The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

A Further Perspective

Cooperation Is What Markets Are For, Not Governments

By on 7.26.12 @ 6:07AM

Without businesses’ success, who would fund Mr. Obama’s agenda?

When President Obama told a Virginia crowd last week that “if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own,” he was right. His error was in the insinuation that the “somebody” who “made that happen” was the government. Success does require both “individual initiative” and “working together,” as the president said, but that cooperation is to be found in free markets, not government programs.

Cooperation is not part of the market — it is the market. The market is billions of individuals freely associating, trading, and contracting. In his classic essay “I, Pencil,” Leonard Read argues that, “no single person on the face of this earth knows how to make [a pencil].” It is a collaborative effort of millions of people — loggers, miners, truckers, restaurant owners, even coffee producers. “There isn’t a single person in all these millions,” Read explains, “including the president of the pencil company, who contributes more than a tiny, infinitesimal bit of know-how.”

Both Read and the president downplay the importance of any particular individual, but they do so for opposite reasons: the president so he can justify demanding more from them, Read so he can demonstrate that no single person has the wisdom to direct the economy. The economy requires local actors with knowledge of their unique circumstances, not central planners with grand visions. Whereas markets allow many billions of people to “work together” to achieve their individual plans, government allows a relative few to force their ends on the rest of the population.

President Obama’s criticism of markets implies that cooperation is not enough, that he knows better than consumers about how to spend and invest their money. But he has turned economics its head. “[My opponents] think that the economy grows from the top down,” he said in the same speech, “their basic theory is, if wealthy investors are doing well then everybody does well.” Yet it is his administration that demands top down economic regulation, forcing all Americans to support certain companies.

“I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy,” he said later. But government “investments” — known as bailouts and subsidies — are examples not of cooperation, but of cronyism. If he is allowed to bill himself as cooperation’s champion, he will steal the free market’s moral high ground. That no one becomes successful on their own, that we must work together to flourish, that this “unbelievable American system” is what has permitted success should be a conservative and libertarian refrain.

Responses to the president that fail to affirm that these values are actually capitalist values do the free market movement a disservice. Narrow criticisms that note the tastelessness of the president’s implication that government should take credit for business success are valid, but they miss the larger picture — they never undermine the president’s false vision of “working together.” Cooperation requires the freedom to choose, and choice requires markets, not mandates and subsidies. In this way, even market competition is really about protecting cooperation, not destroying it.

Market cooperation deserves credit even for those activities which the president believes government made happen. Government produces nothing. It is entirely dependent on the private success of its citizens. Without these successes, no taxation would be available for roads, bridges, teachers, or fire stations. Rather than citing those examples to take more from American businesses, the president should thank businesses for their success, which ultimately funds his agenda. 

The president’s self-proclaimed values, rather than his conclusions, are what free market advocates have argued for years. Prosperity depends not just on individual initiative, but on cooperation and exchange. Conservatives and libertarians should not concede their values to a president who has led the charge to increase government controls on private collaboration. President Obama is right. Cooperation matters — maybe he should stop standing in the way.

About the Author

David Bier is a research associate at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (68) |

Jack London| 7.26.12 @ 7:27AM

"Government produces nothing"

I suppose all the federal funded labs and universities that have produced enormous amounts of our R&D and leading researchers is 'nothing'. Funny definition.

Gary B| 7.26.12 @ 7:32AM

Actually, the government produced all of these things because the private sector is it benefactor, kinda' like being a patron of the arts, but at gunpoint.

c. j. acworth| 7.26.12 @ 8:39AM

The government funded the labs because of cronyism and rent-seeking. Some congresscritter decided that we were falling behind in some area or other and that government needed to "invest" in it. Wherever there is gov. money, there will be eager hands outstreached. Now here we are decades later and look at how politicised science is, pushing nonsense like global warming for instance. If you are politically incorrect, you don't get funded. Government funding creats a box it is difficult to think outside of. I think it's a shame that so much research is tied to Uncle Sam.

TrueBlue | 7.26.12 @ 4:08PM

Since the money that government invested (thus government choosing winners and losers) was taken from taxpayers the private market STILL was responsible for that funding in the end.

Oldefarte| 7.26.12 @ 10:15PM

Where did those "funding labs and universities" obtain their money funding for their "enormous amounts of our R&D" come from, dummie? Ever heard of taxiation? Where does government obtain their original revenue that pays for these governmental expenses? Does government sell a product etc that generates their revenue obtained? Of course not, DA! Government and its revenue would not exist except for the taxed individuals and businesses. Did Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin etc exist before the original government? Did they not establish and fund through taxiation of colonial citizens the original government? JFC you're stupid!!!!!!!!!!

gray man| 7.27.12 @ 9:14PM

hey jack london, in case you haven't figured it out by now, all those things were funded with public money ie taxes. that comes from the people not from government. there really is no such thing as "federally funded" anything. think before you speek.

TLP| 7.26.12 @ 8:33AM

Actually, Herr Hussein's "Investments" are always targeted at the same group. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS.

It's always Teachers, Police and Firefighters. (The last two, being who were KILLED by his FRIENDS - Bill Ayers and His B*tch Wife Bernadine Dohrn - and who Responded to the Fires, CAUSED by the Bombings of Recruiting Stations, and the Pentagon, by those same two FRIENDS of his, who "Just live in my neighborhood")

He doesn't like Individuality, because he's a COMMUNIST, with the Root Word being - Commune.

He is the Son of an Atheist Communist, and a Marxist Muslim. The 20th Century's version of Romeo and Juliet, only this time: He's on the ground patrolling the Berlin Wall, while she's up in a Guard Tower, scanning the terrain for anyone trying to escape to Freedom, that she might Rip them in Twain, with her 50 Caliber Machine Gun.

He's the Grandson of two Typical White People Communists, who hooked him up with his first Mentor, a big black, America Hating - COMMUNIST - by the name of Frank Marshall Davis.

His Professors were Marxists.

And, I believe I heard that the GUYS at the Harvard Review, that he was trying to play Hide The Salami with, were Communists. They just weren't Homos.

I really don't know why anyone is still spending perfectly good Naval Gazing time, on why the Muslim does what he does.

Read his Books!

Ralph Novy| 7.27.12 @ 2:39AM

Take your meds!

TLP| 7.27.12 @ 5:33PM

Suck my dick.

Purp| 7.26.12 @ 8:57AM

First of all your premise is wrong - our President believes in working hard and achieving on your own. But what you muddy is his message that just as we are standing on the shoulders of the "Greatest Generation", no one does it completely alone.
The furor over the comment, "if you built a business, you didn't build that" was a reference to the roads and infrastructure that provides fertile ground for businesses to grow. Of course, you have bastardized his words to make your point. Why, if you think he's so bad, do you need to lie?
Moreover, government provides the framework for business to start and grow.

Harry the Horrible| 7.26.12 @ 9:29AM

We're not lying. There is NO context that can justify our glorious and beloved (/sarc) leader's rhetoric.

That infrastructure? We built it.

My taxes. My dad's taxes. My Grandfather's taxes. (He also built bridges...). Our employers' taxes. That is what built those roads, schools, etc.

I suppose to that, I should add my kids and grandkid's, yet unborn, taxes, since they have a substantial debt levied on them from the moment of their birth.

The government was, at best, the subcontractor. More often it was an obstacle that drove up the cost of getting things done.

The 'Pubbies need to hang this around Obama's neck and keep it there until he's kicked out of the White House on January 20, 2013.

Purp| 7.26.12 @ 6:20PM

I just told you the justification - and who the hell do you think you, your Dad and Grandfather are? They are the government, we all are. That IS what a Democratic Republic is.
On the other hand, perhaps you can explain why RomBot keeps dissing the Olympics. He's even been told off by the Conservative Prime Minister in the UK for his horrible remarks about London and the Olympics. What a great representative of the people, huh? What's he gonna flub in Israel I wonder? Romney's an idiot ...

benny havens| 7.26.12 @ 9:42AM

When Obama insinuates that I am successful because I used the roads and bridges that the government built, he couldn’t be more out of touch with reality.

First of all the government didn’t build the roads or the bridges. Private construction companies did. And the money that the construction companies received came from the people’s taxes. Did the government play a role? Yes. It was the middleman. Money was taken from our pockets, through taxation, and passed onto the bank account of the private enterprise.

The president fails to understand that we, the people, hired him to perform various functions and in my estimation he is a complete failure. He needs to be fired and replaced with a more competent middleman.

Jack London| 7.26.12 @ 10:19AM

"Did the government play a role? Yes. It was the middleman."

That's a rather superficial way of describing the political process in society - you know, the one where we join together in deciding what, when, where and how the foundations of modern society are built.

Actually, my friends and I have decided to build a freeway just past your back yard as there's a market need - I take it you've no objections.

Jack of Spades| 7.26.12 @ 10:40AM

Acutally, my Congressman/Senator decided his re-election depended on getting a share of the transportation funding for his district so he can claim he "brought money and jobs" in his re-election campaign. Then some environmental group decided that the money would be better spent on a light-rail system. But both decided that my back yard, being private property, was there, and theirs, for the taking.

Jack London| 7.26.12 @ 11:25AM

Jack - there are quite a few light rail projects around now - are you saying they are not a good idea in all cases? And did you not have any recourse to objections? And if you had no government process, how would you envisage a transport system of any sort getting built?

Jack of Spades| 7.26.12 @ 11:47AM

Light-rail systems tend to be money losing propositions, costing more than they make in fares, for starters. Second, they fail at one of their stated purposes, which is relieving congested traffic.

The real problem is that the decision to build any light-rail system, insofar as they are government projects, end up being made by crass political considerations, apart from the benefits they're supposed to offer. In fact, determining "the greatest good for the greatest number" could could be debated for years, which doesn't happen in the public eye in any case. When was the last time you heard any politician tell the affected constituents that their back yards will have to be sacrificed? The costs, or sacrifices, are always downplayed and made to seem like they'll happen to someone else.

Look at California's looming debacle over high-speed rail for a real-world example.

Jack London| 7.26.12 @ 12:41PM

We get the politicians we elect, Jack.

As for light rail, what would you propose as alternate solutions to congestion? I think also we have to accept that some systems need to be subsidized - after all, we all pay for the highways no matter how much you use them (bar tolls of course), and we also don't factor in costs such as environmental harm, congestion etc.

benny havens| 7.26.12 @ 11:51AM

In establishing a republican form of government the intention was not to create career politicians. Its goal was to have representatives in place to carry out the will of the people.

The elected official is not there to dictate to the people. He or she is not there to denigrate, disparage or to circumvent the rules written down by the people.

And they certainly were not elected to create hostility between sub-groups in our society in order to be reelected. The “political process” has turned into exactly that.

Jack London| 7.26.12 @ 12:50PM

I don't like career politicians either. I would argue for term limits throughout the system. But we do need a substantial apparatus of government to ensure things happen like roads get built, children get educated and people are safe.

As for hostility between subgroups, why that is the very definition of politics. But I'll tell you something: we would all get along much better if the GOP would stop trying to raise the taxes on the poorest and give massive tax breaks to the rich, which is precisely what they want now.

Drunken Sailor| 7.26.12 @ 2:20PM

"would stop trying to raise the taxes on the poorest "

Talk about emotional BS! Since most of those so called "Poorest" don't pay taxes and yet somehow get a tax refund, please explain how the GOP is wanting to raise taxes on the poorest?

Jack London| 7.26.12 @ 2:46PM

From today's NYT on latest Senate voting:

"No Senate Republican agreed to support the middle-class tax cut by itself because they insisted that the rich get one, too. (Actually, the rich would have gotten a tax cut on their first quarter-million of income, but, apparently, that wasn’t enough.) Forty-four Republicans (and one Democrat) voted for an alternative bill that would give wildly generous estate tax breaks to a few of the richest American heirs at a cost of $119 billion to the deficit.

"And those 44 Republicans also voted to raise taxes on 13 million low- and moderate-income working families. Though it seems unbelievable on a day when Republicans tried to be so generous to their wealthiest contributors, they voted for a bill that would end the child tax credit for nine million families that make less than $13,300, costing some of the nation’s most struggling households $854 a year. Another four million families would be affected by the Republican vote to reduce both the earned income tax credit and the middle-class credit for college tuition."

Drunken Sailor| 7.26.12 @ 2:55PM

Talk about hyperbole. I could say the same about the Democrats.
"Democrats are going all-in in a fiscal game of chicken, saying they'll let everyone's income taxes rise on Jan. 1 and slash defense spending amid 8-plus percent unemployment if Republicans continue to balk at raising taxes just on those making more than $250,000 a year."

Now once again I remind you. The poorest (your words) do not pay taxes. Yet they still get a tax refund. How is that fair? Shouldn't you only get a refund if you pay taxes?

Jack London| 7.26.12 @ 3:22PM

So - when it comes to the temporary Bush tax cuts on the rich these should be permanent, but the little temporary tax credits for the poorest in the 2009 stimulus should be temporary and ended now. Why do you want to ratchet up inequality even more?

And the poorest do pay other taxes - don't be fooled by the income tax.

Drunken Sailor| 7.26.12 @ 3:33PM

But they are dealing with the income tax in the example you have given aren't they. Interesting how you change tactics consistently. Seeing how what you define as rich pay the lions share of taxes that are being discussed already, I guess it's only fair they pay more huh? You do realize, don't you that even if you taxed everyone making over 1 mil at 100% you still wouldn't make a dent in the deficit don't you? Revenue is not the problem. Spending is the problem.

Drunken Sailor| 7.26.12 @ 3:35PM

And by the way, I did catch your sad attempt to put me on the defensive. I never said end tax credits for the poor and neither did the Republicans. The point was to make ALL the tax cuts permanent. It is the liberals and Dems that want to break one demographic out and treat them differently.

Jack London| 7.26.12 @ 3:55PM

No - the GOP wants to extend the income tax breaks to all but cut the tax credits to the poor. That's what they voted for. And you're wrong about the tax cuts on the rich - since 2001 and going forward, we're talking about $1.5 trillion in lost revenue. There's no reason to give wealthy people all this extra money - our economy has consistently always done better with higher tax rates.

TrueBlue | 7.26.12 @ 4:16PM

The entire idea of tax brackets is discrimination anyway. If they want to raise the tax rates on those who are successful (OMG, not SUCCESS, it's not like that success has ever positively affected our entire society...) then taxes should be raised on EVERYBODY equally. If they want to lower tax rates on "the poor" then they should lower tax rates on EVERYBODY. In fact, to avoid discrimination altogether EVERYONE should be taxed the exact same percentage and most deductions should be removed, the only exceptions being business expenses, children, and charity (since all of those benefit a significant portion of the population).

gray man| 7.27.12 @ 9:17PM

they are not "bush tax cuts", they are the current tax rate. period. nor are they "temporary" any more than any other tax is temporary. think before you speak.

George S| 7.26.12 @ 6:00PM

Jack, the definition of 'politics' is the interaction between people and their government. Not with each other.

Also, there were a lot of roads built prior to the ratification of the Constitution. Bridges, too. Who built those?

What are the 'subgroups' of Americans? New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians? Anything else is just Nazi-like nationalism classifying citizen by... race, gender, economic status, bank account, etc. We the People are All Men Created Equal. Only the Marxist's eyes glaze over at that concept.

The poor and the Middle Class combined do not pay taxes anywhere near what the r*ch pay. Even if the uber r*ch were taxed every penny they earned it still would not be enough to maintain the money transfer to the idle (ahem, fund the government) for more than three months.

So instead of railing against tax cuts for the r*ch, why not try to save some of that money for the poor. For example, getting rid of the Energy Department would save 30 billion a year. That would be enough to pay for a basic health insurance policy for 5 to 10 million uninsured Americans!

And what would be the downside? The r*ch get to keep their money and the uninsured get their insurance. Now isn't that the point of Liberalism -- the uninsured and opposed to sticking to the r*ch?

Jack London| 7.27.12 @ 7:21AM

No! Politics is much wider - it's about class struggle, about competing interest groups...

And no, win-win situation is to keep the Energy Dept and end the tax giveaway to the rich. That way we get the research programs we badly need and the rich - well they are still rich. What's not to like?

Purp| 7.26.12 @ 6:24PM

You sure aren't a very good boss, are you? I doubt you are successful anyway, but you'd like to think so. Anyone with half a brain would understand that no man is an island and no one does it alone. Ask your boy Mitt Romney about that - he said of the Olympians that they didn't do it alone either.
You can choose to be stupid and ignorant or understand the point that both of the presidential candidates were making. They are both right - and you are wrong. No one does it alone. Sorry to burst your little bubble, no brag, just the facts.

TLP| 7.26.12 @ 11:45AM

Everyone of these guys, has himself a Baghdad Bob.

The Muslim is no different.

"You're Bastardizing his Words."

No, Bob.

He's lying through his Black @ss, cause he got CAUGHT.

EVERYBODY knows what he said.

"You didn't build that Business."

"Don't take it. You didn't Earn it,"

"Maybe it's cause I'm so smart?"

"Maybe it's because I work so hard?"

The Lying MFer, got caught in another MFing Lie.

And you can't help yourself, when it comes to Defending President Piece of Sh*t.

And, ya why that is?

Because you're a Lying Sack a Sh*t, just like he is.

But, you already knew that.

Purp| 7.26.12 @ 1:55PM

Your lying to make your point and you know it. It's a well known Rovian ploy to take a snippet out of context and put your own context on it.
Why, you can do the same to Mitt Romney, who when introducing the Olympics at the opening ceremony he said "Welcome Olympians, you've worked hard, you've succeeded, but remember you didn't do it alone... " . My oh my, why is he downgrading the athletes that they didn't do it alone? See how easy it is.
What I left off was ... " - let's have a round of applause for the parents and coaches and everyone else that made this Olympics happen! "
See how easy it is to manufacture what you want - but it's still a lie, either way.

Butch| 7.26.12 @ 3:39PM

The context is even more damning than the quote, as pointed out by many commenters, including Krauthammer.

Ralph Novy| 7.26.12 @ 6:37PM

No.

And Krauthammer isn't to be trusted.

TLP| 7.26.12 @ 3:47PM

And, don't give me any of that "ROVE" sh*t.

I hate that little weasel, more than you do.

So, give it a rest.

George S| 7.26.12 @ 5:34PM

Mitt Romney was not appealing to the lazy losers in life to make them think that by paying sales tax on beer along with buying lottery tickets gives them property claim on roads and bridges, making them the "rightful owners" so that the "rich" are obligated to pay them tolls in the form of property surrender for the privilege of using those roads in furtherance of their business thereby justifying Obama's wet dream of federal wealth taxes.

Run-on sentences rule.

Purp| 7.26.12 @ 6:40PM

No, RomBot was dissing our beloved Olympic Athletes by putting them down. What's next - the Armed Forces? Mom? Apple Pie?
And, just today he dissed the London Olympics, London and the British wondering whether they can handle the Olympics. Even the Conservative British Prime Minister got fed up and smacked down Mitt Romney. The British Press have skewered Mr. Rombot for his insensitivity. Watch him make a remark about the holocaust in Israel. Romney's a dope with a tin ear. He doesn't make one gaffe a year, he does it daily. What a FINE candidate for President. I will sleep better tonight, knowing he won't be.

Ralph Novy| 7.26.12 @ 6:38PM

I think MOST people know who's lying here.

Anthony| 7.26.12 @ 2:23PM

I think I have finally figured out trolls like Purp. It's simple against the backdrop of Obozo's radical leftist concept that all acheivement comes about as a result of the collective state, not the individual.
You see, folks like Purp aspire to be nothing more than worker bees in the hive. They live for and by the state, for what they can provide to the state and what the state can provide for them.
When the worker bee says you didn't build the roads and bridges, he ignores the fact that roads and bridges preceeded government.
When the worker bee says roads and infrastructure made for a fertile climate for business, why is it that at those roads, the worker bees never build a business?
Why is it that it is the achievers and risk takers that have the businesses at the ends of those roads?
And when the worker bee says because (the inevitable retort) you had an unfair advantage, why? Didn't those same roads and bridges go past colleges, and trade schools for the worker bee to create a business?
No, the worker bee aspires to be nothing more than an extension of the hive, and when his usefulness is over, they can jettison his carcass.
Hell, if I knew Purp aspired to nothing more than this, I'd have sprayed his hive with Raid long ago, putting him out of his pathetic existence.
Hell, come to think of it, I still might.

Purp| 7.26.12 @ 6:52PM

Are you on Disability?
Nice little story about the Borg and the Collective. Just as much a fantasy as the Star Trek series. Or did you just plagiarize F. Hayek? Are you a serf?
When you have built a business, worked for others and understand we ARE all in this together, then you can talk. I have, I did, I do - you haven't, you didn't and you don't - so shut the front door. It's annoying.
BTW - I'll put my beekeeping skills up against yours any day, RomBot Boy.

Oldefarte| 7.26.12 @ 10:18PM

"bastardized"? Priceless! He doesn't need anyone to BASTARDIZE his words, since his bastardization was achieved at birth thanks to his momma [and whoever his father might have been]. Priceless, simply priceless!!!!!!!!

Truth to Power| 7.26.12 @ 9:16AM

Our President believes in giving tax money to cronies that give part of it back to his campaign. Whether is proponents of phony green energy or gay porn money bundlers the big O gets his cut. This is Soprano style government with a good dose of false promise and fake compassion. You have to be brain dead or corrupt to think that this leads anywhere but bankruptcy. Forward to Greece, Spain, Italy, France or if it really gets bad California. It is time for a change. Lets send Chicago values back to Chicago.

Tom Kyba| 7.26.12 @ 1:23PM

Hey Jack London and Purp, exactly who, aside from no one, believes that there should be literally no government? And who told your god, Narcissus that there should be literally no government, prompting him to point out the bleedin' obvious to everyone. Where is this staggering intellect we keep hearing about? How can the smartest president ever not make his point more clearly? Funny how you guys are suddenly so exorcised about perceived misinterpretations when you're little pet is on the wrong end of them.

Jack London| 7.26.12 @ 1:39PM

His point is absolutely clear if you read the whole speech and the part in particular, and not keep taking out one sentence.

This is like that Romney ad that called out Obama for saying:

"If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose."

Except what Obama actually said was:

"Sen. McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.’"

When your side has to lie to this extent you know you have a candidate with the principles of your average crack dealer. And I expect you fully endorse what Romney is doing – so what does that say about you?

Drunken Sailor| 7.26.12 @ 2:31PM

"When your side has to lie to this extent you know you have a candidate with the principles of your average crack dealer."

Well considering here are three examples of Obama and the DNC taking Romeney's words out of context what does that say about you?

http://freebeacon.com/three-ti.....f-context/

Jack London| 7.26.12 @ 2:53PM

Oh I agree the other side has its moments, and I agree the 'I like to fire' one is unfair, although Romney's GOP rivals also called him out on it. Two wrongs don't make a right though.

The other two I think are fair: the GOP is firmly on the side of getting the poorest to carry the brunt of the recession (see NYT extract above), and his attack on Obamacare is based on lies.

Drunken Sailor| 7.26.12 @ 3:03PM

And I think using Obama's own words against him is fair. And it would seem a large percentage of the population agrees with me as his numbers are dropping.

Obama must agree as well as he has doubled down and is spending even more time trying to walk back his words.

Guess his going off the telepromter this election season may not have been such a good idea afterall.

Jack London| 7.26.12 @ 3:26PM

So - what you are saying is it's OK to lie to the voters to get elected. I guess what you mean is that as the only way Romney can get elected is by lying, you'll go along with that, because I'm sure you'll disagree with me if I said it's OK for Obama to lie to get elected.

Drunken Sailor| 7.26.12 @ 3:58PM

There you go again trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't hear you complain when Obama takes things out of context. In fact you agreed with two of them. Here I'll provide you another sound bite foot in mouth from Obama.

"In his first remarks on gun violence since the movie-theater shooting that left 12 people dead and dozens injured, Obama reiterated his support for the Second Amendment. But the president also said there should be limitations on guns like AK-47s, which “belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals."

Guess he doesn't realize the US Military doesn't us AK-47's but have had a lot of them pointed in their directions.

Tell me again how smart this guy is. Or am I just taking his words out of context again?

Jack London| 7.26.12 @ 4:17PM

Can't see what's wrong - he said guns 'like' the AK-47, so assault weapons he means. And the AK-47 is I believe one of the most popular military weapons ever.

Try again - this is nothing.

Drunken Sailor| 7.26.12 @ 4:32PM

Wow, I can tell you never served. If your going to use a example of a gun that should be in the hands of soldiers and your the commander in chief, you just might want to use as a example, a gun they use. Not one that is pointed at them.

And as for your "Try again - this is nothing" that pretty much sums up any post I see of yours.

Jack London| 7.26.12 @ 6:17PM

Funny man. If he'd used the example of an M16 don't you think he would have been called out by you for suggesting that our military weapons are in the hands of criminals. And anyway he didn't say 'our' soldiers did he? Again, this is nothing.

Warrior| 7.26.12 @ 4:34PM

Out of context. He never alluded to or spoke about:

1. having been to 57 states
2. bitter gun toting bible clingers
3. actually used the name Asia when referring to Hawaii
4. thinks at a certain point enough money has been made.
5. Navy "corpsemen"
6. describing the Post Office as doing fine when pushing for Obamacare
7. 10,000 deaths in Kansas

If you really want to have a field day, start quoting Biden. He is a moron without equal.

gray man| 7.27.12 @ 9:19PM

were you sleeping when you voted? obummer has done nothing but lie. his only true statement has been that he wanted to change the country.

Purp| 7.26.12 @ 6:55PM

Numbers dropping? I don't think so. You haven't been watching the polls on RealClearPolitics.com, a right leaning site, have you?
With Romney's latest smackdown by the British, I guess we can say his foreign policy experience is up there with Sarah "I can see Russia from my House" Palin.

Drunken Sailor| 7.27.12 @ 10:06AM

Right leaning my ass. All RCP does is average the other polls out there, including the left leaning ones. Check out some of the ones that show Obama way ahead and you will find that most of them poll "Registered Voters", not "Likely Voters". The ones that poll the likely voters show a much tighter race or even Romney ahead. Take that along with the polls showing Republican voter enthusiasm up and the Dems down and Obama is in trouble. Add to that the fact that in over 80% of political races, a large majority of the undecided vote for the challenger and Obama is in hot water up to his neck. Toss in a down turning economy (that never really turned up much) and you have Obama drowning in a boiling vat of voter discontent.

As for Romney and his comment. Considering on day one they flew the South Korean flag to represent the North Korean team I don't think he was far off the mark.

Purp| 7.26.12 @ 6:43PM

Who the hell is Romney that he likes to fire anybody for any reason? You want him as your boss? Entitled little rich brat that always gets his way. No thanks.

gray man| 7.27.12 @ 9:21PM

apparently you have a comprehension problem. try listening to his ENTIRE speech before commenting.

George S| 7.26.12 @ 5:23PM

We read the whole speech, and the relative excerpt:

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that."

I may not be as smart as Obama, but I know how to use my relative pronouns. The pronoun "that" is singular; the plural is "those".

So if Obama means what you say he means, then he would have said: "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build those." Those being roads AND bridges (plural). But he says "you didn't build that" which immediately follows the singular "small business".

Since we cannot have the privilege of seeing his educational records, what are we to assume? That he is:

a) An Idiot

b) Calling as we see it.

So which is it?

Jack London| 7.26.12 @ 6:08PM

Dear George, I see you need a little lesson in communication. Bear in mind that this is reported conversational - not scripted - speech and was a bit clumsy. You will also be aware, I'm sure that the script lacks both audio and visual body language, the latter being a huge element of communication. And then you have to pretend that Obama truly believes that people don't start their own businesses, which is ludicrous and an insult to your intelligence. Don't be so stupid.

You may want to cast your mind back to almost anything GW said if you want material that was actually nonsensical.

Purp| 7.26.12 @ 6:47PM

If you really watched the speech, it was clear the President meant that the business owner didn't build the support system that they need and use. Everyone with 1/2 a brain knows what he meant. But your attempt at an English paper grammar teachers falls flat in conversational English. If you have to explain this much, then you know it is a stretch that you are asking others to believe.

gray man| 7.27.12 @ 9:24PM

it's clear what he meant, it's also clear that no matter what he says you will obfuscate it to mean something else. because you can't see past his rhetoric.

Oldefarte| 7.26.12 @ 10:22PM

"your average crack dealer"? I thought he only toked among classmates in a circle-jerk while in college....I didn't know he graduated to the hard stuff....OMG!!!!!

Ralph Novy| 7.26.12 @ 6:33PM

"Cooperation is not part of the market -- it is the market."

THIS coming from an associate at the COMPETITIVE Enterprise Institute.

LMAO.

Yeah, the market's all about "cooperation" if you define that as including undercutting, overpowering, backstabbing, absconding and swindling.

If my neighborhood was "cooperative" like the free market is, I'd never go out of the house without a flak jacket and AK-47.

Wake up and smell the coffee (that free marketeers have permeated with carcinogenic pesticides and preservatives), pal.

RJ| 7.27.12 @ 5:51AM

Well done, David. Your essay is a masterpiece.

More Articles by David Bier

More Articles From A Further Perspective

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

May 22, 2013 | Doug Bandow

Flatten the IRS

May 20, 2013 | Ray V. Hartwell, III

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

May 17, 2013 | Marta H. Mossburg

Pick Obama’s Brain

May 16, 2013 | Paul Kengor

What Is It About Benghazi?

May 15, 2013 | Andrew B. Wilson

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/26/cooperation-is-what-markets-ar

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|129 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|75 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|12 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|29 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|22 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 3:12PM

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.