Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (293833)	2/25/2009 1:46:15 PM
From: briskit	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793967

Here's my 27 year old son's response to the article. I like that he's reading my emails, and thinking. "He makes good points, but he is wrong. There are thousands of variables (more really) that can affect Obama's plan, and his success or failure is, at most, a good argument for one ideology working in a specific set of circumstances. It is no more a big test of socialism than Italy's failure of socialism was. If we develop a new energy, or computer technology then the economy will get better and people will love Obama. If Walmart gets caught in a bad business deal and ruins the market the economy will collapse and he will be a bad president. There have been many other big tests that people have passed and failed and we are still arguing if our ideas are correct. We are simply not smart enough to understand all the variables, so we cling to what we know to keep the illusion of control and ability. Just my thoughts.

To: LindyBill who wrote (293833)	2/25/2009 4:33:41 PM
From: JustLearning	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793967

In my opinion: It is hard for me to understand David Brooks. Through a conscious thought process, he reached the conviction that he is “not a liberal”. I take this view to mean that he believes that separating the government from the economy is good, and government interference in the economy is bad. Yet, he thinks that Obama’s people - who are proposing (and will get away with) a massive expansion of the government and interference in the economy - are “smart and sober”. I am assuming “smart and sober” refers to the realm of government policy. How can anyone hold such contradictory thoughts, which in essence amounts to saying “So-and-So is really smart, although I am convinced his ideas will not work in reality”? Brooks gives himself away when he expresses his views as a negative statement “he is not a liberal” - he has no firm convictions on this topic, and can be shaped to any form - whatever works. That’s why he also mentions that he admires Obama who "is a liberal" and will use his "whatever works" as justification for this massive interference in the economy. Such an approach is not appropriate for any productive task; leave alone to a 21st century economy with its large, complex, interlocking dependencies of products, contracts, and people.