If Jack the Ripper favored Full Employment...

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Sat Dec 31, 2011, 06:11 PM - Edit history (2)

I feel strongly about reaching full employment as an economic issue and a moral issue. (Full employment is the level at which much more employment would set off an inflationary wage/price spiral. The happy practical maximum of employment. It is probably somewhere in the 3-4% unemployment range these days.)

No presidential candidate in 2012 has or will propose any policy set that will reliably or quickly achieve full employment.

If Jack the Ripper was a candidate for president and his big issue was a set of policies that would realistically quickly take us toward full employment I would not vote for Jack the Ripper. I do not think it desirable to have a president with a history of murderous sex crimes.

If, however, somebody said to me, vis-a-vis full employment, "How can you agree with Jack the Ripper?" I would consider that person to be simple-minded in some way.

And if someone tried to defend the fact that no candidate is talking in terms of full employment by showing me a picture of one of Jack the Ripper's victims I would not suddenly "learn to stop worrying and love wage deflation."

And if I lamented that no credible candidate seemed to care about full employment and a person responded with, "Fine -- vote for Jack the Ripper then!" I would begin to wonder what the heck they had against the unemployed.


One the other hand, if someone suggested that I ought to vote for Jack the Ripper to elevate the issue of full employment, I would not do so.

First, my protest vote would send an indistinct message... it would probably be read as a national flow of support for murdering prostitutes.

And secondly it would prevent me from voting for a credible candidate who would lower unemployment more than the credible alternative.

[Luminous Animal]

1. If Jack the Ripper was the only candidate talking about ending the war on drugs,

An important national issue. I'd feel that it would be necessary to mention that in context with the caveat that I do not support him. Which is what Greenwald has done ad nauseam.

[TheWraith]

3. Except that Greenwald has written many columns promoting Ron Paul.

Repeatedly talking up how wonderful he is and his "anti-imperialist" creds to the point where his "disclaimer" is obviously hollow and meaningless. When you keep advocating for one candidate, that's called support, even if you claim it's not.

[TheWraith]

2. Agreed. Single issue voting is borderline insanity, in my opinion. nt

[BootinUp]

4. The problem is with the perception of the observer when he determines erroneously

that no credible candidate seemed to care about full employment.

[cthulu2016]

5. ???

All candidates say they want lower unemployment, of course.

No candidate has proposd policies to acheive anything like full employment.

There are policies that would achieve full employment and no candidate has proposed any of them.

So the question answers itself.

That does not mean that all the candidates have the same views or credility on unemployment

President Obama's jobs program is a drop in the bucket. Mitt Romney's jobs program is a HOLE in the bucket.

For someone concerned about unemployment it is easy to chose between them.

And that is what makes this ongoing kerfuffle so weird. President Obama is overall BETTER than the alternatives. That does not make it incorrect to say that he is flawed. I like the president. I would like him evn more if he effectively opposed the harassment of pot clinics.

But that is not on the menu, and as an adult I incorprate that and act accordingly choosing between real alternatives (while making my views known, whether they are represented by our practical political alternatives or not.)

[BootinUp]

6. Hell, everyone is flawed

If you are on an interview, or some other situation where you want to make a good impression, do you point out your flaws no matter how that will affect the impression made?

[MilesColtrane]

7. If Charles Manson was for single payer, I'd still find your post just as confusing.

Why the tortuous analogy?

[cthulu2016]

8. In hopes that a person might make it

two sentences in without "knowing" what was going to be said and why and how they were going to feel about it.

And to use an example who is clearly indefensible and unacceptable to all persons in his totality so that that part of the thing need not be argued.

And to substitute a less controversial issue-set than weed and war.

Stripping the thing to its bare bones.

[MilesColtrane]

10. OK, "weed and war" good clues.

I now know your post has something to do with Ron Paul and purposeful opaqueness.

[cthulu2016]

11. Sorry, I thought it was not so opaque

Don't you ever take an emotional issue and insert an extreme variable to see how it sounds that way?

I do that all the time with things like religious clubs in public schools -- would a muslim club be okay with everybody?

A bad man cannot make a good policy bad by advocating it.

One should not vote for a clearly bad man, even if he is coincidentally the sole supporter of something one cares about.

[MilesColtrane]

12. "One should not vote for a clearly bad man, even if he is coincidentally the sole supporter of...

something one cares about."

I like that.

Pithy, to the point, and I happen to agree with it.

[Union Scribe]

9. Really good post. Recced.

I think it addresses several important angles of what's going on, both today and in a wider scope.

[99Forever]

13. A tad bit hard to follow..

... but I think I get where you ended up and agree.