Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Now that's a campaign ad

It's been on for a couple days, but I first saw it this morning:

"This election to me is about which candidate is more likely to return us to full employment" - Bill Clinton

I agree with Clinton that it is far more likely with Obama than Romney, but I'm concerned Obama doesn't really have what it takes. What I like about this ad is that that was the first sentence. I just like the term "full employment". We need to use it more. And I like stating bluntly that that is the policy goal right now. Now we just have to convince Washington of that.

ht bill clinton jp 120823 wblog Bill Clinton Ad Blesses Obama Economics


  1. Daniel, if you don't mind, can you explain why you believe "it is far more likely with Obama than Romney"? The reason I ask is because there is nothing I see/hear coming from Obama right now that I can definitively point to and say, "that's an economic growth policy". I haven't really seen/heard much from Romney either, but I was wondering about your specific take here.

  2. I would argue that employment, at any level, is a lagging indicator of some set of economic conditions. Using a lagging indicator as a proxy for the actual goal is extremely unlikely to have the intended effect on the underlying issue. The policy changes should be directed at actions that are believed to alter economic conditions for the better which will make full employment more likely. This is not a semantic hair split, it is the very crux of the issue. You could legitimately claim to have full employment by simply saying that everyone on public assistance is now an Automatic Sprinkler Timer Checker for (the park nearest their residence). Everyone now has a 'job', and you have full employment.


All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.