Romney/Santorum Ticket

[Cancel 2016.2]

Oh, I though you were talking about Clinton.

No, Obama. Clinton was a good President and the best since Ike at reigning in your beloved government deficit spending.

No, they don't. I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are completely unrelated, but they aren't really all that related.

Any large corporation that doesn't have a sound understanding of macroeconomics is not going to be very successful. To say that has little to do with business acumen is quite simply moronic. It is a fundamental part of the decisions the execs have to make with regards to business strategy. When to ramp up hiring, production, when to hold on to more cash etc... essentially, understanding where we are at in the business cycle. Add in the need to know how monetary policy shifts will affect your business. Will a strong dollar policy help or hurt your business?

 

[Bonestorm]

No, Obama. Clinton was a good President and the best since Ike at reigning in your beloved government deficit spending.

Yes, it's amazing what can happen to revenues when you increase taxes.

Any large corporation that doesn't have a sound understanding of macroeconomics is not going to be very successful. To say that has little to do with business acumen is quite simply moronic. It is a fundamental part of the decisions the execs have to make with regards to business strategy. When to ramp up hiring, production, when to hold on to more cash etc... essentially, understanding where we are at in the business cycle. Add in the need to know how monetary policy shifts will affect your business. Will a strong dollar policy help or hurt your business?

I didn't realize corporate executives were considered corporations themselves. Yes, a large corporate entity should employ people with knowledge of macroeconomics but the CEO doesn't magically gain knowledge and skills that those people have simply by hiring them. That's why corporations hire economists! Because the executives don't necessarily have those skills and that knowledge. And look, I'm not dissing successful executives. I'm just saying that the skill set required to be a successful executive, "business acumen" as you put it, doesn't automatically include a strong grasp of macroeconomics and macroeconomic policy-making.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yes, it's amazing what can happen to revenues when you increase taxes.

LMAO... yeah, the tech/internet/telecom boom had nothing to do with that. Neither did the long term capital gains tax CUTS. Right?

I didn't realize corporate executives were considered corporations themselves.

They aren't moron. Seriously, do you ever get tired of the straw man creation.

Yes, a large corporate entity should employ people with knowledge of macroeconomics but the CEO doesn't magically gain knowledge and skills that those people have simply by hiring them.

I never stated they did moron. But thanks for yet another straw man.

That's why corporations hire economists! Because the executives don't necessarily have those skills and that knowledge.

No shit. Thanks Captain Obvious. Who knew that not all execs possessed macro knowledge themselves.

And look, I'm not dissing successful executives.

Of course you are. You would rather have a career politician (typically a lawyer) rather than someone with actual real world skills.

I'm just saying that the skill set required to be a successful executive, "business acumen" as you put it, doesn't automatically include a strong grasp of macroeconomics and macroeconomic policy-making.

Thanks Mr. Straw man creator. I never stated is was required to be successful. I am saying MEG WHITMAN HAS IT. The most successful execs of large corporations do.

 

[Bonestorm]

So, the long and short of it is that you think Meg Whitman has a solid understanding of macroeconomic policy-making because you she was a successful executive of a large corporation and all successful executives at large corporations have a solid understanding of macroeconomic policy-making. That's really thoughtful, SF.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So, the long and short of it is that you think Meg Whitman has a solid understanding of macroeconomic policy-making because you she was a successful executive of a large corporation and all successful executives at large corporations have a solid understanding of macroeconomic policy-making. That's really thoughtful, SF.

Seriously, do you EVER tire of the straw men?

When you grow the fuck up and wish to have an actual conversation, do let me know.

 

[Bonestorm]

Just out of curiosity, where's the straw man? You're asserting that Whitman simply must have a strong grasp of macroeconomics and macroeconomic policy-making because she was a successful executive. What did I leave out?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

MEG Whitman... not Christine??

Carly and Whitman are both political neophytes. I could care less. We have seen what we get when those 'politicians' with no business acumen get elected. We end up with Bush and Obama. Two of the most economically inept Presidents our country has ever seen.

Jesus fuck! Meg Whitman? Seriously? Hell why not just vote for Trump? Business Execs usually make lousy politicians. They are almost always autocratic and lack the consensus building skills needed to affectively build and keep a political constituency not to mention that running a government is a far different critter than running a business. Maybe it hasn't excaped your notice but the last corporate executive to win the white house wasn't exactly very good at economic policy either.

 

[signalmankenneth]

Strange Bedfellows?!!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

So, the long and short of it is that you think Meg Whitman has a solid understanding of macroeconomic policy-making because you she was a successful executive of a large corporation and all successful executives at large corporations have a solid understanding of macroeconomic policy-making. That's really thoughtful, SF.

I made the same mistake about Ross Perot. I had to learn the hard way that business and politics are two completely different professions. To many business types bullshit themselves into thinking that the principles that apply in running a business transfer completely to politics and governance. It's a big mistake. At least Romney does get that. Being succesful in business doesn't mean shit in politics if you don't learn how to build a constituency. Then when it comes to governance there's a big difference in administering a corporation and a national government the size of ours.