Just for Fun: Count the Number of Problems in this Opinion

I think this is an article that everyone can disagree with whether or not you love Obama, love democracy, or love anti-constitutional Libertarianism (joke! joke!)

Just read this article and then comment on all the blatantly incorrect things that Ted Rall says.

8 thoughts on “Just for Fun: Count the Number of Problems in this Opinion

  1. “As a pundit it’s my job to explain why politicians do the things they do.” Yes it is, and you should be fired. Liberal plus idiot is a bad combination. Makes me embarrassed for my party.

  2. The moderator’s response to Billy Madison comes to mind. “…I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

    Rall is a mediocre (at best) cartoonist; as a pundit he fares no better. The cartoons have the benefit of ending sooner.

  3. Wow. Just… wow.

    “The time for austerity is during a boom, when you can afford to save up for a rainy day. Governments are supposed to spend their way out of a recession or depression.”

    If I lived like that, I’d be bankrupt in no time.

  4. Bruce N, “libertarianism” as philosophy, small l. Libertarianism as political party, big L. Many more small l libertarians than big L libertarians. Most of the most prominent libertarians are not members of the Libertarian party, which has its own problems.

    As for the opinion piece, horrible, too many errors to count. It is worth pointing out that there are plenty of those on the “conservative” side also. Sean Hannity is a walking mistake machine, spewing out hackneyed simplistic “ideas” every few minutes (just to cite one example).

  5. At least Rall is asking the right question: Why doesn’t Obama care about unemployment? Seriously? One battery factory is his evidence that his policies are working? Where’s his jobs bill? Rall’s answers are wrong, but at least he’s asking the right question.

  6. I hate to be the witless wonder here, but all he is talking about is basic Keynesian economics. You are free to disagree with it of course, you Austrians you, but I can’t find him saying anything spectacularly wrong.

    True, but you are not a government. That’s a significant difference.

  7. John C,

    I must say, that I’ve never heard of a government during a boom deciding for austerity and don’t believe it could ever happen so long as governments are run by human beings.

    Likewise, Keyesian economics do call for more spending during a slump — but what if inappropriate use of Keyesian economics (during boom times) caused the slump in the first place and now we’re hosed due to too much debt? You can’t unbottle the genie if the genie is the problem.

  8. Bruce,
    Good Keynesian governments would, but there are so few (I agree that it’s possible that that ideal is too high). Appropriate use of Keynes means austerity in boom times so I don’t know that it would get us into huge debts during the boom. Of course, it also calls for massive government spending during lean times, so there would be debts, they would just (presumably) be taken care of during the next boom.

Comments are closed.