McCain Tries To Find A Scapegoat
Friday, September 19, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178318884054675.html
McCain has pointed a finger at the Securities and Exchange Commission, specifically at the chairman of the SEC, Christopher Cox. The article quotes Mr. McCain at length, calling the SEC "asleep at the switch" and claiming that the chairman had "betrayed the publics trust."
The author of the article set McCain straight, pointing out that Mr. Cox had only changed a few minor rules and had not changed the rules on short-selling, while overturning the great depression era "uptick" rule. The article condemns McCain's attack on the chairman as "both false and deeply unfair" and "un-Presidential."
Short selling stocks adds information to the marketplace because it reflects the market view that a stock may decrease in value. As for the "uptick" rule that McCain claimed "protected investors for 70 years," controlled experiments have proven that it has no effect on stock prices. The rule was unanimously taken off the books by the SEC commissioners in early 2007.
This is not the first time McCain has shown a lack of understanding in financial matters. He has wrongly accused oil speculators of causing the price of gas to rise. This new attack is equally unsupported by economic evidence as he attempts to blame speculators for the collapse of mismanaged companies.
Ironically, speculators short selling in the marketplace were net buyers, not sellers of stock during the last quarter. This means that instead of fueling the crisis, the short sellers were actually keeping the prices at higher levels!
The Wall Street Journal points out that during a financial crisis, voters will turn away from a candidate who is searching for someone to blame and choose "steady, calm leadership." Mr. McCain cannot win the election against Barack Obama by finding a scapegoat, only by finding a reasonable solution.
With the economy on the rocks, the primary focus of this election will be shifting toward Wall Street as election day draws closer. The next president will be taking over a country on the verge of economic collapse and will be tasked with saving the american dream. While neither candidate has given more than a general outline of his plan to rescue the economy, John McCain has actually gone out of his way to point a finger at the wrong people! Mr. Cox, chairman of the SEC, is hardly the person to blame.
So who's to blame for the economic crisis? Well Mr. McCain, try pointing your finger at the CEO's who have been mismanaging some of the largest corporations in the world for the last decade. Point your finger at the Bush administration, under which tax cuts were given to the people that needed the money least. Point your finger at the Republican backed rules that give CEOs job security, weather or not they actually do a good job. With all these people to blame, why would you point your finger at the person who cannot do his job because of the red tape that has been intertwined with economic policy by your party? The only conclusion that a reasonable person can come to is that you, Mr. McCain, do not have the least bit of understanding of basic economic principles.
Washington Post columnist George F. Will wrote another response to McCain's attack on Christopher Cox. Read about it here.
Questions for Discussion
Will John McCain's finger pointing affect your decision? why or why not?
It has been argued that no man can be an expert on every topic, only an expert at picking advisors and knowing when to listen to them. Do you agree with this statement? Should the president be an economic expert?
The author of the article set McCain straight, pointing out that Mr. Cox had only changed a few minor rules and had not changed the rules on short-selling, while overturning the great depression era "uptick" rule. The article condemns McCain's attack on the chairman as "both false and deeply unfair" and "un-Presidential."
Short selling stocks adds information to the marketplace because it reflects the market view that a stock may decrease in value. As for the "uptick" rule that McCain claimed "protected investors for 70 years," controlled experiments have proven that it has no effect on stock prices. The rule was unanimously taken off the books by the SEC commissioners in early 2007.
This is not the first time McCain has shown a lack of understanding in financial matters. He has wrongly accused oil speculators of causing the price of gas to rise. This new attack is equally unsupported by economic evidence as he attempts to blame speculators for the collapse of mismanaged companies.
Ironically, speculators short selling in the marketplace were net buyers, not sellers of stock during the last quarter. This means that instead of fueling the crisis, the short sellers were actually keeping the prices at higher levels!
The Wall Street Journal points out that during a financial crisis, voters will turn away from a candidate who is searching for someone to blame and choose "steady, calm leadership." Mr. McCain cannot win the election against Barack Obama by finding a scapegoat, only by finding a reasonable solution.
With the economy on the rocks, the primary focus of this election will be shifting toward Wall Street as election day draws closer. The next president will be taking over a country on the verge of economic collapse and will be tasked with saving the american dream. While neither candidate has given more than a general outline of his plan to rescue the economy, John McCain has actually gone out of his way to point a finger at the wrong people! Mr. Cox, chairman of the SEC, is hardly the person to blame.
So who's to blame for the economic crisis? Well Mr. McCain, try pointing your finger at the CEO's who have been mismanaging some of the largest corporations in the world for the last decade. Point your finger at the Bush administration, under which tax cuts were given to the people that needed the money least. Point your finger at the Republican backed rules that give CEOs job security, weather or not they actually do a good job. With all these people to blame, why would you point your finger at the person who cannot do his job because of the red tape that has been intertwined with economic policy by your party? The only conclusion that a reasonable person can come to is that you, Mr. McCain, do not have the least bit of understanding of basic economic principles.
Washington Post columnist George F. Will wrote another response to McCain's attack on Christopher Cox. Read about it here.
Questions for Discussion
Will John McCain's finger pointing affect your decision? why or why not?
It has been argued that no man can be an expert on every topic, only an expert at picking advisors and knowing when to listen to them. Do you agree with this statement? Should the president be an economic expert?
2 comments:
McCain's finger pointing will affect my decision as much as anything else controversial and immature that a candidate does during the campaign. Trying to find a scapegoat to draw attention away from his ignorance of the economy was a pretty childish and unpresidential act. But on top of that, using a scapegoat who isn't the person to blame is just downright stupid. I agree that it shows a lack of knowledge about the basic economy, and I think that not having that knowledge when running for President at a crucial time in American history should raise a big red flag to all voters, especially independents who are undecided at this point.
A president may not have to be an expert on every single topic, but one thing that a president needs to be is an expert on the economy. Although the president does not have direct influence on the economy, his policies have a strong effect on the people and organizations that influence our economy. A president may be able to get away with not knowing everything about everything, but we should be stubborn about letting the president off the hook when it comes to the economy. In today's global economy, where America is the richest and most powerful influence, it is important that our president knows what to do in times of economic crisis, whether or not he has a strong group of advisors around him. This is one of the most important elections in decades, and McCain cannot be given any lenience when it comes to economic knowledge.
I wouldn't even say that a President has to be an EXPERT on the economy, but he would at least need to have an understanding of how it works. As you pointed out a couple of times during your post, McCain has shown (and he's consistently quoted out of context "admitting" to) his lack of understanding of how the economy works. To be honest, this latest issue does not surprise me.
The best point made in the article is the one about calm leadership versus angrily pointing fingers. While the tactic of "Look at what those filthy liberals are doing" may work to get ratings and sell ads on Fox News, your typical educated voter is smart enough to catch ad hominem attacks and read into them. "Well if he's so well-versed in the economy, why doesn't he tell me what HIS brilliant idea is?"
I realize you wrote this blog post BEFORE McCain suspended his campaign, but I feel it bears mentioning here. McCain insisted that he needed to go to Washington to help fix the economy, only to delay his trip so long that everything was pretty much done by the time he got there, and if word around the Hill is to be believed, once he got there the issue tangled again, and then magically untangled once he left. Coincidence? Sure. The fact still remains, though, that an article like this written just before his little Superman routine further illuminates how his economy rhetoric is weak.
Post a Comment