0
   

Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go

 
 
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 01:16 pm
Ok Cyc, lets discuss it...

Here is Niall's original article. Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go

Some of the dissent: Media Reactions to Newsweek’s Niall Ferguson-Obama Cover Story

His rebuttal: Niall Ferguson Defends Newsweek Cover: Correct This, Bloggers
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 01:17 pm
So, show me where he erred Cyc.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  5  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 01:33 pm
Start here:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/fisking.html

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/the-blogosphere-makes-its-case-against-ferguson.html

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/fisking-ferguson-iii-1.html

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/the-blogosphere-makes-its-case-against-ferguson-ctd.html

I could go on, but Sullivan does a nice job rounding up the various errors that Ferguson makes. But, let's start with two simple ones:

First, Ferguson seeks to hold Obama responsible for correcting the 6 million jobs that were lost in the year BEFORE he was elected, by setting January 2008 as the baseline to judge Obama's performance by. This is absolutely ludicrous on it's face, and only used b/c it's a metric that allows him to deny that Obama has done a good job stopping the bleeding.

Second, Ferguson apparently had no idea that Census hiring is a repeated government function, and that the jobs hired for the census were always going to be temporary... he uses that data to somehow judge and doom Obama's stimulus efforts.

In short - it's important to note that Ferguson's audience isn't the public, or anyone in the fact-based sphere; he's auditioning for Wingnut Welfare. The guy is ostensibly a professor but makes his real living giving speeches to right-wing organizations and corporations at 50-75k a pop. He's not trying to elucidate or uncover any primal truths about Obama - he's performing the initial steps of a job interview.

Given that his understanding of facts has been shown to be rather shaky, and his conclusions are suspect, and he makes his living by telling the right side of our political sphere what they want to hear, why should anyone take what he says seriously? Why should his conclusions be given any weight at all? They clearly shouldn't.

What more, I asked in the last thread if you had actually read any of this. You didn't respond that you had, and I still believe that you didn't read a word of it before using it for support of a position you were making. That you did so in a thread dedicated to the idea that Liberals were susceptible to some sort of herd mentality is just, too funny.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 01:36 pm
More:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/a-full-fact-check-of-niall-fergusons-very-bad-argument-against-obama/261306/

Here's another one, showing just how bad Ferguson's economic arguments and positions have been in the past:

http://www.businessinsider.com/niall-ferguson-has-been-wrong-on-economics-2012-8

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 01:43 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
In short - it's important to note that Ferguson's audience isn't the public, or anyone in the fact-based sphere; he's auditioning for Wingnut Welfare. The guy is ostensibly a professor but makes his real living giving speeches to right-wing organizations and corporations at 50-75k a pop. He's not trying to elucidate or uncover any primal truths about Obama - he's performing the initial steps of a job interview.


EXCELLENT, Cyclop!
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 01:57 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Let's start here instead. I don't want to just read others articles.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

First, Ferguson seeks to hold Obama responsible for correcting the 6 million jobs that were lost in the year BEFORE he was elected, by setting January 2008 as the baseline to judge Obama's performance by. This is absolutely ludicrous on it's face, and only used b/c it's a metric that allows him to deny that Obama has done a good job stopping the bleeding.


He used 1/08 to demonstrate the start of the crisis and to show where the economy was when the crisis started. Not to show where Obama started as that should be obvious that Obama was not President in 1/08. As he stated in his rebuttal...
Quote:
I picked the high point of January 2008 because it seems to me reasonable to ask how much of the ground lost in the crisis have we actually made up under Obama. The answer is not much. You may not like that, but it’s a fact


Cycloptichorn wrote:
Second, Ferguson apparently had no idea that Census hiring is a repeated government function, and that the jobs hired for the census were always going to be temporary... he uses that data to somehow judge and doom Obama's stimulus efforts.


Where does he do that in his original article?

Cycloptichorn wrote:
In short - it's important to note that Ferguson's audience isn't the public, or anyone in the fact-based sphere; he's auditioning for Wingnut Welfare. The guy is ostensibly a professor but makes his real living giving speeches to right-wing organizations and corporations at 50-75k a pop. He's not trying to elucidate or uncover any primal truths about Obama - he's performing the initial steps of a job interview.

Given that his understanding of facts has been shown to be rather shaky, and his conclusions are suspect, and he makes his living by telling the right side of our political sphere what they want to hear, why should anyone take what he says seriously? Why should his conclusions be given any weight at all? They clearly shouldn't.

What more, I asked in the last thread if you had actually read any of this. You didn't respond that you had, and I still believe that you didn't read a word of it before using it for support of a position you were making. That you did so in a thread dedicated to the idea that Liberals were susceptible to some sort of herd mentality is just, too funny.

Cycloptichorn


Ah yes, the villification stage... nicely done Cyc. Your criticisms rely on others and the majority of your post is what a stink face he is. I know you can do better.

How about this... quote part of his article you disagree with, then explain why it is wrong.
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 02:05 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:

He used 1/08 to demonstrate the start of the crisis and to show where the economy was when the crisis started. Not to show where Obama started as that should be obvious that Obama was not President in 1/08.


But, the point is that 'the economy' was massively inflated - including in terms of jobs - by the mortgage bubble that the last admin allowed to grow and pop. You can't measure employment from that point and judge someone as a failure if they haven't returned to the artificially inflated benchmark. It simply makes no sense at all to do so.

Quote:
How about this... quote part of his article you disagree with, then explain why it is wrong.


Tell ya what - I'll do that after you truthfully assert that you read any of this before posting anything about it.

Quote:
Your criticisms rely on others


When I quote and link to economists and analysts who point out how he's wrong, it's a failure on my part? I've never been accused of providing TOO MUCH backup evidence for my position before.

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 02:12 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Relying on "experts" and "outside sources" is cheating.

0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 02:17 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

He used 1/08 to demonstrate the start of the crisis and to show where the economy was when the crisis started. Not to show where Obama started as that should be obvious that Obama was not President in 1/08.


But, the point is that 'the economy' was massively inflated - including in terms of jobs - by the mortgage bubble that the last admin allowed to grow and pop. You can't measure employment from that point and judge someone as a failure if they haven't returned to the artificially inflated benchmark. It simply makes no sense at all to do so.


From his original piece:
Quote:
Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.

In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.

In an unguarded moment earlier this year, the president commented that the private sector of the economy was “doing fine.” Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed.


In justifying how Obama has not kept his promises (both campaign and in his inaugural speech) Ferguson shows that Obama has not recovered the jobs lost in the crisis going back to 1/2008.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
How about this... quote part of his article you disagree with, then explain why it is wrong.


Tell ya what - I'll do that after you truthfully assert that you read any of this before posting anything about it.


Absolutely. I do not have the time to read every single thing written. I read about it yesterday on the Fark Political forum which I use as my news aggregate. I am not sure what your point is though. The original article was just published on the 19th. Not like is came out last year or something. Am I a slacker because of that?

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Your criticisms rely on others


When I quote and link to economists and analysts who point out how he's wrong, it's a failure on my part? I've never been accused of providing TOO MUCH backup evidence for my position before.

Cycloptichorn


I don't want to argue with economists. I want to argue with you.
jcboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 02:20 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Re: Cycloptichorn (Post 5087230)
Quote:
In short - it's important to note that Ferguson's audience isn't the public, or anyone in the fact-based sphere; he's auditioning for Wingnut Welfare. The guy is ostensibly a professor but makes his real living giving speeches to right-wing organizations and corporations at 50-75k a pop. He's not trying to elucidate or uncover any primal truths about Obama - he's performing the initial steps of a job interview.

EXCELLENT, Cyclop!


Yeah it was! Smile
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 02:21 pm
@McGentrix,
Do you believe in evolution, McG?
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 02:22 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Do you believe in evolution, McG?


What do you think drewdad?

I ignored you on the other thread on purpose but I suppose you will just puppy dag me around til I answer, huh?
Cycloptichorn
 
  5  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 02:26 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
In justifying how Obama has not kept his promises (both campaign and in his inaugural speech) Niall's shows that Obama has not recovered the jobs lost in the crisis going back to 1/2008.


Uh, I just pointed out that it is ridiculous to expect him to have done so. It would have meant 4 solid years of adding an average of 275,000 jobs per month, every month, from the day he took office. That has never happened in this history of our country; why should Obama be expected to have done so now?

Not only that, but - as I said - many of these jobs simply aren't coming back, as they were supported by a financial and housing bubble that burst. The metric he is using is a completely false one.

Nevertheless, Ferguson - and apparently you - believe Obama is a failure because of his failure to provide job numbers never provided before under any president and restore employment to a level that no economist believes is even possible. And, on top of that, neither you nor Ferguson admits that Obama has been opposed 100% by the GOP Congress, who has thwarted nearly every attempt he's made to pass a bill that would actually improve the employment situation.

I just can't deal with this level of mendacity... this construction of arguments, revolving around a laughably incomplete look at the situation we found ourselves in a few years ago, is simply a false one. I can't put it any simpler than that. Ferguson should have put an iota of thought into his arguments before posting them; but, as I said earlier, he's not exactly trying to present an unbiased viewpoint, is he?

Quote:
Absolutely. I do not have the time to read every single thing written


If you haven't read an article, here's my advice: don't use it, or attempts to defend it, as evidence for a position you are trying to make.

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 02:33 pm
@McGentrix,
I think it's an initial litmus test on whether someone deals with the world rationally.

Do you believe in evolution?
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 02:34 pm
@McGentrix,
McG...I work with a solid Republican, far-right group of old, white men. I love each and every one of 'em...and I appreciate their passion. I appreciate your passion also...and the passion and dedication of the other frustrated conservatives on A2K...which admittedly has a leftward bias.

I don't consider myself a liberal although I am occasionally mistaken for one. I most assuredly do not consider myself a conservative...and I cringe in disgust when I am occasionally mistaken for one.

Bottom line...Niall Ferguson is full of ****.

Further bottom line...I would make a sizable bet that Obama will not be re-elected in November.

Further bottom line...I am almost certain that no matter who is elected in November, the condition our the world economy (including ours) will be 10 times more dismal in 2016 than it is today...and that people will be looking at today with feeling of nostalgia...and hopes that these kinds of days will return.

You are correct that the liberals fall short of dealing with many of the problems of today...but the conservatives fall short also. Some of the problems, especially the economic ones, CANNOT be made better. The world truly has changed and the kinds of tweaking the economy needs are cosmic, systemic changes.

In a conversation with my sister earlier this week, it became apparent that both of us, huge Obama supporters, would love to see a large Romney victory...and have both houses of congress go heavily Republican.

You conservatives would then own the problem...and I think the Republicans and conservatives are particularly ill-suited to dealing with them. I think the kind of win I mentioned would end up with economic disaster for the world. But it seems we simply are not willing to deal with this catastrophe until it actually comes into being.

Good luck, McG.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 02:40 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
No, I don't believe Obama is a failure ONLY because he has failed to provide the private sector jobs he promised. It goes far deeper than that. Neither I, nor Ferguson have used that as a sole reason so I wonder why you think that. It's a culmination of ALL his failures that make the Obama presidency a failure. If Obama couldn't keep his promises, he shouldn't have made them.

Keep blaming everyone but Obama though. Obviously everything the executive branch does is being held up by those darned republicans! That only gets you so far cyc. Eventually, as they say, the buck stops at the Presidents desk.

I wonder if YOU read the article, or just skimmed through the rebuttals. Did you get that version of Newsweek and read through it thoroughly?

I read the article before I posted anything about it Cyc. I fail to see your point of my reading it Sunday or Thursday though. Am I supposed to read it, then have a book reading group discuss it, then write an essay on it before posting here?

Sounds to me like you are backing out of the conversation here. If you are, just go ahead and plainly say so instead of trying to make out to be some kind of sophisticate who can't be bothered by such mendacity.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 02:43 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

I think it's an initial litmus test on whether someone deals with the world rationally.

Do you believe in evolution?


I asked you what you thought? By what I have posted on A2K, do I seem like someone who does or does not believe in evolution?
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 02:47 pm
@McGentrix,
The very fact that he used Jan 2008 as a comparison point indicates that he's not performing an honest analysis, though.

It's a smear campaign, and either he snowed Newsweek into publishing it, or Newsweek is desperate for a controversy with which to sell magazines.


It's a sure-fire way to sell books to Republicans, though. Bash Obama, sell your book.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 02:48 pm
@McGentrix,
I asked you if you believe in evolution.

Still haven't gotten an answer.
0 Replies
 
MMarciano
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 02:50 pm
Peraonally I don't give a rats ass what Niall Ferguson has to say.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/21/2019 at 03:12:02