It has become a common sense view that the US economy has performed poorly under Barack Obama. The assorted punditry are all trying to explain how Obama managed to win the election despite this fact. Perhaps they should stop to consider that perhaps this fact is not a fact at all? Well, if no one else is going to do it, it might as well be me.
Author: Benjamin Studebaker
Special Election Supplement
A little bonus post today–if you’d like to hear a few final thoughts from me on the presidential election, I was on Phil Upton’s BBC Coventry and Warwickshire programme earlier this evening for a brief interview. You’ll find me from 1 hour 17 minutes 45 seconds to 1 hour 22 minutes 50 seconds at the link below:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zmv0t
I reference some material discussed in greater detail here, here, and here.
The Day after Tomorrow: Why This Election Won’t Change Anything
There is a tremendous amount of excitement and exuberance about the American elections tomorrow, but the trends, and recent history in particular, indicate that this excitement is perhaps undeserved. Over the last half century, the United States government has become less and less capable of actually governing the country and doing things, and there is no better example of the trend in action than what the last two years of divided government have produced. Of course, these are just empty assertions without evidence, but evidence we have indeed.
Continue reading “The Day after Tomorrow: Why This Election Won’t Change Anything”
Misconceptions: “The Election is a Dead Heat”
I’m not one to get mired in election cycle coverage often, but then I saw “news” stories like this one claiming that the presidential election is actually close. This is not true. Barack Obama is almost certainly going to win this election, and his margin in the electoral college is probably going to be more than a couple of states large. Here’s why.
Continue reading “Misconceptions: “The Election is a Dead Heat””
NYC Marathon Madness
The public has spoken, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has responded by cancelling the New York City Marathon amid a massive outcry. I, however, have a question, not merely for the mayor but for everyone whose reaction to the mayor’s previous announcement that the marathon would continue was one of visceral condemnation–why? What is the reason that the marathon needed to be cancelled? Who benefits from the cancellation? Not the runners, many of whom have spent a lot of money to come to the city only to find that the marathon has been cancelled. Not the New York economy, which takes in over $300 million each year as a result of the marathon. The people adversely effected by Hurricane Sandy, you say? How do they benefit? Everyone seems to assume that the cancellation is for the benefit of the victims, but I’m not seeing it. Don’t hang me just yet–I have reasons.
Benjamin Studebaker 