RSS Feed MenuThe next time somebody tells you that the Obama administration is a haven for Afro-Marxists, you might want to remember that it’s most important economic policymaker is the man who fired Cornel West. And here is a clip of Cornel West still complaining about it -and describing the Obama administration as a “profound disappointment.”
The Larry Summers material begins about minute 43. As transcribed by the Huffington Post:
[H]ere’s somebody who has no history whatsoever of sensitivity to poor people or working people, who had been supporting deregulation for a long time as a Clintonite, in the Clinton administration. What is going on here? Or has Obama already become so comfortable with the establishment that you had to have an economist who was legitimate to the establishment in order for him to get his regime off the ground? OK. I mean, if that’s the kind of argument you have, then put it forward. But don’t tell me you’re a progressive, then, and generate that kind of support or major advisers speaking to you–speaking to you every day. Now, if he had Paul Krugman or Joseph Stiglitz or Sylvia Ann Hewitt, I’d say, “Hey, you got something going here. I think we’ve got a chance for some progressive policy that actually focuses on poor and working people.”
But I do forgive Larry Summers for this reason: that I think we all ought to have joy in life, and you can only have joy when you overcome arrogance and open to your own ignorance, because you end up being smart and brainy, but suffering from spiritual malnutrition, emptiness of soul, you see.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 4, 2009 at 8:58 pm
bm,
I understand your criticism that Obama has not done enough to halt Bush’s policies, but except for the war in Iraq and tax cuts under both Bush and Obama, much of the conditions that make the current policies unsustainable have absolutely nothing to do with either president. Our current policies are unsustainable because of entitlement spending. If anything, Obama’s proposed cuts to some of those entitlement programs (e.g. Medicare Advantage) are promotive of free markets, yet conservatives have still opposed these policies.
While it is literally true that Obama’s policies are antithetical to free markets to extent his policies are a continuation of certain Bush policies, I did not interpret MFarmer’s comment in the manner your post suggests. I may have been mistaken, but I read MFarmer’s comment as a critique of policies that have been initiated by Obama.
As for those policies, I accept that the recent trade tarriffs on tires from China are antithetical to a free market. However, I think the better policy question is whether those tarriffs are in the best interest of the U.S. The U.S. and China are members of the WTO, and the tarriffs Obama imposed are the remedy the WTO provides for China’s impermissible conduct. I’m not a trade expert, but I am prepared to accept the collective judgment of the WTO members that the imposition of tarriffs in circumstances such as this are necessary for long-term growth and the promotion of international trade.
I’m not sure I clearly understand your point about “too big to fail.” If you’re suggesting that we should allow institutions to become as large as they choose irrespective of the potential adverse consequences, then I agree with you that preventing “too big to fail” is antithetical to an unregulated free market. However, I believe preventing “too big to fail” is the better economic policy.
In essence, I don’t believe the appropriate economic policy question is whether a particular policy is antithetical to a free market. As I stated in my post, practically all regulation is, to some degree, antithetical to a free market. The appropriate question is what policies will promote widespread, sustainable economic growth. In most instances, the policies that promote free markets will be the policies that also promote growth. But, by no means, is a free market the end objective. It is merely a method for achieving the goal, and its benefits must be balanced against its obvious drawbacks.
The larger point I was attempting to make in my post to MFarmer is that many government policies that seem to anger conservatives the most are policies that were initiated by Bush, and the failure to vociferously criticize these policies during the Bush years causes reasonable people to believe that conservative criticism of Obama is not based on the substance of his policies, but instead on the fact that he is a Democrat. Indeed, even when Obama proposes policies like cuts to Medicare and the payroll tax that have been robustly promoted by so-called conservatives, he still gets lambasted. Consequently, it’s practically impossible to take conservative criticisms seriously.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 4, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Sinz,
I apologize for incorrectly stating your position on GM. I apparently misinterpreted some of your ealier posts.
As for a controlled bankruptcy, the U.S. government still would have ended up owning a majority share of GM because it was its largest creditor by far. A controlled bankruptcy would not have prevented this. The only purported advantage of the controlled bankruptcy was that it possibly would have made some of the subsequent loans unnecessary. Of course, this is dubious because GM was in desperate need of cash for operating purposes – not just for repaying its creditors. Consequently, the U.S. would almost certainly have had to extend it additional loans despite a controlled bankruptcy.
As for NAFTA, Obama is not opposed to NAFTA. As a candidate, he proposed renegotiating it (not ending it). As President, he has taken no steps to do either. Consequently, I’m still trying to figure out what actual policies of his (vs. rhetorical comments) are antithetical to free markets.
BoolaBoola // Oct 4, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Cornell West is an embarrassment to smart black people–he’s an obvious token, an obvious AA baby. He’s as strong an argument against affirmative action as Clarence Thomas himself.
I’ve seen him (West) on Cspan, on Bill Maher, all over, and all he does is pretentious litsy-babble, of the sort Yale was famous for when I was there (the nonsense known as “Deconstructionism”. You know, Jaques Derridadadadadadadadadda.) The stuff the people who speak and write it don’t understand themselves, and proudly so–”You see, if you understand it, that means you’re not getting it!” is the line.
I’d rather take a class from Rodney King than from Cornell West.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 4, 2009 at 11:28 pm
BoolaBoola,
What does Cornell West have to do with affirmative action? Are you suggesting that because he is black he is or was a beneficiary of affirmative action?
Also, why would he be an embarrassment to smart black people? Are Charles Murray and Katrina vanden Heuvel an embarrassment to smart white people?
Please explain.
balconesfault // Oct 5, 2009 at 8:07 am
Sparticus: Consequently, I’m still trying to figure out what actual policies of his (vs. rhetorical comments) are antithetical to free markets.
Really, except in not running around touting “tax cuts are the panacea to everything!” Obama hasn’t been running an economic policy that’s radically different from the Bush Administration. In many ways, this incrementalism is hampering his ability to quickly stem the growth of unemployment in this country, although in the long run it will probably play out better.
But a socialist Obama wouldn’t have been supporting TARP – he’d have been pushing for establishment of national banks to act as the lender of last resort directly to businesses and individuals, rather than pumping money to private lending institutions with the hope that they’ll actually make that capitol available to the public. A socialist Obama wouldn’t be using stimulus funds to encourage private development of power projects and electric transmission – he’d be using the DOE and BLM in concert to build huge new federally funded power projects, and expanding the publicly owned electric grid system we’ve had for decades (WAPA, TVA) to cover much more of the country. A socialist Obama wouldn’t be trying to introduce a “Private Option” for insurance – he’d be pushing for a federally funded hospital system to cover all the rural areas that are currently underserved.
In short, this whole “socialist” meme is the most ridiculous form of hyperbole.
midcon // Oct 5, 2009 at 8:48 am
What would be more useful than labeling something leftism, progressivism, or socialism is to analyze results. Many of you here are way to invested in spotting socialism. Using the GM takeover for instance, what was the purpose of the takeover? did it accomplish the purpose? was the outcome beneficial or detrimental to the economy?
While the takeover of GM was distateful and antithetical to free market principles that recognizes businesses will fail, the takeover directly saved jobs at a time when job losses were in free fall. It also protected many thousands of other supplier jobs and businesses. So why don’t you debate the cost vs benefit of saving those jobs without worrying that whether it was socialism or capitalism. I mean really who cares? In my opinion the takeover should not have happened because it propped up an industry that is inefficient and ineffective for the 21st century and the energy put into saving the company may have been better spent replacing it with something that is more geared to the future.
You spend your time decrying socialism and leftism as if they are meaningful. What matters is how do we sustain (or restore) our economic well being and provide for our national security (militarily and economically). I could care less whether something is Engel’s socialism than what the outcome is of government policies and actions.
sinz54 // Oct 5, 2009 at 9:25 am
midcon: So why don’t you debate the cost vs benefit of saving those jobs without worrying that whether it was socialism or capitalism.
Fine.
The benefit was to the Democratic party, which nationalized GM to bail out the UAW and preserve the lush wages and fringe benefits that the UAW had negotiated all these years. The alternative–bankruptcy of GM–would have rendered those contracts subject to renegotiation.
The cost to the nation is unbounded–because GM won’t be privatized again for years, if ever. Instead, we taxpayers are owning a corporate white elephant whose cars just aren’t selling. What we’re doing, basically, is paying the wages of UAW members with our taxes. They are now, basically, welfare recipients, all of them.
Oneon1isto // Oct 5, 2009 at 11:41 am
Sinz: I don’t think the UAW went into it at all.
Here’s good, deep, fly on the wall reporting, some of which is includes the decision to save GM: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/12/091012fa_fact_lizza?printable=true
And here’s an excerpt–clearly they were concerned for the UAW:
“In January, the White House added a half-hour meeting each morning, in which Obama is briefed by the top members of his economic team: Summers, Geithner, Romer, Orszag, and Bernstein. Obama officials said that the extra layers were intended to insure that no one person dominates the economic advice going to the President.
This system was sharply tested during the debate over the fate of G.M. and Chrysler. In mid-March, Summers and eight advisers dealing with the issue met around the conference table in his office. Summers called for a vote: who thought Obama should save Chrysler? The group was deadlocked. Four were in favor and four were against. Summers abstained, but he believed that Chrysler should get another chance at survival, especially since the Italian automaker Fiat had announced that it was willing to take over the company. Austan Goolsbee, who is both the staff director of the PERAB and one of Romer’s deputies at the C.E.A., cast the strongest of the no votes, arguing forcefully that saving Chrysler would damage the long-term prospects of G.M. and Ford, and for that reason Chrysler should be allowed to go bankrupt and be liquidated. ”
Repeating my statements, and supporting midcon, the decisions made at the highest level were macro, and in keeping with trying to prevent the country from spiraling further into freefall. Calling socialism is disingenuous.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 5, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Sinz wrote: “The benefit was to the Democratic party, which nationalized GM to bail out the UAW and preserve the lush wages and fringe benefits that the UAW had negotiated all these years . . . What we’re doing, basically, is paying the wages of UAW members with our taxes. They are now, basically, welfare recipients, all of them.”
So is the main complaint with the GM bailout is that the Democratic party may benefit because union workers did not have their wages slashed? How childish and petty has conservatism become?
First of all, it’s a well known fact to all who are not impervious to facts that the bailout was implemented by Bush. Secondly, it is logically incoherent to suggest that a controlled bankruptcy which requirs the cooperation and consent of all the creditors would have produced worse results for the unions than an actual bankruptcy which grants the court much more leeway in determining the outcome.
Secondly, ALL GM creditors are receiving taxpayer money. That was the purpose of the loans that both Bush and Obama extended to GM. It makes absolutely no sense to call the workers who will build the millions of cars GM will sell this year welfare recipients. If anything, the bondholders who are receiving payments from taxpayer money are the welfare recipients.
EscapeVelocity // Oct 5, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Sinz at 32 hits it out of the park.
People that produce goods that this country can use…high value goods, namely cutting edge tech F22 Raptors wont be producing those goods anymore.
The UAW gets the spoils, and the American taxpayer gets it up the arse.
Ill take F22 Raptors to protect this country or sell to allies that are drooling for them (like the Australians) over cars that nobody wants to buy, not even in the US.
balconesfault // Oct 5, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Ill take F22 Raptors to protect this country or sell to allies that are drooling for them (like the Australians)
If others are drooling for them … why would the free market not produce them without government subsidy?
(escape’s head explodes)
EscapeVelocity // Oct 5, 2009 at 1:22 pm
If others are drooling for them … why would the free market not produce them without government subsidy? — balconesfault
Restrictions on trade for National Security reasons.
Did you have a double helping of stupid today?
balconesfault // Oct 5, 2009 at 1:44 pm
So what you’re asking for is not subsidy – but relief of trade restrictions. That would be consistent with a small government/anti-socialism ideology.
I’ve read a number of your comments today … so yeah, I have had a double helping of stupid. Perhaps even a triple.
Oneon1isto // Oct 5, 2009 at 2:05 pm
What the hell do F22’s have to do with whether or not the GM decision was in fact a handout to the UAW (which it wasn’t)?
I love a world where defense contractors are held up as the paragon of American capitalistic virtue. Ha!
David Frum’s Got It Wrong Again « NewsReal Blog // Oct 5, 2009 at 5:18 pm
[...] Cornel West intellectual featherweight, David Frum shills for Obama by David Horowitz Why is David Frum pretending that the Obama administration is less radical than it is. Just because an intellectual [...]
sinz54 // Oct 6, 2009 at 8:21 pm
spartacusisnotdead: So is the main complaint with the GM bailout is that the Democratic party may benefit because union workers did not have their wages slashed? How childish and petty has conservatism become?
NO.
My main complaint with the GM bailout is that it uses tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money for something that (unlike the credit markets or the aerospace industry) has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with U.S. national interest.
GM is finished, kaput. It exists under U.S. government ownership indefinitely because it can’t produce cars Americans want to buy. (In 2006, Consumer Reports stated that ALL TEN of their ten top-rated cars were from Japanese auto makers.)
So exactly what are we taxpayers paying for? We’re paying to give GM workers make-work jobs so they can continue to build the same crappy, unsellable cars they’ve been selling till now. And GM will never, never, get privatized again. It’s a permanent “zombie” corporation, a national embarrassment that Obama can’t pull the plug on without alienating his AFL-CIO supporters.
There is NO NATIONAL INTEREST, none whatsoever, in spending zillions of dollars to keep GM workers drawing paychecks. The worst that would happen, if GM flopped under Chapter 7, is that those assets would be sold off–to Japanese or European automakers–and maybe THOSE managers could figure out how to build cars that Americans want to buy.
EscapeVelocity // Oct 6, 2009 at 10:01 pm
…and create jobs for American Workers.
Sinz has once again sailed it out of the park.
Its likely that we see GM as the sole supplier of Government vehicles at a minimum. Then we will see protections, taxes, and tariffs to protect GM. We already see GM offering the never before in history incentive of 6 months money back gaurantee (the Government is backing them, not GM or the UAW).
Its a shame, because GM was successful in every other market. Its North American devision, was run into the ground by the UAW.
EscapeVelocity // Oct 6, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Thems Blue and Purple States….elections are coming soon….the gravy train will never stop.
sinz54 // Oct 7, 2009 at 10:12 am
escapevelocity: Its likely that we see GM as the sole supplier of Government vehicles at a minimum. Then we will see protections, taxes, and tariffs to protect GM. We already see GM offering the never before in history incentive of 6 months money back gaurantee (the Government is backing them, not GM or the UAW).
I guess this is the liberals’ “public option” for automobiles.
Which will be no better than the liberals’ “public option” for health care.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 7, 2009 at 11:32 am
Sinz wrote: “My main complaint with the GM bailout is that it uses tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money for something that (unlike the credit markets or the aerospace industry) has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with U.S. national interest.”
Ok. That’s a legitimate argument based on the merits of the loans themselves, but it is certainly conflicts with your comment @ #18 in which you say GM should have gotten loans.
David Frum’s Got It Wrong Again (NewsReal Blog) – by David Horowitz | FrontPage Magazine // Oct 18, 2009 at 2:13 am
[...] is David Frum pretending that the Obama administration is less radical than it is? Just because an intellectual [...]