Economist endorses Obama

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-am…

Some quotes:
"As with the gargantuan Dodd-Frank reform of Wall Street, Obamacare has generated a tangle of red tape—and left business to deal with it all."

"It is here that our doubts about Mr Obama set in. No administration in many decades has had such a poor appreciation of commerce. Previous Democrats, notably Bill Clinton, raised taxes, but still understood capitalism. Bashing business seems second nature to many of the people around Mr Obama."

"Mr Obama has shown no readiness to tackle the main domestic issue confronting the next president: America cannot continue to tax like a small government but spend like a big one."

"But Mr Romney seems too ready to bomb Iran, too uncritically supportive of Israel and cruelly wrong in his belief in “the Palestinians not wanting to see peace”."

"Yet far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending. Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit."

"Mr Romney’s more sensible supporters explain his fiscal policies away as necessary rubbish, concocted to persuade the fanatics who vote in the Republican primaries"

It was really upsetting that they did not talk at all about Romney's theme of making the U.S. a more attractive and competitive country for business. This is an idea which has been incredibly effective on the state level.

 
Best Response

To the OP: I think it's pretty clear from The Economist's piece that they endorse Romney's broader vision for economic competitiveness; their editorial position is well-known and they wrote in no uncertain terms about their distaste for the business-bashing tendencies of the Obama coterie. Your disappointment is not justified; Romney's pro-investment/competitiveness philosophy is already "priced in" with the rest of their piece. Their problem is with Romney's seeming need to acquiesce to the less than sensible wings of the Republican party in order to avoid mutiny, and how that makes it harder to actually envisage what a Romney presidency would look like, given that Romney has campaigned to be a different kind of President than he was a Governor. The Economist's can be understood as essentially a risk-averse position; the lack of details from the Romney campaign about how exactly to implement that more attractive business environment (not to mention the fiscal plan), coupled with a seemingly out of control GOP, have put a risk premium on the Romney stock that looks expensive to The Economist. They know the returns on Obama are low (or lower than the high end of Romney's potential), but they feel a greater certainty in being able to quantify what they'll get.

The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd.
 
WaitForSlutSet:
The writer spelled "defense" the British way "defence" so my question is why should anyone give a flying f*ck who a foreign newspaper endorses? We already know most foreigners support Obama and the guy writing this piece is clearly not an American.

Moron. Maybe because the Economist is a higly respected and internationally renown magazine that does a fantastic job of presenting critical issues thoughtfully?

"Life all comes down to a few moments. This is one of them." - Bud Fox
 
noke2012:
WaitForSlutSet:
The writer spelled "defense" the British way "defence" so my question is why should anyone give a flying f*ck who a foreign newspaper endorses? We already know most foreigners support Obama and the guy writing this piece is clearly not an American.

Moron. Maybe because the Economist is a higly respected and internationally renown magazine that does a fantastic job of presenting critical issues thoughtfully?

Moron. The Economist is a well known politically liberal FOREIGN periodical. Why would any American put any stock in what the Economist has to say about US elections? The writer of the endorsement doesn't have to live with the positive or negative consequences of the election. It would be like the Washington Post making an endorsement for Italy's Prime Minister when the writer of the endorsement doesn't have to live with the consequences of the Italian election.

 
WaitForSlutSet:
The writer spelled "defense" the British way "defence" so my question is why should anyone give a flying f*ck who a foreign newspaper endorses? We already know most foreigners support Obama and the guy writing this piece is clearly not an American.

I fucking hate everything you post. You are an absolute jackass and have some severe issues with anything foreign. Dude, look around you. Everything is foreign. Fuck.

 

The Economist is pretty on point with most things. I agree with almost that entire article and if you read it, and are rational, you probably will too. They just tend to make a conclusion that i'm not sure follows from the premise. Essentially, their endorsement comes down to, we like what Romney has done in the past and would endorse him except we think the extreme right of the republican party has tainted him enough that we think another four years of a mediocre Obama will be better.

I just don't buy that Romney, especially after winning the election, will pander to the extreme right. So, while he has been a flip-flopper out of political necessity, I would expect him to act as the President much the way he acted as Governor. And if that's the case, the Economist clearly says they would much prefer him over Obama. So it essentially all comes down to what you think about his campaign and how much is pandering to his base or how much is a legitimate move to the right.

 
WaitForSlutSet:
The writer spelled "defense" the British way "defence" so my question is why should anyone give a flying f*ck who a foreign newspaper endorses? We already know most foreigners support Obama and the guy writing this piece is clearly not an American.

Even if I look past your prejudices, there is still a flaw with your argument (if you can even call it an argument). The nationality of another has nothing to do with his/her ability to form a rational argument. Especially in this case since the United States is fairly transparent. Although somebody in another country may not be able to completely "know" what it's like to be here. If s/he does her/his research (as I trust somebody at the Economist to do), then s/he would easily have a very sound argument.

Furthermore, sometimes the view of a third party is more enlightening. I think most people have experienced a circumstance where you look at the same thing, the same way for so long, that it can help to have a fresh eye take a look.

“There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self.” --Aldous Huxley
 
TripWest:
WaitForSlutSet:
The writer spelled "defense" the British way "defence" so my question is why should anyone give a flying f*ck who a foreign newspaper endorses? We already know most foreigners support Obama and the guy writing this piece is clearly not an American.

Even if I look past your prejudices, there is still a flaw with your argument (if you can even call it an argument). The nationality of another has nothing to do with his/her ability to form a rational argument. Especially in this case since the United States is fairly transparent. Although somebody in another country may not be able to completely "know" what it's like to be here. If s/he does her/his research (as I trust somebody at the Economist to do), then s/he would easily have a very sound argument.

Furthermore, sometimes the view of a third party is more enlightening. I think most people have experienced a circumstance where you look at the same thing, the same way for so long, that it can help to have a fresh eye take a look.

Ok, your argument makes no sense. First of all, 21 American newspapers have reversed their 2008 endorsements of Obama, including Iowa's flagship newspaper, which hasn't endorsed a Republican since 1972. If nothing else, these people are actually in the United States and have an opinion informed by daily experiences. If I wrote an endorsement for a foreign politician it would be with a strong pro-American foreign policy bias (e.g. I would support Putin and Chavez and Ahmadinejad's challengers) and not with the context of the domestic policy needs of the people. The author for the Economist doesn't have to live with the daily consequences of Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, Net Neutrality, EPA ending the coal industry through fiat, judicial appointments, voter ID rules, immigration policies, etc.

Again, I'm wondering why any American should put stock in the endorsement of a foreign newspaper, for or against that person's candidate. I'm wondering why a German would care who the New York Times endorses for German's Chancellor since the American author does not need to live with the consequences of the outcome. I would think an American endorsement would carry far more weight. In fact, I would place no weight on an endorsement from the Economist.

 
WaitForSlutSet:
TripWest:
WaitForSlutSet:
The writer spelled "defense" the British way "defence" so my question is why should anyone give a flying f*ck who a foreign newspaper endorses? We already know most foreigners support Obama and the guy writing this piece is clearly not an American.

Even if I look past your prejudices, there is still a flaw with your argument (if you can even call it an argument). The nationality of another has nothing to do with his/her ability to form a rational argument. Especially in this case since the United States is fairly transparent. Although somebody in another country may not be able to completely "know" what it's like to be here. If s/he does her/his research (as I trust somebody at the Economist to do), then s/he would easily have a very sound argument.

Furthermore, sometimes the view of a third party is more enlightening. I think most people have experienced a circumstance where you look at the same thing, the same way for so long, that it can help to have a fresh eye take a look.

Ok, your argument makes no sense. First of all, 21 American newspapers have reversed their 2008 endorsements of Obama, including Iowa's flagship newspaper, which hasn't endorsed a Republican since 1972. If nothing else, these people are actually in the United States and have an opinion informed by daily experiences. If I wrote an endorsement for a foreign politician it would be with a strong pro-American foreign policy bias (e.g. I would support Putin and Chavez and Ahmadinejad's challengers) and not with the context of the domestic policy needs of the people. The author for the Economist doesn't have to live with the daily consequences of Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, Net Neutrality, EPA ending the coal industry through fiat, judicial appointments, voter ID rules, immigration policies, etc.

Again, I'm wondering why any American should put stock in the endorsement of a foreign newspaper, for or against that person's candidate. I'm wondering why a German would care who the New York Times endorses for German's Chancellor since the American author does not need to live with the consequences of the outcome. I would think an American endorsement would carry far more weight. In fact, I would place no weight on an endorsement from the Economist.

I doubt anyone has waited the Economist's endorsement to decide who they would vote for. That being said as both an American and French citizen, I take an interest in who the Economist endorses, largely because they represent a more or less classically liberal viewpoint which has been noticeably absent from U.S. politics these past few decades. The idea that these people don't have to live with Obamacare, DF... is idiotic. These policy decisions, particularly regarding DF for instance, have an international impact. I didn't know who Iowa's flagship newspaper endorsed and I will never care, because the viewpoint of some Iowans, which is biased towards a pretty small subset of the global population. The Economist doesn't narrowly represent U.K. interests but has at heart to protect the progress of global capitalism. In a country where policy elites are either focusing on socialism for the people or socialism for corporations, I think a voice like that deserves to be heard.
 

...and the Financial Times endorses O over the same reason - you just don't know which Mitt to trust. Some of Mitt's vision is clearly the right way to go, but the Primary Mitt scares people.

 

Et fugit enim et dolorem aut. Aut recusandae nemo aut. Qui voluptatem sed consequuntur pariatur. Amet vel est ut.

Molestias possimus atque et qui. Sunt sit ut ducimus et minus voluptatibus temporibus. Nihil qui optio maxime qui non vel.

Architecto nostrum debitis unde cupiditate. Tempore incidunt repellat dolorem aut. Aliquam commodi facere aut. Temporibus voluptas dolor modi voluptas. Dolores et adipisci incidunt mollitia vero ut. Quia modi sequi id quas omnis nihil. Velit saepe et ullam et consectetur.

Sed quisquam alias architecto hic dolor. Sint ipsa fuga repellendus qui nostrum. Mollitia esse eos quisquam voluptatibus pariatur non tenetur. Ad sint atque et aut aliquid aut.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”