The empirical record very very strongly suggests that Joe Biden is a better politician - a better judge of "the right tone" - than anyone who serves on the Editorial Board of the Financial Times. There is no shame in that; Biden has risen to the world's most coveted political office. But it is shameful that they are not very good at, you know, writing editorials.
The Brits have a lot of nerve critiquing any other country's government. To continue your soccer metaphor, the English have scored one of the historic own goals in Brexit.
Bloomberg's editorial board is a close second to this type of word salad. Most of the cyclical trends the FT's ed board cites are questionable, too. They forgot to do their homework. One issue is especially telling: Hiring trends. Why would you expect more than 2 million new jobs, year after year? If it is 1.9 million, then hiring is slowing. Yes indeed. Eye roll.
Perhaps Professor De Loong gets a free subscription to the FT through UC. I however had to pay money for mine. It's exactly editorials such as this one along with other irrelevant content that made the decision to stop the subscription quite easy. I do miss reading Martin Wolf who was about the only one there that made sense.
AG: Interesting that you say this. I am nearing the end of my second cycle with the FT … (1a) no subscription; (1b) subscribe for ~ 2 years; (2a) cancel for a while; (2b) re-subscribe, and now considering another cancellation because of …
… the not so-well hidden Trumpism. The adoration of the feckless Tories. The weak stuff on climate. The usually incompetent stuff on global agriculture.
I am not sure they want Biden to lose. The impetus here is commercial. They have to throw the occasional bone to 1/3 -- 40% of their readership base. The role of advertising and subscriptions in the MSM's business model is the source of great distortion. I have no idea what the remedy is. I doubt public funding would help. And NPR are unbearably "centrist." Tech allows those who care to find the good stuff, but the public is going to be severely misinformed. It is right in the business model, even though this fact is often stupidly dismissed as "Marxist." Commercial incentives matter. How dare you!!
This stuff doesn't even appeal to Trumpists. The appeal of this sort of handwringing is to nervous Democrats or moderate conservatives who want to see Trump lose, and think that Biden is going to blow it because of the "messaging". It's like people who love reading about how terrible their favorite team's general manager is.
Paul Krugman points out that in most surveys, people say the economy is bad but the own personal and local economies are okay.
The US has a higher growth rate and lower unemployment than most European contries, especially Brittain, Also Biden is still more popular than most European leaders. What should Sunak or Sarmer do?
It's likely that 40% or so of the respondents are giving the answer which they think will hurt Biden and the Democrats, or which they believe must be true because they are Democrats and therefore bad for the country, without regard for the facts.
First, people in elite positions have never liked Biden. He just oozes middle-class. They find that yucky.
Second, the polls are to journalists the equivalent of facts. So if they are inclined to expressing opinions, they have to come up with something that rationalizes the "fact" of the poll results.
Third, the FT likes oligarchs and rich people, and they know Biden doesn't all that much. So Biden has got to go.
Dumping on the FT is always fun and usually the right position (because I get to choose which opinion I disagree with). My question about this issue is why are we crediting or blaming Biden for the blameworthy and praiseworthy decisions of the Fed?
Who in the Biden Administration played the role in 2021 of whoever persuaded Clinton to raise taxes and go for growth? Who asked, "instead of subsidizing investment in promising new ways of producing and storing zero CO2 energy, why don't we just pay people to produce and store zero CO2 energy in those promising new ways? I even have an idea on how to pay for the subsidies, an excise tax on fossil fuels in proportion to their carbon content."
At least with regard to sequestration, they are paying a fixed $/ton. And they are taxing methane emissions. The other stuff would be more ideal, and have zero chance of getting 50 votes in the Senate.
Nobody experiences the aggregate, but everybody experiences enshitification.
The internet has taught the populace enough economics to understand why it is called the dismal science, but not enough to disregard their personal experience.
Good one. And sorry to harsh your mellow but I would add:
There is no such thing as age discrimination. Getting old is winning at the game of life, obviously. You might as well complain that we discriminate against the dead.
The empirical record very very strongly suggests that Joe Biden is a better politician - a better judge of "the right tone" - than anyone who serves on the Editorial Board of the Financial Times. There is no shame in that; Biden has risen to the world's most coveted political office. But it is shameful that they are not very good at, you know, writing editorials.
Touché...
The Brits have a lot of nerve critiquing any other country's government. To continue your soccer metaphor, the English have scored one of the historic own goals in Brexit.
The FT Board is playing it's position. It wants Biden to lose, but can't admit it publicly, so it puts out this kind of piffle instead.
Oh, and "play your position" has to be Larry Summers - the overweening, unjustified arrogance leaks from every syllable.
Do you mean free speech absolutist turned commissar campus censor Hurricane Summers?
Usually wrong, never in doubt.
Usually right but for wrong adduced reasons.
Bloomberg's editorial board is a close second to this type of word salad. Most of the cyclical trends the FT's ed board cites are questionable, too. They forgot to do their homework. One issue is especially telling: Hiring trends. Why would you expect more than 2 million new jobs, year after year? If it is 1.9 million, then hiring is slowing. Yes indeed. Eye roll.
Perhaps Professor De Loong gets a free subscription to the FT through UC. I however had to pay money for mine. It's exactly editorials such as this one along with other irrelevant content that made the decision to stop the subscription quite easy. I do miss reading Martin Wolf who was about the only one there that made sense.
AG: Interesting that you say this. I am nearing the end of my second cycle with the FT … (1a) no subscription; (1b) subscribe for ~ 2 years; (2a) cancel for a while; (2b) re-subscribe, and now considering another cancellation because of …
… the not so-well hidden Trumpism. The adoration of the feckless Tories. The weak stuff on climate. The usually incompetent stuff on global agriculture.
I am not sure they want Biden to lose. The impetus here is commercial. They have to throw the occasional bone to 1/3 -- 40% of their readership base. The role of advertising and subscriptions in the MSM's business model is the source of great distortion. I have no idea what the remedy is. I doubt public funding would help. And NPR are unbearably "centrist." Tech allows those who care to find the good stuff, but the public is going to be severely misinformed. It is right in the business model, even though this fact is often stupidly dismissed as "Marxist." Commercial incentives matter. How dare you!!
This stuff doesn't even appeal to Trumpists. The appeal of this sort of handwringing is to nervous Democrats or moderate conservatives who want to see Trump lose, and think that Biden is going to blow it because of the "messaging". It's like people who love reading about how terrible their favorite team's general manager is.
Paul Krugman points out that in most surveys, people say the economy is bad but the own personal and local economies are okay.
The US has a higher growth rate and lower unemployment than most European contries, especially Brittain, Also Biden is still more popular than most European leaders. What should Sunak or Sarmer do?
It's likely that 40% or so of the respondents are giving the answer which they think will hurt Biden and the Democrats, or which they believe must be true because they are Democrats and therefore bad for the country, without regard for the facts.
First, people in elite positions have never liked Biden. He just oozes middle-class. They find that yucky.
Second, the polls are to journalists the equivalent of facts. So if they are inclined to expressing opinions, they have to come up with something that rationalizes the "fact" of the poll results.
Third, the FT likes oligarchs and rich people, and they know Biden doesn't all that much. So Biden has got to go.
I'll take it. And then google adduced.
Dumping on the FT is always fun and usually the right position (because I get to choose which opinion I disagree with). My question about this issue is why are we crediting or blaming Biden for the blameworthy and praiseworthy decisions of the Fed?
Who in the Biden Administration played the role in 2021 of whoever persuaded Clinton to raise taxes and go for growth? Who asked, "instead of subsidizing investment in promising new ways of producing and storing zero CO2 energy, why don't we just pay people to produce and store zero CO2 energy in those promising new ways? I even have an idea on how to pay for the subsidies, an excise tax on fossil fuels in proportion to their carbon content."
At least with regard to sequestration, they are paying a fixed $/ton. And they are taxing methane emissions. The other stuff would be more ideal, and have zero chance of getting 50 votes in the Senate.
Nobody experiences the aggregate, but everybody experiences enshitification.
The internet has taught the populace enough economics to understand why it is called the dismal science, but not enough to disregard their personal experience.
Very well said. Thanks.
An example of systemic age discrimination.
Good one. And sorry to harsh your mellow but I would add:
There is no such thing as age discrimination. Getting old is winning at the game of life, obviously. You might as well complain that we discriminate against the dead.