Master_Pedant wrote:
Oggleleus wrote:
Capitalism depends on the rule of law. When that rule of law is no longer respected or followed then capitalism is threatened. Our president seems to be ignoring some of these laws. But, in the arena of personal property these laws have been eroded over time by examples of the Govt. winning court cases to seize private property for an ongoing list of reasons.
Large corporations that stop becoming competitive in the market seem to lurch towards federal protection for some reason. And, it is not just corporations, but non-profits and non corporate entities that get plenty of government employees cashing in on their cushy job, to be then appointed on the board of one of these entities. Why, because the role which lobbying plays out in DC is underestimated by many. Obama pledged to not appoint lobbyists but has gone against that pledge.
If the US govt. regulated the free market LESS would there be such a perceived need for as many lobbyists now? Is the number of lobbyists a function of the amount of regulations being enforced? If so, then UNREGULATED Capitalism is kinda of a funny term to me.
And, yes, I believe Obama is anti-capitalist. I think his statements over the course of being an Illinois Senator are proof enough. But, then maybe look at his voting record as a state senator or even his brief stint as a US senator where he barely showed up to vote. And, if that is not enough to convince you that there might be some anti-capitalism angst going on here, maybe look at the results after 6 months and who his supporters are.
Capitalism won't die because most everything else sounds great on paper but not so great to implement. Socialism could work but honesty works better.
Obama is undeniably a
state capitalist (not a free market capitalist, but there's never been one leading in the industrialized world). He's following the same, almost Clintonian, centrist Democrat stance as his predecessors. The only difference, due to the times, is that he's injecting capital into failing firms to keep them afloat while they decision making remains privatized. This is a pretty common trend in the history of American State Capitalism and is, by no means, an abnormality.
The Obama-Geithner plans didn't differ that much from the Bush-Paulson plan. He's simply doing what comes naturally to any mainstream politician at a time when the economy is in crisis.
"State Capitalist", is kind of an oxymoron to me. He is a statist and to achieve his goals he must be anti-capitalist. "spreading the wealth around" is not supporting capitalistic principles but supporting a grander socialist agenda. We can disagree all day.
So, regulating capitalism is the solution, right? But, not regulating the bailout money so that this presidency can use money set aside for something else for his pet projects while ignoring the polices and laws governing the TARP fund? It's good to be the king. And, without good oversight the US taxpayers just gave away much of their hard earned money to politicians and their lobbying groups, to throw at problems, line their pockets, reap the rewards and then dog-cuss the tax payer. There will be so much "ill use" of taxpayer money that it is mind boggling. Who will oversee the overseers?
08 Jun 2009, 3:43 pm
