Slashdot Log In
Scott Adams's Political Survey of Economists
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:36 PM
from the who's-the-fairest-of-them-all dept.
from the who's-the-fairest-of-them-all dept.
Buffaloaf writes "Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, wanted to have unbiased information about which presidential candidate would be better for the economy, so he financed his own survey of 500 economists. He gives a bit more detail about the results in a CNN editorial, along with disclosure of his own biases and guesses as to the biases of the economists who responded."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Wait .... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now we actually turn to Scott Adams for actual unbiased information about economics? Or, at least an attempt to explain the biases up-front? That just hurts my head!! :-P
Where's the punch line?
But, seriously, good on Scott Adams for actually doing this on his own. I think had anyone else tried to do this, we'd all be screaming loudly that they were inherently biased and had an agenda.
No matter how it goes, Adams will get more material for the strips. ;-)
Cheers
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, kids: "The Dilbert Principle" can be both fun and scarily accurate.
Parent
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with gasoline as far as price goes is that it's more than 200% or more above where it was not too long ago. We can't increase the supply 200%.
WTF are you smoking? Percentage increase in market price is not in any way linearly related to shortfall in supply. Supply can sit at 99% of demand and prices can climb a lot more than 1% before leveling off. Conversely, if production is 105% of demand, prices can drop a hell of a lot more than 5% before it levels off. It's completely dependent on the shape of the demand curve.
Parent
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it perhaps possible that instead of someone's political leanings influencing their career choices, their career choices and accumulated knowledge have influenced their political leanings?
Parent
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also known as, "Truth has a well-known liberal bias."
Parent
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe academia itself is conducive to liberalism. The "real world" tends to drive people back towards conservatism
Education tends to lead people to liberalism, especially at colleges comprised of a more diverse student body beyond the local community or beyond state lines.
This is why there is a corrosive undercurrent of anti-educationism occasionally cropping up in conservative dialog. It is pretty much a cliche, the small town teenager goes off to college somewhere and the parents are horrified to see him come home with more liberal attitudes. People in the community see the neighbor's kid come back from college with more liberal attitudes. Conservative parents in the community start developing an attitude against sending their kids college, or at least to keep them in the local community college.
If you look at liberalism vs conservatism, there is exactly one overriding determining factor. The population of urban and suburban areas are liberal even in the Reddest of states, and in rural areas people are conservative even in the Bluest of states. Urban and suburban areas in Red of states vote Democrat, rural areas in Blue states vote Republican.
The cause is interaction and familiarity with people from different backgrounds and with diverse ideas. It leads to liberal social tolerance and acceptance of diversity. Experience that people of other races and religions and national origins and sexual orientations are not scary, Learning that the best way for everyone to get along is that you let them live how they wish to live and they let you live how you wish to live. A socially liberal live-and-let-live attitude. If two people want an interracial marriage, I'll let them live how they want and they'll let me live how I want. If two people want a gay marriage, I'll let them live how they want and they'll let me live how I want.
A larger college is like a mini-city bringing together diverse people from a wider area.
-
Parent
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
For whatever reason, apparently "economist" is a field that attracts liberals.
Maybe that's why republicans think you can cut taxes and increase spending and everything will work out okay.
Parent
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
all our republican Presidents since the 80s have been GOP, so what difference does it make?
the surprising bit is how much worse the republicans were when they were given the chance.
Not really, considering the jackass in chief; I don't recall anybody else so obviously stacking federal agencies based on dogma instead of competence or being so ineffective.
Parent
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Funny)
all our republican Presidents since the 80s have been GOP, so what difference does it make?
How observant of you. Did you also notice that all our Caucasian presidents have been white?
Parent
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Informative)
Not the way we do it. In the Keynesian model a country is supposed to only run a deficit during times of recession while during periods of economic prosperity a country is supposed to pay off any debt they have accrued and maybe save a little money for the next bust period. Our model goes more along the lines of running a deficit all the time.
Parent
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Informative)
This is a joke, right?
The only presidents since 1963 to have ever submitted balanced budgets to Congress are Johnson and Clinton. At no time since 1945 when Republicans have been in charge of both Congress and the White House have they ever reduced spending.
The vast majority of the national debt to date was accrued during the Presidencies of three men: Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, all Republicans. In Reagan's case, he was working with a Republican Senate for his first 6 years in office, and Bush had Republicans controlling both houses for 6 years as well.
The Bush II years have seen tax cut after tax cut that were, in theory, supposed to result in increased growth and therefore reduced deficit. Instead, he has posted record deficits year after year. And still, the fiction that large tax cuts will somehow reduce the deficit persists.
The idea that Democrats are the big spending party and Republicans are fiscally responsible is pure fiction, and it boggles the mind why people continue to believe it despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even the "big spending" LBJ was more fiscally responsible than the Republicans of the past 28 years.
If people would treat politics less like religion maybe they would make decisions based on actual historical data rather than what their party keeps telling them is the truth.
Parent
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
88% of Democratic economists think Obama would be best, while 80% of Republican economists pick McCain
More likely Economists deal mostly in the realms of academia which contain a good percentage more liberals than conservatives, so the likelihood of being conservative and wanting to work with people who don't share your beliefs would seem to be fairly low.
Also one might conjecture that Conservatives just want to learn economic so they can make money, not just watch other people do it, haha. /stereotype
Parent
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Interesting)
Tell it to Milton Friedman.
Economists are (nearly) all in favor of free trade, which is generally considered to be conservative.
Some believe in the government using money to drive the economy by investing in local projects and social programs(a la Keynes), and this is pretty "liberal". Others believe in low taxes and small government, which is "conservative".
I think the real problem is that the true fiscal conservatives are all independents these days, so while it's clearly acceptable to be an economist and a democrat, it's not so acceptable to be an economist and a republican. If you add up the libertarians, independents, and republicans you come pretty close to a 50/50 split. That's pretty representative of the academic split between Keynes and Friedman these days.
If you're Keynesian, you believe that government spending and stimulus is a good thing (and are thus more inclined to the Dems), and if you're more inclined to Friedman (small government, low taxes, non-intervention), then you're pretty much forced to the Independents, since the Republicans are (for the last 20 years) irresponsible spenders, and that's hard to justify if you're an economist.
I think also academics and other intelligentsia types tend to skew democrat (since the dems don't call them elitist for doing all that thinking), so that will add to the bias as well.
By and large, I think it's pretty clear that the majority of economists are solidly pro-Obama...Even the independents went for Obama by more than 2 to 1 (according to the breakdown), and on the rest of the issues, the independents side with Obama on everything but taxes and international trade (I myself like Obama, but I think his stance on international trade sucks.)
Parent
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFA (the 2nd one, Scott's blog):
Parent
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would agree with you in a general sense -- except that there is such a moral hazard problem with golden parachuting and other moral hazards (see Fannie and Freddie) that any observation of CEO responses is rampant with game theoretic problems.
Simply put, academics are paid to know about the economy. For doctorate level academics, it's not about their own personal stake -- their stake is in being as accurate as possible and knowing as much as they can.
Parent
CEOs (Score:5, Insightful)
CEOs are hired for who they know, not what they know. Their contacts lead to favourable contracts and favours from politicians. In other words, they are the private sector version of politicians. These are frat people and as long as their staff can keep them out of making stupid decisions, they are worth it to the stockholders.
It's the exceptional CEO that knows about stuff as well as knowing about people.
Parent
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the punchline is that the media and the researchers are so compromised that coming to a relatively uncorrupted conclusion now requires significant time and deep pockets.
Parent
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, we turn to cartoonists for actual unbiased information when the press falls down on its job to do the same. This is the same reason that the most trusted face in news these days belongs to a comedian.
What makes me more confident in this than anything I might see on CNN is that a) he plainly states his personal bias and b) he shows his work. Neither happens in the mainstream media.
You get much better information from someone you know is biased than when their bias is hidden, even if your own biases don't match.
Parent
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Interesting)
> You get much better information from someone you know is biased than when their bias is hidden, even if your own biases don't match.
Exactly. Which is why the MSM will continue to bleed until one of two things occur:
1. They admit their biases like newspapers of old did. I want to see "Wolf Blitzer (D)" on the screen. Then he would be freed from the transparent lie that he is objective and could get on with it. We as viewers could then accept what he does and where he is coming from when he is 'reporting.'
2. Really become objective. Primetime news with real journalism where you get the who what when why and how without mixing in commentary and bloviating. No talking points, no spin, no talking heads shouting, almost no horserace coverage. Real backgrounders on issues and where candidates have voted in the past, where they stand now and their explanation for any change.
Number two has less odds of occuring than monkeys flying from my butt so if the MSM plans on surviving it is option 1 or bust.
Parent
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
That has to be one of the most thoroughly explained and analyzed surveys I've seen in a long time. The fact that he analyzed the leanings of the respondents and took that into account was really well done.
Now, can we also ask them who is really responsible for the current bank crisis (whether profit hungry execs, slimy people luring people into bad mortgages, people flipping houses and then wanting a bailout when burned, government policy...)?
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bush administration was pushing for *more* regulation of Fannie and Freddie since 2003, long before the housing bubble was on the radar.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841.html [washingtonpost.com]
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Add to that, researching the 2005 bill that forced FM/FM to give out loans based on racial profiles instead of financial stability, and you'll have a good idea who to blame.
I'm gonna call bullshit unless you can back this up with a link or two including one pointing to the actual legislation.
Loans favoring people of a certain income class and demographic with interest rates that might not otherwise be available to them under conventional market proceedures, aren't particularly controversial, but *requiring* them to loan to a candidate who wouldn't qualify under normal market conditions would be.
However, anyone familiar knows that "normal market conditions" in 2005 included No Income, No Job, No Asset loans, which should make one *highly* skeptical about the assertion that congress twisted lender's arms.
Who was in charge of Fannie Mae when they "misreported" $10.8 billion in 2006?
The connection of Fannie Mae to Walter Mondale's campaign manager is supposed to be evidence of Democratic malfeasance here? It's been 20 years since Mondale ran. Focusing on Enron and its spectacular collapse that took down a colluding Big 5 accounting firm instead of FM's *understating* their earnings? I guess that's evidence of a massive media conspiracy... especially since the media DID report on problems with FM.
For those too lazy to find out, consider that Obama, despite being in the Senate for only 2 years is the #1 recipient of donations from FM/FM at $112,000.
A bit of further research reveals that this is out a total of a recent $390 million in lobbying dollars. So, Obama's the largest recipient... at .02% of FM donation dollars. I guess that means he's tight with FM, although he's also raised more money than anybody else from just about everybody.
"Fannie Mae Chairman Franklin Raines last week
That "last week" has got to be pre-2004, then, since that's when he was pushed out over the accounting issues.
called for continued efforts by Fannie Mae and mortgage lenders to reach out to those 'at the margins' of home ownership. Blacks, Hispanics and immigrants trying to buy homes would be a major focus of outreach, Raines said." Raines made no mention of assistance for the millions of white families who have difficulty purchasing home
Raines also made no mention of his support for the troops, ending Islamic Terrorism, and the state of Israel, which means he is against these things.
And yet
Parent
How many are longtime party-members? (Score:5, Insightful)
My initial reaction was: There's far more Democratic economists than Republican ones. Perhaps their Democratic bias is because of their evaluation of who's better for the economy, and not the other way around?
I think probably the easiest way to prove this would be to show not just independents, but those who have switched from Republican to Democrat, or vice versa. Someone who's been Democratic for 50 years isn't likely to change their mind, and that could influence the economic evaluation.
However, someone who tends to think independently, even if they actually register with one party or another -- that is, someone who was recently the other party -- might provide a better indicator.
Then again, it's still impossible to tell. Maybe, long-term, Democrats have been better for the economy, and thus, economists tend to be long-time Democrats?
Re:How many are longtime party-members? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe, long-term, Democrats have been better for the economy
There's certainly evidence [wikipedia.org] for that. [wikipedia.org]
To summarize:
Since 1933, Republican administrations have averaged 1.25% annual job growth, while Democrat administrations have averaged 3.25%. Even after removing FDR's terms the Democrats still average 2.9% annual growth.
Since 1978, Republican administrations have increased government spending by an average of 3% annually, while Democrat administrations have averaged 2.5%.
Since 1978, Republican administrations have increased the national debt by an average of 9.1% annually, while Democrat administrations have averaged 1%.
Since 1978, Republican administrations have increased the GDP by an average of 2.7% annually, while Democrat administrations have averaged 3.1%.
It's quite a testament to the GOP's marketing skill that the average American associates them with smaller government, stronger economic growth, and more jobs.
Parent
Obama favored, 59-31% (Score:5, Interesting)
The plain fact is that the economists surveyed think Obama would be better for the economy, by almost two-to-one. It's kind of sad how Adams had to dress the fact up by noting how many were Democrats vs. Republicans, essentially declaring it a tie:
Despite his own strong evidence that the economists were being objective -- their own income levels did not correlate to whether they thought the rich should be taxed -- he doesn't even tell us the plain fact until after he dresses it up.
His CNN writeup was an excuse to repeat three times that he would have his taxes raised by Obama. Well yeah, he makes zillions of dollars. No mention of Obama's plan to cut taxes, for almost everyone, by more than McCain's plan.
I look forward to his next survey of economists, in which he asks which is better economically, capitalism or communism, and then weights the results before revealing them. ("Not surprisingly, 88% of market-favoring economists think capitalism would be best, while 80% of socialist economists pick communism. Our economists favor capitalism on 11 of the top 13 issues, but keep in mind that" etc.)
Fucking Cartoonist (Score:5, Informative)
A "fucking cartoonist"?
How many books [addall.com] have you written? Have you started your own food company [naturalcheffoods.com] yet?
Wealthy people don't get that way by being lazy, son.
Parent
Neither (Score:5, Insightful)
All you have left is to determine which system will lead to a faster or slower death, and decide which death is more preferable.
Re:Neither (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Tax bracket (Score:5, Interesting)
From the CNN article:
Moneywise, I can't support a candidate who promises to tax the bejeezus out of my bracket, ...
Then maybe you are in the wrong tax bracket. Try being in mine for a while. I think most people would prefer to be in a tax bracket that gets taxed like that and keep the rest, rather than where they are now.
Re:Tax bracket (Score:5, Insightful)
What the "tax the rich" crowd doesn't realize is that the tax bracket applies to -earnings-. You have to be -working-. Most ``rich'' (what I'd consider rich) folks don't really ``earn'' anything at all. For example, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and just about every other `rich' person who ``works'', makes exactly $100,000 per year. They'd actually benefit under most tax plans.
Warren Buffet jokes that he pays -less- taxes than his secretary!
Okay, let's put Warren Buffet's quote in context [timesonline.co.uk].
Buffett was saying that secretaries are being taxed at an unfairly high rate compared to the effective tax rates on very rich people (such as himself).
Regarding the comment about more than $200k per year not making you "rich", that varies widely by where you live. Someone in San Francisco making $200k per year may be just scraping by in a middle class existence, whereas the same income in west Texas might make you a land baron. This makes discussion of what "rich" means very confusing.
Parent
I dont understand you americans. really. (Score:5, Insightful)
Moneywise, I can't support a candidate who promises to tax the bejeezus out of my bracket, give the windfall to a bunch of clowns with a 14 percent approval rating (Congress), and hope they spend it wisely. Unfortunately, the alternative to the guy who promises to pillage my wallet is a lukewarm cadaver. I'm in trouble either way.
if you check out those sentences, you may think that the republican administrations up to date, especially this administration, havent taken cash out of his pocket. and democrats, supposedly, take cash from your pocket, and give it to senate to waste. how simple. but also, how stupid.
...
yea republican administration didnt increase your taxes, up until now. but what did they do instead ? they used EXISTING public funds and wasted them on foreign wars and crap, totaling to $400bn/year for iraq, ALONE.
spent money, has to come from somewhere, right ? sure. and since these republicans are the puppet of big business, and they cant tax them, and since they wont tax you also, what can they do ? they used existing public funds from ELSEWHERE. juggled all kinds of government funds, issued bonds, sold bonds to chinese and so on.
i dont think there is anybody among you who would be stupid as to not understand that these spendings, these debts are going to be paid from somewhere.
from where ?
not the little green men, for sure. YOU are going to pay it. EVEN IF it doesnt come directly from your pocket in the form of taxes.
and here you have, a financial disaster, in which you not only sank yourselves, but dragged ENTIRE world down with you. what a shame, what ignorance, what foolishness. EVERYone of us on the globe, suffering because of this.
'deregulation' 'hands off business'
economy is another SOCIAL aspect of human life. as with every social aspect of life, because there are more than one person involved, there are going to be opportunists, schemers, bastards, criminals, fraudsters, every kind of people.
if you do "hands off", that basically means that all these ill willed elements of the society will be free to roam as they like in that field of life.
and so it did happen. some smartyboys came up with a scheme to make quick bucks over another segment of society, painted some high risk loans so nicely that low income people were lured to take them, and then also sold bonds tied to these high risk loans not only nationally but internationally. and, because 'hands off business', they werent regulated, overseen, controlled and checked if they were attempting anything fishy.
way to go.
now we are all headed towards the bottom of the trash can, globally.
and yet, a person like scott adams, STILL talks about 'take money from my pocket with taxes'.
HELLOOOOOOOO !!!?!?!?! with this goddamn global crisis, more cash is going to get out of your pocket than democrats can EVER tax out of you !!!
holy cow.
people, it happened. it should NOT have happened, but it happened.
so please, this time, be smart, think long term, and elect someone who is not as idiot as to still say "deregulation" every other sentence.
Re:I dont understand you americans. really. (Score:5, Insightful)
To sum the parent's post up, we have to start paying our bills, preferably before our creditors overseas start to call them in.
If there is one thing that I cannot stand, it is politicians running up public debt. A close second would be the idiot economists who claim that public debt is not a bad thing because we are paying it back to ourselves. The last time I checked, 20% of our federal income taxes go straight to paying interest on our national debt. It's probably more now. I don't care who the interest is going to, it's still amounts to pushing paper around, which accomplishes nothing.
We need to pay our bills.
Parent
Re:The majority of economists are Democrats? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a surprise. Maybe enomomists make less money than I thought.
or economists have the necessary education to see the big picture and vote for policies that increase the health of the entire economy rather then fatten their personal wallets in the short term.
Enlightened self interest can be a wonderful thing.
Parent
Re:The majority of economists are Democrats? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The majority of economists are Democrats? (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny, I had Keynesian Economics taught, and always saw it aligning with Conservatism and Libertarianism more than Liberalism.
Parent
Re:The majority of economists are Democrats? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I had Keynesian Economics taught, and always saw it aligning with Conservatism and Libertarianism more than Liberalism.
That's probably because you, like most people, think of the caricature of Liberalism that has been painted by right-wing demagogues instead of trying to look at the policies of the various people in the Democratic party.
The strength of the Republican party is their ability to march in lock-step and deliver a consistent message, even if they don't actually do what they say, they always say the same thing--small government, less taxes, Christian values.
The weakness of the Democratic party is that they act like a herd of cats. Each has their own pet issues and sees little reason to support their party members pet issues. From southern conservative blue dog democrats, to west coast left-wing hippie crazies, to Midwestern democratic farm labor, to eastern blue collars and east coast blue bloods. They move in a lot of different directions at once and tend to get steamrolled by the Republican juggernaut.
This allows the Republicans to define "Liberals" however they want and they've managed to hijack the word and make it synonymous with a lot of straw man arguments of their own creation.
Parent
Re:The majority of economists are Democrats? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that we don't believe in markets, it's just that we know that the market isn't "free" enough to trust it to "do the right thing", hasn't been since the late 19th century. When you have a lot of wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a few, there is no free market because those in power control it to stifle competition etc.
It was different when you had a billion small to medium sized businesses effectively competiting, once you had robber barons and megacorps the free market was dead. That's when you need a very strong central government to keep the robber barons from running havok over everything.
Parent
Re:The majority of economists are Democrats? (Score:5, Funny)
(pssst, hey: this is not a good week to be slamming people for not "believing in markets". for that matter, next week doesn't look so good, either.)
Parent
Re:The majority of economists are Democrats? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Interesting Read (Score:5, Informative)
How about this (according to Michael Kinsley, Larry Bartels, etc.): Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.
Unless you are already independently wealthy, you will do better under a Democratic administration than a Republican one. Plain and simple. And if you are independently wealthy, well then you probably don't really care about a GDP percentage here or there. Bottom line, if you are voting "with your feet" on the economy, a Democratic vote is the clear choice, according to historic performance.
Parent
Re:Interesting Read (Score:5, Interesting)
Where are you getting your unemployment numbers from? Clinton started with high unemployment and ended with the lowest unemployment. Growth was consistent. Compare that with Bush where there was a clear increase in unemployment when he took office and even now hasn't recovered.
I won't make you take my word for it though. Link here [miseryindex.us]
All of this also coincides with salary decreases which are only now starting to recover although when adjusted for the fact that the dollar is worth 30% less now than it was four years ago and reality doesn't seem to reflect your statements. Can you please support it in some way? Carter and Reagan years were definitely not the era of responsible spending but Clinton left office with a balanced budget with a projected surplus so it is hard for anyone to take your argument seriously off hand.
Please enlighten me as I'm clearly missing some key information.
Parent
Re:Interesting Read (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Interesting Read (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like asking a panel of computer scientists about what relational database to use.
No, it's like asking a panel of computer scientists about what relational database to use versus asking a room full of business majors what relational database to use. Yeah, there will be disagreements, conflicting advice, and no clear consensus. But I'd still rather get an opinion from people who make thier living studying the subject than from random talking heads that the news corps shovel at us everyday.
Parent
Re:Interesting Read (Score:5, Funny)
> It's not a black and white choice, but one of grays
That's right. Some people are trying to make this election revolve around racial issues, when in reality it should be about species. THEY'RE BOTH ALIENS! EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!
Parent
Re:Interesting Read (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Jungle Jigaboo 08 (Score:5, Informative)
It's a racist epithet referring to black people.
-jcr
Parent
Re:Not Reassuring at All... (Score:5, Insightful)
But, assuming that Adams was unbiased in his selection of samples (I haven't read TFA), we can conclude that there are more democratic economists than republican. Maybe that alone tells us something about who's better at running the economy.
Parent
Re:Lag Time, Economics and Unintended Consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Out of curiosity, how would you explain the multiple hundreds of billions of dollars of budget deficets by Reagen, Bush I, and Bush II, all 'fiscal conservative' Republicans, and the hundreds of billions of dollars of budget surpluses of Clinton, a 'tax and spend liberal?'
Honest question.
Parent
Re:Where are the car analogies? (Score:5, Funny)
I'll try to help out here, though I'm probably a poor substitute for BAG.
See, Republicans are Fords. And Democrats are Toyotas. And Scott Adams has surveyed a bunch of auto industry employees about whether the industry would do better with the CEo of Ford or the CEO of Toyota running the entire auto industry.
More Toyota employees respond to the survey than Ford employees. It turns out that most employees of Toyota say the CEO of Toyota would make the auto industry better; most employees of Ford say that the CEO of Ford would do a better job.
Wait, who am I kidding. Even the employees of Ford know that the top brass at Ford are idiots.
Let's give this another shot:
The economy is a Ford Explorer. The tires on the car (the Republican machine) all agree that the car won't go anywhere if they aren't in charge, even though they are bald and going flat. The transmission (the Democratic machine) thinks that only changing gears can save the car. The engine (the "captains of industry") knows it's really in charge, but lets the tires and transmission duke it out for symbolic control of the car. Palin is the rear spoiler and the neons, pretty but do nothing for performance. Biden is the horn, but more apt to annoy everyone when he makes noise. Nader is the cataliytic converter, and Ron Paul is the loose lugnuts on the tires.
But it doesn't matter, because there are Toyotas and Hondas and Hyundais and Nissans and tons of other cars that are out-competing us... and the truth of the matter is that we need to scrap the Explorer.
Parent