Not exactly new column: Obama and the Economy

You’ve (maybe) read the first draft. Now the not-all-that-different rewrite is in the issue of Time with the fat kid on the cover and online here. It begins:

When Barack Obama says a John McCain Administration would amount to a third term of George W. Bush, he’s not just blowing smoke, especially when it comes to economic policy. Yes, McCain is a very different kind of man, with a different history, who will face a set of challenges and opportunities that are different from those confronting Bush. But look through the Republican candidate’s campaign pledges on the economy, and you’ll see that they really do add up to a continuation of Bush’s focus on cutting taxes (especially taxes on corporate and capital income) and moving economic decisions (and burdens) into the hands of individuals.

The McCain camp has responded to Obama’s digs by trying to link Obama to Bush (because both are supposedly big spenders) and to Jimmy Carter (because both are supposedly big taxers). It’s hard to see either parallel sticking, though–the first is too ridiculous, and the second is too dated. If this election becomes a referendum on the economy and Bush’s handling of it, Obama wins and McCain loses. It’s as simple as that.

The question, then, is whether Obama can turn the election into such a referendum. The economy appears to be doing what it can to help, with the minirevival of April and May giving way to less encouraging data. But Obama’s campaign has never really been about people’s pocketbooks. That was more Hillary Clinton’s thing. Now, with Clinton finally out of the picture, the presumptive Democratic candidate is trying to make up for lost time with a two-week campaign swing through battleground states like North Carolina, Missouri and Ohio, talking about the economy at every stop. That’s smart. But if Obama’s early speeches are any indication, his reinvention of himself as the economy candidate is not going to be a slam dunk. Read more.

So which version do you like better?

Apple CEO Cook Gives Up $75M in Stock Dividends

NEW YORK — Apple CEO Tim Cook is giving up $75 million in dividends on restricted stock that the company is awarding to all of its employees.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday, Apple Inc. said that Cook requested that his restricted stock units not receive dividends. The dividends that Apple workers are getting amount to $2.65 per quarter for each restricted stock unit held. The shares are not normally eligible to receive dividends, so Apple’s decision is a perk for its employees.

Tan Boon Tee

Between McCain and Obama, whoever can convince the voters more that he is the one able to tackle the burning economic issues will most likely win the November election. Naturally, this will largely depend on the kind of advice the respective panels of economists could offer.

The question is how competent are these advisors. Would they be able to do a better job than the existing specialists in the White House? Or for that matter outsmarting the experts in the public and private financial institutions who can only bemoan the pathetic state of the current sick economy?

The bottom line is do not just trust what each candidate would promise or parrot what their advisors think, but what the candidates themselves are capable of thinking and competent in doing. And that will be extraordinary tricky if not downright difficult.
(B T Tan)
Dad

Well you made No. 4 on Time’s list of most read articles!

The trouble is that candidates can’t be really frank with the public on what has to be done or they’ll never get elected.
reality-check

Your stunningly shallow take on Obama’s economic proposals indicates you are either in the tank for Obama or an idiot. In your world maybe taxing windfall profits is no big deal – in the real world it does nothing to increase the supply of fuel and has already failed during the Carter administration. In your world perhaps renegotiating Nafta is benign rhetoric – in the real world, Obama’s protectionist tendencies ignore the possibility of trade retaliation with some in Canada, one of the US’s biggest suppliers of energy, already calling for tariffs on oil and gas if Obama breaks the deal. In your world perhaps increasing capital gains taxes for fairness – which is why Obama said he would raise them – makes economic sense but in the real world increases in capital gains tax rates always REDUCE total collections of capital gains taxes. In your world maybe increasing taxes, restricting trade and, in effect, nationalizing the profits of the oil industry during an economic slowdown make sense. In the real world, these same policies led the Great Depression.

We can read Klein or the New York Times for unabashed Obama adoration. Perhaps next time you could talk to a real economist or business person instead of regurgitating ridiculous rhetoric.