So I had a "pleasant" "discussion" with some friends the other night after the elections. They were boggled by my stance on politics. They were surprised that I didn't support the health-care bill, welfare, and all manner of other government programs. This developed into a verbal argument and I almost had to leave because I was out numbered and I have never been one for eloquently arguing my own point of view.
Then today I woke up to find my friend had sent me a link to an article entitled "How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms".
I was wondering if anyone would enjoy helping me pick it apart? I'm assuming she's trying to convince me of the genius and benevolence of entrenched government tinkering in our economy. So, if anyone wants to give it a go, be my guest.
By the way, I'm new to the forums! My name is Paul, nice to be here!
Just the old time worn fallacies of equating stock price inflation and subsidizing red business with prosperity.
Welcome to the forum. Hope you have fun here and learn stuff.
OK, on to the article, with my comments in bold. I got tired after a while. maybe someone else will want to continue.
If I were one of the big corporate donors who bankrolled the Republican tide that carried into office more than 50 new Republicans in the House, I would be wary of what you just bought.
Oh, so it was big corporations who voted for 50 new Republicans. Of course the big corporations did not bankroll any Democratic candidate.
And those corporations cannot actually vote, They are not people. Millions and millions of people had to actually vote for these Republicans. Like all those people who go to Tea Party rallies. They of course voted Republican because the corporations wanted them to.
For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism.
He did nothing of the sort. Capitalism means free enterprise, meaning no interfering with voluntary exchanges. This does not exist in the USA. Obama, of course, increased the amount of intereference.
And for that, he paid a terrible political price.
For destroying the free market [by definition, see above] in housing and healthcare and banks and the auto industry, and continuing the failed policies of Bush and all Presidents since Hoover, by printing trillions of dollars and thus creating inflation, by letting the Fed determine interest rates [another interference in the free market, perhaps the worst one], by spending a trillion dollars on wars no one wants and are drains on the economy [not to mention the despical moral depravity of fighting a war for the sake of war], he personally paid no price at all. His party got a well deserved slap in the face.
Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here’s why: the presidency of George W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power.
Wait a second. You are showing Bush was bad. But that does not show one should vote for [horrors] aliberal Democrat. That's like saying the patient has a serious nose bleed, let's take him to a vampire.
As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent.
So why aren't people dancing in the streets? Why are they grumbling and whining, especially about unemployment, the silly complainers? Their wealth has risen by 77% and 48%. BTW, gold went up about 65%, and silver went up about 115% since Obama took office. So what?
Boy, I for one am definately not complaining that I am 77% and 48% and 65% and 116% richer. Because I'm not richer. I didn't have any money to invest in the first place when Obama took office. And if I did, I would not have invested it in stocks, because there was a tremendous climate of uncertainty about the economy. There still is. Well actually, there is less unceratinty now. I am pretty certain the economy is going downhill fast, because of the catastrophic Obama policies.
But markets, though forward-looking, are not considered accurate measurements of the economy, and the Great Recession skewed the Bush numbers. O.K.
Whatever that means. And why did you introduce stock market prices in the first place if they are meaning less, you sly dog you?
How about looking at the big financial institutions that keep the motors of capitalism running — banks and auto companies?
How exactly do banks and auto industries keep the "motors of capitalism" running? [BTW, when you see an economist resort to a metaphor you cannot instantly translate into everyday prosaic English, he's probably just speaking nonsense.
The banking system was resuscitated
Another metaphor. What does it mean? The banks faced bankruptcy, and Bush and Obama made everyone else, especially the old and the poor, pay their bills, as will be explained shortly. Of course, the banks still face bankruptcy. Their books are full of loans made to people that will never be repaid.
by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans),
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You are giving credit to Bush here for saving the "motors that keep capitalism running". So he's not such a bad guy, is he?
Although it's funny that you should be so enthused about Bush being the country's savior that you felt obliged to post a link. In the middle of an article about how it was Obama, not Bush, who saved Capitalism. Hmm, we have a mystery here.
Could it be that you are covering all bases [albeit poorly]? You think that people might not be convinced by your nonsensical arguments that bailouts are good. And you think it so likely that it's a good idea to toss some of the blame for those bailouts on Bush.
and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve.
"Help from the Federal Reserve". What a nice way to say "by picking our pockets and giving the money to the banks". The Federal Reserve does one thing. Prints money. That's it. And if they "helped" the banks by printing money, it means they made the price of everything rise, reducing our purchasing power. Because by the law of supply and demand, when there are more dollars in the world, their value goes down. The biggest sufferers are the poor, who cannot afford high prices, and the old, who live on fixed incomes and cannot get more money. But everyone loses, really. Except for the banks, who got the money before prices rose.
It worked. The government is expected
Ah sophistry of sophistries, how delightful to see you. "It worked". Past tense. It has already happened, a done deal. "The govt is expected"...Wait just a minute! That's future tense. Now you are saying it has not happened yet. That it might not work at all. That in fact it might turn out to be a horrific mistake.
OK, let's not be so hasty. Let's see what the odds are of success.
to break even on a risky bet
Oh, so it's a risky bet. The odds of total failure are excellent. And President Obama made that risky bet with whose money exactly? His? Michelle's? Nope, they get everything free, meaning paid for by the taxpayer. Free airplanes, free trips, free designer clothes, free lodging, free gourmet food every single day four years in a row. Free pick up basketball games with NBA superstars. He was not gambling with his money. He was taking a "risky bet" with our money.
to stabilize the global free market system.
If you cannot understand exactly how keeping incompetent banks in business by giving them trillions of dollars of your money is "stabilizing the global free market system", there is a reason for your confusion. It's a lie, that's why. It saved the banks, but not any country's economy. Quite the opposite. Taking away a trillion from you and me and giving it to the incompetent banks harmed the economy. It certainly did not do anything but harm to a free market system, because govt interference in the economy, such as bailing out anyone, is by definiition not a free market operation. It is Socialism, Communism, Fascism, [look these words up and you will see they accurately define what a bailout is].
Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed.
So banks are the motors of capitalism, and the underpinnings of big capitalism. What a myth. If Goldman Sachs goes bankrupt, big capitalism will die? Or even little capitalism? Why?
He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged.
So there are Democrats who are urging to nationalize banks. And you wonder why people voted Republican.
OK, I tire. The rest is equally ridiculous. The bottom line. If someone cuts down all the trees in a forest and then sets fire to the rest, how can be said to be saving the forests. Every move Obama made, particularly the ones described in the article, are the very opposite of capitalism and the free market. So how is he saving the free market?
Not to mention that every move he made will acheive the exact opposite of what he promises that it will. His job creations will increase unemployment. His helath care program will provide us with less health care. For why, read up on this site.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Wow, you are amazing!
Do you mind if I show my friend your post? I'm a long time libertarian and I often listen to something like Rothbard on audiotape on long trips, but this forum is amazing if even 1% of the people that frequent it are as beautiful in their analyses as you are! Like I said before, I'm hardly eloquent when flustered and backed into a corner, out-numbered by people that I would be better off not arguing with in the first place. But you did an excellent job of reproducing in print some of my biggest mental points from reading the article.
My favorite is of course: "He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged". I think I had to stop reading the article somewhere around this point, but not without a good (albeit grim) chuckle. Grim because someone actually thought it would be a good idea. How sad.
Thanks for the compliments.
Sure, show it to your friend. You might want to fix up a few grammer and punctuation mistakes.
The other guys on this forum are indeed amazing.
Smiling Dave hit the nail right on the head in refuting the article. We have to remember that the people writing these article do no necessarily have a firm grasp on reality. I might even go as far as to say that Obama saving Capitalism is like the fox saving the henhouse. I might even quote one of the only true and sensible things that FDR said as president, "How can we blame the free market when haven't even tried the free market yet?" That is not an exact quote but pretty close. We should probably look at a definition of a free market. My definition that I use in writing or conversation is: An economic system where two parties can engage in voluntary transactions without interference or molestation by a meddling third party... namely the government. Obama has said repeatedly that he believes in the free market. Somehow I find it hard to believe. To say that we have a free market here in America is quite a stretch. It is only free, if by free you mean that the market is in an orange jumpsuit, wearing a hood, shackled, and on its way to a secret facility as part of the rendition program. Sure, compared to the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin the free market is only on a ankle bracelet and has a curfew. What has happened with the election is not that we thanked the democrats for saving capitalism and rewarded them with some free time, the american people have said, " Mr. President, we will no longer believe your words... but will trust only our lying eyes."
TBH, the MSM reminds me more and more of Pravda. We are over 20 years past 1984, and it shows.