I won’t be able to keep these up every day, but I still can’t sit by and let it ago.
Lets imagine a major Presidential candidate had said the following.
If the CIA kills Osama Bin Laden before the 2012 election that would be playing politics with national security and I would consider it treasonous.
Would we stand for this?
Then we should not stand for Rick Perry’s equivalent comments on monetary policy.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
Friday ~ August 19th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Johnnie Linn
They are not equivalent because having killed Osama Bin Laden would be good, while increasing the money base between now and the election would be bad.
Friday ~ August 19th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Michael Carroll
If snark and intellect were equivalent you might be on to somthing, Mr. Linn.
Friday ~ August 19th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
steve88
But Perry did not say that the central bank easing would be “bad” for the US economy.
Perry said that Fed action would be “playing politics” – which implies that he thinks that it would be something that improves Obama’s reelection chances – i.e. helps the economy.
What Perry said was a very open threat of violence against an official who tries to do his job of helping the US economy …
It’s amazing how brutal and detached the GOP has become.
Friday ~ August 19th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Johnnie Linn
Steve,
It does not imply that is what Perry thinks. “Playing politics” could also mean that Perry thinks that Bernanke would be giving up the political independence of the Fed to do something that Obama thinks that the voters would think is a good thing for the Fed to do. That is not the same as it being a good thing for the Fed to do.
Try again.
Friday ~ August 19th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
buddyglass
For some reason I can’t reply directly to steve88′s post, so I’ll have to do it here.
What’s implicit in Perry’s statement is that he believes the easing measures provide *short term benefits* but represent a net negative in the long-term. Ultimately he thinks they’re a “bad” thing, hence the comment about treason.
He (and the rest of the right wing) accuse Bernanke (and Obama) of attempting to “juice” the economy *today*, for political gain, by way of “mortgaging our future” (i.e. accumulating additional debt).
Saturday ~ August 20th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
MP
buddyglass has nailed it. The idea that inflation can provide short-term or illusory benefit while causing long-term problems is the completely mainstream argument for independent central banking.
I’m not defending Perry’s economics or his characterisation of this as treasonous, but you’re going to get further responding to his actual concerns than than by drawing ridiculous analogies.