GEITHNER

Craig

Interesting debate. Very interesting.

This is very specific to American psyche which even in other countries of the new continent, it's not quite the same thing. This distrust of big government (distrust of government period) is very powerful in U.S. It might be politically echoed mostly on the Republican side, but I don't see it as a political issue. It is a cultural issue and vastly shared amongst all Americans, that individual freedom is inherently what government is not.

It was also a source of empowering the concept of freedom. In my earlier years, I used to ridicule this concept as 'wild west mentality'. But I gradually understood it better and came to appreciate it. The deepness of this culture is in that you may find an American who lost his job, lost his house, living in his van, and yet thinking about 'big government' exactly as you do Craig. So I do appreciate it culturally, but I couldn't link it successfully with the concept of a sound governance politically. Particularly in the lands, that nature was not so generous as it was with the land of U.S.A.

Fortunately, three

Fortunately, three important new books-Joel Magnuson's Mindful Economics; Douglas Hicks and Mark Valeri's edited collection, Global Neighbors; and Gar Alperovitz and Lew Daly's Unjust Deserts-have arrived on the scene to help show the way. Together these books provide a well-timed critique of the fundamentals of our economic system, in each case connecting the critiques explicitly to ethical and in some cases theological conceptions of what makes for a good human life and what makes for a just society.

These books each do what religion does at its best: they break through the dominant economic discourses and provide an alternative way of viewing social reality. They then describe measures for improving our economic system that would help much more than corporate bailouts.

//www.tikkun.org/article.php/mar09_williamson

To Get Good Government, Voters MUST Understand Economics-So Read This Book

Zal

I don't see any contradiction. The rich see themselves as the "elite" - always have, always will - and so there's nothing contradictory in Obama simultaneously empowering the government and the rich. The problem is that academics also see themselves as the "elite", but unfortunately for them in reality they are just useful idiots. That's where the whole utopia thing starts to fall apart, in my opinion. The rich and powerful do whatever they want, while they send the academics out to front for them. Despite its faults, I like the American way better! The only mechanism the rich have to impact politics in the US now is via lobbying and campaign contributions. Think how much worse things could get?

Craig, I think you make some good points but

There seems to be a contradiction. You state that Banks and other culprits are the main beneficiaries and that is consistent with the article that Obama is benefitting the super rich. You also say he is expanding government which is a socialist approach!?

On the Eurotopia, I have experience from several countries and suspect you may also. the point of my question was that given the malfunctioning capitalism and the seeming inability to get of rid of systemic corruption, bubble economy and the rest, is European approach not the lesser of the 2 evils? They surely have less overall social calamities despite their inability to deal with immigration and immigrants.

Zal

...is European style socialsm not better than either extreme capitalism we have been experiencing with few reaping majority of the benefit, or marxism?

Not in opinion. I'm all about individual rights and freedoms. That includes the freedom to either succeed or fail, based on your efforts. There isn't any form of socialism I can approve of. It just doesn't fit my world view.

I agree there have been some conspicuous excesses in the US of late - and there have been similar episodes in the past - but I don't believe the cure is to put the government in charge of the country's wealth! 

And look who is going to get hammered by Obama's plans? Wall street money managers? Banks? Insurance companies? Hell no. His plans are going to devastate small businesses, and make it that much harder for them to ever be sucessful. And look at who was helped by his so-called stimulus plan? Banks! Banks got help! Who else got help? Government agencies! You know all those jobs Joe Biden was claiming to have saved in 2009? All government employees! Not that I disapprove of keeping government employees from getting laid off, but what about everyone else?

And by the way, you have a much higher opinion about the real world standard of living of western europeans than I do! But that's for a different discussion :)

Craig

I generally agree with your assertion. I am no fan of either but given that Europeans generally are bettr off than most of the rest of the world and have more of a functioning democracy, is European style socialsm not better than either extreme capitalism we have been experiencing with few reaping majority of the benefit, or marxism?

Zal

Most is America seem to think of him as more of a 'socialist'.

Not a socialist. A "utopian" socialist. This is not the socialism of Marx, it is the socialism of Western Europe. In which the elites see themselves as the caretakers and custodians of the ignorant common man, by virtue of them being innately most capable of defining what is best for the lower classes.

The intended outcome (the utopia) is best seen in the Federation of "Star Trek". And no, I'm not kidding. This leftist utopian philosophy began in the 1950s and Gene Rodenberry was a big fan and fervent believer in the ideology. If I thought there was any hope in hell of things ever turning out that way, I might be too! Star Trek is a great show! However the best available evidence suggests that the self-proclaimed elites are just a bunch of greedy self serving bastards rather than altruistic illuminatis, and that people don't actually like being told by the government what to do and how to do it  24/7.

Perhaps we can engage this a bit deeper

Benross, I'm glad you find the article valuable. Obama started with a mess & has had to work with more constraints. However, if you disect what he has done and his MO (including as a senator) you find that he never goes against his own party or group, when in tight spot he will always defer to the power center, and would not take a stand and has is practicing a style of politics that by default will dilute any initiative as we see with health care. One may argue that is good politics but when problems are so fundamental, that is a receipe for failure. Abarmard points out that he is not yet going after the big structural changes as he needs to address the crisis first. While I agree with the approach, that is not what Obama is practicing. If you look at his policies from purely an economic strategy perspective, best he can do in the context of capitalism is to revert back to keynesian economics and roll back some if not all of Freedman (or supply side) economics. But if you look at the details of the monies that have been dolled out, who and how and who is sitting at the table, you will soon see the pattern is disturbing to put it mildly. The 200 Billion that went to AIG for example (never mind billions in bonuses) actually ended up bailing many European and not even American businesses. The Citibank story or BoA has been murky from the beginning and continues to be. His pick of Paulson's cohort of the last November's 700 billion shock & awe stimulus supporter Gaithner as SoT was enigmatic to say the least. And notice how all the regulation conversation of last November has been diluted. The issue of the Kitchen cabinet (GS, MS, Citi) is not a trivial one. Foxes are minding the hen house. Given the gutting of americas blue collar, then slowly white collar workers and Green tech ahead of U.S outside of U.S., and u.s. academic standing around 34th, and a mssive unskilled labor force, If he is not attcking fundamental problems now, his odds of success will be much diminished, even if i believed that was the target.

He keeps driving bigger and bigger government

without a clear overall direction just like his campaign that always evaded specifics. He has little choice but to be more reconciliatory in general since U.S. does not have the same means. Economically or politically.

Excellent article

Excellent article and comments by both of you Octaby and Abarmard.

As it happened, today or perhaps yesterday, the recession in U.S.A officially ended. There is still a lot of uphill battle for U.S economy but the moral is on positive side. This is essentially what Obama achieved in his first term sofar in the national arena. What is the greatest achievement of this period, is not what we see, but particularly what we don't see. Massive unmployment followed by a huge social desintegration. This of-course, was achieved by massive endettement of the country. But it seems to me that the choices that have been made, were the choices with the least adverse effect.

Having said that, I'm no Obama appologist. I'm nobody's applologist in fact. During the U.S primary, I was hoping for Hilary Clinton success. But Obama managed to bring together all the arsenal he could muster to his administration and led them to the best bargain possible, nationally and internationally.

On the international side also, his achievements are mostly things that we don't see. Things that didn't happen. But I give him the benefit of the doubt about his 'actual' plan after he gets his country out of recession... while I keep my critical eyes open.

Thanks again. This was very good.

Good points

Thanks for bringing up good points. Most of the issues that you have mentioned are related to capitalistic nature of the system rather than an administration's policy.

The method of doing things can always be improved and to realize shortcomings is followed by an approach. First when the economy had practically collapse to ground zero, President Obama was faced with a puzzle not easily solvable. Republicans? cut taxes, that's all they offered. They argued to let the car manufacturers go bankrupt and forget thousands of families who perhaps be homeless. Extra long term cost for the system. Not to mention the psychology of economy would have collapse and the shock to the system would last a long time, or even worse!

He stood strong and did what seems to be answering back positive. That by itself worth all the bombs that Bush threw on innocent civilians. 

Are there better ways to fix a broken economy? once the time passes and puzzle pieces begin to form, even I can come up with better solutions. He took a big risk and initiative to say that he will deal and fix the great problems caused by previous administration(s). 

Don't mix his issues with capitalism and its shortcomings.

How is his approach correct?

The PR is that he is doing socialist stuff while reality looks like more of extreme capitalism. The 20 key wall street entities are now down to about half that number. The classic rich getting richer pattern with huge consequences to economy, now in control of even fewer hands. How Trillions spent so hastily on poorly managed and corrupt institutions help U.S. economy? Why not a fraction of that on the Education system? or job re-training? Why the regional healthier banks did not get the help that will have directly helped? or the average person? Why does health bill has essentially done away with key changes? My comments are based on what he has actually done (or not done) so far so I'm not looking forward to more of the same. If you want to fix the ghetto, the first step is not to give a loan to the drug dealers and slumlords.

There is a reason

There is a reason for Obama being a hero without really doing a heroic work just yet: He came after Bush.

Bush did too much to ruin the economy, political reputation and destroyed millions of lives and killed thousands of innocent people. Trying to undo that is a task made for a great man, and it's being done gradually. Look what President Obama inherited and how many extremely important issues he is dealing with, while keeping his cool and taking charge, like a true leader.

The only solution for political issues, economic downfall, or anything else that the GOP is one thing alone: cutting taxes. There were really no plans to structure the pillars of socioeconomic problems that needs repairs. Remember that market can only solve problems once the proper regulations are in place. Therefore unlike the republican approach to just cut taxes for any problems, Obama is dealing with problems by offering real solutions. I do agree that some of his decisions need to be criticized and personally I do not agree with them. But the bulk of his approach is right on.

Would they work? We shall see. However his approach is correct and needs time, to have the unlawful regime of Bush removed and installing a democratic government back to place requires a bit more time that you seem to be willing to give to our newly elected president.

Most is America seem

to think of him as more of a 'socialist'