Your subject heading and your blog entry seem to contradict each other.

It was a title-catcher--- I’m actually saying the opposite-- though my wallet says no; we are not in a position as a country to elect an economist. We are electing a leader and Obama is that one. What i was alluding to is the fact that OBAMA is not the guy for the street-- with Obama we work more and pay more taxes; because the tax plan requires somebody to pay it. However, there are a plethora of issues other than the street; one being the fact that you need a leader. There was a guy at Enron who was a producer--- he racked up money for the company but was never a good leader, he was replaced with a guy whose day was merely saying hi to the employees and showing interest in their lives. The latter, I thinks is Obama--- not to narrow his leadership qualities to saying hi to employees. And that is why i think he would make a good president; even though my wallet says no.

I just do not think this country has the luxury of electing a president solely based on economics; it needs more in a president; especially that personal touch which Barack Obama seems to have--- and the man is the epitome of progress and I’m all for anything PROGRESSIVE (stagnation is existential boredom)

I appreciate your support of Barack Obama's candidacy, George. But I fail to see how conservative economics are even relevant anymore after the financial crisis, let alone a credible solution for our problems.

'Fiscal conservatism' was always structured around the mythical assumption that billionaire investors and the multinational corporations they own don't need government. Helping the ultra-rich owner class is helping everyone else, so the myth goes, because their investments "trickle down" in the form of new jobs, which end up growing the economy. Government just gets in the way.

...except for that $700 billion handout to Wall Street that those failed banks demanded from government after their predatory lending practices drove their companies into the ground.

How is it that you can have a completely independent marketplace with firms that are "too big to fail"?

The answer is that you can't. The very existence of a marketplace requires government (remember that private property is a legal construct). And the long-term stability of a national economy requires a holistic, long-term macroeconomic policy to ensure healthy competition and a steady level of effective demand, which the private sector is simply incapable of accomplishing on its own.

There is nothing "progressive" about neoclassical economics. An economic theory whose patron saint (Milton Friedman) was a defender of the Apartheid regime deserves nothing but condemnation and scorn.

Conservative economists have reached the end of their logical consistency, and stand before us as they truly are: apologists for the moneyed elite. Cut back government when it tries to make life better for the majority; use big government shamelessly when Wall Street's riches are imperiled. That is fiscal conservatism.

Barack Obama may not be the proponent of Economic Democracy that I'd like him to be. But the movement he empowers has a far better chance of ensuring safety and opportunity for us all if he is elected. We simply can't afford a return to the past.

My support for Fiscal conservatism is not structural it is ideological. I honestly do believe government should NOT intervene in the economic life of people; rich or poor.  The sole purpose of government is to nurture an environment that those who want to fight for their lives and the way they want to live can do so; not to guarantee results.  I was opposed to the bail -out; but my understanding of the interdependence we are currently in simply showed me that when financial firms fail they will take down a lot of people with them; not too big to fail but too interdependent to fail was how one Hedge fund manager put it.             Milton Friedman's economic theories are independent of his ethical shot-comings. My belief in economic freedom is purely intellectual; regardless of the supporters. ”Too big to fail" is simply a structural reality that the world can never escape;. Some of these companies are, to say the least, TO BIG TO FAIL-- now even less arrogant is too interdepedent to fail. So engrained in the economy they are that their failure would be felt everywhere--- again, this is me being descriptive; otherwise I would say they made bad bets let them fail ( in fact, it is the market showing inefficiency) . I did not support the government bail-out of Bear Stearns nor do i agree with the AIG bail-out!             I do not agree with Obama often, especially on racial issues as well as economics. However, my support is because he represents an element of progress. I would have voted for any man or woman I felt made that reality possible-- not a die-hard BARACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE TYPE OF GUY ( Don’t worry my family as well as my girlfriend  threw cake and bottle scraps  for that view) !  He seems to represent an element of newness.            You should refrain from viewing Conservative economics in the eyes of Milton Friedman; for any fiscal conservative on the lines of the freedom philosophers would be against any sought of servitude-- any !              There is a purity that comes from money that otherwise you don't find in other areas. Nobody can ever say that money is relative-- maybe its form might be relative but the conception that it exists is everywhere. It is with that same greed others value knowledge. These are elements, and the belief therein,   that I see fiscal conservatism to be in-- a sought of realism that is unquestionable.    People should simply be comfortable to ask, how much does it cost. Barack Obama spent more money to become president; and I can bet you that directly using that money for whatever Barack supports would be more effective than what he will manage to do as president. But once again, here was my point exactly: he represents more than what the numbers can say about him hence my wallet says no!  I should have been clearer, also; because Milton Friedman is a newbie when it comes to libertarian philosophies; he perfected American fiscal conservatism after Keynesian economic theories. Otherwise, I do not think it right to censure an idea by alluding to the attributes of those who thought about it or become proponents of it. I can equally dismiss racial justice by the fact that some of those who supported support it where/are in violent movements or supported the Soviets.

 I  have never thought it wise to borrow against future cash flows; the world's expectations and realities are hardly that of the individual. Magnify this on the larger scale  and you have disaster.

 Borrow cautiously, and i would advise to never to borrow-- I don't do personal loans, i will do business loan.

  As for change, when people want change; sometimes they actually could careless what vessel brings the change--- They just want change.

  Yes, I support Obama but cautiously.