Obama Is Not A Socialist -- It's Worse Than That
Via @danieljmitchell, Thomas Sowell writes:
It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist." He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.
Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.
Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous -- something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.
Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the "greed" of the insurance companies.
That is great insight that I have not heard anywhere else.
Though I really I think it is just rebalancing the equation.
That is let x be the cost of medical needs. Nothing is changing x for some time period. Let i, j and k respresent different groups of people and a,b and c represent co-effiencts of how much they pay. We are really just changing a,b and c to some other value to get their prime form. thus
ai + bj + ck = x = a'i + b'j + c'k
if a
The Former Banker at June 12, 2012 11:25 PM
Call it the business end's obligation. I figure if major corporations can go to the government with their hands out and expect us to go further in debt because of their bad decisions, then the administration gets to force them to do less cost-effective things, then blame their greed when the prices go up.
Patrick at June 12, 2012 11:45 PM
What Sowell is describing is more properly known as National Socialism. The result is the Corporate State.
BarSinister at June 13, 2012 6:24 AM
I say it's way the fuck past time for the revolution.
Flynne at June 13, 2012 6:25 AM
BarSinister has it right. I'll use it's more abstract name, and call it fascism.
Patrick, other than the banks that took the worthless paper that Fannie and Freddie - both government sponsored entities - pumped out by the metric ton, and Government Motors, which corporations went to the government hat-in-hand to get a bailout?
Speaking of Fannie and Freddie, why is the Federal government in the housing industry? and why are they marketing derivatives?
Solyndra doesn't count: that was a kickback to campaign donors. Good ol' fashioned Chicago graft.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 13, 2012 8:01 AM
I agree with Darth, this is the most concise definition of fascism.
Joe at June 13, 2012 8:14 AM
http://www.zazzle.com/the_peoples_cube_marx_poster-228029084906774768
Stinky the Clown at June 13, 2012 9:25 AM
I agree with Joe, who agrees with Darth, who agrees with BarSinister: It's fascism, perpetrated by crooks, gangsters and thieves.
In politics and business... character matters.
Ken R at June 14, 2012 1:55 AM
Leave a comment