The Old Man, with his decades of experience in business and his Harvard degree in business and his lifelong obsession with business, knows a little more about business than I do. His well-reasoned arguments on the current bailouts have me shaking, I admit, in my ignorant liberal boots.
Rather than disagree with him outright, and therefore risk blowing my cover as someone who has a rudimentary understanding of economics, I’ll rely on Rule #5 and agree with the Old Man substantially.
For example, I agree that performance should be rewarded. That is why I am so surprised to hear the “fading” European systems written off so casually. When it comes to healthcare, education, and strengthening the middle class, the fact is we are getting our asses kicked by those evil socialists. The results of comparative studies over the years have become monotonous: “The United States ranked last across a range of measures of health care in a comparison of 19 industrialised countries, despite spending more than twice as much per person on health as any other of the countries” [1]. “
I am also confused by the notion that this is the twilight of capitalism. When exactly was the golden age of free-market capitalism, when government, business, and public welfare were not entangled (for better or for worse)?
Was it during the 1980’s, when campaigns of state-sponsored terror were used to encourage the people of Central and South America to remain open to
Maybe it was earlier—like when the Federal Reserve was created to interfere with those wonderful free-market processes called panics and depressions. It certainly could not have been at the turn of the 20th century, when the public was duped into supporting war with
The current bailout, it seems to me, is just a continuation of the historical trend. This time, elites suffered major losses and a civil war broke out over our tax dollars; hence the furious coverage in corporate-owned media over who-gets-what. And this time, the disparity between enacted policy and the popular will was especially noticeable.
The move towards universal healthcare, in my opinion, follows the same basic pattern except that in this case business interests happened to converge with the public interest. A majority of (wicked, socialist) Americans have favored universal healthcare for years. That’s partly because 18,000 of us have been dying per year due to lack of coverage [4]. But democracy is only possible now, because enough factions of private interests—including the automakers—have finally noticed that they spend “twice as much per person on health as any other of the countries” [1] with which they compete. (That is one reason GM has higher labor costs than
References:
[1] BMJ (formerly British Journal of Medicine), 2008. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/337/jul21_1/a889
[2]
[3] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2007. http://www.cbpp.org/1-23-07inc.htm
[4]
Ah, idealism...how about a little practicalism and doability?
ReplyDeleteI have yet to find a neighbor willing to pay for my hybrid or healthcare but I have friends and relatives in Canada, England and Scandanavia the come to the USA for healthcare.
The middle class has nearly disappeared over the last 40 years in the USA. This recession like most is regressive- it hurts the poor more than the rich. Which would you rather be a victim of Madoff that has lost his retirement or a victim of the recession that lost his (or her) job, car and retirement pension?
The $700 bn for TARP relief for the credit crisis isn't about enriching Wall Street it is about preventing bank runs that erase everyone's savings and jobs. The $800 bn plus Obama is proposing is an attempt to stimulate the economy by creating jobs greased by a lot of political pork required to accomplish the initial objective.
Much of the current blog discussion is on issues two hundred years old or older: small vs big government; individual vs societal roles and responsibilities; haves vs. have nots.
Great discussion but it's like philosphy: big issues without clear resolutions.
Any chance of narrowing the debate a little?
To Anonymous;
ReplyDeleteNarrow the debate...good point. How's this for narrow? Why is Obama professing that this is the biggest financial crisis in decades, and asking americans to sacrifice and persevere, and yet his example is spending the most money ever (est $90 million) on his inauguration celebration? Do the words "lead by example" mean anything?
Good point about narrowing the debate, Anonymous/mysterious stranger/whoever you are.
ReplyDeleteIn fairness, I thought the Old Man made a pretty plausible, specific proposal about rewarding performance: banks should have to use the bailout money to increase lending, not to buy up their competitors (a similar argument for the auto companies).
On the other hand, big issues without clear resolutions are sometimes the most fun and interesting to discuss!
(Perhaps this is splitting hairs, but Obama's inauguration will also be the most attended ever, est. 2 million people, and the feds and D.C. spent a combined $155 million mostly for security during the 2005 inauguration, when only 400,000 people attended.)
*Correction: the Feds and D.C. spent $115 million, according to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06donors.html
ReplyDelete