Blaming everyone but themselves
Feb 6th 2004
From The Economist Global Agenda
Mr Bush, for his part, has an election to fight—and fiscal austerity wins few votes. On the contrary, he will claim that his tax cuts have delivered growth and jobs. They have certainly delivered some of the first, but not much of the second. The economy needs to create more than 140,000 jobs per month just to keep pace with the growth of the labour force. Last month, firms added 112,000 workers to the payrolls; in December, they added just 16,000. This is a poor return on tax cuts that cost the Treasury $195 billion in the 2003 fiscal year. For that money, Mr Bush could have hired 2.5m people to dig holes and another 2.5m to fill them, paying them all America’s average annual wage.[P6: Emphasis added]
An idealogical axe, rather than partisan.
Posted by Phelps at February 10, 2004 12:21 PMSame flavor, diferent label.
Posted by P6 at February 10, 2004 12:54 PMKind of like liberalism and socialism?
Posted by Phelps at February 10, 2004 01:59 PMI must be missing something here. The Economist is generally supportive of the Bush Administration, but is now criticizing it. Their support for Bush makes it unlikely that they have some axe to grind, as P6's ironic title points out.
So why are we discussing whether it's a partisan or ideological axe? Do you, Phelps, have evidence that the Economist is ideologically oppposed to the Bush administration and is just griding its axe?
BTW, as long as you keep labeling anything to the left of yourself as "socialist" don't expect people to take you seriously.
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at February 10, 2004 07:03 PMI've subscribed to The Economist for three years (it's a weekly magazine). The columnist on US politics, "Lexington" is extremely hostile to any and all Democrats--sort of like a British NRO. Subjects of admiring tributes include Ronald Coase, F. von Hayek, James Buchanan, Ronald Reagan, Frank L. Wright (radical libertarian & architect--tribute was to his political work), and so on. Very good magazine, beautifully written, very British, very smart and logical.
On economic matters, it is the most reliably pro-market magazine I've ever seen. Beats out the "National Review" and "Weekly Standard," which are just right-wing, not libertarian. It defended the invasion of Iraq, endorsed GWB for the 2000 election.
SHORTER JAMES R MACLEAN: Buncha commies.
Posted by James R MacLean at February 10, 2004 10:35 PMLOL. My parents subscribe to the Economist and give me their copy after they're done with it so I've been reading it for the last several years as well. I disagree with it on many topics, but at least it has more substantive reporting than most American magazines.
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at February 11, 2004 01:50 AM