My sentiments, more or less confirmed

In a recent post I raised the question “How is an economic policy ‘business friendly’ when it leads you a massive stock market crash and hundreds of thousands of layoffs?”

Here’s a Newsweek article with more detail about the stock performances of companies (retailers particularly) under “business friendly” and “non-business-friendly” presidents.


8 thoughts on “My sentiments, more or less confirmed

  1. Where’s the chess? The masses want chess. {chant starts} We want chess! We want chess!

    C’mon, Derek, there must be something interesting to report about your recent MCC games. You’re one of the stronger chess bloggers around…

  2. The link is gone now. But I’ll comment anyway, mostly to say “Hi” to someone I last played a game of chess with over 20 years ago.

    “Business-friendly” is kind of dangerous jargon. For example, are lax environmental standards “business-friendly?” On one hand, there might be some perceived improved efficiency. On the other hand, some nasty externalities might be present. War is another example of something which popular wisdom often hold as “business-friendly” (which actually isn’t).

    Human economic activity ought to improve conditions for humanity. I realize “improve conditions for humanity” wants quite a bit defining (and some, no doubt, would suggest “business-friendly” is equivalent, though they’d be wrong), but I’ll just throw the phrase out there for common sense interpretation for now.

    Where institutions (governments, religions, legal forms of ownership, etc.) direct human economic activity away from the goal of improving conditions for humanity, then the discussion ought to turn, in my view, towards how we ought to go about minimizing or removing the impediments. We don’t have that discussion. Instead, we worry about a bullet point on Fox or CNN about whether or not Obama is too socialist to be “business-friendly.” Doesn’t mean much.

    These days, I’d say “business-friendly” mostly means “tending to benefit the status quo rich.” That is what the republican party represents presently. They pretend to want efficiency (an admirable earlier trait of the party), but the record is abundantly clear.

    But anyway, Hi Derek! Good to see you again. Sorry I missed you when I lived in the Northeast back in the late 80’s/early 90’s. I didn’t get down to MA to play much, unfortunately. But I’m sure I’ll see you around eventually.

  3. Hi Pete! Great to hear from you. Actually I was aware that you were up north as once in a while I peek in to see whether former friends & competitors are still infected, er, active. Ken Boyer gave it up a long time ago; Mike Sheaf is I think a geophysicist working for an oil company who occasionally rants on FICS about the bad science of global warming; I saw David Hater a few years ago at the US Amateur Team East. Time flies. Thanks for posting & drop by any time.

  4. Yeah, I loop around and see who is still kicking around from time to time as well. I play just enough to lose 20-30 rating points per year. By the 4th or 5th game in a tournament, you start to lose some of the tactical rust, but it’s not enough; I’m down about 170 rating points from my high!

    Ken Boyer…there’s a name I haven’t heard in forever.

    Mike Sheaf is an very interesting guy. Extremely happy to go it alone with an opinion. I think he might prefer it that way!

    I saw Dave Hater at the Columbus Open back in 1996 (played him, a draw). Seems like he was moving along nicely with a career in the military. I’d think he’d be close to retirement by now, actually.

    Yes, I like you blog. I’ll keep reading.

  5. Hey Howard – sorry, you got spam filtered.

    One of my failings is that I don’t focus on chess very well when I’m not playing. Aside from an embarassing walloping from Lior a few weeks back I have been AWOL. Back next Tuesday I hope.

    In the meantime enjoy my two-decade-old memory-swaps with Pete M. :)

Comments are closed.