Murray begins by noting that capitalism should be praised all over the world because it’s lifted the world out of poverty. He notes that everywhere capitalism takes hold, countries become prosperous, and all that entails, but wherever capitalism has been rejected, poverty has increased. So why has the word “capitalist. . . become an accusation” and why do so many people now believe that for one person to become rich, someone else must become poor?
According to Murray, there are two problems with modern capitalism. The first problem is what he calls “collusive capitalism.” This is crony capitalism where “the people on top take care of each other at shareholder expense.” He speaks specifically of golden parachutes. He also points out that crony-capitalists use the government to create “industry wide potential for profit that would not exist in the absence of government subsidies or regulations.” Here he mentions ethanol and low-interest mortgage loans. And he notes that this has become the face of capitalism.
The second problem he observes is the “emergence of great fortunes made quickly in the financial markets.” He notes that while the American public loves people who get rich creating products and services, too much wealth today seems to be generated by “insider knowledge [in the financial markets], arcane financial instruments, [and] opportunities that aren’t accessible to ordinary people.” He also notes that part of the problem is that these modern capitalists, particularly bankers and silicon-valley types, are unwilling to defend capitalism because their political views tend to be leftist -- he gets this from a zip code study.
I think Murray is right, but I also think he’s missing something even more fundamental. See, I’m the perfect example of what Murray has missed. I love capitalism, but I despise most modern “capitalists.” And the reason is they aren’t capitalists. To the contrary, the people wrapping themselves in the cloak of capitalism are anti-capitalists.
Capitalism is about seeing an opportunity. . . a want or need. . . and risking your time, money and energy to try to satisfy the need in exchange for some amount of profit. If you are successful, then the seller and the buyer are happy and everyone benefits. If you aren’t, then you lose your investment. It’s that simple. And it’s the fact that everyone ends up better off that makes us all so happy to love capitalists.
But think about the people getting rich today: bankers, lawyers, health insurers, etc. Look closely. Do these people actually take risks? Do they make anyone besides themselves better off? Hardly.
Consider bankers. The country’s biggest banks dominate the economy. They make risky loans which are backed by the taxpayer. They can draw upon money from the Fed at any time, where they get much better deals that you or I ever could, and they were even allowed to swallow savings banks so they would have a steady supply of cash. . . again, taxpayer backed. Essentially, these are risk-free operations, only they get to keep all the profits they generate. That’s like forcing taxpayers to back people playing roulette.
Moreover, a lot of these banks make a killing on trading in the stock market. Only, they aren’t trading like you or I. They are engaging in rigged markets and microtrades – this is a key point. The economic justification for a stock market is that it is the most efficient allocator of resources. Basically, as millions of people make their guesses about the future, resources slowly shift from companies who are wasting them to companies who can exploit them. But when Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley engage in microtrades, what they are doing is spotting the trades people are offering and using their much faster computers (a privilege for which they paid the stock exchanges) to basically intercept the trades. This does nothing to further the allocation of resources, it’s just playing the float. That means, what they do is outside the very economic purpose of the stock market and is more akin to unnecessary middlemen.
And that’s the key word – middlemen. Observe.
Lawyers claim they help the economy because they structure deals. But the reality is that anyone could structure any deal if it weren’t for the legal climate created by lawyers. Think of it this way. It’s as if a food grower’s association took over the legislature and then passed laws requiring you to have a food grower’s agent before you could order off the menu. Then they defend their actions by claiming they are making the menu ordering process smoother. That’s lawyers in a nutshell.
What about health insurers? (Notice that I’m not mentioning other forms of insurance, which remain distinctly capitalist and which no one hates.) Rather than insuring patients to protect them against loss, these companies have become buyer’s agents. And through their regulator friends, they have set up the system in such a way that you basically need them to navigate the system for you or you will be broke. Again, imagine going to McDonalds and not being told what things will cost until you get home again and then being charged an obscenely high price because you didn’t have a food grower’s agent to smooth the process.
This is the problem. These people hide their sponging behind the word “capitalism” when they are the exact opposite – they are extortionists who have used the government to forcibly create an environment that allows them to act as mandatory middle men. They take no risks. They share no rewards. And everyone is worse off because of them, not better off.
This is why capitalism has such a bad name at the moment. This is why 66% of Americans believe crony connections drive most government contracts, why “by a 3-1 margin, voters believe elected politicians routinely provide help to favored companies,” and why “seven out of ten Americans believe government and big business work together against the rest of us.” This is also why the American economy has stalled and why so much more money is flowing into the banking, the legal and the healthcare sector. They have become giant vacuums sucking up American prosperity.
This needs to change. It’s time for a return to capitalism.
97 comments:
We seem to be pretty much on the same page, Andrew.
Once upon a time there was such a thing as anti-big business liberals. Unfortunately, they got co-opted by the new left. Conservatives and the libertarians never caught on that freedom comes from not just reducing government power, but the economic power centers as well. A free market can't function unless there's a level playing field - you can't out perform big business working hand in glove with big government.
= Lucas-Spielberg movie "Tucker"
K -
Lucas and Coppola, actually. :-)
Andrew -
Thanks for writing this. Interesting thoughts about health insurance in particular. I even thought to myself, "What about car insurance?" People can complain about it but, now that I think about it, the problems with car insurance (such as they are) can't even begin to compare with that of health insurance.
I think too many people (mainly on the right) are quick to defend anyone and anything that has an air of capitalism, or any corporation or industry, despite any wrongdoing they may have done. (The left isn't any better either, of course.)
Scott,
The problem is that too many people mistake capitalism for crony capitalism. Or call Capitalism as fascism when it is plain capitalism. Then instead of clarifying each term, they throw in something like "The government oughta....." and that just brings out the claws and accusations.
Oh boy, Andrew....throwing your fellow lawyers under the bus. :-)
I think it's useful to recall Adam Smith's attitude. Smith hated capitalists; he thought they were vile, unsophisticated individuals who were polluting the moral fiber of England. But that partly informed his endorsement of capitalism. Rather than promote government control, which would give such men a monopoly over industry, he proposed the widest possible degree of competition, so that their money-loving energies could be used to cancel each other out and bring as much wealth as possible to others. In other words, the exact opposite of crony capitalism.
K, I agree. I love capitalism, and I understand that in capitalism there are winners and losers and sometimes people make choices we don't like. But there is no better, more fair system. It is the only system that allows people to make their decisions without being forced to give up the things wants.
But when the government gets involved and starts giving people power over the market, that's not capitalism, and it's not good. Call it socialism, call it extortion, call it crony capitalism, that's a system that is abusive and distorting.
And I find the fact that so much of our economy is now concentrated in these few industries deeply troubling. They are basically robbing the American economy. It needs to change.
P.S. I couldn't agree more about the need to break up these concentrations of power. That's why it drives me nuts when conservatives knee-jerk defend any corporation as "capitalist" no matter how they made their money. Anyone who relies on government regulation to create a market or maintain a market is not a capitalist.
Scott, Thanks for sending me the article. :)
I agree about conservatives. I'm shocked how many times they defend "obscene profits" as "that's just capitalism at work!" when the specific industry in question makes their profits using taxpayer guarantees or subsidies. Conservatives should see those companies as enemies of our system and our country, not as something to knee-jerk defend.
I'm glad you mentioned car insurance. Ask yourself if car insurance is really a problem? Few people complain about it because (1) it's cheap/fairly prices, (2) it's very useful, and (3) it's there when you need it as promised -- they don't suddenly try to deny you coverage or refuse to fix your car because it got too expensive. Car insurance is a national market and is highly competitive -- look at all the ads and how competitive all the prices are. Compare that to healthcare, which doesn't need to advertise because you have no real choice and which is very expensive. Car insurance also doesn't tell mechanics what it will pay, nor does it limit your choice of provider or tell the provider what they can or can't do.
The difference is a real study between an industry that operates in the free market with light regulation (cars) and an industry that has been turned into a monopoly through regulation (health). Nobody worries about the effect car repair has on the country because the free market controls it, but health care is a national nightmare because government regulation has allowed these insurers to take what they want.
Joel, I blame the right on this one. The left is full of idiots who hate capitalism and they will of course try to smear capitalism with things that aren't capitalism just to give it a bad name. That's to be expected and I would think everyone would take it with a grain of salt.
The problem is that for the past 15-20 years now, the right has stupidly embraced anything that hides behind the name capitalist, even when it's nothing of the sort. And in the process, we've become the party that supports industries that are absorbing out economy, draining the taxpayer dry, and teaching a generation of people that capitalism equates to government-backed robbery.
Conservatives need to wake up and realize that just because something is a private company does not mean it operates in the free market or that it operates according to the dictates of capitalism.
T-Rav, You make two good points. First, on lawyers... when I was in law school they pounded this into you that lawyers are good because they are "facilitators." The part they kept skipping, because it didn't help their argument, was that it was lawyers who made the system so byzantine that it needed facilitators. And I've done merger and acquisition work in the past and I can tell you that 99.9% of what my firm did was a total waste of money, i.e. contributed nothing. It was done only to allow the company to say they considered everything so they couldn't be sued by shareholders.
Not to mention, the lawyers who get really rich these days are the class action guys. They get OBSCENELY rich and it's often over bad science or employment laws the government created after the fact and applied retroactively.
On Smith, the problem is that modern conservatives skip the second part of what you said. They get that Smith hated capitalist yet embraced capitalism, so they interpret this as "well, if Smith embraced them, then we should too." No, that's not the point to what Smith said. His point was they need to be "controlled" by forcing them to compete, they shouldn't be embraced just because they found some crooked way to get rich. Too many conservatives today don't make the distinction between HOW people make their money, they just accept that if you made money and call yourself a capitalist then you should be defended -- and that's a mistake.
Excellent and thoughtful article Andrew. You have very much explained what has bothered me with these professions and when conservatives jump and defend thee people. Like you, I love capitalism, but I despise cronyism.
Andrew, exactly.
One other thing I would add is that when touting capitalism, conservatives shouldn't proclaim that as soon as it's allowed to work, things will automatically get better. Eventually, they will, but the market cycle says that periodically, you're going to have economic downturns. It's a consequence of free enterprise. Now, of course, this happens in a government-run economy as well, and the downturns are longer and more severe. But voters aren't always cognizant of that. Bottom line is, treat capitalism as a long-term solution, not as a magic bullet.
DUQ, Thanks! Glad I could help! I think it's important that conservatives begin to recognize friend from foe. And I think the BIG flaw in Murray's piece is that he assumes that the world is broken into pro-capitalists and anti-capitalists only. And he's trying to explain why the anti-capitalists are growing. But what he's missing is the people like me (who I think are fueling the Tea Party) -- people who love capitalism, but don't see what he is defending as capitalism.
Yep.
T-Rav, That's true too, and that is something else I noticed in a lot of my economics and legal economics classes -- the idea that somehow capitalism is perfectly efficient and works 100% of the time on the first try. It doesn't. Capitalism is about success building on success and failure teaching people to adjust their plans. That means that sometimes it fails. That means it's not perfect. But over time it corrects itself and makes everything better. That's where it is vastly superior to any other system.
And selling it as always perfect is a mistake.
rlaWTX, LOL! Nicely said. :)
Although the term "crony capitalism" certainly gets the point across, I also like the more accurate "crony socialism."
Spot on, Andrew. The only thing I might add is that for at least half of the population, "capitalism" means cronyism and extortion. Because of that, conservatives need to quit trying to force the "correct" definition of capitalism on those folks. Yes, it would be nice if we could all agree on the meaning of words, but that in itself is such an uphill battle, it's better to skip it and just get to the real work that needs done.
To answer the obvious question that comment raises, I think "free markets" is a term most folks understand in terms of removing the power players from the equation.
Andrew,
Blame the right all you want, it is the Left who demonizes all capitalism. Crony or not.
Lawhawk, I'm actually going to disagree. First, I'm not sure either term is accurate because what these people are doing is neither capitalism nor socialism, it's simple legalized extortion and it's not at all about arranging our economic system in way that respects markets or helps "society." It's just theft.
That said, crony capitalism is probably more accurate because they are using the trappings of capitalism and suggestions of free markets in which to operate, and they are hiding behind the ideas of capitalism to claim a right to keep the profits. They just rig the game with the government.
Hawk, Andrew, my answer is to refer to "cronyism" simply as that. To me, it's a system unto itself, neither capitalist or socialist, though often wrapped in the trappings of whatever is most useful.
Andrew: In other words, a wolf in sheep's clothing. I entirely agree with your analysis of the problem, but I do see deep government involvement in business affairs as simply more of the same liberal mindset of "fairness" which is actually anything but fair. The name of the product is capitalism, but the concept is socialism--the government is there to make sure "everything comes out right." Both political parties have been guilty of it, as you aptly pointed out. In reality, it's a matter of playing both ends against the middle, with the government pulling the strings.
tryanmax, I agree. I think it's time conservatives learned to speak of "free markets". But even more importantly, I think they need to stop defending people who aren't capitalists and who don't operate in free markets by claiming "this is capitalism and it may seem unfair, but it's the best system out there." That just plays right into all the problems.
Joel, It is the left who demonize capitalism, but their crap hasn't worked in the past. The reason it's working now is that the right is playing right into it and helping them make the attack by defending the wrong people on the wrong bases.
Not to mention that we are aiding and abetting in the destruction of free markets by helping these same people.
This all needs to stop.
tryanmax, I agree with that. Cronyism really isn't about an economic system. It's not concerned with the distribution of wealth between individuals or society or the relationship between individuals, business and government. It's just about using influence to get as much money as possible and I don't think the cronies care what kind of economic system they work with so long as the government ensure that they rich.
Lawhawk, I agree to an extent except that I really don't think the cronies care about fairness in the least. To them, this is all about a huge robbery. They want to use power to help themselves... everything else is irrelevant. And so they wrap themselves in the cloak of capitalism to trick the right into helping them, and they wrap themselves in the cloak of fairness to trick the left into helping them. And in the end, as you say, they play both sides off against each other so that they win no matter what happens.
Andrew: I think you hit the nail on the head. Crony socialism, crony capitalism--either way the government wins.
Lawhawk, And either way, we lose.
What I find frustrating is that everything you've said makes sense. And everyone seems to agree. So why is it that when I go to other "conservative" blogs, I see them still knee jerk this stuff.
"Oh, you said something bad about a banker or oil company, you must be a socialist."
I don't get that. Why do so few conservatives understand this?
And that question is open to anyone. I really just don't understand this.
Andrew,
It mostly is the terms that bug people.
Take a simple transaction. Your son mows the neighbor's yard and receives money. That is capitalism. A service for a fee. It is when third parties interfere but aren't providing the service directly that it becomes murky.
Let's say your son has competition, a company comes into the neighborhood and prices your son out of the lawn mowing business. That is capitalism as well. Your son has to lower his prices in order to compete. If on the other hand, you get an injunction on the company to not mow in your neighborhood, that is crony capitalism. Yes, you do save your son's job (or more importantly his rates) but you have changed the level playing field.
Let's say that the company, desiring the lucrative mowing opportunities that you have sewed up, gets together with your son and puts him on the board of directors. And the injunction stands, the lawns get mowed because your son is on the board, but the prices go up and the quality goes down. Is this still capitalism? Of course not, but you not wanting to tar your son with bad PR, call it capitalism.
Activists who don't like lawns mowed move in and sometimes successfully stop your son's company from cutting some lawns but not all.
As you can see, it gets more murky, the more people get involved who are not directly mowing a lawn.
Ellen, I can't comment on that, except to say that I think a lot of it is due to the liberals who make knee-jerk attacks on any business, which causes a lot of conservatives to knee-jerk defend them in the name of the private sector.
Ellen, I think the real problem is that a lot of what passes for conservatism today is not principled conservatism, it's just knee-jerk anti-liberalism. So anything liberals want, these people attack, and anything liberals attack, these people defend. So when liberals attack things like bankers or oil companies, these conservatives jump up and automatically defend them, whether or not they should.
I think there is a further problem with Washington Republicans in particular in that they are too close to these companies through their lobbyists. So they have lost their perspective and they have swallowed the Kool Aid that these companies are paragons of the free market.
Neither of these groups is helping our side doing this.
Where I see hope is in the Tea Party people who are fundamentally opposed to the instruments of power the cronies have used to enrich themselves. But they need help getting people to understand what is going on and right now a lot of conservatives, most of "the establishment", and all of liberaldom are standing in the way of what they want to achieve.
Joel, That is an excellent model of the problem, though I would also suggest it vastly understates the real problem and why people are upset. Don't forget that the industries I mention above control over half our economy now and all their bets are guaranteed by the taxpayers because of that. I really think people are responding to that as well. These companies have made themselves a danger to the country.
T-Rav, I think that's a big part of it. There is far too much knee-jerk anti-liberalism in conservative ranks these days and it's causing us all kinds of strategic problems. Conservatives need to take a deep breath and realize that just because a liberal says something doesn't mean it's always wrong. Always evaluate each issue independently.
Ellen, all I can figure is that you are not encountering conscious conservatives. Knee-jerkers on the right are no different than those on the left. They operate by a complex and ever-changing set of rules regarding what is good and what is bad rather than applying principles. In this instance, they believe capitalism = good and corporation = capitalism, ergo corporation = good. Your only hope is to break the equation with a truth hammer. Good luck!
Regarding what Ellen said, I agree 100% and, while I have no dog in this particular fight, whenever I see someone knee-jerkingly defending, say, Exxon, or something, my reaction is, "You know, oil companies make mistakes too! They're not perfect! Don't defend them just because the right people are attacking them!"
I have no love for the eco nuts either but stop pretending BP is some kind of victim here (that was just a hypothetical statement).
Articles and insightful comments like the ones here are why we need to take this website on the road! :-)
Andrew, your last comment to Ellen puts me in mind of the one thing that the Tea Party and the Occupy movement have in common: they are both disgusted with all the cronyism. That said, the differences between the movements are huge.
Andrew,
That is the most simplified way I could state it.
It really starts to get murky when the government starts saying to people you can't mow your own lawn unless there is no company who "might" want to mow it. You can't buy new lawnmowers unless approved by the Activists who don't want you mowing any way.
tryanmax, Well said. It is unfortunate that there are so many knee-jerkers today, but talk radio/the internet and our political class encourage them. All of those things pander to outrage rather than reason. And the more time people spend being outraged, the less reasonable they are... and the more easily they are manipulated.
One of my goals from day one with this site has always been to avoid the knee jerk and to analyze things fairly. If the left is right about something or if the right is wrong, then I'm willing to point that out. To me, it is more important to get things right than to score political points. And I think our audience has responded to that magnificently.
Unfortunately, out there, beyond the eWalls of Commentarama, there is a LOT of knee-jerkism and hate passing for analysis on all sides.
Scott, LOL! What road do you have in mind?
I agree completely. No one is ever 100% right or 100% wrong and it's important to realize that when people make mistakes, we should call them on it. That's the only way society ever moves ahead, when reasonable people come up with the best solutions. But you can't do that when everyone constantly circles the wagons, which is the problem with public discourse today.
Now, obviously, I think the left does this MUCH more than the right, but that doesn't excuse the right for doing it too. We need to get back to looking at things logically and fairly and then charting the best course. We can't let anger, bias and ignorance guide our decisions.
tryanmax, I think it's even bigger than that. Let's face it... Bush was a crony. He was the worst crony since Grant. And Obama has been worse than Bush.
I think 2008 was the left waking up to these problems and turning against cronyism. In Obama they saw a guy who wasn't part of the system of cronies and who promised the country a new direction and a fresh start.
Obviously, he was a lie. He was a cleverly packaged myth and turned out to be just another crony figurehead. But his actions spawned the Tea Party. In effect, he did for the right, what Bush did for the left.
So right now, I think you have progressives on the left and Tea Party on the right, both of whom have turned against "the system" and want change. And their complaints are remarkably similar if you listen to them. The problem... the only thing that keeps them from joining forces and sweeping away the old order... is that they don't agree on the methods. The left wants the government to break the cronies, the right wants to break the government's ability to help the cronies. That is really the fundamental difference between these two camps, who otherwise are remarkably similar.
P.S. I actually don't view the Occupy movement as progressives. I view them as 1960s radicals whose goals are lunatic and hateful in nature. I think that's why they never caught on because they really don't mesh well with other progressives.
Joel, It was simple, but it was very accurate and it painted the picture well. My only point is that I think the problems go even much further than even you've outlined. I think the problem is that we are at a point where people feel like the economy and the government are rigged.
Andrew,
It is rigged. What I am hoping is Romney gets us back to the basics without having to go back to the barter system, or the underground economy that was in place when Reagan was elected.
I also have great hopes that the local governments realize they aren't helping themselves when they rig it for their "friends". Too often, it creates monopolies, like when cable first came about. A classic local cronyism.
ScottDS: My bad. Perhaps it would have done better if Spielberg were on board.
Joel, I am cautiously optimistic about Romney. In many ways, he's our Obama only he's competent. He's an outsider to Washington who seems to understand that things need to change and who has demonstrated that he is listening to the public rather than to donors.
Could this be a trick, just like with Obama? Possibly. But I hope not. I'm hopeful that his choice of Ryan is meaningful because Ryan strikes me as a genuine thinker rather than a tool of donors. I'm also hopeful that his business experience and particularly his experience in having to fix the Olympics will be enough to make him realize that business as usual just won't work.
K and Scott, I hate to admit this, but I barely remember Tucker and I don't really recall the message of the film.
Andrew, I second Scott's point about taking this show on the road! You really should be a national writer. The conservative cause needs you. :D
Thanks for the answer guys, that makes a lot of sense to me.
Terry, I'd be happy to write a national column, let's hope somebody offers one! :)
Ellen, You're welcome.
Andrew, in my mind, Commentarama is the only truly independent/centrist site I've ever found. (Assuming true conservatism is the true center, as I do.) Most other sites claiming to be indie/centrist are either leftists masquerading as centrists or are simply anti-partisan which, for some reason, seem always to eye Republicans as the source of partisanship. None look to the Constitution as the baseline for how gov't should run, or to any set of principles for that matter. They generally tend to devolve into flame wars or echo chambers depending on the compunctions of the moderators. So you've got a really unique thing going here, Andrew.
Thanks tryanmax! :)
That's as much the work of our audience as it is anything we've done! I love the fact that everyone who comes here is ready to think and keep an open mind.
What's interesting though (or I guess disturbing) is that we haven't really done anything all that special here. We just look at problems logically, avoid hyperbole, and try to research the parts everyone else glosses over. This is what you would think MOST sites would be doing!
But I have to agree with you that we just don't see much of this on the net or even at the print magazines. That's kind of sad really, especially since that's what conservative magazines like National Review used to be so good at doing.
In any event, thanks for the kind words and I'm glad you've enjoyed the place. And thanks for your invaluable contributions!
We just look at problems logically, avoid hyperbole, and try to research the parts everyone else glosses over.
In this world, that is doing something special.
That's kind of sad, isn't it?
Andrew and tryanmax, I agree. Commentarama is a special place because it's informative and I know you aren't going to feed me a line just to make me believe something. I absolutely trust your analysis because I know you aren't afraid to call out your own beliefs if they are wrong.
And yes, it is very sad that other places can't follow this same formula. But at least we have Commentarama! :D
Thanks DUQ! :)
Andrew I agree completely with all the points of your article.
The only distinction I will make is that what you call Capitalism I refer to as Free Market Entrepreneurship.
To me Capitalism is akin to Physics. trying to arguee against allowing capitalism in the marketplace is like trying to argue that gravity should not exist in the Universe. An interesting academic exrcise but not based in reality.
Communism is ruled by the laws of Captitalism as much as anything else. Communism is a Monopsony and and Monopoly with the same buyer and producer of all services, the Government.
Indi, That's true. The rules of capitalism will always exist. But in this case we're talking more about the perception of ideology than the underlying economic laws themselves. "Capitalism" is the name given to free market economic systems and when people criticize capitalism, that is what they are referring to. My point is that much of what passes for capitalism today should not be considered part of that definition.
Off Topic, What does everyone thing of this Libya and Egypt thing? Amazing.
The problem begins with the word capitalism (which conservatives shouldn´t even use) and people talking as if it actually was an -ism, that is, a set of political beliefs.
In fact, what we are defending is essentially free markets. There are no "crony free markets". There are no "collusive free markets". And free markets are not a policy or a matter of beliefs. They are not even a choice. They are a product of nature. They exist in every human society. Which is why they have bread lines and an underground economy in communist countries - people have needs and markets want to clear no matter what the plan says.
Speaking of capitalism is as pointless and dangerous as speaking of "gravitationism". And blaming gravitationists for air crashes and broken hips.
The word does serve its purpose though: it blurs the distinction between free and unfree, and blames the corruption of government on markets when it is the other way round.
Crony capitalism is after all the logical result of big socialist government. A government that doesn´t have its tentacles in every nook and cranny of the economy isn´t worth lobbying.
Ellen, I haven't given it much thought... not sure why. It reminds me of the Carter years though, like so much else these days.
El Gordo, I think you are right and conservatives need to start defending "free markets" and not "capitalism."
Unfortunately, unraveling that will be difficult because too many people left and right have worked hard to link the idea of free markets with the word "capitalist," with the negative consequences you mention, i.e. that free markets get blamed for all government-sponsored cronyism.
I'm not sure how to change that except to stop using the term capitalism and switch exclusively to "free markets."
Let me second what tryanmax has said. I think you've done a fantastic job of providing us with really insightful stories. I appreciate that the things I've read here aren't shrill or stupid or poorly informed. And I really like that you don't give knee jerk opinions or just write how much you hate Obama.
On the topic at hand, I agree completely. Too many people who aren't playing in the free market world and are making their money through cronyism are out there claiming to be representatives of free markets and too many conservatives are buying into that. That needs to change if we want to save our system because it is turning people against capitalism.
I got a message from my sister a little while ago, and she said that there is big time protesting at Monsanto on Monday.
I didn't know anything about it, but she thought I did. They are definitely not one of my favorites.
Ellen, I think it's outrageous, especially that Obama doesn't seem to care. I can't wait until he's sent packing.
Thanks Doc! I'm glad to hear you like the site! :)
I agree that this is a problem. So long as we let these people claim our banner and so long as we defend them, we will be tarnished by their actions. That's how life works.
Jen, As you and I have discussed before, Monsanto is a very bad player. I have been troubled by a great many things they've done like:
1. designing plants that don't yield seeds so that farmers would be forced to buy seed year after year, and
2. suing farmers for "theft of intellectual property" when their genetically modified plants get spread by birds or the wind into neighboring fields of farmers who didn't buy the seeds.
Both acts are despicable.
Ed, I find it amazing the Democrats are on the attack just because Romney commented. They are shameless. As for the attacks, that's what happens in those parts of the world. At some point, you should look up the number of attacks on the US Embassy in Pakistan. There are attacks every week.
Andrew: The movie Tucker is about inventor Preston Tucker who incorporated advanced ideas to build a better automobile design. His business to build the cars was effectively shut down by the auto industry using the government as their cat's paw. I recommend watching the movie to anyone interested the future of capitalism.
LINK
Thanks K, I'm generally familiar with the story, but I either haven't seen it or don't remember it. But I'll check it out. It sounds like it might be very timely actually.
Andrew, You knew some of the despicable things I didn't know about, and verified the ones I heard.
I looked it up, and the protest is for September 17, 2012. One site is called "Occupy-Monsanto". Let's see how bad of a player they are going to be.
My sister is going to get to see the action.
Jen, This whole "Occupy ___" thing always sounds silly to me. It sounds like we're talking about an airplane lavatory. ;)
In any event, I wish them luck, but nothing will change.
Andrew, I just got a new issue of a dairy publication I subscribe to, and "Posilac" is now the registered trademark for Elanco Animal Health, not Monsanto. Do you know anything about it?
Andrew, Never mind. I found it. I didn't realize that Elanco acquired the rights a few years ago. I don't pay attention to it, because I never had any intentions on using Posilac. I only remember that Monsanto was the one who originally had it.
I agree with Romney's statement.
Why are we apologizing because a movie was made that evidently no one in America knows anything about?
Aren't we making ourselves look stupid worrying about these murderer's justifications when this occured on 9/11?
Why can't the pols on our side get enough backbone to criticize this absentee Presidetn when he blunders something so important?
Oh wait Romeny did..... well that is one...
Jen, No, I don't know much about them. HQ is in Greenfield, IN. They are a division of Eli Lilly. Here is their statement on antibiotics and growth hormones:
Elanco supports the responsible use of antibiotics in animals intended for human consumption. Elanco supports risk assessments—especially for antibiotics deemed critical for human and animal use—so that prudent use in animals will minimize any potential impact on human health.
Sounds like a market firm wrote it.
Indi, I agree with that. There is no reason we should be apologizing. Plus, it's up to these countries to control their citizens and they need to learn they have no right to kill people just because they get upset at some rumor of a sleight.
Not to mention, CBS News apparently has cast doubt on the film even existing. Apparently, it's a youtube rumor.
Obama should be out there defending free speech and civil discourse, just like he didn't do with South Park and Molly Norris.
Interesting, it turns out the director of this film was an Arab but was wrongly reported as being an Israeli. This sounds like a set up. Here's the link Islamic Film
The whole movie that upset the peace-loving muslims was fake. Ace of Spades has some of the low down. It seems that a fake movie was used to upset the sensitive wallflowers just so on an anniversary of 9-11 they have an excuse to riot.
On another level, the Libyan authorities saved the American Ambassador and whisked him to safety then told the rioters where the ambassador was. Of course, the State Department was right on top of things and thanked the Libyan President for saving the ambassador.
The President didn't have any time to talk about it, he had to make his flight to Las Vegas.
Joel, I read it was actually the private security the embassy hire instead of the Marines. I wonder why they didn't have Marines?
Joel and DUQ, I've been giving this much thought all day and I think Romney did the right thing in criticizing Obama. If Obama had done anything other than offer an apology, I would have disagreed, but Obama's first response should have been:
1. You don't kill Americans anywhere in the world,
2. You don't kill people just because they insult your religion, and
3. We will now investigate and we will see that those responsible will be dealt with harshly, whoever they and their allies may be.
Then I would call Egypt and Libya and I would tell them we want the perps and full cooperation or we will hold them responsible.
That should have been Obama's response.
I could even see him saying "this is an outrage and we will investigate and we will punish these people," and then doing the rest behind the scenes.
BUT the one totally unacceptable thing was to apologize. And I don't think the MSM trying to turn this into "evil Romney" is going to work, especially because Romney's not backing down.
Andrew,
I saw Romney's press conference at The Right Scoop. It was interesting that the journolists prior to the presser were collaborating with what questions they were going to ask.
Romney is impressive. I am relieved he won't back down.
Andrew, Thanks.
Joel, I saw that about the journalists and the story is already becoming how the MSM is trying to spin this away from being Obama's responsibility. In effect, the MSM has been outspun.
What's fascinating about Romney's response is that he's right and he's not changing his mind even as the usual RINOs get all queasy. This is just another one of those moments that gives me a lot of confidence that he will be a strong, principled leader.
Also, don't forget, what the MSM and the Democrats are whining about, i.e. the position they need to defend, is that Romney spoke the truth and Obama is trying to dance his way out of acting. That's very hard to defend with the American people.
You're welcome Jen. Like I said, I don't know much about this company. I wish I could help more.
Andrew,
It is hard to defend a guy who gives out a muddled message then hops on a plane to Las Vegas.
Romney is right and is making all the RINOs poop their pants.
Joel, Don't forget, this wasn't the first time either. Remember how he was on vacation during the shoe bomber incident and didn't comment for list two days, how he went to Hawaii during the invasion of Georgia and how he's often gone missing at times of crisis. Hillary Clinton's 3:00 AM ad was right! His modus operandi is to vanish when bad things happen.
Andrew,
I still think that Obama is Islamic.
Joel, I don't. Not even for a minute. Nor is there any evidence for it. Everything I've seen tells me he doesn't really care about religion one way or the other.
Ok, check this out. LIBYANs are condemning the act of terrorism against the US. Obama isn't, but ordinary Libyans are. Stunning!
Libyans
You know if we could just change the law of gravity to be inversely proportional to the cube of the distance instead of the square we could probably make windmills a viable energy source.
Those darn gravitationalists....
Indi, I'm all in favor of repealing gravity. Someone should pass a law! ;)
Indie, that's the best idea I've heard yet! Plus, we'll all weigh less, so the obesity "epidemic" -- *poof!*
tryanmax, I think we can fix obesity by just declaring everyone thin by law.
Post a Comment