Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Defending BO

How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms - NYTimes.com

I think this guy has done a fairly reasonable left view of the "unfairness of BO treatment". Let me cover where I disagree with him:
  1. Saving capitalism is like saving gravity -- it just shows you don't understand how the universe works. Even in the old USSR and China, the market continued to function. It was often "black", but it can't be removed. To think that someone "saved capitalism" shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the way things work.
  2. POTENTIALLY, the TARP (which would have been W and Democrat congress fault), and/or the Stmulus MAY have HURT the economy. Note, I did not say that "I know", because I don't believe that anyone really does.  In my model, tax cuts are a better stimulus because they allow millions of people to decide where the "right place to spend money is". The BO stimulus assumes that some folks in Washington make better decisions on where to spend the money to get the best job growth. My view is that  it is impossible in anything like an economy for centralized intelligence to be as smart as distributed intelligence, and huge amounts of money put into the wrong things may well crowd out the right things for growth being done, and actually HARM the economy. To not at least believe that is POSSIBLE is again to not understand that in the human universe, there is no such thing as "unalloyed good".
  3. The idea that "health care is a positive" is a similar world view issue. Whatever one thinks of the system we had, it was a system that American business understood and knew how to work with. We now have 3k pages of "the unknown", and for people that have to invest their own money, "unknown" is a gigantic disincentive. Again, there is NOTHING that man can do (other than seek redemption from Christ) that is an "unalloyed good" -- but take heart, we are very capable of doing pure evil!
  4. The idea of voting by your stock market is quite odd for a liberal and disingenuous -- Reagan would have been a GREAT president by that metric, but I'm pretty sure that this guy isn't going for that. Markets are about "sentiment of future earnings" and "alternative returns". The markets really tanked AFTER BO was elected, so much of the "worst President" relative to markets is based on how bad the markets felt about the NEXT president, the glorious BO!!! When McCain picked Palin and Republicans had some false hope in Sept '08, the markets went up to 11,300 ... they were at 11,500 when W took office -- WAY different from "worst president ever" -- assuming that one wanted to use such a measure for anything.
Is it POSSIBLE that BO has done great and Americans have treated him unfairly? Sure, I think W was treated EXTREMELY unfairly after say "Katrina". My view of the major BO failings are 1). He doesn't realize he was elected president of an EXCEPTIONAL nation 2). Much of what he has done has INCREASED  business uncertainly 3). He appears to have no understanding that economic growth comes exclusively from THE PRIVATE SECTOR -- he keeps maligning the very people he needs to get the economy moving. I guess I'll stop there ... the list is long.

No comments:

Post a Comment