• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama and free enterprise

Travis

Misanthrope of the Mountains
Travis
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
24,133
According to Mitt Romney he exemplifies free enterprise while Obama wants to wage a war on it. :rolleyes:

Mitt Romney said:
President Obama confirmed today that he will continue his attacks on the free enterprise system, which Mayor Booker and other leading Democrats have spoken out against.
Click to expand...

Um....what?

Has Obama ever hinted that he hates free enterprise? I seem to recall he bailed out the financial sector. Bailed out a major auto manufacturer. Decided to privatize space exploration.

Those are the actions of someone that hates free enterprise?
 
TragicMonkey said:
"Free enterprise" means, to certain people, "no regulations or taxes".
Click to expand...
Very few. Has anyone ever met the anarcho-capitalist boogeyman of Lefty Sergeant's fantasies? The people whom I know who call themselves free marketeers acknowledge a State role in assigning title and enforcing a stable system of contract law. They accept that this will require taxation of some sort, unless Martians donate cops, courthouses, and judges. And they don't believe in Martians.
 
While I don't think that Obama is anti-free enterprise, certainly government bailouts of (almost) entire industries could be considered so.
 
mortimer said:
While I don't think that Obama is anti-free enterprise, certainly government bailouts of (almost) entire industries could be considered so.
Click to expand...
It's not a yes-no situation. Taking care of your own country implies a certain resistance to absolutely "free" enterprise. Big businesess like tax breaks. That's not free enterprise either. That's protectionism.

Each incidence of government incursion into "free enterprise" must be evaluated for the the benefits to the country versus the harm to the free market. It's not cut-and dried. So no, neither Obama nor Romney is truly for "free enterprise". But Obama's incursion into American enterprise have saved American compnies, for the most part. Romney's incursions, at least at Bain Capital, have destroyed American companies and sold them for parts. Is the hypothetical "free enterprise" worth harming your own country? I think Obama answers this question much better than Romney.
 
Tricky said:
It's not a yes-no situation. Taking care of your own country implies a certain resistance to absolutely "free" enterprise. Big businesess like tax breaks. That's not free enterprise either. That's protectionism.

Each incidence of government incursion into "free enterprise" must be evaluated for the the benefits to the country versus the harm to the free market. It's not cut-and dried. So no, neither Obama nor Romney is truly for "free enterprise". But Obama's incursion into American enterprise have saved American compnies, for the most part. Romney's incursions, at least at Bain Capital, have destroyed American companies and sold them for parts. Is the hypothetical "free enterprise" worth harming your own country? I think Obama answers this question much better than Romney.
Click to expand...
Yes, but long run wise will we be dead before the US defaults on debt payments? Today's children and grandchildren will likely be alive.
 
Travis said:
According to Mitt Romney he exemplifies free enterprise while Obama wants to wage a war on it. :rolleyes:



Um....what?

Has Obama ever hinted that he hates free enterprise? I seem to recall he bailed out the financial sector. Bailed out a major auto manufacturer. Decided to privatize space exploration.

Those are the actions of someone that hates free enterprise?
Click to expand...

The highlighted sections are antithetical to free enterprise. However, I doubt that Romney would have acted differently.
 
Tricky said:
It's not a yes-no situation. Taking care of your own country implies a certain resistance to absolutely "free" enterprise. Big businesess like tax breaks. That's not free enterprise either. That's protectionism.

Each incidence of government incursion into "free enterprise" must be evaluated for the the benefits to the country versus the harm to the free market. It's not cut-and dried. So no, neither Obama nor Romney is truly for "free enterprise". But Obama's incursion into American enterprise have saved American compnies, for the most part. Romney's incursions, at least at Bain Capital, have destroyed American companies and sold them for parts. Is the hypothetical "free enterprise" worth harming your own country? I think Obama answers this question much better than Romney.
Click to expand...
I agree with all this. My point being that holding up the bailouts as examples of free-enterprise is not terribly useful nor accurate.
 
I knew people in college who actually did hate free enterprise. They wouldn't have bailed out anyone.

And, anyways, those bailouts produced companies that are now healthy and profitable. In essence it was just like what happens when a company is bailed out by a bank loan. Yet no one seems to think a bank doing so means the onset of Socialism.
 
I suppose my point is that radicals at the fringes are against bailouts. Those that are radically for absolute free enterprise will refuse to bail anyone out because they are against the existence of governments entirely. Those on the extreme other side will not bail anyone out because they are against the existence of money and property.

Being pro-bailout marks you very much as a centrist on the issue and in no way should you be characterized as being "against free enterprise."
 
There's a pretty huge difference with a bank lending money to a struggling company and the government bailouts (say for banks that have made bad decisions, such as extending risky loans). The main difference is that a bank making a loan is, at least in theory, backed by its investors and depositors, who do business with the bank voluntarily. A government bailout is backed by taxpayers, who don't have the option of divesting from bad investments. This is the exact opposite of free enterprise: crony capitalism.

I'm actually OK with bailing out banks if at the same time we acknowledge that they are and should be treated as public utilities, and as long as they're at the public teat their executives will receive a civil servant's wage with no bonuses. However, since our representatives in the federal government work for the financial sector rather than for the public, they have decided that socialism works perfectly well for passing the risks of highly leveraged investments on to the taxpayer, while only the rewards are private.

This isn't a criticism specifically of Obama- he's certainly culpable, but bank bailouts have been going on for a very long time and I doubt that President Romney would buck the system.
 
Last edited:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/05/22/democrats_war_on_money_114233.html

a reporter asked Obama about Booker's remarks and the role of private equity. The president explained that the goal of private investment is to "maximize profits," whereas a president's job is to make sure that everyone has "a fair shot" and that everyone pays his or her "fair share" of taxes.

That's the problem with Obama; he thinks he's the fairness czar. He didn't say that a president is supposed to create an environment that nurtures business success. He said a president is supposed to make sure that nobody walks away with too much.

When you're president, Obama said, "your job is to think about those workers who get laid off and how are we paying for their retraining." Obama's war is a war on private money. He thinks his job is to create job training programs, not create an environment that creates real jobs.
Click to expand...

Where's a face-palm when I need it?
 
ravdin said:
There's a pretty huge difference with a bank lending money to a struggling company and the government bailouts (say for banks that have made bad decisions, such as extending risky loans). The main difference is that a bank making a loan is, at least in theory, backed by its investors and depositors, who do business with the bank voluntarily. A government bailout is backed by taxpayers, who don't have the option of divesting from bad investments. This is the exact opposite of free enterprise: crony capitalism.
Click to expand...

The term "crony capitalism" is bandied about too freely, IMO. That describes a specific situation involving government intervention, but it does not describe all government intervention.

I'm actually OK with bailing out banks if at the same time we acknowledge that they are and should be treated as public utilities, and as long as they're at the public teat their executives will receive a civil servant's wage with no bonuses. However, since our representatives in the federal government work for the financial sector rather than for the public, they have decided that socialism works perfectly well for passing the risks of highly leveraged investments on to the taxpayer, while only the rewards are private.

This isn't a criticism specifically of Obama- he's certainly culpable, but bank bailouts have been going on for a very long time and I doubt that President Romney would buck the system.
Click to expand...

But such action would be much more anti-free enterprise than one-off bailouts that had to be paid back. If one believe that the whole system would have collapsed without intervention, then the bailouts actually saved free enterprise. The situation is more complex than either/or.

Personally, I was of the opinion that if we were treating these companies as public utilities, we should have nationalised them them. It would have been much more complicated and anti-free enterprise, ut it would have removed the moral hazard of bailouts.
 
tyr_13 said:
Indeed, that article deserves one for reading so much into what Obama 'really' must mean when he says, 'fair shot'. It's a straw man argument all right.
Click to expand...
Ya think? What do you think Obama meant?
 
Travis said:
I seem to recall he [Obama] bailed out the financial sector. Bailed out a major auto manufacturer.
Click to expand...


I can't tell if you're being sly with the above comment or not. So at the risk of failing to recognize the sly, I'll just point out the financial bailout happened under Bush's watch (October of 2008) and most of the auto bailouts also happened under Bush's tenure (December of 2008, though some of the money was earmarked for distribution after Bush left office).
 
I say if Obama is getting blamed for them he can take credit for their success as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom