Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClearPolitics)   Obama "We tried free markets. It didn't work." Now we are going to try something else   (realclearpolitics.com) divider line 291
    More: Unlikely, free markets, Florida Today, Florida Atlantic University  
•       •       •

3133 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Apr 2012 at 9:26 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



291 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-11 08:22:57 AM  
We have never had free markets. We have had banking-controlled corporatism.
 
2012-04-11 08:26:32 AM  
Trickle down!

/yeah... I remember being told how I would be greatly trickled down upon
//the trickling continues
 
2012-04-11 08:29:18 AM  
What this president doesn't seem to understand is that these kinds of tax cuts can take 40-50 years to kick in. A pro-business president would know that.
 
2012-04-11 08:29:36 AM  
Free markets only work if everyone is doing it. Go sell your hokey religion to China.
 
2012-04-11 08:35:07 AM  
Fartbongo: anti-American socialist.

/America: if you aren't rich, suck it.
 
2012-04-11 08:35:21 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: We have never had free markets. We have had banking-controlled corporatism.


Well said.
 
2012-04-11 08:38:59 AM  
Today's talking point: SOSHULIZM!!!
 
2012-04-11 08:43:23 AM  
You're right subby.

We should totally go back the policies of the Bush Administration.
 
2012-04-11 08:44:11 AM  
We didn't have free markets in the 2000's. Not even close. What we had was a lack of enforcement of existing laws at that time. What Bernia Madoff did wasn't legal at the time. How the MBS's were being packaged and rated wasn't legal at the time. Robosigning wasn't legal at the time. But none of these violations were caught or enforced. They were allowed to continue despite probably widespread knowledge of their ongoing.
 
2012-04-11 08:44:39 AM  
We never had free markets, and I am a real actual scotsman, so you can trust me.
 
2012-04-11 08:48:03 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Trickle down!

/yeah... I remember being told how I would be greatly trickled down upon
//the trickling continues


Bukkake capitalism.
 
2012-04-11 08:49:47 AM  

SlothB77: We didn't have free markets in the 2000's. Not even close. What we had was a lack of enforcement of existing laws at that time. What Bernia Madoff did wasn't legal at the time. How the MBS's were being packaged and rated wasn't legal at the time. Robosigning wasn't legal at the time. But none of these violations were caught or enforced. They were allowed to continue despite probably widespread knowledge of their ongoing.


Enforcing the law is anti-American job destroying socialism.
 
2012-04-11 08:53:09 AM  
We have had free markets in this country, and no government interference. That was history up until the 1900s and it was farking terrible. These thinly controlled government markets aren't any better.

Capitalism is terrible. We need something else, or we need to heavily moderate it with so-called "socialistic" elements.
 
2012-04-11 08:54:05 AM  
We did try free markets. It led to boom-bust cycles that typified the American economy for generations. We have assisted markets now, that have been manipulated to the favor of the largest players, who have gamed the system to the point of near collapse that bilked that system into covering private losses on a grand scale.

What we need are markets that allow folks to fail.

We need something in between. We need a level playing field. Plain and simple. A field that allows entrepreneurs to succeed at the local level without being gamed out of those successes. We need markets where folks are allowed to compete, freely and fairly. Not a system that allows the largest players to buy regulations that keep their competitors at bay.

The fear of regulation isn't a fear that regulation is going to choke business. The fear of regulation is a fear that regulation will allow smaller players to compete with the largest of players, and that their innovation and their frugality is going to tip investment away from the players who throw a ton of capital outside the normal system, and investment schemes that only favor their largest of investors and their boards.

We need to reward folks who keep jobs within this country. Tax incentives that encourage folks to create jobs here. That keep industries here. And if they don't, then they can take their profits, which they will make by outsourcing their labor and manufacturing in places where it is cheaper to operate, but we don't have to subsidize that.

We shouldn't need to subsidize agribusiness to the point where they swallow up our local farms. We shouldn't subsidize manufacturing and distro nets that bank on those subsidies, and ship jobs outside. We need to encourage investment, here.

We need to get rid of the idea that all businesses are the same. We need to recognize that monopolies are becoming the norm.

You want a tax break? Then do something to earn that. Not just by dint of existing, but actually doing something. Develop technology here. Manufacture here. Don't do that? Then end the subsidies. Take the profit, certainly, but stop asking that everyone else then pick up the slack.

Wealth isn't "created." It transfers. And right now, we are seeing that "trickle down" doesn't work. Has never worked.

Wealth accumulates up. It accumulates, and what we have now, is a system where capital just shifts at the top layers, and is shipped out of the system entirely. You want to see a boom? Then we need to have that wealth that is siphoned up at least spend a little time in the middle before it heads up.

With smaller players, they rely on their local distro and manufacturing nets. At least with housing and building, there are jobs that cannot be simply outsourced. The investment goes into materials, with distribution of materials, and with properties that remain in the local net, where taxes and upkeep are in place. Builders and workers are paid, they buy and sell within the local net, and then they invest locally as well. The dollars roll around for bit, transferring back and forth for a bit. Eventually, those dollars head upstream. To banks. To goods and service providers, who then squirrel those dollars out.

Chains provide some jobs, but they use their own distribution nets that cut out the local providers. Good for the chain's bottom line, but the dollars they take in are then out of the system. Local investment is limited. Workers get paid, but essentially chains are a way of milking markets of spare cash, and then that cash is out of the local net. And once gone, it doesn't come back, save in some wages, but without the trading back and forth, as chains tend to use their own nets for repair, upkeep, and services that eliminate much for local benefit.

Chains don't need the tax breaks. Because they are essentially cash extractors, and the return to the local economy is minimal.

You want to see economic recovery? Help communities and entrepreneurs with breaks to start up. To grow and expand. That means more local investment, that means more of the investments roll around a bit, transferring back and forth for a while, before they head upstream.

What we have now, is a system where the cash extractors are rewarded for very little return. And that isn't really a free market, when they take massive subsidies and tax breaks simply for being large, as opposed for what they actually do.
 
2012-04-11 09:07:40 AM  
What does fairness in taxes have to do with free markets?
 
2012-04-11 09:10:13 AM  

GAT_00: We have had free markets in this country, and no government interference. That was history up until the 1900s and it was farking terrible. These thinly controlled government markets aren't any better.

Capitalism is terrible. We need something else, or we need to heavily moderate it with so-called "socialistic" elements.


Capitalism isn't terrible. How we implement it is.

I would like to see us take a return back to some of what we stripped out when when we needed rail systems built. A return to corporate charters in each state, that show what good that corporate entity will do for that state, coupled with Federal regulations that are actually enforced.

The problems we see are not because wealth is itself bad. Investment isn't bad. The lax enforcement of laws already on the books, and the lack of enforcement on tax issues, the lax enforcement due to the cost of taking on these "too big to fail" entities, that is crippling local economies. Couple it with an Old Boy network that cozens with elected officials who see to it that their supporters are taken care of, and you have the climate we're in.

Not so much "socialist" as much as fair enforcement and an end to the gaming of the system by added regulation that is designed to keep the largest players going.

A fair and free market would be nice. Free to compete, and compete fairly.
 
2012-04-11 09:17:04 AM  
Oh yeah, we need more government control. Maybe something that is about 2,700 pages long and we don't get to know what is in it until it is passed. And don't forget to add a couple of dozen new agencies to monitor the whole thing. Nothing like adding more employees to the federal government to pump up the ol economy.

Yeah, that's the ticket.
 
2012-04-11 09:18:19 AM  

Diogenes: What does fairness in taxes have to do with free markets?


Not sure if you are talking about one specific kind of tax or not, but if it's just taxes in general, it has everything to do with free markets. You could slap an import tax on anything you want and make it prohibitive to import that item. You could tax a sector punitively. You could make taxes 100%. Tons to do with a free market.
 
2012-04-11 09:18:48 AM  

MorrisBird: Today's talking point: SOSHULIZM!!!


wait, my guide to faux outrage says April 11th is ACORN! I think I have last year's book.
 
2012-04-11 09:19:07 AM  

hubiestubert: . Free to compete, and compete fairly.


One thing that comes to mind is that places like Godman Sachs trade on their own accounts, and their clients have no way of knowing if the advice they're getting is contrary to what Goldman Sachs is doing with its own accounts. Plus there's the issue of conflicts of interest that can arise. Especially if you also have a case where it's a public corporation. Something I've never understood as to why it's allowed.
 
2012-04-11 09:20:48 AM  

Diogenes: What does fairness in taxes have to do with free markets?


Enforcement. When companies can essentially ignore portions of their tax burden because they can tie up lawyers and the courts for years, they take that slice of profits and slide it to their investors, and claim to them that they are doing much better than they would be if they were playing fair. That tips the scales for those folks who are playing by the rules, and encourages folks to find ways to game the system, just so that they can compete themselves.

Add that slice of profits with regulations designed to narrowly define terms to the point of keeping their own business practices legal, while forcing their competitors to scale their operations upward to comply, and add infrastructure that is necessary to comply, but their competitors already have in place, and you see the system we have today. It discourages innovation, and it discourages the smaller players to stay in, abandoning industries when they finally get large enough to sell out to their competitors, and then giving them de facto monopoly.

The system is listing, save at the top tiers. And worse, those top tiers are not investing their cash in actual business and properties, but in financial fictions that are essentially constructions of debt and pretend assets that are traded back and forth like real properties. Or they are investing in influence trading, to further game their markets to their favor, which does a lot of good for law firms, but very little good to manufacturing or local business, and those folks are just trading cash back and forth at levels that take the cash essentially out of the system.
 
2012-04-11 09:22:04 AM  

BillCo: aybe something that is about 2,700 pages long and we don't get to know what is in it until it is passed


I wished I worked for you because I could just whine and complain about how doing my job is too hard and be rewarded for it like you do with your elected officials.
 
2012-04-11 09:23:21 AM  

BillCo: Oh yeah, we need more government control.


Well the absence of it hasn't worked very well. Again.

hubiestubert: , those top tiers are not investing their cash in actual business and properties,


Or to put it in simpler terms, they're sitting on who knows how many trillions of dollars, meanwhile wages have stagnated for 30 years.
 
2012-04-11 09:24:04 AM  
Maybe we should ask Russia how their central planned economy experiment went before we go out and do something drastic
 
2012-04-11 09:25:20 AM  

cman: Maybe we should ask Russia how their central planned economy experiment went before we go out and do something drastic


Maybe we shouldn't be completely retarded and think that the United States economy in any way resembles Soviet Russia's economy.
 
2012-04-11 09:26:33 AM  

cman: Maybe we should ask Russia how their central planned economy experiment went before we go out and do something drastic


Or you could read a history books and see how things were in America in the 1880s and 90s. That's not something that should be repeated, though some people want to recreate the situations of the day.
 
2012-04-11 09:27:15 AM  

GAT_00: We have had free markets in this country, and no government interference. That was history up until the 1900s and it was farking terrible. These thinly controlled government markets aren't any better.

Capitalism is terrible. We need something else, or we need to heavily moderate it with so-called "socialistic" elements.


Yup...I figured you were a commie.
 
2012-04-11 09:28:07 AM  

GAT_00: That was history up until the 1900s and it was farking terrible.


not if your name was vanderbilt, rockefeller or carnegie. this is what republicans want-a return to the gilded age.
 
2012-04-11 09:28:34 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: Yup...I figured you were a commie.


There are more than two choices available. Just saying.
 
2012-04-11 09:28:54 AM  

cman: Maybe we should ask Russia how their central planned economy experiment went before we go out and do something drastic


Now they are super prosperous with a flat tax system, oh wait!
 
2012-04-11 09:29:02 AM  

Aarontology: cman: Maybe we should ask Russia how their central planned economy experiment went before we go out and do something drastic

Maybe we shouldn't be completely retarded and think that the United States economy in any way resembles Soviet Russia's economy.


You're right, we werent that stupid to begin with which is why we are not in the shape the USSR ended up in
 
2012-04-11 09:29:52 AM  

Aarontology: BillCo: aybe something that is about 2,700 pages long and we don't get to know what is in it until it is passed

I wished I worked for you because I could just whine and complain about how doing my job is too hard and be rewarded for it like you do with your elected officials.


In fairness, he's sort of right.

We have seen a boom in regulation legislation. Narrowly defined terms, so narrow that it allows industries, through their sponsored Congresscritters, to pack bills with measures that so tightly define terms that they can then claim, "We make sure that X only has 6 rat hairs per pound!" and be entirely compliant. We have now an entire industry in helping legislators write bills that narrowly define terms so that loopholes are systemic. And when you have folks who go into business, they have to parse all those regulations, go over them with a fine tooth comb, and in order to be compliant, they have to take on that burden before heading in, while their largest competitors, who helped write the legislation, are already compliant, because they wrote the bills to make sure what they were already doing is the industry standard, and force everyone else to come in under those terms.
 
2012-04-11 09:29:56 AM  
I have noticed that now that Santorum has dropped out that the "Obama is anti-business" rhetoric is in full swing today.
 
2012-04-11 09:30:12 AM  

WhyteRaven74: cman: Maybe we should ask Russia how their central planned economy experiment went before we go out and do something drastic

Or you could read a history books and see how things were in America in the 1880s and 90s. That's not something that should be repeated, though some people want to recreate the situations of the day.


Oh please, not even the most jaded Libertarian would advocate for such.
 
2012-04-11 09:30:48 AM  

FlashHarry: this is what republicans want-a return to the gilded age.


True that. Though I'm not sure the modern GOP would care for Rockefeller.
 
2012-04-11 09:31:09 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Or to put it in simpler terms, they're sitting on who knows how many trillions of dollars, meanwhile wages have stagnated for 30 years.


They aren't just sitting on it. They're giving record bonuses!

ManateeGag: wait, my guide to faux outrage says April 11th is ACORN! I think I have last year's book.


img856.imageshack.us
 
2012-04-11 09:31:22 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: We have never had free markets. We have had banking-controlled corporatism.


You act like those aren't the same things. A free market means the private sector is free control what they please -- including our democracy.
 
2012-04-11 09:32:24 AM  

cman: You're right, we werent that stupid to begin with which is why we are not in the shape the USSR ended up in


What sunk the USSR was out of control military spending. Have you checked the defense budget lately?

cman: Oh please, not even the most jaded Libertarian would advocate for such.


But that's exactly what they're advocating, even though they don't realize it.
 
2012-04-11 09:33:10 AM  
We've never tried our hand at socialism. That doesn't stop people from foaming at the mouth about how evil and bad it is when in fact they truly have no concept of it.
 
2012-04-11 09:34:04 AM  

sprawl15: They're giving record bonuses!


Except to all the people whose bonuses they got rid of. In some cases they get bonuses for getting rid of bonuses.
 
2012-04-11 09:34:25 AM  

WhyteRaven74: What sunk the USSR was out of control military spending.


Well, that and they cooked the books at every level so hard that nobody had any idea how badly they were farked until everything collapsed.
 
2012-04-11 09:34:41 AM  
You see, you give massive corporations and the wealthy big tax cuts and deregulation, they make more money, the money "trickles down", and then the "job creators" magically create jobs regardless of demand and the financial power of consumers.

It's all so simple!
 
2012-04-11 09:35:22 AM  

hubiestubert: Wealth isn't "created." It transfers. And right now, we are seeing that "trickle down" doesn't work. Has never worked.

Wealth accumulates up. It accumulates, and what we have now, is a system where capital just shifts at the top layers, and is shipped out of the system entirely. You want to see a boom? Then we need to have that wealth that is siphoned up at least spend a little time in the middle before it heads up.


whosawesome.com
 
2012-04-11 09:35:26 AM  

sprawl15: that and they cooked the books at every level so hard that nobody had any idea how badly they were farked until everything collapsed.


There was that, but their military spending sent them down a path they weren't going to recover from. Even if they hadn't cooked their books, they could only go so far with military spending before the floor gave way.
 
2012-04-11 09:36:31 AM  

FarkedOver: We've never tried our hand at socialism. That doesn't stop people from foaming at the mouth about how evil and bad it is when in fact they truly have no concept of it.


Socialism does suck, and it has been tried. Human beings are just not wired for common ownership. They *need* private property in order to feel responsibly for something.

Now, social democracy, which people often conflate with socialism, is the best thing happening right now
 
2012-04-11 09:37:11 AM  
The one thing that the libertarian free-market-solves-everything ideology never explains is how to deal with the powerful business interest that is ALWAYS willing to trade your long-term interests in exchange for their short-term interests.

Environment? Sure I'll extract a few billion out of that forest, that mine, that ocean and destroy it in the process. If you don't like it don't do business with me and I'll go out of business. In the mean time there are lots of hungry folk out of there that WILL do business with me because they don't know any better and they are as greedy as me. If you sue I'll be on the islands retired while you deal with my $500/hour lawyers. Good luck collecting if you win.

I'm sick of libertarians.

www.myqwip.com
 
2012-04-11 09:37:31 AM  

cman: Maybe we should ask Russia how their central planned economy experiment went before we go out and do something drastic


Right, because the only two options are unregulated capitalism and complete central control.

:sigh:
 
2012-04-11 09:37:49 AM  

DarnoKonrad: Socialism does suck, and it has been tried. Human beings are just not wired for common ownership


Um, socialism doesn't say anything about private property, that would be communism.
 
2012-04-11 09:38:10 AM  

WhyteRaven74: sprawl15: that and they cooked the books at every level so hard that nobody had any idea how badly they were farked until everything collapsed.

There was that, but their military spending sent them down a path they weren't going to recover from. Even if they hadn't cooked their books, they could only go so far with military spending before the floor gave way.


The USSR was selling manufactured goods for less than it cost to make them. Military spending and Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with it.
 
2012-04-11 09:38:21 AM  
I like how subby is confusing tax cuts for the rich and the free market.
 
Displayed 50 of 291 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report