Dependence
On listening to, oh, I don't remember -- Hannity? Limbaugh? Levin? -- just the other day, I heard yet another rant on the theme of "Obama is killing capitalism". The idea is that he is introducing all of these various programs, policies, and schemes with the intent of killing the "free enterprise" system and thereby force the citizens of this good country to become dependent on him and the machinery of government.
Far fetched, right? Well, not so fast. Sure, selectively handing out aid was FDR's strategy in the 1936 election, but health care dollars are simply not going to be doled out on the basis of your party affiliation the way that bridge projects can be funded only in battleground and friendly districts. And while Amity Shlaes repeatedly emphasizes the apparent harm FDR caused to the economy by repeatedly threatening the very people who he needed to restart the investing and hiring, that seemed to have been done more out of incompetence than grand design. But still, the idea that someone would scheme to actually do in the economy just as a show of power and to create dependence? No self-respecting Democrat would ever believe such a thing.
Then, after reading this interview with Michael Moore the other day, I got to thinking about how you might convince him to understand that "capitalism" in hands has become nearly meaningless because it now means everything? Can he understand the difference between a free market, merchant capitalism, industrial capitalism, finance capitalism, managerial capitalism, and state capitalism?
That last variety of capitalism is one in which the capitalists use the machinery of the state to further their own interests. I suppose his new movie shows how the titans of Wall Street threatened complete economic collapse, widespread joblessness, and panic in order to get the stimuli packages through. As a show of power, of demonstrating who depends on whom, it was brilliant. The Democratic Congress and both Presidents caved under the pressure. No self-respecting Republican would ever believe that their capitalist heroes would do such a thing.
So, who is playing whom here? The hierarchy apparently goes: Wall Street, Bush+Obama+Pelosi+Reid, then somewhere down near the bottom are We the People. But only if you believe in conspiracy theories.
And here's Kevin Carson with a different take on the same subject. Now that I look at it, he seems to have been on this topic for a while, roughly 27 August 2009 to 16 October 2009 as of this writing.
And, for a good laugh, check this Crooked Timber piece out and learn (1) that the difference between left and right wingers is that the left thinks for themselves [sic], defends constitutions, and balances budgets, and (2) that they both really, really care about and perhaps actually do think in terms of bumper stickers.
Far fetched, right? Well, not so fast. Sure, selectively handing out aid was FDR's strategy in the 1936 election, but health care dollars are simply not going to be doled out on the basis of your party affiliation the way that bridge projects can be funded only in battleground and friendly districts. And while Amity Shlaes repeatedly emphasizes the apparent harm FDR caused to the economy by repeatedly threatening the very people who he needed to restart the investing and hiring, that seemed to have been done more out of incompetence than grand design. But still, the idea that someone would scheme to actually do in the economy just as a show of power and to create dependence? No self-respecting Democrat would ever believe such a thing.
Then, after reading this interview with Michael Moore the other day, I got to thinking about how you might convince him to understand that "capitalism" in hands has become nearly meaningless because it now means everything? Can he understand the difference between a free market, merchant capitalism, industrial capitalism, finance capitalism, managerial capitalism, and state capitalism?
That last variety of capitalism is one in which the capitalists use the machinery of the state to further their own interests. I suppose his new movie shows how the titans of Wall Street threatened complete economic collapse, widespread joblessness, and panic in order to get the stimuli packages through. As a show of power, of demonstrating who depends on whom, it was brilliant. The Democratic Congress and both Presidents caved under the pressure. No self-respecting Republican would ever believe that their capitalist heroes would do such a thing.
So, who is playing whom here? The hierarchy apparently goes: Wall Street, Bush+Obama+Pelosi+Reid, then somewhere down near the bottom are We the People. But only if you believe in conspiracy theories.
And here's Kevin Carson with a different take on the same subject. Now that I look at it, he seems to have been on this topic for a while, roughly 27 August 2009 to 16 October 2009 as of this writing.
And, for a good laugh, check this Crooked Timber piece out and learn (1) that the difference between left and right wingers is that the left thinks for themselves [sic], defends constitutions, and balances budgets, and (2) that they both really, really care about and perhaps actually do think in terms of bumper stickers.
Labels: politics, smartass, state-capitalism


