From the man who brought you 57 states, we now have . . . “Profit to Earning Ratios.”
James Taranto‘s commentary is, as always, insightful.
And he’s a lot nicer about it than J. Christoph Amberger is:
Now, if his predecessor had voiced such assessment, using the same terms, this gem would’ve been a keeper for the Big Book of Bushisms. Since standards are different (double even, some claim!) and finance isn’t really the bailywick of the Adulatory Corps sitting in at White House press conferences, it went unnoticed.
Which is a pity, because it would give our media something other to investigate than Michelle Obama’s exercise regimen for her upper arms (CNN), or what soft drink the White House prefers. (Is it Coke? Is it Pepsi? Let the investigative machine at Time magazine razzle-dazzle you!) . . .
Let’s assume, for charity’s sake, that he really means P/E ratios . . .
You see, once there are no earnings, the formula becomes useless for all practical purposes: Even in the Obama New Math, you cannot divide by zero. And the stock of a company with no earnings is a pure speculation on its future success.
Even U.S. News has to begrudgingly admit that our President is talking out of his ear. MSNBC, on the other hand, tries to gloss over it by noting that it’s “more commonly called price to earning ratios” and, oh, by the way, check out the President’s newly designed logo!
Of course, MSNBC is the home of Chris-of-the-Thrilled-Leg Matthews, so expectations were low. But with their “hard-hitting journalism” cooing over a new logo as they gloss over what amounts to Obama’s blatant ignorance – when they in the past devoted an entire article to a single Bush misstatement – MSNBC demonstrates that it really has nothing resembling neutrality.
Tarry for the Nonce 