OK, assume the worst intentions (which I don't, but for the sake of argument) it's still better to have a competent liar than an honest fool.
- Party R holds the true belief but the voting public holds the false belief. Party R must lie to win the election and implement their true belief.
- Party D holds the false belief and is in power. They have steadfastly refused to question their false belief to their own and their country's great detriment.
Following this log a D victory ensures no monetary expansion. Not only do they philosophically not believe in it, the public doesn't support it and their key constituencies would be especially hurt by too much inflation if the policy fails. An R victory gets a higher likelihood of the right policy. An R campaign of honesty gets us a higher likelihood of a the wrong policy, because, again, it is extremely unpopular and poorly understood.
And, by the way, counld someone write an entertaining account for us of what one of those monthly Obama-Bernanke meetings sounds like?
No comments:
Post a Comment