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.

Comments

[economist]

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.

[economist]

FIRST! HELL YEAH!

[Tomcat1066]

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.

[!]

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]

Continuing to study Obamaese ...

I have always been a strong believer in the (silly little) power of the free market.

[Brandybuck]

Like my Sunday School teacher told me, "even the devil believes in Jesus!"

[@]

Of course the Thief in Chief believes in the free market.
It's the goose that lays the golden eggs.

[Nick]

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!]

"Obama: "I Have Always Been a Strong Believer in the Power of the Free Market.""

Bullshit.

[Neu Mejican]

Does this imply that all the "free market" proposals will be exactly the same?

[JB]

"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.

[You Lie!]

How's that belly button lint thing working out?

[Neu Mejican]

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]

Too bad there was no one in the audience to joewilson Obama after he said that line.

[robc]

Obama: I Have Always Been a Strong Believer in the Power of the Free Market...

And I want that power instead.

[robc]

NM,

"Be prepared to let them fail" doesnt sound at all like someone who voted for TARP.

[Neu Mejican]

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]

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]

robc,

I realized that.
I was commenting on the document as a whole, which includes support for more government regulation in several areas.

[robc]

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.

[joshua corning]

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]

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]

Which document what?

[robc]

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]

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]

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.

[Tulpa]

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Arguing with Neu Mejican may lead to dizziness, overwhelming frustration, and homocidal urges. Post responsibly.

[Neu Mejican]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Haha]

homocidal urges

Careful -- that's a hate crime.

[robc]

Tulpa,

I finally filtered MNG recently. NM survives. For now.
He has never proven to be a being or pure evil.

[Neu Mejican]

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]

robc,

I think, therefore I am a being.

;^)

[Neu Mejican]

Anyway,

WE agree that the bailouts were misguided.
I just don't see KMW implied accusation holding any water.

[robc]

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.

[robc]

Do you agree that "misguided" is far too mild a term?

[Tulpa]

Neu Mejican gives me urges that make me uncomfortable.

[BakedPenguin]

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]

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]

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]

Without TARP, we risked 8 percent, and even 8.5 percent unemployment

Good thing we dodged that bullet.

[alan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

To quote myself: As soon as a market becomes regulated, it is no longer free.

[alan]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Neu Mejican]

alan,

Fair enough.

[R C Dean]

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]

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]

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]

alan,

I'm going to be thinking 'the devil will be in the details.

Indeed.
That is my mantra.

[MikeP]

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.

[MikeP]

That is my mantra.

Details, entrails, whatever.

[Neu Mejican]

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 (^_^)

[NM copy editor]

that would be "all ya'll"

[Tulpa]

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.

[Tulpa]

I guess maybe that is what I deserve for my passive aggressive posts.

[Neu Mejican]

I will now ignore, rather than filter Tulpa...unless engaged directly again.

[Tulpa]

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]

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.

[Robert Paulson]

I will now ignore, rather than filter Tulpa...unless engaged directly again.

So you admit that you were spoofing him?

[Tony]

makes the turpitude of your transgression complete

There ought to be some kind of rule or regulation.

[syskill]

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??

[Neu Mejican]

robc,

O.K.

[phatic fatchick]

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]

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]

"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]

"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.