The president admires capitalism?

[William Wallace]

Denver Post

President Barack Obama penned a witty Wall Street Journal op-ed this week titled "Toward a 21st Century Regulatory System."
In it, he extolled the virtues of a free market system. And to prove that his admiration of capitalism has nothing to do with naked political expediency, Obama signed an executive order that will "root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb."

Do you actually believe the president? He sounds insincere, for many of the reasons the article goes in to.

[Super Dude]

I certainly hope you're not one of those touting the "socialist president" banner. Maybe he does believe in a free market, maybe he does love capitalism, and some and/or reasonable government regulation of the market is not a bad thing.

[rumborak]

What SD said really. Frankly, calling any American president "socialist" is completely asinine. The US is the country of capitalism, and presidents can only move in a tiny realm within that framework.

rumborak

[Adami]

You can love capitalism without being a staunch libertarian. 

Personally I can't stand capitalism and im actually pretty close to a libertarian. 

[William Wallace]

What SD said really. Frankly, calling any American president "socialist" is completely asinine. The US is the country of capitalism, and presidents can only move in a tiny realm within that framework.

rumborak

Nobody's calling him a socialist. But being an advocate of free market economics and not being a socialist are very different positions. As Adami pointed out, you don't have to be a socialist to dislike capitalism. I just wish Mr. President would come out and admit that he doesn't, instead of paying lip service.

And judging by how much the government is intervening in the economy, I think there's a lot of room to move, as you say. Huge injections of credit, restrictions on carbon emissions, excise taxes, and health care legislation are all major and recent examples of major shifts in the "framework."

[rumborak]

Nobody's calling him a socialist.

https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+socialist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

As Adami pointed out, you don't have to be a socialist to dislike capitalism. I just wish Mr. President would come out and admit that he doesn't, instead of paying lip service.

You're confusing liking something with making yourself a slave of. Obama likes capitalism just like all the other moderates, as a tool that has its limitations.
Is the only way of showing one's appreciation for something the unconditional surrender to it? That's like saying somebody doesn't like his wife because they have the occasional argument.

rumborak

[ReaPsTA]

Personally I can't stand capitalism and im actually pretty close to a libertarian. 

I'm assuming you don't mean you're an economic libertarian.

You're confusing liking something with making yourself a slave of. Obama likes capitalism just like all the other moderates, as a tool that has its limitations.

Is the only way of showing one's appreciation for something the unconditional surrender to it? That's like saying somebody doesn't like his wife because they have the occasional argument.

rumborak

Obama might feel like he likes capitalism, I don't really know.  But I'd prefer to judge him by his actions, which say the opposite.

I don't understand quite what you mean with the unconditional surrender thing.

[EPICVIEW]

Thank You Reapsta.

I no longer talk around here..suffice to say I already know who Obama is, and who he has always been.

just saying hello.. enjoy everybody

[orcus116]

Nobody's calling him a socialist.

https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+socialist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

The funniest part about that is probably a large majority of the people making those claims/images/websites have no idea what a socialist is other than "it's supposed to mean something bad".

[William Wallace]

Nobody's calling him a socialist.

https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+socialist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

The funniest part about that is probably a large majority of the people making those claims/images/websites have no idea what a socialist is other than "it's supposed to mean something bad".

I meant in the context of this thread.

[rumborak]

Obama might feel like he likes capitalism, I don't really know.  But I'd prefer to judge him by his actions, which say the opposite.
I don't understand quite what you mean with the unconditional surrender thing.

What I'm saying is, is the only way of "liking" capitalism to do anything that will increase its influence?
How about seeing capitalism's shortcomings and trying to curb the deleterious effects through legislation, but keeping the places where you think it does a marvelous job alone? That's all Obama does, only that you misinterpret his attempt to adjust policies to curb the deleterious effects of capitalism with an attempt to scale down capitalism everywhere he can.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

Obama might feel like he likes capitalism, I don't really know.  But I'd prefer to judge him by his actions, which say the opposite.
I don't understand quite what you mean with the unconditional surrender thing.

What I'm saying is, is the only way of "liking" capitalism to do anything that will increase its influence?
How about seeing capitalism's shortcomings and trying to curb the deleterious effects through legislation, but keeping the places where you think it does a marvelous job alone? That's all Obama does, only that you misinterpret his attempt to adjust policies to curb the deleterious effects of capitalism with an attempt to scale down capitalism everywhere he can.

rumborak

This.  The attitude many people take with regards to Obama's supposed hatred of the free market reminds me of those jingoists and ignoramuses who, in the months leading up to the Iraq War, said that people opposed to the U.S. sending troops to Iraq were anti-American.  You can be a patriot and not blindly support your country in every stupid decision it makes; similarly you can believe in capitalism and not be an unthinking free market zealot.

[Perpetual Change]

I think he probably believes in doing things so that the most successive corporations are able to stay that way without really having to compete or work hard to keep their status.

Which means he's as much as a capitalist as Bush was.

[Chino]

Nobody's calling him a socialist.

https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+socialist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

The funniest part about that is probably a large majority of the people making those claims/images/websites have no idea what a socialist is other than "it's supposed to mean something bad".

It's funny though. Obama was trailing McCain in the polls until everyone started throwing around the word "socialist".

[pogoowner]

I think he probably believes in doing things so that the most successive corporations are able to stay that way without really having to compete or work hard to keep their status.

Which means he's as much as a capitalist as Bush was.

That sounds relatively accurate.

[ReaPsTA]

Obama might feel like he likes capitalism, I don't really know.  But I'd prefer to judge him by his actions, which say the opposite.
I don't understand quite what you mean with the unconditional surrender thing.

What I'm saying is, is the only way of "liking" capitalism to do anything that will increase its influence?
How about seeing capitalism's shortcomings and trying to curb the deleterious effects through legislation, but keeping the places where you think it does a marvelous job alone? That's all Obama does, only that you misinterpret his attempt to adjust policies to curb the deleterious effects of capitalism with an attempt to scale down capitalism everywhere he can.

rumborak

I think I see what you're saying in this post, but I'm not seeing exactly how it relates to what.  Who are the people who will do anything to increase its influence?  Why are they doing this?  Are their motivations genuine?  Does that matter?

"How about seeing capitalism's shortcomings and trying to curb the deleterious effects through legislation, but keeping the places where you think it does a marvelous job alone?"  That's a cool sentence, but everyone feels differently about it.  I'd be hard-pressed up come up with a list of capitalism's negatives that had any substantial length to it.  Relative to my view of how to best run a country, a largely unregulated market seems the way to go.

As for Obama, I don't see why there's any reason to believe he's really trying to solve problems.  I probably disagree with many of Cory Booker's policies (particularly on Gun Control), but he seems genuine and is achieving results.  There's nothing to deride.

But what have we gained with Obama as president and the Democrats in Congress.  The unemployment rate with the stimulus is worse than the unemployment projections without it.  The economy still isn't great.  Its fundamental structural issues haven't been addressed.  We're still holding prisoners without trial, torturing terrorists, and running prisons outside our soil.  The government wants more power to spy on us.  The government has taken over (essentially) two American auto-companies.  We've rewarded financial irresponsibility on Wall Street by allowing the people who screwed up to maintain their positions while giving them money.  We have a bloated and stupid Health Care bill that's at best ineffective.  I mean, I guess we haven't given amnesty to evil Mexicans and we still have our guns.  Hooray.

By what metric are you saying Obama's been remotely effective as president or even cares about achieving results?

I think he probably believes in doing things so that the most successive corporations are able to stay that way without really having to compete or work hard to keep their status.

Which means he's as much as a capitalist as Bush was.

The whole point of capitalism is that successful corporations have to compete and work hard to keep their status.  So what Obama is doing isn't capitalistic.  Unless the definition of the word changed on me.

[Super Dude]

You realize that free market capitalism is harmful to small business and panders to corporations in equal amounts as regulated capitalism?  If you look back to the Gilded Age, top-dollar companies had an even tighter grip on U.S. politics than today.  Regulated capitalism was the chosen remedy, and it worked.  The reason it hasn't been working as of late isn't inherent in the system, it's the result of politicians and corporate bigwigs cutting corners.  It may not be perfect, but it works better than just shrugging and letting big business do what they want.

[Perpetual Change]

I think he probably believes in doing things so that the most successive corporations are able to stay that way without really having to compete or work hard to keep their status.

Which means he's as much as a capitalist as Bush was.

The whole point of capitalism is that successful corporations have to compete and work hard to keep their status.  So what Obama is doing isn't capitalistic.  Unless the definition of the word changed on me.

It changed on you when all the big business tycoons and pro-corporate welfare crowd starting calling themselves "capitalists," even as they accepted unfair, government-sponsored advantages; and when all the Republican constituents drank the Kool-Aid, believing nothing was strange about any of it.

[Super Dude]

I really wanna know where you get your information.  It may come as a shock to everyone here, but welfare programs are actually a good thing.

[Perpetual Change]

Did you miss the word "corporate" before welfare?

And yes, I'd say welfare programs can be a good thing for markets. I fail to see how there can be an equal playing field when some people don't have access to education or medicine simply because of birthright.

[Super Dude]

There is no one lacking education or medicine based on birthright.  It may be based on where they live, but I think you're exaggerating quite a bit.

[Riceball]

Now, I don't live in the US, but all this talk about Obama being an "evil" socialist seems a bit farfetched. As Orcus kind of said, the people who make claims like that probably just associate socialism with bad things because its what they are lead to believe.

There's nothing inherantly wrong with socialism, just as theres nothing inherantly wrong with capitalism. They are just two, albeit slightly different means to an end. The economy is all about satisfying needs and wants, socialism does it with a touch more collectivism that capitalism, which is more about the individual.

I live in Australia, which is probably somewhere between a capitalist democracy and a socialist democracy. We have basic universal healthcare, unemployment benefits, tax breaks for low income earners, a government-funded student loan system and all kinds of other social safety net policies to ensure that everyone has a chance if they want it.

From what I can tell, the US has very little in the way of social safety nets, besides maybe basic healthcare for poorer people. Everything is provided by the market; you apply for unemployment insurance, you get health insurance from your employer, you get student loans from a bank. Again, there is nothing inherantly wrong with this, its just one of many ways of solving resource allocation problems.

At the other end of the spectrum is scandanavian countries, who tax 50 cents in the dollar and provide free healthcare, public transport, educatio etc. Once again, nothing wrong with this, its their ideology and their way of satisfying societies needs and wants.

It seems the current US government is leaning towards introducing more social safety nets in the form of a medicare-type program that guarentees healthcare (again, I'm not 100% on this). That doesn't make Obama a socialist (again, I don't associate being "socialist" as evil because its not), it means he is trying to correct a perceived market failure.

If anything, the article is endemic of the toxic political culture in the US at the moment.

[Perpetual Change]

There is no one lacking education or medicine based on birthright.  It may be based on where they live, but I think you're exaggerating quite a bit.

I'm sorry, and maybe this is my fault, but I really have no idea what you're saying here or what your objection to my post is.

[PowerSlave]

Now, I don't live in the US, but all this talk about Obama being an "evil" socialist seems a bit farfetched. As Orcus kind of said, the people who make claims like that probably just associate socialism with bad things because its what they are lead to believe.

There's nothing inherantly wrong with socialism, just as theres nothing inherantly wrong with capitalism. They are just two, albeit slightly different means to an end. The economy is all about satisfying needs and wants, socialism does it with a touch more collectivism that capitalism, which is more about the individual.

I live in Australia, which is probably somewhere between a capitalist democracy and a socialist democracy. We have basic universal healthcare, unemployment benefits, tax breaks for low income earners, a government-funded student loan system and all kinds of other social safety net policies to ensure that everyone has a chance if they want it.

From what I can tell, the US has very little in the way of social safety nets, besides maybe basic healthcare for poorer people. Everything is provided by the market; you apply for unemployment insurance, you get health insurance from your employer, you get student loans from a bank. Again, there is nothing inherantly wrong with this, its just one of many ways of solving resource allocation problems.

At the other end of the spectrum is scandanavian countries, who tax 50 cents in the dollar and provide free healthcare, public transport, educatio etc. Once again, nothing wrong with this, its their ideology and their way of satisfying societies needs and wants.

It seems the current US government is leaning towards introducing more social safety nets in the form of a medicare-type program that guarentees healthcare (again, I'm not 100% on this). That doesn't make Obama a socialist (again, I don't associate being "socialist" as evil because its not), it means he is trying to correct a perceived market failure.

If anything, the article is endemic of the toxic political culture in the US at the moment.

We do have government student-loans, unemployment benefits, tax breaks for lower income earners and people without medical insurance can go to hospitals and various "free clinics" for a level of healthcare. So, in some ways we are similar to what you're used to in Australia. The problem with healthcare in this country is how it effects people in the working class. Get sick and watch everything you've ever worked for potentially get flushed down the shitter. The whole thing is rather vulgar in my opinion.

[Riceball]

The problem with healthcare in this country is how it effects people in the working class. Get sick and watch everything you've ever worked for potentially get flushed down the shitter. The whole thing is rather vulgar in my opinion.

Is that due to the employer-funded health insurance?

If correcting that kind of market failure makes Obama a socialist, wow...

[j]

Not entirely.  I'd say it's mostly because of massive, rising, out-of-control health care costs and questionable business practices of insurance companies.

-J

[Riceball]

Not entirely.  I'd say it's mostly because of massive, rising, out-of-control health care costs and questionable business practices of insurance companies.

-J

I really don't know alot about the US healthcare system, but from what I've seen & heard the insurance system isn't regulated very well and companies can load their risk curves with healthy people and shaft everyone else.

Again, I'll acknowledge I don't know much about the system, but if good, honest, hardworking people don't have access to healthcare (not just government-funded, but also through health insurance), and the US is the richest country in the world - something must be wrong with the system.

[PowerSlave]

The problem with healthcare in this country is how it effects people in the working class. Get sick and watch everything you've ever worked for potentially get flushed down the shitter. The whole thing is rather vulgar in my opinion.

Is that due to the employer-funded health insurance?

If correcting that kind of market failure makes Obama a socialist, wow...

It mostly boils down to greed and our new healthcare reform law doesn't really address it on any serious levels from what I've seen. It's not uncommon to hear about hospitals charging people hundreds of dollars for an over-the-counter pain pill that would cost pennies on the dollar if you purchased it in your local grocery store.

I remember watching an interview with the late Elizabeth Edwards (she was the wife of a formerly important political figure in our country that passed away recently due to breast cancer) when she was on Larry King live a year or two ago and I remember her talking about a particular Health Insurance company that paid it's CEO one out of every seven or eight dollars that it brought in. I'm working off of memory here so I reserve the right to be slightly full of shit on those numbers by the way. Anyways, whatever the details were, I was honestly shocked by what she said. I never took the time to check on her claims but, if she were only being vaguely accurate in her numbers it was still mind blowing.

I have absolutely nothing against someone being succesfull or making a good living. However, there comes a point when out-right greed be damned. The Health Care "Industry" in this country crossed that line a long time ago.

[William Wallace]

You realize that free market capitalism is harmful to small business and panders to corporations in equal amounts as regulated capitalism?  If you look back to the Gilded Age, top-dollar companies had an even tighter grip on U.S. politics than today.  Regulated capitalism was the chosen remedy, and it worked.  The reason it hasn't been working as of late isn't inherent in the system, it's the result of politicians and corporate bigwigs cutting corners.  It may not be perfect, but it works better than just shrugging and letting big business do what they want.

This is, I think, the most ridiculous of all the myths that pass as history today. What did people find so deplorable about the Guilded Age? Businesses using political connections to enrich themselves at the expense of their customers and the public. Ironically, I think Perpetual change adequately defended capitalism with this:

It changed on you when all the big business tycoons and pro-corporate welfare crowd starting calling themselves "capitalists," even as they accepted unfair, government-sponsored advantages; and when all the Republican constituents drank the Kool-Aid, believing nothing was strange about any of it.

[Riceball]

You realize that free market capitalism is harmful to small business and panders to corporations in equal amounts as regulated capitalism?  If you look back to the Gilded Age, top-dollar companies had an even tighter grip on U.S. politics than today.  Regulated capitalism was the chosen remedy, and it worked.  The reason it hasn't been working as of late isn't inherent in the system, it's the result of politicians and corporate bigwigs cutting corners.  It may not be perfect, but it works better than just shrugging and letting big business do what they want.

This is, I think, the most ridiculous of all the myths that pass as history today. What did people find so deplorable about the Guilded Age? Businesses using political connections to enrich themselves at the expense of their customers and the public. Ironically, I think Perpetual change adequately defended capitalism with this:

It changed on you when all the big business tycoons and pro-corporate welfare crowd starting calling themselves "capitalists," even as they accepted unfair, government-sponsored advantages; and when all the Republican constituents drank the Kool-Aid, believing nothing was strange about any of it.

At the end of the day, no other system in history has been able to maximise the success equation as well as capitalism. It depends on which lense you are looking through. Yes, there are things wrong with free-market capitalism (such as corruption), just as there are things wrong with "regulated" (cant think of a better word, maybe tempered?) capitalism (inefficiency).

Its such a massive debate that will always be had; unfortunately its a hard one to sort out because of the inherant assumed biases that both sides have.

[ack44]

No, I don't believe in the president when he talks about "proper balance" after seeing him appoint more JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs to Washington. It's rigged markets that he admires, not free markets.

[ReaPsTA]

You realize that free market capitalism is harmful to small business and panders to corporations in equal amounts as regulated capitalism?

That's not necessarily true.  Big businesses don't really care about regulations.  They either evade or simply pay for them and go back to doing what they do.  Small businesses are most negatively affected because relative to their overall income, the regulations cost more.  Minimum wage is a nice and simple example.  Big businesses can swallow up the costs or diffuse them into the prices of their products easily.  Small businesses have to either hire fewer employees, give their current employees fewer hours, or make their products more expensive than people would want to pay for.

Plus, look at the regulation of the Tobacco industry.  Every time a new regulation is passed, Phillip Morris actually endorses it because to them it doesn't matter.  They only sell regular and menthol flavors, so the regulations on flavored cigarettes don't matter to them.  Not being able to put full flavor/light/ultralight on the cover doesn't matter because reds, golds, and silvers are so identified with those flavors.

Or look at what Obama's doing right now with the finance industry.  Members of big business are working in the government, members of the government are working in big business.  Businesses have more power than ever to get special favors from the government.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/03/AR2011010304495.html

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the financial giants whose failed mortgage investments made them wards of the government, have accepted $2.8 billion from Bank of America to largely put to rest claims that the bank sold them faulty loans.

The cost to Bank of America was less than the potential blow some investors had expected, and the bank's stock rose 6.4 percent on the news Monday.

For Bank of America, the settlements eliminate "a doomsday scenario," said analyst Paul Miller of FBR Capital Markets.

"This is a gift" from the government to the bank, said Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics. "We're all paying for this because it will show up in the losses from Fannie and Freddie," he said.

ad_icon

The deal with Fannie Mae is not airtight; it leaves open the possibility that Fannie could pursue additional claims against Bank of America. In contrast, the settlement with Freddie Mac essentially closes the book on pending and potential claims.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, approved the settlements. In a statement, the agency said the deals were "consistent with market practice and FHFA's conservatorship responsibilities."

Fannie spokeswoman Janis Smith called it a "fair and responsible resolution."

At issue is one of the biggest threats facing Bank of America and other major lenders that weathered the financial crisis with help from the government.

During the housing bubble, the banks typically sold mortgages to investors around the world, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But those investors were generally entitled to repayment by the lenders if the loans were sold on the basis of false assurances.

Stocks of major banks swooned last year when the market was gripped by fears that banks could be on the hook for huge sums.

Bank of America's acquisition of one of the biggest issuers of troubled loans, Countrywide Financial, has left it especially vulnerable.

In October, a group of investors including the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Pacific Investment Management and BlackRock, wrote to Bank of America signaling that they might try force repayment on pools of Countrywide mortgages totaling more than $47 billion. That dispute remains unresolved.

Another major claim against Bank of America is being pursued in court by MBIA Insurance, which promised to cover payments to investors if borrowers defaulted.

The settlements with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were paid Friday, the last day of 2010, as Bank of America closed the books on the year. Without a settlement, investors would have been scrutinizing Bank of America's upcoming fourth-quarter financial report for estimates of the bank's exposure to the two government-backed companies.

Bank of America said its $1.3 billion payment to Freddie Mac extinguishes all outstanding and potential repurchase claims on 787,000 mortgages that had total unpaid principal balances of $127 billion.

The bank's $1.5 billion settlement with Fannie Mae was more complicated. It resolved claims involving 12,045 loans with unpaid balances of $2.7 billion. It partially resolves an additional 5,760 loans with unpaid balances of $1.3 billion.

That still leaves Fannie Mae holding a mountain of loans from Bank of America: the total unpaid balance before the settlement was $397 billion. But Bank of America said that, after making the Dec. 31 payments and reserving $3 billion in the fourth quarter, it has covered any remaining liability to Fannie Mae unless its assumptions about home prices and other factors prove incorrect.

The Bank of America agreement is Fannie Mae's second recent settlement over mortgage issues. On Dec. 27, Ally Financial, formerly known as GMAC, announced that its mortgage unit agreed to pay Fannie Mae $461.5 million to eliminate its liability for loans with unpaid principal of $84 billion. Under that deal, the FHFA agreed to withdraw subpoenas it issued last year in a probe of industry practices.

Or even look at the new Health Care law.  Who's able to get exemptions from the rules?  Big businesses.

So how is it again that less regulated markets give power to big business, but regulation takes it away?  I feel confused as to how that statement is logically valid.

[Super Dude]

Can I turn that around?  How does a completely free market ensure that power is taken away from big businesses?  Isn't it just the same, just we've decided to deliberately not try to do anything to stop it?

[ReaPsTA]

Can I turn that around?  How does a completely free market ensure that power is taken away from big businesses?  Isn't it just the same, just we've decided to deliberately not try to do anything to stop it?

It doesn't take power away from them.  And trying to do that isn't the point.  But a free market does force them to actually earn their power.

Also, I should represent what I'm saying a bit more specifically.  I don't want a completely unregulated market.  Child-labor laws, overtime laws, and some kind of minimum wage all seem perfectly fair.  These are broad policies that require a relatively small amount of effort and cost to conform to, and make sure businesses don't actually enslave their employees.

But what I think a lot of posters on this board (and people in general) want to see is a "fair" market, which is impossible.  Not every person and business is capable of the same thing.  What we want is equality of opportunity, not result.  If the results are equal, then clearly something is wrong, because not all people can achieve the same thing.

[rumborak]

Every agent in the free market has set as its goal the knocking out of the competition, in order to have the biggest market share. Meaning, unless there are circumstances in place to prevent it, a market will consolidate on one player, meaning the market principles stopped working. It's been seen enough that essentially every country in this world has anti-trust laws in place to prevent monopolies.

It would be ludicrous to not see this as an inherent shortcoming of the free market that needs to be adjusted for.

rumborak