Krugman has the chart, and the right question:
We shouldn’t ignore the importance of chance events, or at least the chance timing of events. Without 9/11, what would have become of George W. Bush? My guess is that he would have lost Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004. And what would have happened if Lehman had waited until November to blow up?
Obama still would have won; it was already the economy, stupid. But, yes, "time and chance happeneth to them all." (Ecclesiastes 9:11*)
Check out Krugman; he's got several non-triumphalist posts that are worth reading.
NOTE * And if that's not a proof of numerology...
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments



Front page

Comments
I just tagged this post "BLLFOV"
A measure of our collectively reduced IQ is the kneejerk belief that everything a winner did was good and brilliant necessary, and everything a loser did was bad or a mistake.
I've seen this in companies that had windfall success, where the douchebaggiest managers are suddenly geniuses who can write their ticket. In sports, even the lousiest player is hotly sought after because he has "championship experience."
It wasn't irony that died, it was nuance
Some things the winner did were good, some were brilliant, and some were necessary. Some weren't. Is that too divisive to mention?