Economists to Romney campaign: Thatâs not what our research says <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9wWUc8BZgWE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> This really shouldn't be a surprise. This reminds me that there should be a Marshall McLuhan chapter in every economic textbook to illustrate what acutally happens in the real world to offset the theoretical crap that's no doubt being presented. We can call this regulation the "Facts and reality have a liberal bias" rule.
The human species existed for hundreds of thousands of years without liberals and the West arguably made its fastest progress in the historical eras without any trace of liberal input (at least not in the sense of today's liberal), e.g. the Greco-Roman era and the Renaissance, as well as some aspects of the Enlightenment (the Kantian strand, not the Marxist strand). How you can get from those facts to "facts and reality have a liberal bias" is pretty impressive. If anything, "facts and reality" show that liberalism is historically superfluous and will likely die out in the West as living standards shrink toward the globalized norm of the future. Anyway, your post made a decent point about Romney's interpretation of those economists' reports, but then you had to go and ruin it with some ideological grandstanding that's actually, in an ironic way, as inaccurate and interpretation of "facts and reality" as Romney's interpretation of those reports.