Politics: J'accuse!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I told you they read this board.

Yet not the papers reporting on the warm welcome Mankiw's version of this econ 101 statement received.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• Spinsanity announces All the President's Spin (3/29)

• We are proud to announce the upcoming release of our first book, All the President's Spin: George W. Bush, the Media and the Truth, which will be published in August by Touchstone/Fireside, an imprint of Simon & Schuster.
  
  All the President's Spin will provide the definitive non-partisan account of the Bush administration's unrelenting dishonesty about public policy. The book will demonstrate how the White House has broken new ground in using misleading sales tactics to promote its policies and manipulate the media.
  
  Of course, the President is not the only dishonest national politician, but he is surely the most influential. Bush's tactics threaten to change the nature of the presidency and further corrupt American political debate. That is why, rather than attacking his policies or ideology, our book will examine the public relations strategy the Bush administration has used to advance that agenda - its origins, how it works, and why it has been so effective at spinning the media.
  
  In short, this is not a partisan book, nor are we changing the nature of our analysis. Our commitment to non-partisanship is steadfast; we will continue to hold Democrats and liberals accountable on the website, in our Philadelphia Inquirer column and elsewhere. But being non-partisan does not require that everything we write be mechanically balanced between criticism of both sides. In the future, we may well write books or articles focusing exclusively on liberals or Democrats, who have become increasingly aggressive in their rhetoric in recent months. But after almost three years of critiquing spin, we believe that Bush's presidency is the most important subject for an in-depth analysis.

I may have to get me a copy.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

I may have to get me a copy.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to go back and read your posts, and their links, here?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Wouldn't it be cheaper to go back and read your posts, and their links, here?

It is nice to see people coming around.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Curious: are you disputing the truth of what he's saying, or commenting on the advisability of broadcasting that particular truth to an unknowning public?

I think free trade is usually a net good. I'm less certain that our current agreements are a net good.

I have mixed feelings about free trade. I agree it creates economic efficiencies, such as allowing goods and services to be produced at the lowest possible use of resources. However, national governments exist to reallocate costs according to unique national priorities. For example, food production would be way cheaper if we simply imported everything from countries where cost of production was virtually nil compared to ours. But our national security interest prevents us from becoming entirely reliant on foreign production of food. Atkins notwithstanding, we cannot depend upon the continued goodwill of our neighbors to import and eat grain, so we subsidize its domestic production to vindicate a policy goal greater than economic efficiency.

So I don't support the protectionist rationale that saving high-cost American jobs by restraining imports is good for the economy. But I also do not believe that "Is it protectionism?" is the end of the question. Some values (other than saving jobs) merit the control of imports. I'm worried that an internationalized setting of trade priorities under a pure free trade environment will eventually require us to bear risks that don't seem so bad to our economic competitors (allowing poorly maintained Mexican trucks on American roads or rescinding regulations requiring environmental best practices for production of imported goods), but which we should reserve the right to maintain.

Maybe I should call a Spaniard to see if the world would mainly agree I'm mostly correct about this.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Wouldn't it be cheaper to go back and read your posts, and their links, here?

And risk the chance of Josh suing him for illegal sampling? Get real.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I'm worried that an internationalized setting of trade priorities under a pure free trade environment will eventually require us to bear risks that don't seem so bad to our economic competitors (allowing poorly maintained Mexican trucks on American roads or rescinding regulations requiring environmental best practices for production of imported goods), but which we should reserve the right to maintain.

Interesting point. Consider further whether the US ban on internet gambling should be voided as a violation of WTO treaties. Free trade is becoming ilke the first amendment--it can be used as a basis for challenge to nearly any practice or policy.

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
Maybe I should call a Spaniard to see if the world would mainly agree I'm mostly correct about this.

We've already established that 92% of Spain is now inhabited by the French.

Unless you meant Penelope Cruz. And in that case, when you get her on the line, please confirm that Tom is gay.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
We've already established that 92% of Spain is now inhabited by the French.

No, that's in August. It's like a timeshare. Right now, 92% of Spain is probably inhabited by Norwegians.

[notcasesensitive]

I've grown weary of the scowling Condi Rice photos that have been all over the crazy liberal-biased media the past week, so I am relieved to report that Ms. Rice is finally smiling again:

I'm not sure if the smile is purely because she is sitting on Rumsfeld's lap, but I guess it can't hurt.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I've grown weary of the scowling Condi Rice photos that have been all over the crazy liberal-biased media the past week, so I am relieved to report that Ms. Rice is finally smiling again:

I'm not sure if the smile is purely because she is sitting on Rumsfeld's lap, but I guess it can't hurt.

Well, Old Man Rummy seems pretty happy about it.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive

I'm not sure if the smile is purely because she is sitting on Rumsfeld's lap, but I guess it can't hurt.

From what I hear about Rummy, yes it can.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
From what I hear about Rummy, yes it can.

Blech. You must be reading some nasty blogs, man.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Ifood production would be way cheaper if we simply imported everything from countries where cost of production was virtually nil compared to ours. But our national security interest prevents us from becoming entirely reliant on foreign production of food. Atkins notwithstanding, we cannot depend upon the continued goodwill of our neighbors to import and eat grain, so we subsidize its domestic production to vindicate a policy goal greater than economic efficiency.

I asked a Canadian client about this today. He said most US ketsup comes from his part of Ontario. In some emergency we might not be able to get enough. On the other hand with McDonald's eliminating supersize, probably demand/need will be dropping.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Blech. You must be reading some nasty blogs, man.

whitehouse.com has some rummy shots to justify the url