Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Obama: "I Have Always Been a Strong Believer in the Power of the Free Market."
In his speech on "financial rescue and reform" this afternoon, President Barack Obama said:
I have always been a strong believer in the power of the free market.
What a coincidence! Reason Foundation policy analyst Anthony Randazzo is also a believer in the power of the free market. And he happens to have a new study out today, from the non-profit that publishes this magazine, chock full of market-friendly suggestions for reforming the regulation of financial markets. Weirdly, his suggestions are not the same as Obama's. Go figure.
Gaze into a highly-regulated future complete with pro-market lip service in Obama's speech, and then check out Randazzo's policy suggestions [PDF] for a wonky (truly free-market) chaser.
economist|9.14.09 @ 3:45PM|#
You know, it's really quite funny. If something comes out of the president's mouth, it's almost certain to be the opposite of the truth.
Tomcat1066|9.14.09 @ 3:48PM|#
I have always been a strong believer in the power of the free
market...just so long as it's not really free. Just so
long as it's free looking enough to fool the peons
provide safety to my constituents, I'm fully satisfied.
!|9.14.09 @ 3:52PM|#
I have always been a strong believer in the power of the
free market.
He demonstrates this all the time, glad he finally said it.
Lex Luthor believed in the power of Superman and was always looking
for kryptonite to check that power. Obama has Congress.
Rich|9.14.09 @ 3:54PM|#
Continuing to study Obamaese ...
I have always been a strong believer in the (silly little)
power of the free market.
@ |9.14.09 @ 3:56PM|#
Of course the Thief in Chief believes in the free market.
It's the goose that lays the golden eggs.
|9.14.09 @ 4:02PM|#
When everyone was trumpeting how well Obama speaks, I thought they were making racist comments about the stereotypes of black articulation, or lack thereof. But, it turns out they were just impressed that he lies so well with a straight face. Shame on me for accusing other of not being color blind.
You Lie!|9.14.09 @ 4:05PM|#
"Obama: "I Have Always Been a Strong Believer in the Power of
the Free Market.""
Bullshit.
Neu Mejican|9.14.09 @ 4:07PM|#
Does this imply that all the "free market" proposals will be exactly the same?
JB|9.14.09 @ 4:08PM|#
"I have always been a strong believer in the power of the free
market."
Fuck you Obama. Fuck you. What a lying piece of shit.
Neu Mejican|9.14.09 @ 4:11PM|#
Looking at the quick "general idea" proposals in the document...They look like a "I agree with Obama that the Free Market needs some regulations" set of proposals that differ on some details about how things should be implemented. I wonder if there is anyone in the congress involved in drafting the regulations that will have a similar position?
Brandon|9.14.09 @ 4:12PM|#
Too bad there was no one in the audience to joewilson Obama after he said that line.
robc|9.14.09 @ 4:14PM|#
Obama: I Have Always Been a Strong Believer in the Power of the
Free Market...
And I want that power instead.
robc|9.14.09 @ 4:15PM|#
NM,
"Be prepared to let them fail" doesnt sound at all like someone who
voted for TARP.
Neu Mejican|9.14.09 @ 4:26PM|#
robc,
My point was that the differences are matters of degree, not
kind.
KMW set it up as an enemy of the free markets versus "a wonky
(truly free-market) chaser."
Just doesn't seem that "truly free market" to me.
robc|9.14.09 @ 4:29PM|#
NM,
The example I picked out (which may seem like cherry picking, but I
spent all of 10 secs skimming thru the article, and I dont read
THAT fast) isnt a matter of degree. It is a difference of kind.
Neu Mejican|9.14.09 @ 4:32PM|#
robc,
I realized that.
I was commenting on the document as a whole, which includes support
for more government regulation in several areas.
robc|9.14.09 @ 4:34PM|#
NM,
My point is, that one issue is so huge, that it overpowers the rest
of the document.
Anyone who voted for TARP cannot claim even a hint of free market
support.
In fact, let me put it more simply: It is possible that TARP is the
most fascist (in the original economic sense) bill ever passed in
America.
|9.14.09 @ 4:34PM|#
Weirdly, his suggestions are not the same as
Obama's
Not really...i am sure Hayek and Freedman could come up with
totally different changes to policy and both would be oriented to
free markets.
I have no doubt that Obama's "free market" reforms are everything
but free market reforms...but simply because they are different
then one free-market-guy's reforms does not make them non-free
market.
In the words of Clint Eastwood's portrayal of outlaw Jose
Whales..."Show me"
Neu Mejican|9.14.09 @ 4:36PM|#
robc,
Which document?
"This is intended to put an end to the idea that some firms are
"too big to fail." For a market to function, those who invest and
lend in that market must believe that their money is actually at
risk."
"So our plan would put the cost of a firm's failures on those who
own its stock and loaned it money."
robc|9.14.09 @ 4:38PM|#
The article in linked above is the document Im referring to. The issue of allowing failure, which Obama doesnt support (quotes dont matter, votes do).
Neu Mejican|9.14.09 @ 4:42PM|#
robc,
The quotes are from Obama's description of his proposals. The quote
you pull is from Randazzo's description of his proposal.
Proposal versus proposal seems to be a fair comparison.
These are for proposals moving forward.
They are not about TARP.
robc|9.14.09 @ 4:43PM|#
TARP proves Obama is a liar. Just like Wilson said. That is why Im using TARP. If Randazzo had been in congress last fall, I would compare to his vote.
|9.14.09 @ 4:43PM|#
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Arguing with Neu Mejican may lead to dizziness, overwhelming frustration, and homocidal urges. Post responsibly.
Neu Mejican|9.14.09 @ 4:45PM|#
robc,
Ok.
So why, then, did you address your comment to me?
Are you saying that you think that everyone involved in the bailout
was lying every time they said they believed in the power of free
markets?
robc|9.14.09 @ 4:45PM|#
All politicians lie. It is what they do. Thus I dont listen to them, watch debates, read what they write, etc, etc. I just follow their votes, only honest info I can get out of them.
robc|9.14.09 @ 4:46PM|#
Are you saying that you think that everyone involved in the
bailout was lying every time they said they believed in the power
of free markets?
Yes.
Tulpa|9.14.09 @ 4:46PM|#
The Santa Fe Sophist haunts my dreams.
I am so glad I can now ignore him.
I was smart enough to figure out how to filter his comments so that
I didn't need to think about them or comment on them any
more.
Do you all like me?
robc|9.14.09 @ 4:46PM|#
If they really believed in the power of free markets, they would understand failure is a positive aspect of the market and thus would never remotely consider supporting a bailout.
robc|9.14.09 @ 4:47PM|#
Tulpa,
I finally filtered MNG recently. NM survives. For now.
He has never proven to be a being or pure evil.
Neu Mejican|9.14.09 @ 4:49PM|#
robc,
Yes, only flawed humans act in ways they view as pragmatic despite
even when that course goes against their beliefs. Only the "true"
believers can be given any respect.
No compromise is ever justified.
/sarcasm.
Neu Mejican|9.14.09 @ 4:51PM|#
Anyway,
WE agree that the bailouts were misguided.
I just don't see KMW implied accusation holding any water.
robc|9.14.09 @ 4:52PM|#
only flawed humans act in ways they view as pragmatic
despite even when that course goes against their
beliefs.
I will grant you the occasional slip up, but they should be guilty
and repentant in that case.
BakedPenguin|9.14.09 @ 4:53PM|#
No, he really is a strong believer in the power of the free market. He knows someone's gonna have to pay for all the fucking ponies he's giving away, and it sure as fuck won't be his union cronies.
Neu Mejican|9.14.09 @ 4:55PM|#
robc,
Well, I view "misguided" as a pretty strong word. But it does leave
the possibility that the intentions were not, in fact,
maleficent.
alan|9.14.09 @ 4:55PM|#
If they really believed in the power of free markets, they
would understand failure is a positive aspect of the market and
thus would never remotely consider supporting a bailout.
Without TARP, we risked 8 percent, and even 8.5 percent
unemployment, as well as three or four consecutive quarters of a
negative growth rate, or so they claimed at the time.
When discussing TARP yesterday of Stephanopolos, an episode so
vapid Will declared Bernanke Man of the Year, it was highly
amusing, but pathetically sickening to see all the Washington
insiders move the goal post so they could claim a victory for the
technocrats.
robc|9.14.09 @ 4:57PM|#
Without TARP, we risked 8 percent, and even 8.5 percent
unemployment
Good thing we dodged that bullet.
alan|9.14.09 @ 5:05PM|#
I believe that if the bank failures were allowed to occur, the
financial markets dispersed around the nation would have ate so
many yummy morsels coming out of Wall Street their strong
capitalization* would have been an impetus for growth in commercial
lending by now. If left to its own demise, the recovery would have
been done at an even greater pace than during the S&L
debacle.
* after throwing up the toxic assets, of course.
Neu Mejican|9.14.09 @ 5:09PM|#
alan,
To be fair, you are citing predictions that were couched in terms
of "at least 8.8%" rather than predictions couched in terms of "as
high as 8.8%", so the goal posts may have been out there
already.
Of course, there is no way to know what happened in the alternate
reality where TARP didn't happen. Maybe it is a paradise of 8.8%
unemployment. Maybe it has 18%. No way to tell.
alan|9.14.09 @ 5:09PM|#
And I agree with you robc that there is no better test when the Revolution comes of whether someone should be put up against a wall with a blindfold and a cigarette or not is how they voted on TARP.
alan|9.14.09 @ 5:16PM|#
To be fair, you are citing predictions that were couched in
terms of "at least 8.8%" rather than predictions couched in terms
of "as high as 8.8%", so the goal posts may have been out there
already.
They were saying they were taking those actions to save us from
high unemployment among other things. It is either vote for TARP or
it is bread lines, soup kitchens, and wearing barrels for you. That
was the argument, and the promise of TARP. At a minimum, they
failed on their own terms that they set for themselves.
Neu Mejican|9.14.09 @ 5:20PM|#
alan,
I don't disagree in broad strokes. Again, to be fair, however, the
Obama administrations "doom" was far mellower than the previous
administration's "doom." If they had used more extreme predictions,
would they be able to claim success? I seem to remember the "if we
don't do this now, we won't have an economy on Monday" coming from
Paulsen. Do they get to claim victory because there is still an
economy?
Jeremy Nicoll|9.14.09 @ 5:25PM|#
To quote myself: As soon as a market becomes regulated, it is no longer free.
alan|9.14.09 @ 5:29PM|#
Again, to be fair, however, the Obama administrations "doom"
was far mellower than the previous administration's "doom." If they
had used more extreme predictions, would they be able to claim
success?
I haven't looked at Obama's speech he made earlier today, and no
Geitner certainly has done nothing as chicken little as Paulson did
last September.
Neu Mejican|9.14.09 @ 5:32PM|#
alan,
In other words, is it more dishonest to make a real prediction that
falls short of reality or to make a wild prediction knowing that no
matter what you do, you will be able to claim success for averting
that terrible outcome? Does the Obama administration get any credit
for using an actually analysis to support the plan rather than some
empty hyperbole?
</|9.14.09 @ 5:34PM|#
Tulpa | September 14, 2009, 4:43pm | #
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Arguing with Neu Mejican may lead to dizziness, overwhelming frustration, and homocidal urges. Post responsibly.
Not if you're doing it right.
alan|9.14.09 @ 5:36PM|#
If they had used more extreme predictions, would they be
able to claim success? I seem to remember the "if we don't do this
now, we won't have an economy on Monday" coming from Paulsen. Do
they get to claim victory because there is still an
economy?
When you control the means of measurement, you certainly can shift
the measure anyway you want, and in fact Washington is
claiming victory where there is no victory to be had.
Neu Mejican|9.14.09 @ 5:36PM|#
Looks like we cross posted to say the same thing in different
words.
Obama does, in his speech, essentially, take the Bush
administration at their word that they had no choice, but uses that
as a justification for systemic reform to avoid being faced with
such a choice in the future.
Opinions will vary on how that is to get done.
Obama's plan will differ from Cato and Reason's plan, I am
sure.
Neu Mejican|9.14.09 @ 5:41PM|#
Not if you're doing it right.
If done correctly, it leads to euphoria, overwhelming satisfaction,
and suicidal urges?
Nah, that doesn't sound right.
alan|9.14.09 @ 5:41PM|#
Does the Obama administration get any credit for using an
actually analysis to support the plan rather than some empty
hyperbole?
Credit for the use of rhetoric and metrics instead of just rhetoric
in regards to looting? I suppose so to an extent that doesn't mean
much.
|9.14.09 @ 5:47PM|#
If done correctly, it leads to euphoria, overwhelming
satisfaction, and suicidal urges?
Nah, that doesn't sound right.
Try:
If done correctly, it leads to euphoria, overwhelming satisfaction,
and homicidal urges.
alan|9.14.09 @ 5:49PM|#
Opinions will vary on how that is to get done.
Obama's plan will differ from Cato and Reason's plan, I am
sure.
Of course, that is a different matter than TARP, and regulation is
usually (but not necessarily) a different type of looting than a
hand out, you have to ask yourself, can regulation be created and
be passed through this congress and the administration without
appeasing the rent seeking of a favored interest, or two, or three,
or a thousand? As Obama was the favored candidate of Wall Street,
and he has shown plenty of cronyism in his mere eight months on the
job, I kind of doubt it.
alan|9.14.09 @ 5:54PM|#
Forgive me for being chatty, close to supper time, and my
insulin is probably kicking in, but this reminds me of a speech
Bill Clinton gave in late 2003, underlying what he believed Health
Care reform should include. It was nothing short of a good speech,
and I agreed with most of what he said. However, once the plan was
revealed, ai-ya-ya-ya.
I'll watch Obama's speech on The NewsHour in just a few minutes,
but in the back of my mind, no matter how salient the points he
makes, I'm going to be thinking 'the devil will be in the
details.'
Neu Mejican|9.14.09 @ 6:08PM|#
alan,
I'm going to be thinking 'the devil will be in the
details.
Indeed.
That is my mantra.
|9.14.09 @ 6:09PM|#
I heard only half the speech, but I didn't hear Obama
mention:
1. Government-backed institutions buying up mortgages was the
principle driver of the housing bubble.
2. Government capitalization regulations that enforced lower
capitalization requirements for securities than for the very same
vanilla mortgages that became the securities was the principle
driver of the financial bubble and consequent deleveraging.
Without recognizing that the supposed protector of the free market
-- the very protector that he is trying to give more power to --
was the primary instigator of the problem, any solutions Obama and
team come up with will simply be wrong. It's a complex problem:
"More regulation" is not the extent of the solution.
Neu Mejican|9.14.09 @ 6:11PM|#
RC Dean,
I didn't realize I was arguing with such a violent group. Given the
non-aggression thing I thought a libertarian website would be a
pretty safe place.
Must be all the Texans - yeah, we don't forget those two invasions
of NM back in the day...we keep our eyes on ya'll and your tendency
to initiate force (^_^)
|9.14.09 @ 6:24PM|#
Speaking of homocidal urges, it looks like my spoofer(s) have come out to play. This is what happens when you try to give wise advice to your fellow man.
Neu Mejican|9.14.09 @ 6:46PM|#
I will now ignore, rather than filter Tulpa...unless engaged directly again.
|9.14.09 @ 6:58PM|#
The post at 6:44 is not me, and using my email address makes the turpitude of your transgression complete. As for the accusation of being "passive agressive" (it's not like you to miss a hyphen, Neu, is something wrong?), I've attempted to discuss things reasonably with him in the past. He's like Lonewacko with a bigger vocabulary to me at this point, and will be treated as such.
robc|9.14.09 @ 6:58PM|#
NM,
TARP *was* the initiation of force. Shooting them for it is self
defense. Now, if it is after the politician has left office, that
would be revenge, but as long as he is still wielding the sceptre,
he is fair game.
And that applies to the lowliest rep.
|9.14.09 @ 7:00PM|#
I will now ignore, rather than filter Tulpa...unless engaged
directly again.
So you admit that you were spoofing him?
Tony|9.14.09 @ 7:57PM|#
makes the turpitude of your transgression complete
There ought to be some kind of rule or regulation.
syskill|9.14.09 @ 8:02PM|#
incentivizing firms to bear the responsibility for their own risks,
Can anyone please explain to me how one might incentivize a firm to
take a billion dollar loss??
phatic fatchick|9.15.09 @ 3:32AM|#
the turpitude of your transgression complete
Where does your passion for Neu Mejican come from Tulpa? You seem
to have gotten bent out of shape over a pretty gentle ribbing after
you initiated the name calling. It's like you are a lover scorned.
It is really embarrassing.
phatic fatchick|9.15.09 @ 3:38AM|#
Although passive-aggressive behavior can be a feature of some psychiatric disorders, it isn't considered a mental illness. Researchers are studying how to classify habitual and problematic behaviors such as passive-aggressiveness. If such behavior is troublesome or interferes with your relationships or daily activities, consult a therapist who can help you identify and change the behavior.
economist|9.15.09 @ 11:36AM|#
"Are you saying that you think that everyone involved in the
bailout was lying every time they said they believed in the power
of free markets?"
Of course. What the fuck about this is so fucking hard to
understand?
economist|9.15.09 @ 11:39AM|#
"but uses that as a justification for systemic reform to avoid
being faced with such a choice in the future."
Unless it includes abolishing the fed and its power to arbitrarily
set interest rates, someone is going to face the same decision in
the future. And the consequences will be more dire. But go right
ahead and believe that these band-aid solutions will work. I've
gotten to where I expect nothing more from the average voter.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245