Sometimes it seems The Economist has bipolar disorder with how one article supports liberal or Keynesian ideas while another plants its head into conservative or Austrian/Chicago ideas. The June 2 Lexington article falls squarely in the reality-denial camp.
First, the concluding sentence is masterful truth obfuscation:
“Only profitable firms can sustain any jobs, and the more profitable they are, the more money they have to invest in new ventures with new workers.”
Yeah, but that doesn’t mean such profitable firms will invest in new ventures, or new workers. That very obvious twist is the very thing that gives legitimacy to every Obama quote, and completely undermines their opposing “arguments.”
“Mr Obama often does seem to suggest that financiers are greedy wreckers from whom America’s economy must be saved”
In the first place, the author conflates criticism of Wall St execs with that of their more humble lessers and underlings doing more legitimate work at more legitimate compensation rates.
Point #2 is best made combined with these quotes:
“Obama … believes that the vast majority of people in financial services are well intentioned.”
[an Obama ad quotes a worker that Romney] “‘doesn’t care anything about the middle-class or the lower-class people.’ These ads are unfair, of course”
Consider that it is possible to be well intentioned while also being a scourge to society. Beliefs in Ayn Rand self-interest aside (a philosophy that says all consideration of the “common good” is actually evil), just one week ago your own science article (“The Roar of the Crowd”) noted research that concludes,
“In places where rules and institutions do not protect co-operators, freeloaders consistently dominate.”
(For those who struggle to infer meaning, a freeloader is, by definition, a person that acts against the common good.)
Do the Lexington authors *SERIOUSLY* believe it is impossible to be an oblivious freeloader? Or are these contributors merely uninformed even of that published in their own pages? (Talk about freeloading….)
“Obama campaign’s hatchet men are much vaguer and more sweeping, painting a picture of Mr Romney as a callous asset-stripper—a claim for which there is little evidence.”
Pardon me, but how much more evidence do we need than Romney’s unabashed view of his capitalist record, combined with his vast wealth versus the plight of laid-off workers that Romney is, in fact, both callous and a stripper of assets? It’s not as if we even need prove intent here (he’s already admitted that!!!)
In short, I think this article just might rate as the one most likely to have found its author’s head squarely rammed up his own buttocks as the thing was penned.