This morning, CNBC 'senior economics reporter,' and I use the term very loosely, Steve Liesman, was yammering about how he doesn't understand the latest release of the Fed's meeting minutes.
Just so. Perhaps CNBC's producers should take that as their cue to get a real economist to replace Liesman. After all, both of Liesman's degrees are in journalism, not economics, or even business.
Liesman is a writer who's weaved is way into economics beats after covering a variety of business assignments earlier in his career. However, Liesman has no great grasp of economics.
He reminds me of another CNBC on-air personality, Maria Bartiromo. They both behave somewhat like human fax machines- they mouth words fed to them by a teleprompter, but have no idea of the meaning of what they just said.
Worse, every time the CNBC programs need an 'economic' viewpoint, they haul out Liesman to add his immeasurably minor contribution. Usually confusing things by contradicting someone with experience and actual knowledge, like Rick Santelli, Larry Kudlow or Brian Wesbury.
Liesman's major problem seems to stem from his single-minded adherence to Keynesian economics, long after much of it has dropped from modern usage. In Liesman's world, all taxes are good, and no deficit ever is. Contexts are irrelevant.
Further, in Liesman's world, Democratic spending is OK, new taxes are no doubt necessary, and the Fed is typically either wrong, or incomprehensible.
Couldn't CNBC retain Brian Wesbury for economic on air commentary? Or some other, degreed economist who has actually published some work, can speak intelligently on the topics, and is up to date with economic theory?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
If Liesman doesnt think deficits are ever good, then he can hardly be a keynesian can he?...
Thanks for your comment.
If the javascript is correct, it looks like you are with The Economist. Thus, your question makes contextual sense.
Ordinarily, I'd agree with you.
But, being Liesman, he can't really even get Keynesianism right.
Rather, he tends to discount anything the current administration's economic team suggests, and veers, instead, toward a sort of intersection of most liberal Democratic Congressional economic commentary/criticism of the administration, plus the big-government orientation of original Keynesian doctrines.
For example, Liesman will decry deficits as bad for the dollar, and conveniently forget that they are supposed to be feasible for either fiscal revival of the economy, or temporary needs for excess spending, like a war.
I think he thinks deficits are bad right now, because the Democrats from which he takes his signals do, too, since they are out of power.
Fact is, with the idiotic 'pay go' approach of the Congressional Dems, fiscal policy is pretty much hamstrung by a stupid static, zero-current deficit mindset.
-CN
Post a Comment