What Exactly Does It Take To Be An Economic Expert?

In class we watched the Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer clip, and discussed financial reporting in the media. It seems like that it's too often that these economic experts are pretty far off. Do they just not want to report bad news? The picture is often painted as everything is ok or it's getting better. It seems like people continually take Ben Bernake's word on the status of the economy, but why trust a man who is continually wrong? He will give reports saying the economy is getting better when obviously the situation is no better off than before. Also, you got to love when the president has given interviews at the beginning of the month saying that they created however many jobs in the previous month, but the unemployment has risen. Do people really not realize this? Then there are the people that are on TV, such as Cramer, who give predictions and report on the economic and financial systems. Fox News, Fox Business, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and all the other channels have shows  and "expert" guests that are on everyday dedicated to this. I understand nobody is perfect, but do the majority of these people really not get it or understand what has, is happening, and going to happen at all. It seems like when someone speaks against the optimism that is being discussed they get criticized and are said to be preaching doom and gloom. Why is that a bad thing? I understand people don't enjoy bad news. However, would you not want to be told that you have cancer then go on living as if everything was going to be alright because you don't think anything bad could ever happen to you.

When we started talking about this in class there was one person and some videos that came to mind. That was Peter Schiff who correctly predicted back in 2006 and 2007 that the country was headed for a massive economic recession, but was continually laughed and scolded at for saying that the fundamentals of the economy were not sound. Why are people like this and their ideas not given more credit? It's not like he never gave reasons for this thought process either. He also ran for U.S. Senate in Connecticut this year, but lost in the primary to millionaire WWE CEO Linda McMahon because she was basically able to buy the election by spending millions on it. Whereas, Peter Schiff had less financial support and not the same name recognition, and there was also former Connecticut Congressman in the running. It seems as though there was a real lack of investigation of the candidates by voters in this race. You can watch the video below and develop your own opinion, but I want people like this in D.C. fighting for Americans. You got to love how he proves one of Reagan's former top economic advisers wrong. Then there was when a panel of Fox News economic experts are asked what stocks to invest in and they all suggest to invest in businesses that collapsed and were at the head of the crisis when all of it really started to unravel, but Schiff suggested that people should have stayed away from stock market. He suggested that people should have invested in gold because he thought that it would go above $1,000/ounce; this was when it was under $90/oz. To say the least he could not have been more right. I encourage you to take the time and watch the video because it really is fascinating.






He was also on The Daily Show if that helps legitimize him. 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Peter Schiff
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

She Just Couldn't Stay In Alaska

For whatever reason Sarah Palin has become a pretty big political celebrity. A few years ago she was pretty much unknown outside the state of Alaska. Then after becoming the Republican VP nominee she and her political inexperience was later criticized for being one of the reasons that John McCain didn't do better in the election. Now nobody really likes old man McCain anymore, but now she is apparently one of  the greatest things to ever happen to the Republican Party. It really was quite a switch, and all she had to do was resign as governor and start working for Fox News. Then somewhere along the way she became the face of the Tea Party movement. In my opinion she has done all of the this without really becoming any more intelligent on anything that matters. I'm getting tired of her being this great political figure all of the sudden while she has become nothing more than a talking head for the Republican Party. Something else that really gets on my nerves is Palin going from state to state endorsing these candidates that I'm willing to bet she doesn't even really know much about. Especially as of recent she has been endorsing the women in select races because I guess that's what matters to her. Her influence almost worked in Georgia when she backed Handel for Governor, but luckily Palin couldn't change enough of Georgians' minds. (Not that the other options were much different/better) Anyway, then when these often tea party candidates win their primaries it is considered as an accomplishment for Palin. The only thing she has really accomplished is not minding her own business, and intruding into local elections where she doesn't belong. I'll admit I voted McCain/Palin in 2008, but I could not honestly give you a good reason why other than I saw it as the lesser of two evils. I guarantee I won't do that again if she is on a ballot in 2012. It just baffles me that she has become what she has, but good for her and candidate that gets her seal of approval because no one would ever consider turning down that kind of endorsement.

If you are a Palin supporter and wish to give me a reason why I am wrong and she is a respectable political figure then please comment. If you are also confused or frustrated by Palin's celebrity status then I welcome your comments as well.

When will it all end?

About a week and a half ago President Barack Obama announced the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, more commonly referred to as the Iraq War. However, he went on to make known that it was only the "combat" part of the mission was over. I'm sure that everyone is aware of this, and the fact that there are still around 50,000 soldiers still in Iraq. That's still a lot of troops, and those troops still face serious dangers. Unfortunately, no one can deny that there will still be casualties despite their "non-combative" status. With that being said, Why go through the theatrics of sitting in your chair in the oval office and proclaim to the nation that you've ended the war when you really haven't? I understand the scale back in number of troops is part of the process of ending the war, and had John McCain been elected not even that would have happened. I just don't understand why the big speech was necessary just because you changed  the name of the strategy. Last week on a special episode of the Colbert Report dedicated to the end of the war and bringing  troops home Vice President Joe Biden was a guest, and during his interview he admitted that the war was not won. Therefore, one can logically conclude that it's not over. It just seems to me that the big prime time address didn't necessarily need to be done in the way that it was. When all of the troops are brought home a big speech would make sense, or at least when almost all of the troops are home because lets face it there are going to be U.S. military bases in Iraq for a long time. That's just the way it is. Either way there will probably always be serious chaos in one way or another in Iraq, so let's hope that's not what they're waiting on. There was Bush's Mission Accomplished speech, and there was this speech by Obama along with more moments in between. I'm not saying there aren't moments that aren't important, but just a regular speech giving updates like this latest one would have been sufficient in my opinion. I'm just don't want to see the theatrics that pretend that the president was or is such a great accomplisher when not much of anything has changed.