow. Sully really is a moron. “The alleged Tea Party commitment to turn the page on growing government”?? I would really like some of what he is smoking. Was he also counting on the Contract with America? Compassionate conservatism? Peace with Honor? Prosperity is Just Around the Corner?

  15. 15
    lamh32 says:

    What Sully needs to explain is how he can rag on the Dems and the HRC, and not find a problem with the Log Cabin Republicans giving John Coryn an award for leadership:

    Gay GOP group gives Cornyn award after ‘no’ vote to move on DADT repeal

  16. 16
    Resident Firebagger says:

    Sully, like all major media stars, has money and doesn’t associate with commoners like us.

    So, he cares about the markets.

    The end.

  17. 17
    Culture of Truth says:

    I would like to state for the record I am part of a Fifth Column opposing an attack on Iran.

  18. 18
    p.a. says:

    @Catsy:

    Probably because it really is that simple, and economists generally can’t cope with simplicity.

    so young. so naive. It’s because they are the intellectual front men for the class hegemons.

    Part of me still can’t believe I just wrote the above; I used to be a moderate and a ticket-splitter until the Clinton impeachment opened my eyes. And this ‘we must reassure future markets’ is just the newest wingnut meme. As if believers in the free and unregulated market (and its implied business cycle) now think surety is sooo important.

  19. 19
    Michael says:

    I’ll add something – part of the problem is the tendency of our teevee media to have things like Larry King interviewing Bill Maher about his interview of David Gregory. Pundits interviewing pundits is the height of self-abuse, and calls for an intervention – instead of talking about policy, we’re concerned with the “appearance” of political messaging. That’s why Dems are talking policy and getting ignored while the teabigots of the GOP are getting traction out of fetuses, Jesus and blackity black black blacks.

    Can we have a “punch a high profile pundit in the mouth” day? That would go a long way toward making me feel happier.

  20. 20
    Pangloss says:

    It is literally impossible for America to whore itself out to markets any more than it actually has over the past 30 years. We’re already like a $2 whore laid out on an air mattress between two dumpsters in the alley behind the Cato Institute.

  21. 21
    Gordon's wife says:

    Is it intentional or unconscious when discussing Andrew Sullivan to go for the gay-sex metaphors? Am I overreacting, or is the talk about reach-arounds and being bent over a bit too hostile and tasteless?

    Back to lurking… sorry.

  22. 22
    Loneoak says:

    I am so fucking mystified by the bizarro world replacement of the economy with the stock market. The stock market is a bunch of people betting on the accuracy of current perceptions about probable future preferences of people trading on the stock market. The economy is a peripheral concern to the stock market, and the stock market should be a peripheral component of the economy. Somehow we ended up with a system in which vague bets about future preferences matter more than actually making and selling shit, and everyone but the stock market traders is getting screwed. It’s all a fiction!

    I don’t expect Sullivan to understand this, since his business and economics editor is not DougJ. But we sure would be better off if more people pointed this out.

  23. 23
    Senyordave says:

    I prefer the Republican mole theory. Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer simply have to be moles for the GOP. Nobody could accidentally be such poor strategists.

    I’m not entirely happy with Obama these days, but I do have to consider what he has to work with. A Democratic party that is dumb as a sack of cement, and a Republican party that is dumber, batshit crazy, and will gladly destroy the country to win an election .

    I still maintain that the country will be better off if the Reps wins the house than if the Dems retain a narrow majority.

    If the Dems retain a narrow majority nothing will get down for the next two years, if the Reps wins the house they will be forced to actually come up with policies to fix social security and Medicare (and it is now untouchable for Republicans, so they can’t try to eliminate it).

    Let Paul Ryan unveil his grand plan, people will start to pay attention when they hear the one certainty is that it will shift part of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class, similar to any flat tax plans (hence the reason why the developers of the flat tax admit that it will never get off the ground in the US)

    Let them try to have hearings on Obama, people will not react well if they go on fishing expeditions, with Clinton you did have something even if it was just a BJ.

  24. 24
    Anoniminous says:

    The Markets® ARE America.

  25. 25
    Xenos says:

    . I’ve got a basic premise here I’m working off of- if more people are working, more people are buying shit and paying taxes, the market will be just fine.

    The market will be fine, but it will be a crappy market for the Wall Street insiders. They need everybody desperate for yield, so they put their money into more and more risky investments. They also need lots of volatility so customers freak out and can be systematically churned. This also makes the front running and high frequency trading really profitable.

    When the markets are just fine, slowly growing a couple or even a few percentage points better than inflation, the Wall Streeters are having a pretty poor market of it.

  26. 26
    Mnemosyne says:

    @lamh32:

    I hope celticdragonchick hasn’t made her donation to the LCR yet.

    ETA: Though it would be funnier if she had.

  27. 27
    Crusty Dem says:

    I’m sorry, I just don’t have time to keep up with Sullivan, as a Coastal Elitist, I’ve been too busy mounting what amounts to a fifth column…

    Edit: Dammit, CoT, I knew that somebody had to have beaten me to that meme..

  28. 28

    Seriously. If spending billions of dollars on not one but two industries to keep them afloat when “market forces” dictated they die ignominious deaths didn’t “reassure the markets,” what the fuck would?

  29. 29
    Dennis SGMM says:

    We just paid off every insanely stupid bet made by “the markets” and the federal funds rate is so low that banks can simply borrow money from the Fed, put it into treasuries, and make money without the annoying necessity of making loans to American businesses. Now they also need reassurance? What’s next, the guaranteed indentured servitude of every child born to anyone making less than $50K per year or the markets will all lose confidence and then what…?

    I agree with Cole: Fuck the markets. Any semblance of their original purpose has been largely subsumed in their transformation into a giant casino where it’s “Heads, I win – tails, you lose.”

  30. 30
    liberty60 says:

    Its getting so when i hear that phrase “the Markets” used as a singular noun its like I am hearing some sort of pagan invocation of “the Gods”.

    The Markets have about as much wisdom and vision as gravity or the weather, and trying to “reassure the markets” with spending cuts or tax changes is like trying to ensure a good harvest by stoning a villager.

    Upon reflection, perhaps I am a bit hasty; stoning a Villager may not bring a good harvest, but I for one am willing to give it a go.

  31. 31
    p.a. says:

    @Senyordave:

    I prefer the Republican mole theory. Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer simply have to be moles for the GOP. Nobody could accidentally be such poor strategists.

    This is exactly my theory on the first generation neocons, many of whom were Marxists earlier in life: their aim was and is still to destroy the United States. They just weren’t able to achieve it from the left, so veered right and popularized idiotic policies to bankrupt the nation. Since this is a multi-generational project, it has required the sexual reproduction of idiot children (probably shaken as infants or administered mercury), and the hiring and subsidization of idiot fellow travelers.

  32. 32
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    The whole of the Broderist-beltway rot psychology rests on the delusion that Republicans aren’t Really Like That, they just talk and vote that way to appeal to their base. For forty years they’ve drifted right as Broder and Cokie and Tim tell themselves that if they just wink and nod at homophobia, race baiting, top-down class-warfare, illegal war, torture, the Unitary Executive, Citizens United and the flouting of stare decisis (sp?) and thy gasoline-on-the-fire demagoguery exemplified by Park51, if they’re just patient and wait a little longer, and ignore little things the mutilated bodies of Iraqi children, the Republican Party of Ike, Howard Baker and Millicent Fenwick will come back to them. It’s always a Nixon-less 1973 in Broderville.

  33. 33
    ruemara says:

    Dude, the man’s a moron. ’nuff said.

  34. 34
    James E. Powell says:

    Whenever Sullivan speaks on any topic that requires one to know something, he tends to parrot “experts” whose opinion is respected in the Village. If you asked Sullivan to explain what he meant by ‘reassure the markets” and he had no notes for reference, he would have no idea what to say.

    Sullivan is one of those odd people who somehow became well-known without really doing anything credible or worthwhile. I do not really know what it was, but maybe it’s the (perceived) anomaly of a gay, British and apparently educated, Republican. Since most American Republicans have been speaking real or face southern accents, and have succeeded by sounding as uneducated as possible, maybe Sullivan filled a void for the corporate press/media.

    All I’m saying is that I’ve read his stuff, seen him on TV, and I don’t think he adds anything that isn’t already supplied by the typical dork at the end of the bar who believes he knows everything.

  35. 35
    Sly says:

    What does this even mean, “reassure the markets.”

    Bond traders are comin’ to get yo mama!

  36. 36
    Cliff says:

    You wanna reassure the markets?

    put a 99% tax on any trade holding period of less than 5 seconds.

    Ban flash order Immediately, since front-running is supposed to already be illegal

    Ban High frequency trading And quote stuffing (aka denial of service attacks)

    that would be a nice start.

  37. 37
    azlib says:

    @Steve:

    Not only that with T-Bill rates at historic lows, the Market is screaming for the Fed to do more about the economy by spending more.

  38. 38
    Kryptik says:

    Well, fuck all. 44 House Dems decide that passing the upper class tax cuts just isn’t enough. Now we need to keep cuts on capital gains and dividends taxes, because the rich are just still too damn put upon.

    Fuck Adler, fuck Albo Sires, fuck these goddamn hopeless Blue Dogs. I’m just fucking done.

  39. 39
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    run on a clear platform of massive spending cuts to reassure the markets of long term fiscal stability

    I don’t even have to rhetorically ask if Sully spells out what he would massively cut. I’ll go out on a limb and guess ‘entitlements’, and propose a modest blogger-journalist project for everyone’s favorite Martha’s Vinyard cottage owning Gap model: He can make a budge and live for one year Social Security, or just above the poverty line for a DINK household, and blog about it, posting his expenditures on his blog. Then we’ll talk about “massive spending cuts”.

  40. 40
    srv says:

    In more important news, Sesame Street has pulled an episode with Katy Perry in it.

    Will this obsession with The AtlPedantic ever end?

  41. 41
    erlking says:

    @Dork: See? This line and the comment it inspires are why I love it here.

  42. 42
  43. 43
    d. john says:

    @mikefromArlington:

    ahem:
    http://www.daytondailynews.com.....94556.html

    and this:
    http://ourfuture.org/files/doc.....d-jobs.pdf

    so… I agree I with them. not the deficit hawks..

    just sayin’

  44. 44
    300baud says:

    Haven’t we gone through months of being bent over by the markets who were worried about inflation, and it turns out… the “market” was wrong about that, too?

    I’m a little behind on my reading, but as a far as I know, there is no evidence the bond markets were at all nervous about US deficits. What was heavily promoted was a fear that we might make the markets nervous.

    It’s a concern; we can’t borrow forever. But as far as I can tell, the fearmongers on the right just took advantage of the momentary plausibility of that line. And it worked because few on the left actually get macroeconomics. Or, apparently, that the right’s sole tactic is to put their flashlights under their chins, shining up on their faces, shouting “Boogety boogety!”

  45. 45
    BDeevDad says:

    Harry Reid is using Sharron Angle’s Tea Party speech a year ago where she air quoted autism as not deserving coverage for health care.

    This has pissed off the wrong crowd.

  46. 46
    daveNYC says:

    It’s always a Nixon-less 1973 in Broderville.

    God, even Nixon would be a step up over the current crop of Republicans. Hell, Nixon would probably be primaried right out of the modern Republican party.

    And if Sullivan had actually paid attention to what ‘the markets’ (and I bet the idiot doesn’t even know what markets those are) are saying, he’d see that the bond market is currently quite OK with the amount of borrowing that the USA is doing. Krugman usually puts up a post with bond yields about once a week or so just to hammer away at the fact that the bond vigilantes are not in the house.

    The Buffalo Beast’s Worst People of 20xx annual story had a good line about Justice Thomas. “He casts the deciding vote making slavery constitutional, and is led away in chains.” The really evil part of me looks forward to the same thing happing to Sullivan when his pissy DFH punching gets the teatards in office and they vote to burn all teh geys at the stake. Grrrrrrrrr!!

  47. 47
    Chris Dowd says:

    If there is one thing that Americans of all political persuasions are finally getting their minds around these days- it is that the prosperity of Wall Street has little if anything to do with the prosperity of Americans. You would think Sullivan would understand that by now.

  48. 48
    Stefan says:

    Haven’t we gone through months of being bent over by the markets who were worried about inflation, and it turns out… the “market” was wrong about that, too?

    Actually, based on the yield of long-term government debt the market has been precisely right about the threat of inflation, i.e. the market has looked at it and determined the threat of inflation is minimal. If people anticipated inflation then we wouldn’t be seeing historically low yields (and corrrespodingly high prices, because price and yield move in opposite direction) on Treasuries.

    What’s been wrong are the people who claim to follow the market, but then ignore its clear and unambiguous evidence when that contradicts their preferred ideology.

  49. 49
    Mayur says:

    @300baud:

    It’s a concern; we can’t borrow forever. But as far as I can tell, the fearmongers on the right just took advantage of the momentary plausibility of that line. And it worked because few on the left actually get macroeconomics.

    Probably not so much, actually. The left is the viewpoint that actually has serious economist-pundits out there pointing out what’s happening (e.g. Krugman, Stiglitz, Galbraith); the right has McArdle and the Cato hacks.

    Or, apparently, that the right’s sole tactic is to put their flashlights under their chins, shining up on their faces, shouting “Boogety boogety!”

    I think this is significantly more likely.

    /Economics BA/MA and lefty

  50. 50
    cat48 says:

    He’s repeating the Chamber of Commerce talking points that they invented. Sad.

  51. 51
    FormerSwingVoter says:

    Haven’t we gone through months of being bent over by the markets who were worried about inflation, and it turns out… the “market” was wrong about that, too?

    The markets weren’t wrong about that at all – every single market indicator showed falling inflation. The thing is that the media refuses to acknowledge that “the market” isn’t a piece of paper that says “Everything Republicans say is true!” and is, instead, the market.

  52. 52
    Alwhite says:

    John – you should be a goddamn economist you understand the situation better than all the assholes currently viewed as ‘reasonable’ by the government & media

  53. 53
    gex says:

    @Catsy: Bush sold them the ownership society. The stock market (along with Social Security privatization) and the housing boom show how effective he was as a salesman. And the housing boom was all in aid of keeping the market increasing regardless of fundamentals. The stock market is the pyramid scheme that is breaking this country the way we currently implement it.

  54. 54
    gex says:

    @p.a.: There is a reason they worked very hard to make “liberal” a dirty word. Some people would rather be called a faggot than a liberal. (Log Cabin Republicans for example, as well as many of the straight men on the right.)

  55. 55
    dj spellchecka says:

    the last time i looked china and japan were still buying us bonds…they seem reassured that our ecomony will somehow keep on keepin’ on…

  56. 56
    bemused says:

    @lamh32:
    Log Cabin R’s motto is “Suspending Reality for Riches”.

  57. 57
    kay says:

    One tiny part of me hoped

    Now I’m starting to feel sorry for him.

  58. 58
    gex says:

    @daveNYC: On this, on the gay issue, I think more of the ugliness by the true believers has to really come to light. Sullivan is still offended that the Christian right has been compared to the Taliban, all while people with access to US Senators publicly blog that “All fags must die.” Sully is a stupid son of a bitch if he can’t tell that there is absolutely no compromise from them before he will stop defending Christianity and conservatism, and whatever else he cherishes from his upper class white male upbringing.

  59. 59
    Mike G says:

    Why is it always the same people who claim that “free markets solve everything” are always demanding that we do this or that contortionist action or policy and throw live sacrifices into volcanoes to “reassure the markets”?

  60. 60
    MaximusNYC says:

    Screw the damned markets. How about we start crafting economic policy that makes sense for Americans, and the market thing will take care of itself. How about we get people back to work so they can start spending and investing and saving, rather than worrying about the fee-fees of our “producers” on Wall Street. I’ve got a basic premise here I’m working off of- if more people are working, more people are buying shit and paying taxes, the market will be just fine.

    Sounds good to me. I wish there was a major political party running on that platform.

  61. 61
    andy says:

    So, just how much rope is available on Manhattan Island?

  62. 62
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @MaximusNYC: The last time it happened, combined unemployment and underemployment topped 33%. Be careful what you wish for.

  63. 63
    silentbeep says:

    No matter how long Sully is in this country, he refuses to accept this basic fact: the American right and the British right are two very different things, they are not interchangeable in anyway shape or form. He refuses to accept the reality of the way things are, right here, right now. Sully’s heroes, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, were different people, with different cultural influences. Sully is stuck in1980s fantasies.

  64. 64
    geg6 says:

    @Corner Stone:

    I cannot disagree with you more.

    He knows Bears.

  65. 65
    JoeK says:

    How about we start crafting economic policy that makes sense for Americans, and the market thing will take care of itself. How about we get people back to work so they can start spending and investing and saving, rather than worrying about the fee-fees of our “producers” on Wall Street. I’ve got a basic premise here I’m working off of- if more people are working, more people are buying shit and paying taxes, the market will be just fine.

    Preach the FUCK outta that, Brother John!

  66. 66
    Jesse Ewiak says:

    @daveNYC:

    Ronald Reagan couldn’t win a GOP primary these days. After all, he signed a bill legalizing abortion, raised taxes three times, gave amnesty to the Mexicans, and talked with the Evil Empire.

    But yes, people have to remember. Yes, Sullivan’s a human being who doesn’t like torture or the Christian Right. But, at his heart, he still hates poor people like most Tories/Conservatives.

  67. 67
    norbizness says:

    Echoing those upthread, I’d like a succinct post about why I should care what Sullivan has to say, rather than having to endure slow brain-death by 1,000 Sullivan-related fiskings. I hate to sound like some sort of populist, because the masses are asses, but the connection between TNR and The Atlantic to anything apart from the vapors emanating from their own posteriors has been tenuous, at best.

  68. 68
    Adam Lang says:

    One tiny part of me hoped that after the GOP spending binge of the Bush years, and the alleged Tea Party commitment to turn the page on growing government, the Republicans, like the Tories in Britain, would run on a clear platform of massive spending cuts to reassure the markets of long term fiscal stability.

    Because, as we all know, that’s worked so well for Greece and Ireland.

    I really, honestly think that these people want to turn us into a nation of 99.5% desperately poor people willing to do anything — anything! — for enough to feed ourselves, let alone keep shelter over our heads, and 0.5% ridiculously wealthy people who will make us do some pretty grotesque things for our food.

    I have finally come to the conclusion that nothing else — not stupidity, not blind dogmatism, not simple personal greed — can explain this situation. I really think that this is the intended outcome.

    ¡Viva el ladrón barones!

  69. 69
    Turgidson says:

    @daveNYC:

    There’s no probably about it. Nixon would have been drummed out of the GOP ages ago. As much of a soulless asshole as he was in so many ways, the policies of his presidency were pretty middle of the road at the time and would be center-left in today’s world. He drew the road map for where the GOP would go as far as politics and campaigning to the lowest common denominator, but policy-wise he bears almost no resemblance to those he spawned.

    Of course, if Nixon had come of age politically as a Reagan foot soldier, he’d probably be every bit as crazy as the current crew, because that’s where the money and power would be. It was never really about ideology with that guy anyway.

  70. 70
    Catsy says:

    @Gordon’s wife:

    Is it intentional or unconscious when discussing Andrew Sullivan to go for the gay-sex metaphors? Am I overreacting, or is the talk about reach-arounds and being bent over a bit too hostile and tasteless?

    Those sorts of metaphors get used when discussing pretty much anyone around here, gay or not.

  71. 71
    Kiril says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    It’s always a Nixon-less 1973 in Broderville.

    To be fair, Broder was concern-trolling pro-impeachment Democrats in 1974, too. See:
    http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/.....t-bro.html

  72. 72

    Fuck Andrew Sullivan with Ronald Reagan’s dessicated dick.

    That is all.

  73. 73
    celticdragonchick says:

    You know what? Screw the damned markets. How about we start crafting economic policy that makes sense for Americans, and the market thing will take care of itself. How about we get people back to work so they can start spending and investing and saving, rather than worrying about the fee-fees of our “producers” on Wall Street. I’ve got a basic premise here I’m working off of- if more people are working, more people are buying shit and paying taxes, the market will be just fine.

    But that makes sense and hurts McMegans fee-fees.

    Can’t have that.

  74. 74
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Gordon’s wife:

    Is it intentional or unconscious when discussing Andrew Sullivan to go for the gay-sex metaphors? Am I overreacting, or is the talk about reach-arounds and being bent over a bit too hostile and tasteless?

    I tend to agree with you on that.

  75. 75
    kc says:

    Why in the name of the FSM does anyone still read Sullivan?

  76. 76
    300baud says:

    @Mayur:

    Oh, I agree that these days more people on the left than the right get economics. And you name some great examples of that. But as a percentage, those who get it are still low, even on the left. Which, I believe, is why the scare works. Allow me to stereotype boldly:

    On the right, I feel like people are at least interested in the topic, if only so that they can a) make money, b) justify keeping the money they have, or c) justify rich people keeping enough of their money to fund think tanks and MBA programs. But on the left, I feel like actually understanding and appreciating how capitalism works is often looked down upon.

    It sort of reminds me of the differing attitude toward guns or the military. Many on the right look at them and commit the naturalistic fallacy: if guns are necessary, then they must be good. While on the left, you get the moralistic fallacy: since war is repugnant, some say the use of force can’t possibly be necessary, and shouldn’t be brought up in polite company.

    Since both capitalism and the use of force are déclassé among the left, they aren’t prepared to properly rebut and dismiss the latest scares. Compare the reaction to the scares about gays or Hollywood’s moral corruption of youth, where the left knows things and has firm theories, to the those around economics, violent crime, or terrorist threat.

  77. 77
    morzer says:

    @kc:

    Collectors of logical fallacies and internal contradictions consider Sullivan a goldmine, perhaps?

  78. 78
    maus says:

    @kc: Because I’m an outrage junkie. He’s a moron, otherwise.

  79. 79
    kuvasz says:

    “I’d give them a damned reach-around if it would bring a booming economy,”

    Brings new meaning to “John Cole masturbates way out of depression.”

  80. 80
    bob h says:

    to reassure the markets of long term fiscal stability.

    Don’t the falling yields and rising bond prices of US debt suggest that the market doesn’t need such reassurance?

Comments are closed.