-
Neighborhood Watch, Anyone?
May 14, 2013 | 19 comments
-
We’re Still Going Backward
April 18, 2013 | 30 comments
-
Street Level Anti-Capitalism
April 8, 2013 | 71 comments
-
Snazzy Sequestered Screeners
March 8, 2013 | 13 comments
-
Welfare’s Failure Amid Red Ink
February 7, 2013 | 23 comments
Eminentoes
Lemon Socialism
It’s making Paul Krugman even more sour.
Paul Krugman, a top columnist and liberal opinion-maker at the New York Times, sounded like he was tied to the tracks and saw a train coming around the bend.
“We’re doomed,” he cried. “Oh. My. God.”
The melodramatic periods after each of the aforementioned words are Krugman’s punctuation, conveying a picture of himself in a disastrous and rapid developing meltdown at his keyboard.
His problem was that President Obama failed to be sufficiently anti-rich, anti-Wall Street, anti-bonus and anti-banker in a recent interview with Bloomberg/Business Week.
Here was the interview question to Obama, about the CEO bonuses coming at bailout recipients Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase: “Let’s talk bonuses for a minute. Lloyd Blankfein, $9 million. Jamie Dimon, $17 million. Now, granted, those were in stock and less than what some had expected. But are those numbers okay?”
Obama’s answer, expressing none of his previously expressed outrage when he used the words “shameful,” “height of irresponsibility” and “obscene” to denounce bonuses at banks on the receiving end of billions in bailouts: “Well, look, first of all, I know both those guys. They’re very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That’s part of the free market system.”
It’s nice for a change to hear Obama talking in favor of success, wealth and free markets, but Golden Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, both subsidized by the taxpayers and the beneficiaries of billions in bailouts, are a long way from operating in the “free market system.” Neither company, both officially deemed by government policymakers as “too big to fail,” is on its own to sink or swim when the nation’s taxpayers are on the hook to be the bailout backstop should anything go wrong.
“Listen, $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money,” continued Obama in the interview, speaking of CEO Dimon’s bonus at JPMorgan Chase. “Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that who don’t get to the World Series either.”
Asked Krugman, “How is it possible, at this late date, for Obama to be this clueless?”
“First of all, to my knowledge,” continued Krugman, “irresponsible behavior by baseball players hasn’t brought the world economy to the brink of collapse and cost millions of innocent Americans their jobs and/or houses.”
Secondly, Krugman explained, correctly, that “these bank executives are not free agents who are earning big bucks in fair competition; they run companies that are essentially wards of the state. There’s good reason to feel outraged at the growing appearance that we’re running a system of lemon socialism, in which losses are public but gains are private.”
So that’s it, the reason for the “Oh. My. God.” cry at the Times. “We’re doomed” because we’re getting “lemon socialism” instead of the real thing where an allegedly exploited working class seizes political power and systematically expropriates the income, wealth and property of the capitalist class and reassigns those assets to collective ownership, i.e., government ownership, in order to create a more fair, equal, and centrally controlled social order.
And now Obama goes and spoils the revolution, derails the egalitarian utopia, by saying that his agenda is “fundamentally business-friendly” and that he and his administration are “fierce advocates” for the free market.
And then he calls for new nuclear power plants and more drone attacks into Pakistan.
It’s enough to make guys like Krugman lose their faith in government.
About the Author
Ralph R. Reiland is the B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise and an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (55) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ralph R. Reiland
More Articles From Eminentoes
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/25/lemon-socialism
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Ret. Marine| 2.25.10 @ 7:16AM
"It's enough to make guys like Krugman lose faith in government." Yep this is the problem, I have never had faith in gubmint, it's the people of these United States where the faith belongs. Not the gubmint.
These types are the problem everywhere one looks these days. So Mr. krugman has no faith in his fellow man, yeah that sounds about right for a commie. Is it not wonderful that one's opinion weight not on the minds of thinking peoples.
Eric| 2.25.10 @ 7:55AM
Krugman writes “How is it possible, at this late date, for Obama to be this clueless?" about “lemon socialism” in which “losses are public but gains are private."
Actually, it is Mr. Krugman who is clueless, not Mr. Obama. The pattern is perfectly clear in every historical instance of American national socialism (i.e. fascism), from Wilson’s “War Industries Board”, to Roosevelt’s “National Recovery Administration”, to Gore’s green industrial clique: Democrats announce a new socialism to benefit the little guy, but end up giving the worst-behaved big corporations government power to monopolize or raid the taxpayer in exchange for political/financial support.
That is why Tea Party people, who apparently think far more deeply and historically than Mr. Krugman, oppose even well-intentioned big government because they know it will be used to privatize the profits and socialize the risk (e.g. Fannie Mae) – and wreck the free market that creates jobs and prosperity for the little guy.
Mr. Krugman doesn’t understand that Mr. Obama is perfectly happy to speak well of big bonuses to crony capitalists at Goldman Sachs, because the guys are Democrats, who give to Democrats, and help Democrats cement and enlarge an undemocratic, unconstitutional, and unhealthy power axis between big business and big government.
Mr. Krugman needs to understand that in the real world Obama Marxism plays out as corporatism (i.e. facism) and is the opposite of liberal. These people will sacrifice any principle or stated goal (e.g. lower-cost healthcare, full employment) to achieve big government power over the little guy. Just look how eagerly they invited Big Pharma in the back door of the White House to sell out on a dirty deal for poorer healthcare.
The thing that Mr. Krugman needs to do now is decide whether he is a real liberal who will stand with the people sticking up for the little guy, by protecting the system of checks and balances wherein the big boys keep each other in check, or whether he is just another shill for the iron triangle of big government, big business, and big media.
Copyleft| 2.25.10 @ 9:35AM
It seems that Krugman has finally figured out the obvious: Obama was never the liberal he claimed to be, but rather a tool of corporate interests and lobbyists, just like all the rest.
I'm puzzled why Krugman was temporarily fooled into hoping otherwise. I certainly didn't buy Obama's all-talk-no-action approach; I'd seen it before with Pres. Clinton, another corporate lackey who liked to wear a liberal mask.
Truth to Power| 2.25.10 @ 12:21PM
Enron Paul Krugman is also just a tool of corporate interests. Copyleft should vote for Nader next time. It is his only hope.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.25.10 @ 8:46AM
Under Mr. Krugman's ideology all the government need do is print and give a million to each citizen. We all know that won't work. Therefore, why the article? I would much rather read about Marx, Linen or Castro. At least they had skin in the game.
Marc Jeric| 2.25.10 @ 10:04AM
Komrad Krugman, he of the Nobel Prize, is a full-fledged communist with no idea about the free market which he abhors. His articles remind this former refugee from a communist hell of those in the Pravda, Borba, Rude Pravo, L'Humanite,... I'll bet every morning he cracks open the 1848 Communist Manifesto for inspiration.
JoshInHB| 2.25.10 @ 10:16AM
Im no fan of Krugman
He long ago gave up economics for left wing advocacy.
However in this case he is correct.
Obama is clueless
The progs are building lemon socialism that benefits the politically connected at the expense of everyone else.
Financial "geniuses" on WS are not free agents who are earning big bucks in fair competition; they run companies that are essentially wards of the state
Copyleft| 2.25.10 @ 10:54AM
You're half-right, Josh. The Obama administration is definitely working for the benefit of the politically connected at everyone else's expense...
But where are these "progressives" you talk about? There aren't any in the Obama administration--just special-interest lapdogs.
Ryan| 2.25.10 @ 11:57AM
Some of those special interests lapdogs are his czars and cabinet appointments.
Truth to Power| 2.25.10 @ 12:26PM
This is what you fascists do when you are in power. It is really your only choice. The Soviet Union was not a palatable choice so you march on with your corporatist shake downs. Your friends can make some money and you try to maintain your self esteem. How is it working out for you? Vote for Nader next time.
Margie| 2.25.10 @ 1:26PM
Bravo. You live up to your namesake.
Copyleft| 2.25.10 @ 5:08PM
Who are you talking to? You certainly can't mean me or progressives, since you're using (or rather, misusing) the right-wing descriptor "fascist."
Perhaps you're addressing the corporate-interest drones in Washington? But of course, none of them are progressives, as we've already seen.
Do try to speak more clearly. Maybe you should use smaller words that you have a better grasp of.
Truth to Power| 2.25.10 @ 7:48PM
Copyleft needs to look in the mirror. He has become a fascist but tries to use words like progressive to describe himself. Fascists always thought of themselves as progressives for that matter. Our home grown progressives were attracted to them and went to discover the secrets of their success. Copyleft is just a few generations removed but peddling the same stupidity. He advocates corporatist economics with speech codes and laws trying to silence his political enemies. He advocates for more decisions to be made by "appropriate" judges. If he can develop a racial angle we may graduate him to Nazi but for now he is a full fledged fascist. Mussolini went easily from being a marxist to a fascist. He didn't have to move across a whole political spectrum. It was an easy change as surly Copyleft has learned from his own experience.
owyheewine| 2.25.10 @ 10:29AM
I remain baffled by the fact that the New York Times continues to have even the slightest credibility in the national discourse. I mean with Krugman, Ol' Dowdy,Herbert, Rich and the nearly clueless David Brooks, as its' voices, the former prominant voice has become just a left wing ditto rag with no original thoughts in a month's worth of papers. I guess old habits of the terminally clueless eastern intellectual community are hard to break.
JmsA| 2.25.10 @ 11:03AM
A man's dissapointments show his true nature.
Petronius| 2.25.10 @ 2:26PM
Disappointment is the only dividend of emotional investment.
John II| 2.25.10 @ 2:58PM
Well--no. I am heavily invested emotionally in my wife, my kids, my grandkids, my students' intellectual welfare, and my old movies. No disappointments; just a few intermittent snags.
But I love the proverbial resonance of your maxim. Try this instead: "Disappointment is a frequent dividend of emotional investment."
Or how about Pope's "ninth beatitude":
"Blessed is the man who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed."
Boy, those were the good old days, when men were men, and a 10-pound proverb cost a shilling.
Northern Rebel| 2.25.10 @ 2:26PM
Chase and Goldman Sachs funneled campaign contributions to "President" Anti-Christ and enabled the housing scams engineered by Dodd, and Barney Frank.
Of course he will make an exception for his fellow criminals. As long as they're getting theirs, they will look the other way, as the country goes communist.
All socialist countries have a rich upper class.
Karcarius| 2.25.10 @ 3:22PM
Asked Krugman, "How is it possible, at this late date, for Obama to be this clueless?"
Krugman,he's always been this clueless.What you don't understand is that you were too clueless to see it before.
WAKE UP| 2.25.10 @ 3:39PM
"Actually, it is Mr. Krugman who is clueless, not Mr. Obama." No, they both are.
Jack| 2.25.10 @ 6:36PM
Why does the NY times fail to attack the 9 million in compensation given to the CEO of GM ?
GM and AIG never will be able to pay back the billions Taxpayers gave them.
Yet they continue to attack the banks who and earned profits and paid back the TARP money.
Not sure why people care what Goldman does with their profits. They either go to the shareholders or the employees. Either way the taxpayers get a cut.
Radioman777| 2.25.10 @ 11:10PM
Krugman calling Obama "clueless" is pretty funny; he might be right, but more likely not. I think he knows full well what he's doing.
Pingback| 2.26.10 @ 12:48AM
The American Spectator : Lemon Socialism Life just to Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Burkean| 2.26.10 @ 11:08AM
Krugman says Obama is clueless and I responded, "Ridiculous!" But then we agreed. Obama is clueless... and ridiculous.
Clinton Lovell | 2.26.10 @ 1:02PM
Mr. Krugman is screwed because the fallacy of his brilliance and the magnitude of his hubris is being played out and we can all see it. Centrally-planned economies don't work. Mr. Krugman's movement will never be allowed to be the tyrants they seek to become and despite all their indoctrination (which they call education) they cannot formulate a sustainable plan that conforms to the laws of mathematics - only to the laws of political pandering for the purposes of sustaining personal political power. Like Obama and Gore, Mr. Krugman is going to have to withstand a sustained call for him to return his Nobel Prize. Unlike Mr. Obama and Mr. Gore, he will be able to exchange his for the Nobel Economic Ignorance Prize.
Pingback| 2.26.10 @ 2:42PM
you and the law » The American Spectator : Lemon Socialism links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.26.10 @ 2:42PM
you and the law » The American Spectator : Lemon Socialism links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jeff Perren | 2.26.10 @ 3:38PM
Just another socialist wailing about a fascist; the type was a common occurrence in Mussolini's Italy.
Pingback| 2.26.10 @ 5:11PM
The American Spectator : Lemon Socialism Law just to Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.26.10 @ 7:17PM
The American Spectator : Lemon Socialism Litigation just to Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: