Why is Lou Dobbs taken seriously?
His latest CNN.com column is the best example. His latest bloviations about our "shrinking manufacturing base" are dispensed with quite handily in every Econ 101 class. There's some apt criticism of American fiscal policy there but overall it's quite silly.
posted by Steve at 10:10 AM
4 Comments:
I can hardly be accused of defending him by merely mentioning that he gets a lot right. I suppose your real problem is that he gets the serious label, while other commentators are taken more as performance artists?
Which brings me to something that is increasingly bothersome to me. Commentators that spew nonsense, all the time, and always have. Now that the tide is mercifully turning ever so little back to a more rational collective outlook, people who once lauded these buffoons are now toting the 'commentators as entertainment' line.
Oh, so now that you've got some of the built up frustration that sharing the planet with other people causes out of your system, you'll half-assedly admit that most commentators are hate-artists. And that it should be considered entertainment.
Yeah, Lou has his moments, it's true.
I'm not sure I understand your point. To clarify mine:
It's that Dobbs is taken seriously, or dubbed "serious". Also, he's usually considered a business journalist and then comes up with this stuff that Econ 101 should have taken care of, like all of his views on international trade. It's like someone reporting on a Stephen Hawking discovery by ending it with "but then again, he is a Virgo."
Hate artists seems overly grand. Hack works better I think. And it ends in a hard consonant.
I tend to agree with a lot of what Dobbs says. I also don't remember a damn thing from Econ 101, or whatever. So my opinion is probably worthless.
I disagree with Hack. However, to be fair, I don't really see those people as human, so my opinion is really low. I'm an equal opportunity hater, I think the clowns on the left and right are literally holding back human progress.
I'm particularly fond of Dobbs criticism of Congress, which no one seems to care about, and his immigration stance. If you care to know, I'm a nativist.
The economic argument is that free trade is the most efficient way to conduct business, and that tariffs (and their indirect cousins like quotas, "bilateral labor regulations" and "fair trade") stifle innovation and reward corrupt incumbent players at the expense of the consumer.
Does he have any specific immigration recommendations, or is he merely pronouncing it bad?
Post a Comment
<< Home