Steve Chapman, a writer for the Chicago Tribune, explains in this this article that 'socialism' is not Obama's problem, rather his biggest shortcoming is one common to the Democratic Party. The assumption that every problem can be solved by government intervention, and if a little intervention works, than more is better. Chapman uses the example of climate change. Obama is not content to let companies buy and sell the right to pollute. He wants to do more such as reduce carbon emissions by demanding higher fuel economy from automakers, pouring money into clean coal technology, etc. Chapman uses an analogy that any football fan would understand : "It's like the team owner offering the coach a generous new contract if he wins the championship -- and then dictating the starting lineup and the play selection for the entire season" (ie Jerry Jones and the Cowboys). Obama also seems intent on experimenting with policys similar to the style used by his hero FDR. However, FDR's willingness to try things/experimentation created uncertainty which "discouraged businesses from doing what they are supposed to do", in effect prolonging the Great Depression.
I think this article makes a great point by saying that if Obama decides to follow an over-the-top policy structure with a dash of experimentation, then the U.S. could be in for some more rocky economic times. I agree with Chapman that Obama is obviously not a socialist, despite his redistirbution of wealth proposals, but is this direction of BIG government and intervention as well as policy experiments that great of an alternative either. Clearly, I would not want to be in a socialist state with Karl Marx as my leader, but this idea of very large government is closing in on the ideas of Thomas Hobbes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I forgot to put the link to the article. Here it is: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/socialism_is_not_the_problem.html
I agree that Obama’s views are more socialistic than the current policies are on the capitalism-socialism continuum. Obviously, he is not a complete Marxist and anyone who knows what Marxism is knows that. The economy needs more government intervention right now, but Andrew makes a good point. Too much meddling will only upset the balance further. As the article says, Roosevelt was unpredictable, and this made businesses nervous. Stability is important for a functioning society and even more essential for a thriving economy. To analyze the current situation, people should be looking more at Keynesian Economics and less at socialism. FDR’s New Deal was influenced by Keynes and the theories are similar to many of today’s solutions for the economy. However, the affect of Keynesian policies on the Depression are debatable. The majority believes that the New Deal helped the economy. One of the problems with these ideas today is that the government has not been trying to balance the budget so more government spending may not have the desired effect.
It is certainly difficult to say whether more government intervention/bailouts/loans to corporations and banks will continue to further injure the economy. When is the line in the sand going to be drawn where we start to see a turnaround? On the other hand though, the government really cannot care too much about a balanced budget, that went out the window several years ago. Governemnt "spending" is utilized to boost the economy. It is oneof the elements of GDP, so naturally, if you raise gov spending then GDP in theory should also rise. However in this case, the more government spends (or bails out/loans), the less confident consumers are becoming, leaving us stuck in a circular argument.
Post a Comment