• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Left Doesn’t Get It—And Neither Does The Right

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The Left Doesn’t Get It—And Neither Does The Right

    http://thehourlyg.blogspot.com/2011/01/left-doesnt-get-itand-neither-does.html#more

    <b>Obama Has Been GREAT for Big Business—But TERRIBLE for Free Markets</b>


    The New Republic—the standard bearer for the New Frontier Democrats—has a piece about how great Obama has been for business, written by Naom Scheiber. They published it about a month ago, but it’s still up there, gathering dust.

    Old School Lefties don’t write much about business and finance, because Old School Lefties have never really ever understood business, finance—much less the free markets. They’re intimidated by the rowdiness of the free markets, afraid of their messiness—and they just don’t get business. It’s not an accident that rich heiresses are always Lefties: They don’t understand and in fact are intimidated by the market forces that had to be wrestled with, in order to buy them their designer lifestyles and shabby chic friends.

    Lefty intellectuals (“he said sarcastically”) are great at spewing about economics in an airless, blinkered, sheltered sort of way—but they don’t have a clue about down-and-dirty capitalism. They sound like thirteen year-old boys talking about having a threesome: All heatedly imagined theory—not a lick of practice whatsoever.

    The following paragraph in Scheiber’s piece is key, to understanding the Left’s misconception:

    "There’s always been something slightly preposterous about the idea that Obama has been bad for business. This is, after all, an administration that bailed out GM and Chrysler and propped up Wall Street at tremendous political cost, then withdrew from these sectors faster than anyone thought possible. It resisted pressure to break up big banks, re-nominated a Republican Fed chairman, and has proposed a series of business-friendly tax changes. Oh, and it just presided over the best quarter of corporate profits on record."

    Let’s take it all item by item:


    “This is, after all, an administration that bailed out GM and Chrysler and propped up Wall Street at tremendous political cost.”: Yes, Obama bailed out GM and Chrysler and propped up Wall Street—when he never should have.

    The whole point of a free market is, You win some, you lose some. The famed Creative Destruction of the free markets should have been allowed to have its day in the sun—especially where the banking sector is concerned.

    After all, the Shadow Banking system was broke: Broke-broke-broke-broke-broke! They went broke because of bad investments, foolish risks, stupid chances that they took—that they took: Nobody put a gun to their head, and forced them to underwrite ridiculous credit default swaps, or buy into ridiculously risky RMBS’s and CMBS’s.

    They screwed the pooch, and found themselves circling the drain.

    What did Obama do? Why, he did the Shadow Banking system the favor of a lifetime—the favor of several lifetimes: His administration bailed out the banksters! Free and clear! Without a single indictment, a single jail sentence, not even a regulatory slap on the wrist—and then? Then he gave them a truckload of money—and then? Then he left them alone!!!

    As Scheiber in The New Republic writes, the Obama administration bailed out these insolvent companies, “then withdrew from these sectors faster than anyone thought possible. It resisted pressure to break up big banks.”

    What does that tell you? That Obama is a Lefty who happens to be friendly with business?

    No!!!—It tells you that Obama might claim to be a Lefty politician—but he’s really a Crony Capitalist.

    Like the Old School Chicago pol that he is, Barack Obama cares not for ideology—all he cares about is shoring up his friends. Obama famously was supported by Wall Street in his early campaigning—so what happened when they got in trouble?

    . . . you know what happened. What is happening. What will continue to happen. Banksters, banksters everywhere—bitching.

    The Right is no better, at missing the boat about the Big B.O.: He’s not socialist, you fools—look how he gutted his own party’s wishes, when closing on the health care legislation.

    The only people who made out like bandits were the insurance companies—everyone else got screwed. But Uncle Warren Buggerit and all the Hartford cronies? they did fine as wine . . .

    Yet the Right—foolishly—labels him

    The Hourly G is politically on the other side of the fence from O: But we here at Central Command would have at least respected him if he had stuck to his guns and regulated the hell out of Wall Street, then gone and done a health care reform legislation that was on the up-and-up, not on the down-low with the Insurance Boyz.

    That’s not “helping business”. That’s not “helping the American economy recover”.

    That is merely Old School Crony Capitalism, masquerading as “Change We Can Believe In.”

    #2
    This is all basically true in Canada as well. Doesn't seem to matter who is at the rudder.

    The author makes a good point. Crony Capitalism or Corporatism is not actual Capitalism and its not a true picture of free markets in action. Its just another variant of the welfare state.

    Comment


      #3
      The history of human progress is a very bumpy one. There is a pattern of solving problems, reaping the rewards, and forgetting how the problems were solved. Presently there is a collapse of some degree which once again makes solving problems a requirement to reap rewards. The scale of the collapse is the big question in our future. We have never lived so well. That means we have a long way to fall. HT

      Comment


        #4
        In the middle of my previous post the sentence starts "Presently there is a collapse" which should read something like "After a period of time there is a collapse." I am not suggesting that it has started or speculating on when it will. HT

        Comment


          #5
          Neither many in the left oR right "get it" when it comes to food safety for children:

          "The naked truth about kids’ food advertising
          24-Jan-2011

          Related topics: Financial & Industry

          It was an Emperor’s New Clothes moment for the US food industry last week, when it was revealed that a major initiative touting its responsible advertising to kids actually allows promotion of many unhealthy foods. Is anyone really surprised?

          As in the fairytale – in which everyone praises the emperor’s sumptuous new clothes without daring to point out that he is, in fact, naked – the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI) has long been commended for its vocal stance on restricting direct advertising of unhealthy foods to children, but it seems no one has looked very hard at the substance of its claim.

          The 17 companies that are CFBAI members have vowed “to shift the mix of advertising messaging directed at children to encourage healthier dietary choices and healthier lifestyles.” The initiative specifies that advertising should not be directed to children under 12 unless foods meet government standards defining the term “healthy” or the American Heart Association’s HeartCheck program criteria. Personally, I would like to see a ban on all advertising directed primarily to children, but the CFBAI program seemed like a good compromise.

          So when a new study last week revealed that of 58 products made by companies that participate in the initiative, 49 did not meet these standards, industry should have been blushing.

          Take a look at some of the products that qualify under the scheme as healthy enough to be advertised as healthy options for children under 12: there are cookies, desserts, sugary cereals, pizza, even Burger King hamburgers. What’s the point in having a self-regulatory system if its standards are this lax?

          Now, I don’t doubt that CFBAI members, like other key players in the food industry, have made great strides to reformulate their products to contain less added sugar, less sodium and less saturated fat, and they should be commended for those efforts. A program such as the CFBAI has great potential to shift product formulation and have a positive effect on children’s diets, but its standards need to be strict – and strictly enforced"

          Yes, well. Take a close look at your children. Do they reflect healthy food, in your eyes? Pars

          Comment

          • Reply to this Thread
          • Return to Topic List
          Working...