David Brooks says Obama's attacks on Romney's business record are "about capitalism." That's like saying an arrest for vehicular homicide is "about driving."
Our economic "roads" are jammed with destructive drivers like Romney. They're menacing motorists with their massive semis and monster dumptrucks while the traffic laws go unenforced. And whenever there's a lethal pileup their friends say it proves we shouldn't have traffic laws at all.
Brooks says that the President's campaign rhetoric "challenges the entire logic of capitalism as it has existed over several decades." That sounds like a subliminal suggestion from the liberals' favorite conservative that Barack Obama's a socialist. But if there's anything that needs to be challenged at this point in history it's "the entire logic of capitalism as it has existed over several decades."
This decades-long wave of unchecked corporate greed was brought about by deregulation, along with other symptoms of a corrupting collusion between corporate and political leaders. That unholy marriage has been made manifest in the very being of Mitt Romney.
Brooks conflates the economic rampage this process has created with capitalism itself - or, in a phrase he uses no less than three times in an 800-word piece, "modern capitalism." Those two words embrace behaviors that include both Wall Street lawlessness and the government largesse that inflates the wealth of people like Mitt Romney, whose firm's first success was made possible by a Massachusetts tax deal and whose personal fortune has been padded by undeserved loopholes.
Today's big-corporate czars are the worst case studies in unchecked greed since the Robber Barons. You'll need a phrase like "Modern Capitalism" if you're trying to defend their misdeeds. The words resonate with entrepreneurial spirit, which the American public loves. And who could be against the "modern" except a Luddite or a fool?
(Or a socialist, of course.)
Today's big-money CEOs aren't really "capitalist." The popular American notion of "capitalism" fits Merriam-Webster's definition: "An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."
But that's not how it works anymore. Wall Street has deceived and defrauded courts, homeowners, account holders, shareholders, government agencies and investors on an epic scale. Market choices -- which bank to use, whether to invest in big-bank shares or purchase mortgage-backed securities -- aren't "determined by private decision" at all. They're driven by long-standing patterns of fraud and deception.
Our largest corporations survive and thrive because of government patronage, not market forces. That's especially true of the too-big-to-fail banks which the government rescued after the crisis, and which it continues to prop up with cheap Federal Reserve money, lax regulation of civil and criminal laws, and the moral hazard that comes with the implicit guarantee of future bailouts.
The LIBOR scandal reminds us that prices are often determined, not by "competition in the free market," but by price-fixing, investor fraud, and market manipulation by a very small group of "too big to fail" players.
David Brooks' conception of "modern capitalism" should repel most Americans, and according to polling data it does. Conservatives should be as outraged as anyone -- maybe more so, since it flies in the face of everything they claim to hold dear: transparency, integrity, freedom from government control, and an economy guided by "the wisdom of the markets."
In other words, what David Brooks calls "modern capitalism" isn't capitalism at all.
It's not modern, either. The government/big business cronyism Brooks defends is as ancient as the Roman and Athenian politicians who gave bribes for personal profit. It's as old as the Union Pacific/Crédit Mobilier scandal of 1872. It's as stale as J. Pierpont Morgan responding to charges of illegal restraint of trade by asking Teddy Roosevelt, "Why don't you just send your man to my man and we'll fix it up?" It's as antiquated as bank magnate Andrew Mellon, who as Hoover's Treasury Secretary articulated the credo which corporate predators re-state whenever they've caused economic disaster:
"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate ..."
Brooks hits closer to home when he points out that, contrary to campaign rhetoric, Obama has employed or been friendly with some dubious "Modern Capitalists." He's right to say the President hasn't acted against globalization. He even missed the chance to knock Obama for supporting additional free trade agreements. The President should do a better job of matching his actions to his rhetoric.
Then there's Mitt. Seems like everybody's got some advice for him nowadays: Release your taxes. Don't release your taxes. Focus on Obama. Focus on the future. Don't focus at all. There's only one piece of advice Romney hasn't been given: Be yourself.
Think about that.
But out of all the unsolicited suggestions coming Mitt's way, none can be worse that the one offered by David Brooks. "Romney is going to have to define a vision of modern capitalism," Brooks writes. Define a vision of modern capitalism?
That's Romney's biggest problem: He already has.
Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
It's perfect if you think about it. Going all the way overseas to find hard up, cheap labor was always a bit of a nuisance for them. Why not just create our own uneducated, impoverished, hungry and easily manipulated massive labor force closer to home?
All they need to accomplish this is to eliminate regulations, government, and take over the military. In short, all they need is the Republican Party.
I'm not describing a conspiracy but more a business 'trend'. By using our military to extend corporate investment security around the globe, internationalist are investing in factories, farms and mines overseas because of the cheap labor and low regulations.
This trend has made a few extremely wealthy. For example the five Walton family members (Wal Mart) have more wealth than the entire bottom 50% of the nation. And, they are not afraid to use their power politically to either continue that accumulation of wealth or block anyone from altering that trend.
The Communications sector broke all records two years ago spending 269 million dollars lobbying congress in one year!! Do you think they spent that money to give us more innovation, cheaper prices or better service?
They spent that money to corner their markets. They will do whatever it takes to ki.ll internet upstarts that are competing with them. (see attack on bandwidth control)
American labor, on a scale from the bottom upward, has become obsolete. Out bid by easy access to international labor markets.
Bill Gates, by the way, is as bad as any of them, callously throwing his countrymen overboard, while amassing a huge personal fortune.
So, you agree with me.
You can have an affordable car because of an American entrepreneur.
You can fly anywhere because of an American entrepreneur.
You can play on a computer because of an American entrepreneur.
You can turn on a light because of an American entrepreneur.
You can get a home mortgage because of an American entrepreneur.
You can have a career because of an American entrepreneur.
Or you can be an American entrepreneur.
Or you can depend on the government, and have nothing.
Fly anywhere. On an airbus?
Computers. Made in what country?
And so on. My career is medicine. Educated publicly, supported by Medicare and Medicaid, and the equipment I use is mostly made in Germany.
The world is not as simple as you think.
And for some perspective...without Guttenberg, a nasty ol' European, a craftsman, you wouldn't have any of this. AND he based his ideas on pre-existing equipment!
Lay down the myth of the self-made person.
In reality, the purpose of government regulations is to maximize the amount of bribe mon - oops, I mean "campaign donations", flowing to politicians.
Disclaimer: Not applicable to small business owners. But we already knew that.
But, as I've said elsewhere, Brooks (and you to some extent) confuse our economic system - Capitalism - with our governmental system - democratic republic.
Maybe that's why the public at large is so confused. The experts don't even know the difference.
The only issue we Americans need to resolve is whether our economic system should rule US, or our governmental system. It's mano v mano, Capitalism vs Democracy.
So far, it looks like Democracy is on the ropes.
Right?
http://buythecover.com
BTW: Here's a clue to the correct answer:
Did the Gettysburg address say "government of the Greedy people, by the Greedy people and for the Greedy people" or what?
For the sake of argument, I will temporarily accept your facile demand that Democrats have done all the bad things to our economy. That being the case - you seem to agree that the financial industries need strong regulation. If that is the case - and if you are not simply following in Peter Ferrara's partisan footsteps - then we have no argument.
What is your recommendation for harshly regulating the financial industry?
The left is trying to make a rational argument about how societies must have infrastructure and services to produce everything, how society collapses without the underpinnings of that infrastructure.
The right actually is just waiting for those underpinnings to collapse and the left wants to save them.
No wonder they can't understand each other.