Thread: Obama wants to reform capitalism

While I understand your cynicism and skepticism regarding Obama, as we have been given little reason to trust any politician in our lifetimes, I prefer to make these judgments on a case by case basis. I try to judge regular people I meet in the same way. I don't feel like I'm any better or have more integrity than anybody else, and I'm inclined to give others the benefit of the doubt until they prove to me that they don't deserve it. Being a politician can be as honorable a profession as any other, and because it is more fraught with temptation, those who manage to keep their integrity are quite honorable indeed. Looking at Obama's history and his accomplishments, he has not shown me that he doesn't deserve my trust. He's managed to accomplish real changes in terms of reducing the influence of lobbyists, and he's managed to work across the aisle in getting his stuff passed, without compromising his principles.

I would encourage everyone to judge their politicians in the same way. Look not only at what policies they promote, but why they promote them, and look to see whether they manage to enact those policies without undermining the reasons they prefer them in the first place. Disagreeing with them on policy preferences is not a good reason to not vote for them, because nobody can know ahead of time what policy will work and which ones won't. Disagreeing with them about the reasons for preferring certain policies is a decent reason for not voting for them, but one can still be wrong about the reasons (though some reasons are just bad, such as that it focus-tests well). But if the politician cannot enact their policies, or if they get some version of them enacted, but what gets enacted undermines their reasons for preferring the original policy, then that politician either lacks the intelligence to do their job competently, or lacks integrity, and should always be opposed. I would agree that Hillary Clinton, and many other Democrats and many Republicans as well fall into the latter two categories, and more the latter of these than the former. But Obama has not shown that he is one of them.

As for the necessity of public services, we neglect that for most of human history, we in fact did not have such services. Public fire departments and schools were an innovation that occurred within the lifetime of this country (thank you Ben Franklin). Before this, these services were provided by private entities, so we know what happens when these services are limited to the private, competitive realm. We have historical evidence. These services cost more to provide, both to the individual and in terms of a more global outcome, and they left many people out. In the end, everybody, including those who could previously afford these privately provided services, benefited more by making these services public. The wealthy benefit, because they can pay less to protect their wealth and income, and they have more to lose in the result of catastrophe, and the poor benefit, because now they have access to a service that previously was not available to them. It is in this sense that public services are necessary, and the fact that certain ends, such as the maintenance of law and order, simply cannot be accomplished by private, competing law enforcement agencies.

Originally Posted by Mike_ratliff

No, the government protects conmen and the like. They arrest them and give them a trial before letting them go. If the government did not enforce these things, society would be self policing. Justice would be violent, swift, and available to those who could afford it, or those who could defend themselves. Frankly neither situation is good. The only thing preventing criminals from running rampant now is fear. Be it fear of the legal system, or fear of personal injury.

The fact that these con artists get away with crime doesn't prove anything, it simply outlines the inherent flaws in our society.

Hyperbole does not suit you in making your case. The government does not protect conmen and criminals. It does arrest them and put them on trial, and it does let some of them go, because we have this principle of "innocent until proven guilty." This is to protect some innocent individual from taking the blame for something they didn't do, and getting lynched by the mob you seem to prefer. It is better that a hundred, or even a thousand guilty men go free than that a single innocent be condemned. The guilty criminal will continue to be a criminal, and we will have more chances to catch and condemn him. But there's no chance to make up for condemning the innocent. I prefer the rule of law to the rule of man. Man is fickle and unpredictable, given to violent and irrational whims, while the law is consistent and can be relied upon, and has been refined by men and women in more rational moods, at a safer distance from which to judge than the passion evoked in the immediate situation.

Without government, the criminal would have a much easier time getting away with his crimes. He only need not be caught until he amasses enough of a fortune to hire his own protective thugs and weapons. From there, he can continue his criminality in the open and he will be safe, so long as keeps paying his bodyguards.

Yes everyone sees the evils of big government and wishes the government would just go away and leave them alone. Until of course something happens and then they want to know where the government is. Why didn't they do this and why didn't they do that. People don't want the government to make a universal healthcare bill until they are faced with several hundred thousand of dollars of medical bills they can't pay then they want to know why things haven't happened.

If you don't like the greed and corruption the follows government keep in mind it is not the government that is intrinsically corrupt it is the private sector that has through its greed corrupted governement. Elected officials who go to Washington to try and do the right thing are faced with this system and either they play ball or are shunted to a do nothing committee where they can't do any harm and never get elected again.

And the economy. yes the problems in our economic system certainly are self correcting thats true. However in this cold self correcting process how many people are badly hurt or ruined. Its not the big corporations. They have their government bailouts and their executives walk off with huge packages. Its the little investors and employees who pay the price. Every economic crisis this country has suffered through has been the result of greed and just taking advantage of things. Those that got in on it at the outset walked away rich. Those that got in on the end of the cycle lost it all. I'll be willing to bet those bright boys on wall street are even now concocting the next scam where they can act with impunity to create the next cycle.

Originally Posted by adickerson0

Shareholders (principal) want business they own to make a profit. Spending money on things like excessive CEO pay, private jets, and marble floors (agent costs) means less money going to the Shareholders. So basically, Obama is saying he wants the Shareholders of a company to make more money at the expense of under performing CEOs. I think just about every investor wants that. If you ask me, running a more efficient business so the owners make more money is just about as red blooded American as it gets. It is about time democrats start focusing on helping investors make more money!

I couldn't disagree more. There shouldn't be a government mandate about the efficiency of businesses. Most small businesses don't show a profit for at least 2-3 years. Industries experience slumps. There are factors that aren't under the control of the CEO. Why should he/she be punished? If he is punished, everyone should be punished for their part in it.

Let me put this into Obama terms: when there are delays or problems in production, the line worker will be docked x amount of pay. Furthermore, this will also extend to issues due to third party delivery problems and issues with materials. But wait, it's not the worker's fault, it's outside of his control.

Really, what is congress going to do? Fine the CEO personally for not having higher profits, then redistribute it to the shareholders? Of course, that would be minus the part the government it would keep for itself. That doesn't sound American at all. In fact, that sounds quite un-American.

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

I couldn't disagree more. There shouldn't be a government mandate about the efficiency of businesses. Most small businesses don't show a profit for at least 2-3 years. Industries experience slumps. There are factors that aren't under the control of the CEO. Why should he/she be punished? If he is punished, everyone should be punished for their part in it.

Let me put this into Obama terms: when there are delays or problems in production, the line worker will be docked x amount of pay. Furthermore, this will also extend to issues due to third party delivery problems and issues with materials. But wait, it's not the worker's fault, it's outside of his control.

Really, what is congress going to do? Fine the CEO personally for not having higher profits, then redistribute it to the shareholders? Of course, that would be minus the part the government it would keep for itself. That doesn't sound American at all. In fact, that sounds quite un-American.

How about we fine the CEOs when we find that the reason the company's gone belly up is because the CEO and other executive officers have been raiding the company's coffers to pad their own private bank account? You know, engaging in the sort of fraudulent practices and short term stupidity as that which brought down Enron and Bear Sterns? I don't think anyone's mandating that a company must turn a profit, but that the contractual obligation which requires CEOs to maximize shareholder profits (for all shareholders, not just themselves) in publicly traded companies actually be enforced.

I believe we already have laws against that sort of activity and those executives found themselves in jail.

The problem is that those laws are not rigorously enforced, and the oversight agencies have been stripped of power. That was an executive (read: George W. Bush) decision, defended and supported by Republican legislators. And the executives of Bear Stearns were not prosecuted, they were bailed out with taxpayer money, while poor and middle class Americans who acted in good faith are losing their homes.

I'll begin to believe in a bigger government when it begins to provide me with any sevices. I live in an area where I pull my water from a well, have a septic system, and pay a private company for my electric power and pay for another to take my trash away. The nearest emergancy services are more than ten minutes away by the nearest road and my neighbors and I have just had to petition the county and threaten suit to get them to keep that road passable.

Someone please tell me where my taxes are going.

That may well be, but that doesn't require new laws. That requires government agencies to be required to do their jobs, something congress is supposed to do. If Obama, Clinton, and McCain can't get the job done in the capacity they're best able to do it in, why should we elect them?

Where I will agree is that there needs to be more regulations as to the mortgage industry. There are many good people truly getting screwed over by seedy mortgage companies. However, that's just another failing of our current candidates. The president's job isn't to propose and set these agendas. If these senators can't get their job done in their Constitutionally created role, why give them presidency? Oh, that's right, so they can abuse that role too with complete disregard for the Constitution.

You can require them all you want, but if the executive orders them not to comply, then they have no choice. The Attorney General's office is part of the Executive Branch, and must follow Executive orders, both formal and informal ones. Congress as an entire body has lacked the political will to force Bush to enforce the law as written, and even lacks the political will to censure him (let alone impeach him) when he overtly flouts and violates laws on the books. Their only enforcement mechanism aside from these things (and let's face it, censure is not even a slap on the wrist) is an arcane procedure called "inherent contempt" that hasn't been done since the 30's. This lack of will comes down to two things: Republicans who will not allow it to happen, and Democrats who are too cowardly to believe that the people will have their backs if they attempt it anyway. Neither side is good here, but those who go out of their way to protect such criminality are worse than those who don't stand up and stop it out of fear and ignorance. Democrats are merely cowards who deserve to lose elections. Republicans are criminals, many of whom deserve the death penalty for aiding and abetting treason and crimes against humanity. And regarding Obama, nobody can expect a junior Senator in his first term to be able to set the Senate's agenda. That he has managed to get passed what he has is exceptional, and it is unfair to place the failures of others onto his shoulders.

And I'm not so certain new laws are not needed, especially laws that establish the independence of enforcement agencies from the political agenda of any particular Executive.