Today, in his New York Times op-ed entitled "The Capitalism Debate" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/opinion/brooks-more-capitalism-please.html), David Brooks makes a similar point. Observing that Obama's economic policies have proven "insufficient or ineffective," the president is now forced to call into question Romney's outsourcing while managing Bain Capital and the wealth Romney accumulated owing to his success. Brooks writes:
"Instead of defending the policies of the last four years, the [Obama] campaign has begun a series of attacks on the things people don’t like about modern capitalism.
They don’t like the way unsuccessful firms go bust. Obama hit that with ads about a steel plant closure a few months ago. They don’t like C.E.O. salaries. President Obama hits that regularly. They don’t like financial shenanigans. Obama hits that. They don’t like outsourcing and offshoring. This week, Obama has been hitting that."
Moreover, Brooks claims that the tens of millions of dollars being spent by Obama on television advertising to deride Romney and Bain have "shifted the focus of the race from being about big government, which Obama represents, to being about capitalism, which Romney represents." Asserting that Romney doesn't seem to know how to parry Obama's thrusts, Brooks concludes that "Romney is going to have to define a vision of modern capitalism."
Romney needs to "define a vision of modern capitalism"? In fact, Romney has yet to define any sort of vision whatsoever.
If only either candidate could proffer a program for achieving US energy independence over the next four years. Yes, it can be done and at the same time create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
If only either candidate would be willing to reinstate the Uptick Rule and reenact Glass-Steagall, providing the US economy with an instant burst of renewal.
November? The economy will not improve by then, but Romney, a so-called efficiency expert, will lose if he cannot provide economic guidance.
Americans may have voted for "hope" and "change" in 2008, but they have since wised up and are looking for answers.
There is nothing to debate there. Unfettered capitalism means death, more death and even more death. Period. Unfettered capitalism is unsustainable and not only cost millions of lives on its march to a disaster, but also must end up in an absolute monumental tragedy. Some bigger minds realized this in the 19th century, most European minds realized after such a monumental disaster.
ReplyDeleteAmericans who are of course the best and the brightest and believe that the rich are rich because they deserve to be rich "know better."
They have in front of them their bright future which will burn as bright European past.
Now, I need idiotic Brooks who's been promoting wonderful, wonderful, wonderful unfettered capitalism and wonderful wonderful wonderful rich (known as crooks, thieves and murderers) to tell me to debate capitalism.
I would, but .... I am in a rush to vomit.