President Obama revealed a little more of himself than possibly his teleprompter writers intended on Tuesday when he spoke in Osawatomie, Kansas. In essence he launched a backhanded attack on capitalism with "the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can" (see: Speech Text around the bottom of page one). This rhetorical flourish is clearly meant to imply that capitalism is, in fact, a free license to steal ... and the baby is now floating down the gutter along with the dirty bathwater.
Interestingly enough, the New York Times neglected to mention this key dogmatic pronouncement in its write-up of this event (see: NY Times's Take). Actually The Barry has said quite similar things in the past ... in particular at the Cooper Union in early 2010 ... which went mostly ignored, I think, because he was still on his honeymoon with the American people (see: The Daily Kos Story). Now, I and many others on the right believe that this statement overtly manifests the key core value that Obama brought into the White House ... which had been taught to him on his anarchist mother's knee and reenforced by his many radical friends -- that capitalism is the source of all the world's evil.
And, despite his Elvis-like-intonings to the contrary, he also seems to view as anathema that bulwark of capitalism, the middle class. He, after all, had signed his name to the Black Value System when he joined Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church which overtly states that "middleclassness" is to be eschewed (see: Black Value System Text, item #8). (One could say, with tongue-in-cheek that, being the President of the United States, he clearly does live up to that disavowal.) In essence his subtle but steady tilting toward Marxism seems to be the "change' he "hoped" to achieve when elected ... and he is doing a pretty good job of it ... by keeping the U.S. economy on life support and then by stirring the class-warfare cauldron with a vigor that would have been envied even by Norman Thomas.
4 comments:
There you go again, tossing a tedius melange of rewarmed linguini on the wall, hoping some of it will stick. By now, any thinking person has concluded that unfettered capitalism equates to unfettered greed. This leads to beheadings and turmoil. Obama clearly is not as radical as you would like to portray him. An anarchist? Did you mean Antichrist?
DEN, There really is a difference between greed and economic self-interest. Read about the "invisible hand" of capitalism below ... and, if you do and understand it, I ask no appology for your knee-jerk comment above.
"As every individual … therefore, endeavours as much as he can, both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce maybe of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the general public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security, and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, [as in many other cases] led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations"
George W. Potts
Adam Smith, like so many conservative ideas is so yesterday, bereft of viability in today's world. Typical that you would quote such arcane prose. But what if your mythical Butcher decides to poison his competition's stock, thus enabling his monopoly to gouge the consumers? Smith refers to individuals' sefl-interest. For big corporations, whose main goal is shareholder equity, the interests of society are not considered, much less promoted.
How does society benefit when the Elite syphon off the lion's share of wealth?
All too often these days the big companies pay too much attention to the "interests" of society (Solyndra, the Chevy Volt?) Even the pre-Teddy Roosevelt robber barons (Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, John D. Rockefeller, etc.) made their contributions to the economic strength of our nation while they themselves were getting incredibly rich. Did they cut legal corners and did they need their knuckles rapped in some cases? Yes.
How do you feel about those billionaires, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs ... oh wise one?
Adam Smith Jr.
Post a Comment