Obama as a savior of capitalism

This link at NYT nicely summarizes what I've been feeling all along -- Obama's actions in the office helped preserve the capitalist structure of the US. And yet, the simpletons keep calling him a commie. Sheesh.

The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged.

Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama’s political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated.

“An apology is due Barack Obama,” wrote The Economist, which had opposed the $86 billion auto bailout. As for Government Motors: after emerging from bankruptcy, it will go public with a new stock offering in just a few weeks, and the United States government, with its 60 percent share of common stock, stands to make a profit. Yes, an industry was saved, and the government will probably make money on the deal — one of Obama’s signature economic successes.

Interest rates are at record lows. Corporate profits are lighting up boardrooms; it is one of the best years for earnings in a decade.

All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist. But more than anything, the fact that the president took on the structural flaws of a broken free enterprise system instead of focusing on things that the average voter could understand explains why his party was routed on Tuesday.

Its not about the results of what Obama did, I think the ultimate problem was the philosophy behind it...however, little made sense about the whole thing to begin with.

I listened to a list of things that Obama did in the 2 years...the credit card reform, the student loan reform, the cash for clunkers thing, etc etc etc...it was actually a long and impressive list, however, most of these things were pro small business acts and sort of clashed against big insurance and credit companies..

if you poke the big dog in the yard while trying to help out the small dogs, your going to get bit big, and thats what happened.

the philosophy is, you need to have more token movements than real movements. the tax cuts went unnoticed because it didn't come in a big check form but rather just a few bucks extra on your paycheck...this allowed a bit more spending without thinking of it (lots of people took the bush paycheck and banked it verses spend it..not as effective)..and people are really...really dumb. They need that big yearly paycheck to come at them with his name in bold before they understand they are getting money..they simply disconnect from facts and stats, because again, the american people collectively are completely stupid and backwards..american idol voting twits. individually, a person can be quite insightful and intellectual, but in groups, yep...morons.

so, any successful president needs to not focus on what works, but rather what looks good in the spotlight...however, a successful president is not necessarily a good president.

if you want to be a good president, history will vindicate you, but the country will be grumping while your doing what you do.

hard decision..be the popular kid today, or the visionary tomorrow...seems you can be one or the other.

Obama is a collectivist above and beyond anything else or even a progressive collectivist. Wow! The lines have blurred greatly over the years between Progressivism, Socialism, Communism and Collectivism. However, all share a common component. Collectivism.

Collectivism is simply the belief that the good of the collective society outweighs that of the good of the individual and all parties believe in a strong central government that acts for the people. Collectivists just toss in a bit of capitalism just for flavor and appeasement.

The modern era progressive collectivist,sincerely believe that government is an agency for good, and that it ought be granted sweeping powers. That the federal government's place is not only as set forth in our Constitution but to play the role of social engineer and master of the business sector through sweeping and choking regulation.

Originally posted by jibeho
The modern era progressive collectivist,sincerely believe that government is an agency for good, and that it ought be granted sweeping powers. That the federal government's place is not only as set forth in our Constitution but to play the role of social engineer and master of the business sector through sweeping and choking regulation.

The government is an agency

how we use it determines if it is for good or not.

I have a question...if a building is on fire, should the people whom own the building put it out with a garden hose and buckets, or call on a large agency (the fire department) to help put it out?

big agencies take on big problems...to say there is no need for big agencies is saying there are no big problems...yet the same people whom say that typically want a big military for...big problems. heh.

problems don't always come in the form of bombs.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
This link at NYT nicely summarizes what I've been feeling all along

Ya' could'a stopped right there. New York Times? Not exactly an unbiased source. Got others?

Obama's actions in the office helped preserve the capitalist structure of the US.

By socializing medicine; bailing out and having the gov't basically run big corporations; by not letting bad business (the car industry) fail as it should in a capitalist country; by dictating to banks and other institutions what they can or can't pay their employees; by 'spreading the wealth' instead of creating wealth; ... this is 'preserving the capitalist structure'?

And yet, the simpletons keep calling him a commie. Sheesh.

And yet, the simpletons keep calling him a capitalist. Sheesh.

He's a NWO puppet and he's failed America. Nothing more.

Keynesian socialists trying to supplant opposition by claiming they're actually capitalists

Yeah, and Bush was a strict Constitutionalist.


Give me a break. There is nothing capitalistic about the Keynesian model of economics. It is social and corporate welfare. Its another flavor of the same crappy centralized government philosophy. And Obama most certainly subscribes to it.

Capitalism was a good idea, turned into utter greed by the usa. A whole new kind of system need to be developed in order for our species to survive.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by buddhasystem
This link at NYT nicely summarizes what I've been feeling all along

Ya' could'a stopped right there. New York Times? Not exactly an unbiased source. Got others?

If you find an unbiased journalistic piece in the US, call me in the middle of the night. I'll be all ears. What I said was that the piece made sense to me, that's all.

By socializing medicine

Sorry but this is plain falsehood -- there is no public option in the package.

bailing out and having the gov't basically run big corporations;

False again. Shares in the banks bought by the govt were (miraculously) non-voting shares. And the govt never ran GM etc. Get your head from under that heap of crap ideology.

by not letting bad business (the car industry) fail as it should in a capitalist country

Sure, let's let the Japanese (who are very well connected to their own govt) just take over once and for all, and let's let all the autoworkers starve. Good thinking.

by dictating to banks and other institutions what they can or can't pay their employees

Wait, you said that bad decisions should be punished in capitalist system. Yet you advocate that subpar practices need to be awarded nevertheless? Sorry but if you f**cked up and I bailed you out for the greater good of the country, you shouldn't be allowed to hunt partridge while sipping champagne and staying at a Scottish castle. Which is a true story, by the way.

Originally posted by theuhstuf
Capitalism was a good idea, turned into utter greed by the usa. A whole new kind of system need to be developed in order for our species to survive.

Agreed, but most concepts of an advanced civilization quickly turns into a socialist organization with a bit of capitalism tossed in...

however, such a system simply cannot happen until our technology for resource equalization is advanced...for now, the capitalist republic is about as good as it gets simply because we are at a technological barrier that is slow to move forward...

Once it becomes plausable to have everyone get a foundation of life requirements and a few perks straight across the board, then ya...government(s) will fall in line into the "socialist utopia", but until then, we are left with primitive forms of government.

So...want to truely change the nation and world...become a fan of scientific progress..fuel things like nanotechnology and alternative cheap fuels..this is the area that, when all said and done, will be the game changers for how we the people move towards the future...until then, we are left with who has the biggest club in the cave to rule.

reply to post by SaturnFX


The central government is the core of a never ending body of different govt. run agencies/bureaucracies and comparing that to a municipal fire department does not really work for me. The fire department is created and funded by the taxpayers on a fundamental level and in some rural areas this is volunteer or contracted with a neighboring municipality.

The current push by the sitting administration is to create sweeping reform and the agencies to go with it. Hence creating even more centralized power strictly regulated by a select few. We don't have a voice in this massive creation. I have yet to see a national referendum on specific issues or sweeping reform. What a concept eh?

reply to post by buddhasystem

Originally posted by buddhasystem
This link at NYT nicely summarizes what I've been feeling all along -- Obama's actions in the office helped preserve the capitalist structure of the US. And yet, the simpletons keep calling him a commie. Sheesh.

Obama has only served the same corporate bosses that Bush was serving: Banks, Defense, Homeland Security, Pharma, Insurance, etc.

Bailing out the banks worked because it was intended to transfer wealth from the common man to the elite. It worked exponentially because the money that we used to bail out the banks was borrowed from the banks which we'll be paying the interest on for eternity, and we lose the services that our taxes were allegedly paying for because that money is going to the banks as well. It didn't stop the country from going down the drain. Wait til we have to cash up our chips!

The auto industry bailout provided a similar service for that industry's elite.

His financial reform bill did nothing but setup an auto-bailout fund for when the next tranche of bad debts come due.

And far from socialising medicine, his health care bill will just force people to pay for health insurance at whatever price the companies decide to charge without any reform to the previous problems with medical insurance.

None of the above was done for the good of the public. If you can still feel Obama's hand in your pocket, don't think that he's trying to be friendly.

Originally posted by projectvxn
Its another flavor of the same crappy centralized government philosophy.

Did you even read the piece in the OP? If Obama was a proponent of "crappy centralized" model, he would have nationalized the banks. He didn't.

And frankly, we can be ranting how great the non-centralized free for all is, while the rest of the world (fairly centralized) is laughing at us as we become a retarded nation with rotting infrastructure (= no public works and no govt intervention).

When you have time, go to Taipei and take the subway. Then write an article in National Geographic about how great it is. Then check out the rotten pit of subway in NYC.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I don't think you understand Keynesian economics.

I recommend starting at wikipedia and working your way from there.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I don't think you understand Keynesian economics.I recommend starting at wikipedia and working your way from there.

What's up with being condescending?

What I observe in recent crises is validating Keynesian theses.

reply to post by buddhasystem


You keep thinking that while the dollar loses value.

John Maynard Keynes never said government should spend the country into oblivion.
He said the nation should maintain funds and surpluses for economic hurtles.
We took all of the advice of Keynes minus the advice to maintain some nominal savings by government.

Instead we created an inflationary system whereby savings is discouraged by anyone including government. Through fractional reserve banking, and non asset backed currencies.

Sorry not going out of my way to sound like a jerk or anything. Just telling it how it is.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Did you even read the piece in the OP? If Obama was a proponent of "crappy centralized" model, he would have nationalized the banks. He didn't.

Only Fannie/Freddie!! and they are conveniently exempt from any of the sweeping Wall Street Reform because of the govt.s hand in managing them. Our nations treasury is backing them 100% for the next three years or more if needed. Fannie and Freddie guarantee $5.3 trillion in mortgage-backed securities and that is backed up in full by the American Taxpayer. They also have a debt load approaching the $3trillion mark. It's actually tough to obtain accurate numbers on these slippery little government goons. Must be a sliding scale....

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Hence creating even more centralized power strictly regulated by a select few.

By a select few elected by the many every other year.

problems with that?

a company only has a few managers, and if they fail at their job, new managment comes in, however, instead of being promoted, it is the employees below managment that puts up new managers, not some king boss that sets up managment.

This is how America works...its the founding principles. What your talking about is closer to a democracy verses a democratic republic...and democracy is made of fail.

Originally posted by projectvxn
John Maynard Keynes never said government should spend the country into oblivion.

True, but he also never said that repealing Glass-Steagall was a good idea. What happens now is an emergency mode, not business as usual. Thought it was clear...

He said the nation should maintain funds and surpluses for economic hurtles.

Sorry but we live in an imperfect world and fighting 2 wars with no end in sight. I guess John Maynard was not planning for this.

reply to post by SaturnFX


The reason for the massive turnover last night was do to a select few ignoring the wishes of the masses who voted them into their jobs. Let's hope we can build on this lesson and move forward with the business of running this nation in the best interest of the each person rather than the interests of Obama and his cabinet. These select few are not supposed to work for him and that's why they got creamed.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by projectvxn
John Maynard Keynes never said government should spend the country into oblivion.

True, but he also never said that repealing Glass-Steagall was a good idea. What happens now is an emergency mode, not business as usual. Thought it was clear...

He said the nation should maintain funds and surpluses for economic hurtles.

Sorry but we live in an imperfect world and fighting 2 wars with no end in sight. I guess John Maynard was not planning for this.

He also didn't account for greed. The greed of politicians opened the coffers of the people's money to the greed of Wall St. crooks. And now here we are.

We need a system that is free from centralized management. What we need is a free system where fraud laws are enforced. But we have to start somewhere, and the first thing we need to do is cut off the institutions of government that are feeding the beast.

Fraud waste and abuse will be rampant with governments whose policies require that people involuntarily give up their hard earned money.