2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Kralizec]

I recall that when LOTR: the Two Towers went to cinemas, some morons in America objected because it reminded them too much of the twin towers and insisted that the title was inconsiderate and offensive. I don't think the USA has more morons relative to the population than any other country; they just manage to get disproportionately much media attention for some reason.

He can't be that stupid. Is there any chance he's joking?

Well, "stupid" could mean (willfully) ignorant, delusional or just plain lacking in intelligence. In this case I imagine that Limbaugh is simply not aware that Bane was a pre-existing character (I didn't know of it, either) and did not bother to check his facts before putting his spin on the whole story. A couple of months ago he accused Obama of fighting against christianity because he supported Uganda in their struggle against the Lord's Resistance Army, so this story doesn't impress me much.

[Major Robert Dump]

I forgot about that LRA thing.

And yet still he is top rated.

[Lemur]

I believe the character Bane was invented in the 70s.

Bane was created by a DC comics author in 1993, during the Clinton Presidency. So Rush is obviously talking nonsense.

Of course, now he can back up and claim that he was kidding. Really, within his bubble he's invulnerable; dance on the edge of paranoid, insane conspiracy theories, enjoy the media attention without danger, since his own base isn't going anywhere no matter what happens, and then claim to be kidding you say something so nutty and counter-factual that the whole world makes fun of you.

Would Rush be destroyed in an open debate? Of course. Would he wither and die if he had to interact with normal people? Already happened. But so long as he has his studio and his audience, and no requirement to interact with reality, contrary views or normal people, the man is untouchable. Goes without saying that he's probably a miserable person.

And yet still he is top rated.

Radio ratings are a notoriously black art. The numbers given out by the distributors and syndicators are so inflated (especially the cumulative, or "cume" figures), most ad buyers divide them by ten. As in, if a distributor claims to have fifty million cume listeners, it's probably more like five. If they claim two million cume it's probably more like 200k. Or at least, that's how the media buyers treat it, and they're the people putting their money down and paying for the whole thing, so I expect they've given it more thought than most of us ever will.

There's no doubt that Rushbo is the largest draw in talk radio, but that may be a big slice of a smaller pie than anyone involved will ever admit.

There was a good article by a media buyer about casual versus "intense" listeners (as in, people who happen to be in the same room with a radio they aren't listening to, versus people who are actually paying attention), and how radio shock jocks work those two numbers in an attempt to drive up their ad rates, but my Google-fu is failing me. Can't seem to find it.

-edit-

Okay, I was mangling the last part a little bit, which is excusable since I am not a media buyer. The relevant concept is "TSL," time spent listening. If your market share drops, you can juice your ad rates by pushing up TSL. From a slightly dated article:

But even more than the total size of the audience, radio advertisers care about a measure called TSL: time spent listening. The people who listen longest are of course the most ideologically intense.

Here’s how this operates in the real world. Limbaugh knows that his share of big markets like Dallas or Atlanta has dropped from his old 5 percent in any given hour to, say, 3 percent. But if he can entice that 3 percent to listen twice as long, he can more than make up the loss.

That imperative explains why Limbaugh kept talking about Sandra Fluke for so long. He was boosting his TSL to compensate for his dwindling market share. Few things boost TSL like getting the old folks agitated over how much sexy sex these shameless young hussies are having nowadays. (And make no mistake: Limbaugh’s audience is very old. One station manager quipped to me, “The median age of Limbaugh’s audience? Deceased.”)

[drone]

He can't be that stupid. Is there any chance he's joking?

I seriously doubt that he believes it himself. He's not stupid, he knows what to say to get paid.

Ever since I have worked grown-up jobs, at every place of employment there have been people who go out to their cars and listen to Rush during their lunch hour. I've been waiting for someone to hack Clear Channel and replace his broadcast with a running loop of Bill Hicks' Rush Limbaugh bit, but I guess no one has a sense of humor these days.

[PanzerJaeger]

Candidate Romney is having a very bad week or four.

And yet, it seems to be having absolutely no effect outside of the Beltway. $100 million in anti-business ads bought Obama... his lead?

Declining confidence in the nation’s economic prospects appears to be the most powerful force influencing voters as the presidential election gears up, undercutting key areas of support for President Obama and helping give his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, an advantage on the question of who would better handle the nation’s economic challenges, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Despite months of negative advertising from Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies seeking to further define Mr. Romney as out of touch with the middle class and representative of wealthy interests, the poll shows little evidence of any substantial nationwide shift in attitudes about Mr. Romney.

But with job growth tailing off since spring and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, wondering aloud whether the labor market is “stuck in the mud,” the poll showed a significant shift in opinion about Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy, with 39 percent now saying they approved and 55 percent saying they disapproved.

In the Times/CBS poll in April, when the economy seemed to have momentum, 44 percent approved and 48 percent disapproved.

The new poll shows that the race remains essentially tied, notwithstanding all of the Washington chatter suggesting that Mr. Romney’s campaign has seemed off-kilter amid attacks on his tenure at Bain Capital and his unwillingness to release more of his tax returns. Forty-five percent say they would vote for Mr. Romney if the election were held now and 43 percent say they would vote for Mr. Obama.

When undecided voters who lean toward a particular candidate are included, Mr. Romney has 47 percent to Mr. Obama’s 46 percent.

Obama is arguably in an even more difficult position than Romney. He certainly cannot talk up his stewardship of the economy on the campaign trail, but every day he campaigns on Bain and other ancillary issues no one really cares about, he looks weaker and more out of touch. Americans are facing a fourth year of economic stagnation that, incredibly, seems to be getting worse and the president is running ads and holding rallies trying to define the exact date Mitt Romney left his business over a decade ago.

It is madness, but what else does he have to talk about?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wow, someone bought into the political talking point machine.

[Major Robert Dump]

I love hypocrites.

Ssshhhhh, don't want anyone to know about her preferred stock ownership in companies that outsource jobs.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/nancy_p...1.html?pos=hln

[Strike For The South]

As soon as we wrap our heads around the fact corporatism runs rampant, the easier figuring out our political system becomes. The difference between between Bush and Obama is infinitesimal. The system is broken and the people on the fringes have ideas that don't square in a post-industrial, globalized world.

I say we burn something

[Major Robert Dump]

The moon

[Strike For The South]

The moon

Was he even born in America?

[Major Robert Dump]

That's racial, dude, take it back now

[PanzerJaeger]

I love hypocrites.

Ssshhhhh, don't want anyone to know about her preferred stock ownership in companies that outsource jobs.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/nancy_p...1.html?pos=hln

That's nothing. Obama's attacks on American business are Swiftboat-level in their disingenuousness.

Forget what Obama says.

Look at what he does and ponder who he is. Were America divided into two economic tribes, the "American protectionists" and the "Acela corridor elites," Obama would belong to the latter. He surrounds himself with guys like Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, who recently said, "There are those today who would resist the process of international integration; that is a prescription for a more contentious and less prosperous world. We should not oppose offshoring or outsourcing."

Obama's present strategy is so pernicious because he is misleading the tribe of "American protectionists" into thinking that he shares their populist attitudes. Nonsense. If reelected to another term, he's no more going to stop outsourcing or end offshore bank accounts (though some of Romney's seem shady) than he's going to renegotiate NAFTA. He's going to keep staffing his economic team with establishment elites from Wall Street and Ivy League universities. Any blue-collar populist who votes for Obama is going to be and feel betrayed. They're going to have less faith in politics. Told that a pol shares their perspective, only to find out that they were misled, some of them will wind up radicalized.

They'd be better off if Obama were just honest with them: Free trade, outsourcing, and Swiss bank accounts aren't going anywhere, regardless of who is elected in November and sworn in next year. In America, the left has no champion on these issues. Obama would be within his rights to claim that he has a plan to marginally reduce outsourcing, but that plan is premised on the notion that bad policy presently creates an incentive for companies to shift their labor abroad; it's therefore at odds with the idea that a CEO whose company outsourced is a pernicious man or bad leader. By the logic of Obama's own plan, tax policy is the problem, not guys like Romney. Do you know what figure I'd love to see? The number of Obama staffers and advisers who've outsourced a job at some time versus the number who've ever had one of their jobs outsourced.

Not to mention that the Obama's themselves, along with pretty much anyone with a 401k, own stock in companies that outsource.

President Obama has accused Mitt Romney of raking in profits from investing in companies that ship American jobs overseas, but according to his most recent financial disclosure, he and First Lady Michelle Obama have hundreds of thousands of dollars in a mutual fund that has large holdings in corporations that outsource jobs.

“(Romney) invested in companies that have been called ‘pioneers’ of outsourcing,” Obama said at a Saturday campaign event in Glen Allen, Va. “I don’t want a pioneer in outsourcing. I want some insourcing.”

But Obama’s own portfolio shows a willingness to invest in American corporations that have shifted employment overseas.

The whole outsourcing line of attack is a pathetic attempt to divert attention away from the economy, which, as I discussed above, is not working. I would argue that such blue collar populism turns off more independent voters than it attracts, as they tend to be more educated. Sure, you're going to fire up what uneducated, union labor is left in the Rustbelt who do not understand that screwing in a car seat is not worth $65,000 a year, but those folks were going to vote Dem anyway.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of the international business environment understands that companies outsource (and insource) out of economic necessity.

[Strike For The South]

I can get 65k for screwing in a car seat!

Obama is pro business, Romeny is pro business. Obama pays a slightly higher degree of lip service to the peoples needs but that's all it is. Of course anyone who agrees with me on the former sentence turns out to be batshit insane. So I just won't vote.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's like politicians say things, and they aren't completely true. If only people realize the GOP are the only ones that are focusing on the real issues of today.

I think it's wonderful people get upset as if they were personally attacked.

[Strike For The South]

It's like politicians say things, and they aren't completely true. If only people realize the GOP are the only ones that are focusing on the real issues of today.

I think it's wonderful people get upset as if they were personally attacked.

Wasn't it clear a few months ago that PJ is touting Romney because he wants him to win? I love indignation as much as you but I think PJ's post in this thread are best viewed through a lens of lesser evil. I doubt he is as big a Romney cheerleader as you think he is

[Strike For The South]

Also, Ann Romney just dropped a "you people" bomb

The blogosphere is literally exploding

[PanzerJaeger]

It's like politicians say things, and they aren't completely true. If only people realize the GOP are the only ones that are focusing on the real issues of today.

I think it's wonderful people get upset as if they were personally attacked.

This is the second one of your posts today that seems like it is directed toward one of my posts but is just vague enough to make me cautious about responding.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is the second one of your posts today that seems like it is directed toward one of my posts but is just vague enough to make me cautious about responding.

Tbh it is directed towards your posts. I guess I should stop pussy footing around. Here is my problem with what you are saying PJ, you seem to have transitioned from a cautious, principled conservative to a typical team-playing reactionary when I read your latest posts.

I'm not the biggest fan of Obama, and I'm not going to be the one who tries to defend him as the guy you really should be voting for. But you seem to be ignoring what I feel are just the reality of the situation:

A. The economy of the US is not falling, it's not rising at any reasonable rate to anyone's liking but it's not in a downward spiral like under Carter. Tbh, you know as much as I do how little control the president has over the economy, especially when
1. Congress is ultimately in charge of the purse strings, half of it is controlled by GOP.
2. We ain't the only ones with problems. China can't keep projecting super growth forever when it is obvious how shallow and fake a large portion of it is. Add to that the dicking around that Greece, Spain and Italy are doing in the Eurozone and I am at least grateful the world hasn't collapsed at this point given the caliber of politicians these days.

B. The president is in campaign mode and so is Romney. Why bother listening to anything they are saying? What are either of them spewing that isn't charged, hyperbole or spun in some way? Yeah we have problems to tackle and the president is focusing on something you think is stupid. Well in the 1950s everyone sat around the TV to listen to Nixon, not about information regarding US-Soviet relations but whether Nixon is going to give his dog Checkers away.

C. Being principled means not dumbing yourself down for the win. Joining the Rush team in asking Romney to break out the "s-word" (which I take to mean socialism) is just feeding the political game that undermines our liberal democracy. I don't call Romney the 1% and I don't have an Obama bumper sticker either.

I get very anxious when any single presidential election is treated like a life or death situation for the US, our system is stronger than that. The people are more than ready to have a carbon copy of the 2010 midterm elections if second term Obama fails miserably.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wasn't it clear a few months ago that PJ is touting Romney because he wants him to win? I love indignation as much as you but I think PJ's post in this thread are best viewed through a lens of lesser evil. I doubt he is as big a Romney cheerleader as you think he is

Of course PJ wants him to win. The point being that I find myself not able to tolerate a dumbed down debate. It takes two to tango in a rational debate, all but impossible when someone walks in knowing that no matter what they say it will be completely positive towards their team.

[Strike For The South]

A debate about what? The two interchangeable executive candidates?

Overblown. I am actually rather impressed by PJs cheer leading, he's quite good at it.

[PanzerJaeger]

My recent comments are less of a defense of Romney than a reaction to the recent Bain attacks, which bother me on a deeper level. I fully expect the Obama campaign to attack Romney unfairly, and for the Romney camp to do the same, and I don’t blame them for it. That’s just the way the game is played – always has been. I’m not in ‘campaign mode’ and I have no intention of spamming this thread with Romney talking points. I guess being in business school for so many years made me sensitive to certain issues, though.

To me, the president’s full throated embrace of protectionism is equivalent to the GOP politicians who flirt with birtherism. By lending credence and a level of legitimacy to fear and ignorance, he is lowering the intellectual threshold of the whole nation. People need to understand that politicians are not going to bring manual labor jobs back to America unless Americans are willing to be paid according to the actual value they create (which is next to nothing in manufacturing), and giving them false hope only prolongs their misery.

[Strike For The South]

Sensitive and an MBA? Well now I'm all hot and bothered

But seriously. Romneys job was to make money, and he did precisely that. People don't like it because it does not square with the side of sensitive they make swallow along with your main dish of the Corporate republic. I have more sympathy for him than I do a president who's health care bill really only serves to provide insurance companies with new customers. Then this man has the BALLS to tout it is as "universal" care.

[a completely inoffensive name]

My recent comments are less of a defense of Romney than a reaction to the recent Bain attacks, which bother me on a deeper level. I fully expect the Obama campaign to attack Romney unfairly, and for the Romney camp to do the same, and I don’t blame them for it. That’s just the way the game is played – always has been. I’m not in ‘campaign mode’ and I have no intention of spamming this thread with Romney talking points. I guess being in business school for so many years made me sensitive to certain issues, though.

To me, the president’s full throated embrace of protectionism is equivalent to the GOP politicians who flirt with birtherism. By lending credence and a level of legitimacy to fear and ignorance, he is lowering the intellectual threshold of the whole nation. People need to understand that politicians are not going to bring manual labor jobs back to America unless they are willing to be paid according to the actual value they create (which is next to nothing in manufacturing), and giving them false hope only prolongs their misery.

This is perfectly understandable and I agree with most of it. But you must recognize that no president will win a second term by telling people that they need to be paid less. It's how it is. And the crucial part here is that Romney may be free to say it now, but the same impetus (and result as from Obama) will be on him if he gets into the Oval Office.

This is not to mention the fact that these jobs might not ever come back to the US under any condition because those jobs are physically disappearing by the abundance of robotic workers being created.

[Ironside]

My recent comments are less of a defense of Romney than a reaction to the recent Bain attacks, which bother me on a deeper level. I fully expect the Obama campaign to attack Romney unfairly, and for the Romney camp to do the same, and I don’t blame them for it. That’s just the way the game is played – always has been. I’m not in ‘campaign mode’ and I have no intention of spamming this thread with Romney talking points. I guess being in business school for so many years made me sensitive to certain issues, though.

To me, the president’s full throated embrace of protectionism is equivalent to the GOP politicians who flirt with birtherism. By lending credence and a level of legitimacy to fear and ignorance, he is lowering the intellectual threshold of the whole nation. People need to understand that politicians are not going to bring manual labor jobs back to America unless Americans are willing to be paid according to the actual value they create (which is next to nothing in manufacturing), and giving them false hope only prolongs their misery.

I suspect this is the weakest phase for Obama actually. He's got a fairly poor own achivements position and arguing about taxing the rich correct? So if he can paint Romney to be a rich buissnessman who care for nothing except money (in buissness), and is also taxdodging as heck, he'll be making his opponent the physical embodyment of his rethoric. He'll also show that taxing the rich more= closing legal taxdodging loopholes, that'll be close to impossible to counter attack (no really, the rich needs to be taxed less than the rest of the population, because having rich "noble families" are great for the economy and totally in spirit with the ideal of America).

Romney camp knows this and that's why we're stuck here. Since a proper counter will open up for really bad stuff.

[Lemur]

A debate about what? The two interchangeable executive candidates?

Statements like this bother me. There are some real differences between the candidates, even if those differences are getting a bit lost in the Issue of the Day 24-hour news cycle. Here's a smart person talking about it:

Below all the mudslinging lies a real divide. Obama has been making the case that the U.S. economy needs investment — in infrastructure, education, training, basic sciences and technologies of the future. Those investments, in the president’s telling, have been the key drivers of American growth and have enabled people to build businesses, create jobs and invent the future.

Romney argues that America needs tax and regulatory relief. The country is overburdened by government mandates, taxes and rules that make it difficult for businesses to function, grow and prosper, he says. He wants to cut taxes for all, reduce regulations and streamline government. All this, in his telling, will unleash America’s entrepreneurial energy.

Both views have merit. It would make for a great campaign if our nation had a sustained discussion around these ideas. Then the election would produce a mandate to move in one of these directions.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So here are some thoughts on Obama's chronic lack of comprehension about business:

Much could be said about how stupid was President { }'s recent comments about business founders not really having built their businesses by themselves, but rather owing them in large part to things others, especially the government, did for them. You drove on a public road to meet your 457th potential angel investor. Your third grade public school teacher taught you always to say please. And so government gets a lot of the credit for the thing you sweated blood to create. Big surprize. If you build anything, you can absolutely bet people will line up for the credit, like Al Gores for the internet. Failure, you can keep the credit for that.

But here's the question to ask -- how many more successful businesses, inventions, products, services, toys, tools, insights, and just plain fun would there be, if government did not in the first place make it so ridiculously difficult to start a business and keep it going? I don't see our young president taking credit on behalf of the state for all the failures it help cause, all the ideas that never got off the ground because the regulatory hurdles were so high, or all the established companies that never had to face competition because they had managed to get their rents written into law. This is part of the seen and not seen insight of Bastiat. What you see is a successful business when it manages to survive, and then people run up, the same people who taxed and regulated it nearly to death, and say I helped! I helped! What you don't see are all the businesses that perished or never got started because of the heavy hand of the state. And it's a very heavy hand.

Both views have merit.

Bah. You'd think, after so many failed attempts to use Keynesian plans to boost economies, people would stop crowing about government 'investment'.

CR

[Lemur]

Bah. You'd think, after so many failed attempts to use Keynesian plans to boost economies, people would stop crowing about government 'investment'.

As opposed to the clear benefits and never-ending wins of deregulation and trickle-down economics? Please.

Besides which, what do you call a Republican who gets to write a budget? A Keynesian. What do you call a Republican who doesn't hold the keys to the treasury? A deficit hawk.

A part of me wishes that Republicans would sweep both houses and the Presidency, just for the dubious pleasure of watching the entire party do a 180 on deficits and spending.

Besides which, if you'd bother to read Fareed Zakaria's excellent (and rather less grammar-challenged than your linked) article, you'd see he makes the "investment" argument in detail. If you're going to refute, do it from the source.

We need a tax and regulatory structure that creates strong incentives for businesses to flourish. The thing is, we already have one. The World Economic Forum’s 2011-12 Global Competitiveness Report ranks the United States No. 5 — and first among large economies. There has been a little slippage in this ranking the past few years, but it is modest and can be rectified. Overall, however, whether compared with our own past — of, say, 30 years ago — or with other countries, the United States has become more business-friendly. That’s why, just last week, the Economist magazine predicted an American economic renaissance.

America is worse off than it was 30 years ago — in infrastructure, education and research. The country spends much less on infrastructure as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). By 2009, federal funding for research and development was half the share of GDP that it was in 1960. Even spending on education and training is lower as a percentage of the federal budget than it was during the 1980s.

The result is that we’re falling behind fast. In 2001, the World Economic Forum ranked U.S. infrastructure second in the world. In its latest report we were 24th. The United States spends only 2.4 percent of GDP on infrastructure, the Congressional Budget Office noted in 2010. Europe spends 5 percent; China, 9 percent. In the 1970s, America led the world in the number of college graduates; as of 2009, we were 14th among the countries tracked by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Annual growth for research and development spending — private and public — was 5.8 percent between 1996 and 2007; in South Korea it was 9.6 percent; in Singapore, 14.5 percent; in China, 21.9 percent.

In other words, the great shift in the U.S. economy over the past 30 years has not been an increase in taxes and regulations but, rather, a decline in investment in human and physical capital.

[Crazed Rabbit]

As opposed to the clear benefits and never-ending wins of deregulation and trickle-down economics? Please.

Who said I support "trickle-down" economics? You're acting like it's either Keynesian or trickle down economics. The housing bubble was the result of not following Austrian economics. Libor was partially the result of government involvement in the deceit.

Besides which, what do you call a Republican who gets to write a budget? A Keynesian. What do you call a Republican who doesn't hold the keys to the treasury? A deficit hawk.

I haven't considered myself a republican for a while.

We need a tax and regulatory structure that creates strong incentives for businesses to flourish. The thing is, we already have one. The World Economic Forum’s 2011-12 Global Competitiveness Report ranks the United States No. 5 — and first among large economies. There has been a little slippage in this ranking the past few years, but it is modest and can be rectified. Overall, however, whether compared with our own past — of, say, 30 years ago — or with other countries, the United States has become more business-friendly. That’s why, just last week, the Economist magazine predicted an American economic renaissance.

So we've been slipping, and we're now 5th among losers. A general ranking does not refute the fact that net regulations have been continually increasing.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...097324446.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/16/cps...0116olson.html
http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightc...om-smith.html;

I started a business, commercially unsuccessful, sadly, but we created some great technology. I was a libertarian before that, but I was really a libertarian afterwards. It's difficult to even explain how pervasive, expensive, frustrating and sometimes just plain insuperable the regulatory and taxation burden of the state is. It's not what did our venture in, but it helped. It's worse in other countries, where we seem to be headed. My engineers were in Italy. Italian counsel advised me that it was simply impossible, impractical, should not even be attempted to pay them in Italy. Even trying to do so would stir up a nest of officials and my guys would end up with pennies on the Euro. Just set up accounts in Switzerland and pay them that way, which he said was technically legal to do. So that's what we did. It's no wonder innovations by startups in Europe lag so far behind the US. And California? -- don't even think about hiring an employee in California. Read through what's involved in that and you will think it is some kind of joke until you realize it isn't. A whole ecosystem of plaintiffs' law firms exists just to sue employers who run afoul the complicated morrass of employment law requirements. And if you survive to be a public company, they will sue you every time your stock price dips. Some states, such as Texas, are better, but the reason they are better is not what they provide; it's just that they stay more out of the way.

And that's not even including the fact that EPA regulations increase every day, that cities generally increase rent-seeking laws for established companies like taxi services and restaurants vs food trucks.

America is worse off than it was 30 years ago — in infrastructure, education and research. The country spends much less on infrastructure as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). By 2009, federal funding for research and development was half the share of GDP that it was in 1960. Even spending on education and training is lower as a percentage of the federal budget than it was during the 1980s.

Percentages. How much has such infrastructure spending increased in absolute terms, compared to inflation and population? That'd be useful info.

The result is that we’re falling behind fast. In 2001, the World Economic Forum ranked U.S. infrastructure second in the world. In its latest report we were 24th. The United States spends only 2.4 percent of GDP on infrastructure, the Congressional Budget Office noted in 2010. Europe spends 5 percent; China, 9 percent. In the 1970s, America led the world in the number of college graduates; as of 2009, we were 14th among the countries tracked by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Annual growth for research and development spending — private and public — was 5.8 percent between 1996 and 2007; in South Korea it was 9.6 percent; in Singapore, 14.5 percent; in China, 21.9 percent.

I'd say it's not the number but the quality of college degrees. Interesting that here he goes for ranking and not the percentage increase in college graduates compared to the 1970s. We also have a larger GDP than China, and China needs a lot more infrastructure. Again, percentages, how much money per person does the USA spend compared to Europe?

For the second research spending bit -

In other words, the great shift in the U.S. economy over the past 30 years has not been an increase in taxes and regulations but, rather, a decline in investment in human and physical capital.

A slower percentage increase than other places who invested a lot less before is not a decline. And for all he touts Europe, we're doing better than that economic mess, almost as though not taxing and regulating everything to death mattered more.

CR

[Lemur]

The housing bubble was the result of not following Austrian economics. Libor was partially the result of government involvement in the deceit.

Ah yes, the guvmint caused the housing bubble. I believe that's been refuted early and often. The wicked, evil guvmint never forced anybody on Wall Street to create complicated financial instruments for badly-rated bundled mortgages. (And don't get me started on Austrian Economics. Any economic model that cannot explain empirical phenomena such as unemployment has a problem. Moreover, I find the fact that Austrian Economics appear to be unfalsifiable disturbing.)

I haven't considered myself a republican for a while.

And yet, by arguing that guvmint is the root of all evil, you parrot their talking points.

So we've been slipping, and we're now 5th among losers.

An interesting reading. We're ranked as 5th globally, first among industrialized nations.

Percentages. How much has such infrastructure spending increased in absolute terms, compared to inflation and population? That'd be useful info.

Somebody take your Google away? If you'd like to contrast percentages with hard numbers, surely that's within your purview?

Again, percentages, how much money per person does the USA spend compared to Europe?

Again, feel free to bring your own numbers to the debate, friend.

A slower percentage increase

What's the matter, did a percentage kill your brother? Do you have traumatizing memories of the percentages beating you up in school and taking your milk money? Zakaria uses percentages, but you're free to counter his research with your own numbers. As for your dismissal of the notion that we're in some sort of infrastructural decline, once again I'd say you're rowing a leaky boat up a counter-factual stream.

Also, you keep re-posting the Tom Smith essay. Clearly the dude had bad experiences with his failed website for lawyers, and my heart goes out to him. Starting a business is chancy, dangerous, and generally bad for your health. Anybody who does so deserves some respect. But his essay is a tangled yarn of grammar and spelling errors (which are not game-stoppers in and of themselves, but indicative that he had neither the resources nor time to engage a proofreader, and no editorial backup), logical half-truths coupled with lame jokes (again the Al Gore and the internet? Really? Not only is that Epic Fail from an originality and skillful humor perspective, it's off-base, since we have subsequently learned that during the 1970s Al Gore did more to advance ARPANET and the subsequent Internet than any other elected official. So he actually does deserve some credit, just far less than his statement implied. More importantly see horse, dead, beating of.)

Where to go from there? His website for lawyers would disrupt existing businesses, who tried to block him with money and bought politicians. Cry me a Google river. If you push a disruptive technology, you better be prepared for a knife fight. We all love Tesla, but he went down hard to Edison. That's the way of the world.

Then he's shocked, shocked that international pay is a hellish thicket of tax laws and regulations. Speaking as someone who's had many paychecks from London, all I can say is, How the hell did this come as a surprise to you, web dude? Did you do any homework before locating your engineers in Italy?

And so on and so forth. He did a web start-up for lawyers and failed. Such is life. Now he's "really" a libertarian. Well, you know what? When I got turned down by this girl, I became "really" a misogynist, and I'm justified, 'cause girls are meanies.

[PanzerJaeger]

Statements like this bother me. There are some real differences between the candidates, even if those differences are getting a bit lost in the Issue of the Day 24-hour news cycle. Here's a smart person talking about it:

Below all the mudslinging lies a real divide. Obama has been making the case that the U.S. economy needs investment — in infrastructure, education, training, basic sciences and technologies of the future. Those investments, in the president’s telling, have been the key drivers of American growth and have enabled people to build businesses, create jobs and invent the future.

Romney argues that America needs tax and regulatory relief. The country is overburdened by government mandates, taxes and rules that make it difficult for businesses to function, grow and prosper, he says. He wants to cut taxes for all, reduce regulations and streamline government. All this, in his telling, will unleash America’s entrepreneurial energy.

Both views have merit. It would make for a great campaign if our nation had a sustained discussion around these ideas. Then the election would produce a mandate to move in one of these directions.

This is typical Zakaria oversimplification. According to Romney, tax and regulatory reform free up capital, which is then reinvested in new ventures. That business growth fosters growth in the tax base and organic revenue growth, as opposed to foreign indebtedness.

This is really an argument over public versus private investment and which approach will yield sustainable levels of prosperity.