15 January 2008

You Don't Have to Be An Economist To Know This Would Be Terribly Wrong . . .

Ann Althouse's note from her debate blogging:
10:01: The pandering on economic issues is a huge turn-off for me. A 5-year freeze on interest rates? I'm not an economist, but that sounds terribly wrong. Yet there's not a word of explanation of why that might be a good idea (from Hillary Clinton).

I'm no economist, but I believe in markets, and part of the reason we have a 'crisis' to begin with is meddling by the federal government in lending practices. A bailout isn't needed, the number of foreclosures isn't insignificant, but it's not particularly huge, either. Also, the 'worrying' about foreign investment in our banks was disgusting. If sovereign funds are willing to gamble on our economy, it's their money to win or lose. Having other countries being deeply invested in our prosperity can only be a good thing. To paint that as a failing of the Bush Administration is dishonest, and dangerous if they really mean to make it harder for foreign interests to invest in America.

Their collective idiocy on the nuclear issue was equally disturbing. There was the weird dodges on the gun issue, they know it's a loser, so they decried the problem in the inner cities while saying people in rural areas can keep their guns. Nobody seems to notice that gun violence is worse where gun control is strongest, and gun violence is least where legal gun ownership is highest, but that's a bit much to expect from Dems.

Lot's of bad answers to poorly stated questions tonight. That was one sucky debate.

No comments: