[mqtcelticsfan]

Originally Posted by maxiep

I do remember. I also remember when I told you that all those items were written for him by someone else. He doesn't even write his own speeches. He had to have his hand held through what was written in his economic policy by my friend. Just because something is on his website, doesn't mean that he wrote it or they were his ideas.

One thing that must be commented on here, is this idea that Obama is a bad candidate because he has people advise him on economic policy and such. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that probably every President ever had people he deferred to on most of the issues. People whose policies that President agreed with. Why is it so horrible for Obama to follow a policy written by people with far greater and specialized experience in a certain field? Unless John McCain has a Ph.D in Economics, and knows every single thing about every single country in the world, I bet he simply goes out and does what those who advise him suggest.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by mqtcelticsfan

One thing that must be commented on here, is this idea that Obama is a bad candidate because he has people advise him on economic policy and such. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that probably every President ever had people he deferred to on most of the issues. People whose policies that President agreed with. Why is it so horrible for Obama to follow a policy written by people with far greater and specialized experience in a certain field? Unless John McCain has a Ph.D in Economics, and knows every single thing about every single country in the world, I bet he simply goes out and does what those who advise him suggest.

I agree, and I was going to write something on that subject myself last night but fell asleep instead. The idea that Obama is somehow a deficient candidate because his economic advisor advises him on economic issues is pretty strange, especially coming from someone who is a friend of said economic advisor.

If you (maxiep) were saying that your friend is an incompetent hack, I could understand your position. But it sounds like you think he's a bright guy, yet you have some sort of issue with Obama taking advice from him, in his area of expertise. That is very odd.

barfo

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by mqtcelticsfan

One thing that must be commented on here, is this idea that Obama is a bad candidate because he has people advise him on economic policy and such. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that probably every President ever had people he deferred to on most of the issues. People whose policies that President agreed with. Why is it so horrible for Obama to follow a policy written by people with far greater and specialized experience in a certain field? Unless John McCain has a Ph.D in Economics, and knows every single thing about every single country in the world, I bet he simply goes out and does what those who advise him suggest.

Perhaps you misunderstand what I'm trying to say. More likely (once again), I stated it poorly. For that, I apologize. Every single candidate has advisors, but there's a difference between advising and completely outsourcing on an issue. In the case of economic policy, Sen. Obama had his own ideas, which AG had to politely tell him were completely unrealistic. He then had to work with him to get as close to his goals as possible while remaining in the realm of reality.

A few months ago, Sen. McCain admitted he knew nothing about economics and was excoriated for the comment. I actually admire his honesty. Based on what I've heard from people that work for Sen. Obama, Sen. McCain likely knows more about economics than Sen. Obama.

It's not that Sen. Obama isn't smart enough to understand the issues, it's that he has absolutely no idea what the impacts of specific policies are and doesn't appear to care. His capital gains answer in the ABC Pennsylvania Debate wasn't an unusual demonstration of his knowledge of the issue. He holds a principle dear, but it's academic to him. The actual data and mechanics of how it works he finds uninteresting.

There's a good chance Sen. Obama is elected President. His choices of Sec. Treas and CBEA are huge. It's something to keep an eye on.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Perhaps you misunderstand what I'm trying to say. More likely (once again), I stated it poorly. For that, I apologize. Every single candidate has advisors, but there's a difference between advising and completely outsourcing on an issue. In the case of economic policy, Sen. Obama had his own ideas, which AG had to politely tell him were completely unrealistic. He then had to work with him to get as close to his goals as possible while remaining in the realm of reality.

That sounds like AG was doing the job he was hired to do. Obama is not an economist, he's a lawyer and a politician. That's why he hired your buddy.

A few months ago, Sen. McCain admitted he knew nothing about economics and was excoriated for the comment. I actually admire his honesty. Based on what I've heard from people that work for Sen. Obama, Sen. McCain likely knows more about economics than Sen. Obama.

I don't see how you have the data (on McCain) to make that comparison.

It's not that Sen. Obama isn't smart enough to understand the issues, it's that he has absolutely no idea what the impacts of specific policies are and doesn't appear to care.

Really. No idea, and he doesn't care about the impact of policies. I think you might be exaggerating more than a bit.

His capital gains answer in the ABC Pennsylvania Debate wasn't an unusual demonstration of his knowledge of the issue. He holds a principle dear, but it's academic to him. The actual data and mechanics of how it works he finds uninteresting.

Shocking. An economist finds a non-economist uninterested in the 'actual data and mechanics'. Yeah, that's why the rest of us didn't become economists.

There's a good chance Sen. Obama is elected President. His choices of Sec. Treas and CBEA are huge. It's something to keep an eye on.

Is your friend a good economist? You say we should keep an eye on his economic appointments. AG is one such appointment. Does his choice of AG, and subsequent acceptance of his advice, suggest that Obama's judgment is good, or bad, in this area? Serious question, which is it?

To the overall point, you do, of course, realize that you are operating with a very skewed dataset here - inside information as told by one staffer on one campaign, and no similar data from anyone else. Thus your view of the situation may not be very accurate. It is human nature to put great weight on those things we know about personally, even if they are a small piece of an overall puzzle.

I'd like to suggest to you that what AG is telling you might not be the whole truth, even if it is the whole truth as he understands it. He may be a great economic wizard, but he clearly doesn't know politics very well (as seen by his NAFTA screwup).

barfo

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by barfo

That sounds like AG was doing the job he was hired to do. Obama is not an economist, he's a lawyer and a politician. That's why he hired your buddy.

You should have higher goals for your president. I wonder if you said the same about Reagan?

Originally Posted by barfo

I don't see how you have the data (on McCain) to make that comparison.

Knowing what you don't know is an important trait. The problem with Sen. Obama is he believes he knows more than he does.

Originally Posted by barfo

Really. No idea, and he doesn't care about the impact of policies. I think you might be exaggerating more than a bit.

Nope, just poorly worded. I'll give you a specific example. He stated that he wants to raise capital gains taxes even though it will likely mean fewer tax dollars received from the tax. Why? Becuase it's more fair in his mind.

Originally Posted by barfo

Shocking. An economist finds a non-economist uninterested in the 'actual data and mechanics'. Yeah, that's why the rest of us didn't become economists.

Well, you're not running for President. Put down wonkiness all you wish, but it's an important trait in a president who wishes to create an activist government to manage the economy. Besides, as an economist, I can tell you this stuff isn't that hard.

Originally Posted by barfo

Is your friend a good economist? You say we should keep an eye on his economic appointments. AG is one such appointment. Does his choice of AG, and subsequent acceptance of his advice, suggest that Obama's judgment is good, or bad, in this area? Serious question, which is it?

Austan is an excellent economist with too much confidence in his own abilities, which is typical with youthful people who have achieved a good deal. I doubt he's Clark Medal material, but he's very good. I suppose he would be appointed somewhere, but if he were appointed to a position that mixed policy and politics, he would likely fail.

Originally Posted by barfo

To the overall point, you do, of course, realize that you are operating with a very skewed dataset here - inside information as told by one staffer on one campaign, and no similar data from anyone else.

I have several friends that work for Sen. Obama. It's just that I'm closest to Austan.

Originally Posted by barfo

Thus your view of the situation may not be very accurate. It is human nature to put great weight on those things we know about personally, even if they are a small piece of an overall puzzle.

Thanks for the introductory lesson on stats, but I'm a little beyond that level. You know, all that caring about actual data and mechanics stuff. Adjusting for bias is second nature to me.

Originally Posted by barfo

I'd like to suggest to you that what AG is telling you might not be the whole truth, even if it is the whole truth as he understands it. He may be a great economic wizard, but he clearly doesn't know politics very well (as seen by his NAFTA screwup).

No offense, but between him and you, I'll take him. So suggest all you wish, but until you supply more about your background to prove to me you're wiser and more insightful than he, it's wasted effort.

And I'm glad you brought up NAFTA. Austan knew very well where Sen. Obama stood on the issue and he passed on the assurances that Sen. Obama was in favor of NAFTA but wanted to tweak it to better help protect American workers. It was the release by CTV of the meeting that caused the dustup. Sen. Obama wanted it both ways--to tell the Canadians they didn't have much to worry about and to tell Ohioans that he was against it. That one's not on Austan.

[zagsfan20]

Sounds like you have friends in high places and you've traveled much of the world and can see things with a 'broader scope' than the rest of us.

Get off the high horse. Personally I think your full of it.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Knowing what you don't know is an important trait. The problem with Sen. Obama is he believes he knows more than he does.

And yet he was willing to change his views because someone more expert told him he was wrong, according to your story. Sounds to me like he knows what he doesn't know.

Nope, just poorly worded. I'll give you a specific example. He stated that he wants to raise capital gains taxes even though it will likely mean fewer tax dollars received from the tax. Why? Becuase it's more fair in his mind.

Uhm, no. What he said (and what is true) is that no one knows for sure whether tax receipts would go up or down in that situation.

Well, you're not running for President. Put down wonkiness all you wish, but it's an important trait in a president who wishes to create an activist government to manage the economy. Besides, as an economist, I can tell you this stuff isn't that hard.

I didn't suggest it was hard, I suggested it was boring to most people.

Austan is an excellent economist with too much confidence in his own abilities, which is typical with youthful people who have achieved a good deal. I doubt he's Clark Medal material, but he's very good. I suppose he would be appointed somewhere, but if he were appointed to a position that mixed policy and politics, he would likely fail.

Well, I guess Obama shouldn't have hired him then. I will henceforth think a little less of Obama for having hired your friend.

I have several friends that work for Sen. Obama. It's just that I'm closest to Austan.

Fine. Do you also have several friends who work for other campaigns, so that you have a good comparison?

Thanks for the introductory lesson on stats, but I'm a little beyond that level. You know, all that caring about actual data and mechanics stuff. Adjusting for bias is second nature to me.

That was the introductory lesson on psychology, not statistics, and you don't seem to have recognized the textbook, much less the contents. Adjusting for bias in data might be second nature to you, but adjusting for your own bias is quite obviously not.

No offense, but between him and you, I'll take him. So suggest all you wish, but until you supply more about your background to prove to me you're wiser and more insightful than he, it's wasted effort.

I'm not suggesting you should accept my view of Obama. But I think accepting his view as the one true gospel is causing you to make some awfully awkward arguments here.

And I'm glad you brought up NAFTA. Austan knew very well where Sen. Obama stood on the issue and he passed on the assurances that Sen. Obama was in favor of NAFTA but wanted to tweak it to better help protect American workers. It was the release by CTV of the meeting that caused the dustup. Sen. Obama wanted it both ways--to tell the Canadians they didn't have much to worry about and to tell Ohioans that he was against it. That one's not on Austan.

According to Austan, that is.

barfo

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by zagsfan20

Sounds like you have friends in high places and you've traveled much of the world and can see things with a 'broader scope' than the rest of us.

It's for certain that all my friends are much smarter than I am. As for traveling, I doubt I've traveled more than the average person my age in here. IF working abroad is something to which you aspire, it's not that hard to find a job in another country.

Originally Posted by zagsfan20

Get off the high horse. Personally I think your full of it.

The only "high horse" I'm on is my certitude that I know my homophones better than do you.

[mqtcelticsfan]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Perhaps you misunderstand what I'm trying to say. More likely (once again), I stated it poorly. For that, I apologize. Every single candidate has advisors, but there's a difference between advising and completely outsourcing on an issue. In the case of economic policy, Sen. Obama had his own ideas, which AG had to politely tell him were completely unrealistic. He then had to work with him to get as close to his goals as possible while remaining in the realm of reality.

A few months ago, Sen. McCain admitted he knew nothing about economics and was excoriated for the comment. I actually admire his honesty. Based on what I've heard from people that work for Sen. Obama, Sen. McCain likely knows more about economics than Sen. Obama.

I bet both candidates have a general idea of what they want to happen in the economy, but the experts are there to provide the specifics, because they have spent 6+ years in school and at this point, probably ~20 years working with this field, and know what they should be doing. I'd much rather have a guy with that kind of experience working on the specifics than a politician.

Originally Posted by maxiep

It's not that Sen. Obama isn't smart enough to understand the issues, it's that he has absolutely no idea what the impacts of specific policies are and doesn't appear to care. His capital gains answer in the ABC Pennsylvania Debate wasn't an unusual demonstration of his knowledge of the issue. He holds a principle dear, but it's academic to him. The actual data and mechanics of how it works he finds uninteresting.

Do you have any evidence to suggest he finds it uninteresting? Really, I'd like to know.

Originally Posted by maxiep

There's a good chance Sen. Obama is elected President. His choices of Sec. Treas and CBEA are huge. It's something to keep an eye on.

Exactly. I'm going to put money on him selecting people that will know the specifics on how to accomplish what he wants to get done. Shocking conept, I know.

[zagsfan20]

Originally Posted by maxiep

The only "high horse" I'm on is my certitude that I know my homophones better than do you.

Well than your certainly superior.