If one does not read enough economic illiteracy from Paul Krugman’s Monday column in the New York Times, there always is David Brook’s Tuesday column, which presents the neo-con (emphasis on “con”) view of the world. One must remember that the editorial writers at the Times actually believe that Brooks is a free-market guy.
Today, Brooks demonstrates his Great Knowledge of Capitalism in the following paragraph:
…Republicans could offer the public a realistic appraisal of the health of capitalism. Global capitalism is an innovative force, they could argue, but we have been reminded of its shortcomings. When exogenous forces like the rise of China and a flood of easy money hit the global marketplace, they can throw the entire system of out of whack, leading to a cascade of imbalances: higher debt, a grossly enlarged financial sector and unsustainable bubbles.
If the free market party doesn’t offer the public an honest appraisal of capitalism’s weaknesses, the public will never trust it to address them. Power will inevitably slide over to those who believe this crisis is a repudiation of global capitalism as a whole.
Wow! It is hard to know where to start. The rise of China’s economy is not some sort of “exogenous” attack on capitalism; it is the result of China permitting private investment and entrepreneurship, both of which were illegal when Mao and his henchmen (supported by the NYT editorial writers at that time) were in charge.
Second, “capitalism” has not “flooded” the globe with “easy money.” It was central banking and government policies that did that, something the ancients once called socialism.
Third, the Republicans never have been the “free market party.” In saying that he is afraid that the anti-capitalists are going to “win,” Brooks manages to lay the current crisis at the feet of capitalism without even mentioning the government’s roll in creating and maintaining this crisis.
But wait! There’s more! Brooks then gives us this one, which is full of “internal contradictions,” to use a socialist phrase:
…Republicans could get out in front of this crisis for once. That would mean being out front with ideas to support the wealth-creating parts of the economy rather than merely propping up the fading parts. That would mean supporting President Obama’s plan for global stimulus coordination, because right now most of the world is free-riding off our expenditures. That would mean eliminating all this populist talk about letting Citigroup fail, because a cascade of insolvency would inevitably lead to full-scale nationalization. It would mean coming up with a bold banking plan, rather than just whining about whatever the Democrats have on offer.
Whoa! He complains about propping up the “fading parts” and then advocates propping up a fading company. And then there is the line about the rest of the world “free-riding off our expenditures.” People, that is rich, rich, rich.
As Peter Schiff has said, it is the USA that has been free-riding off the rest of the world, taking their products for our green paper, which they then use to buy more U.S. Government debt, and then continue the practice over and over again. The “stimulus” is just another episode in this same sorry and unsustainable chain of events.
I must admit that while Brooks does not have the academic “credentials” of Paul Krugman, this column truly is worthy of Krugman’s praise and adoration. However, I would bet that Krugman himself would claim that this was a “free-market” column.
{ 8 comments }
“That would mean eliminating all this populist talk about letting Citigroup fail”
You’d think the Brooks of the world would be humbled by their failures over the past years (Iraq, compassionate conservativism etc) to even offer any advice. Not only do they push forward but they do it in the most condescending manner: “Now you know nothing idiots knock it off with these pesky ‘populist’ brayings”
Ugh….. the temerity of beltway hacks these days…
Ah but they and other life-boat cling-ons could always go for more half-measures:
Declare all CDS and other derivatives NULL and VOID. Specifically
by an Executive Order from Obama to the US Federal Courts that they
are not to hear or consider suits for breech-of-contract because
such contracts are beyond federal authority, contrary to public
policy, … or any other excuse.
Then the FDIC cleans up the mess, but US cash only to US banks.
Why pay for the froggies? Are they going to pay us back, or love us
and buy CDS in the future? Risk is risk, and international is greater.
Fine as far as it goes, but there are surely unintended consequences of basically saying
US Courts are baised to serve US interests. The history otherwise is one of the things
that attracted capital to America.
– Robert in Houston
I think its also worthy to point out, and as many well know, the Neocons for the most part were members of the far left during the 60s that followed in the footsteps of Leon Trotsky. They may have altered their ideaology a bit to attract Conservatives but in every economical sense they have and continue to be die hard Socialist and Communists. Brooks, as we see is no different.
Republicans, conservatives, neo-conservatives, etc. (and Democrats, liberals and progressives, etc.) are all just fascists with different fetishes and the desire to be in power. They have no principles beyond bringing their own clique to power and advancing their fetish.
I truly believe that capitalism is a force that can not be stopped, in spite of governmental regulations and rhetorical ballyhoos from capitalism haters.
You see, the entrepreneurs must eat just like everyone else. Where there is a “will” there is a “way”. Genius innovations will rise above all this economic illiterate talk. It is the working class that will push capitalism forward out of pure necessity.
The problem is that if you marginalize capitalism and true entrepreneurship then you dramatically reduce its effectiveness and breadth of use. If only criminals can be capitalists you get fewer of them and their scope of action is severely limited. All the success they have only subjects them to siezure and imprisonment.
Why call Brooks “a neoconservative” rather than an old-fashioned social-democrat? What counts is what he thinks (or doesn’t), not where he publishes his pretentious tripe.
Neocons, conservatives, liberals, and socialists are just labels that bring only nebulousity to the problem and add nothing to the solution. The people in Washington D.C. work in tandem with one another…no matter what their political party affiliation happens to be…no matter what they publically pronounce or denounce.
The problem is that our economy has been based on dishonest money for far too long. A fiat currency that is backed by “the full faith and credit of the United States Government” is no better than a currency that is backed by thin air.
To add to this we have instituted a Central Bank, The Federal Reserve, to manage our economy. This fact alone is evidentiary of an abandonment of free market principles.
These two facts have allowed the disaster, and the ones that have preceded the current one, to evolve.
So writing about whether or not a columnist who writes for the New York Times is a neocon who hates capitalism is just a distraction. Whether or not he molds public opinion is debatable…the public at large do neither read nor have a clue as to the cause of the eonomic collapse.
The cause of the economic collapse is basically dishonest money authorized by the Central Bank.
The solution to the problem will not be embraced by ANY politician because they will have to give up their power in order to institute it.
We need to abolish the Federal Reserve and back our currency with Gold and Silver. The discipline of Gold and Silver will not allow the politicians to institute policies and programs that our Government cannot afford. The discipline of Gold and Silver backed currencies limit the scope of power that the politicians have. That is why they have declared an active war against the monetary metals.
So why are we debating about this Brooks guy when we have more important issues at hand? Perhaps it is just another distraction in the three ring media circus?
Comments on this entry are closed.