More on the bumbling incompetents 
Barry Ritholtz echoes The Economist in wondering why big business has been largely silent in the presidential campaign, when you’d expect it to back Bush in a big way.
| Say what you will about the colder aspects of the markets, but at its heart, modern capitalism is a meritocracy. Why would the business community endorse an administration that by all measures appears to be bumbling incompetents? |
| Maybe its the economy. After all, the recovery has been feeble, and executives are loathe to put their quarterly numbers at risk. But I doubt that’s it. Corporate America’s balance sheet is in the best condition it been for years. Debt has been refinanced, profitibility is very high. |
| So what then? So far, we have heard that the new campaign finance rules have kept corporations sidelined to some extent. Others blame the trial lawyers, and even Eliot Spitzer (where are the Law & Order Republicans when you need them?) |
| Perhaps there’s another reason: It’s just bad business publicly backing Bush. |
That’s another one in the Kerry camp
Wow. I did not expect The Economist to endorse Kerry for president (report via Brad DeLong). After all, the magazine supported the war and plumped for Bush in 2000. “In the end we felt he has been too incompetent to deserve re-election.” A truer word has rarely been written.