This article is long, but the theme is one in which I see almost daily. The point of it, which ties in with other posts, is another example of the far-left in the US being the largest contributors to corporate welfare. One may argue that this merely appears to, and the real story is that wall-street has their hands in politics, in both parties. I think this is half true, but I think its important to point out, that whether one looks at the stimulus pushed by Obama for $800b in February 2009, or the bank-bailout in October 2008 pushed by Bush - both times it was overwhelming democrats that were pushing (particularly those on far left) while the right voted against both. This is counter-intuitive to many, as popular culture believes that the left is for the little guy and the right is not, but to me it is not surprising that the modern-day leftist will do almost anything to increase the power of government.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704107204574473450569646952.html#mod=todays_us_opinion
Karl, I am increasingly convinced that the right wing/left wing tribalism is not helpful in relating to the world around us. Objectively, is there any reason to trust you less or more than me, just because your politics is to the right of mine. Having siad that, there are certain polticians and acitivists on both the right and the left whom I do not trust.
ReplyDeleteThat the left in the US contributes to corporate welfare, is undoubtedly true, but when you assert "the far-left in the US being the largest contributors to corporate welfare" you are merely revealing your bias. The big story here in Canada is that the now bankrupt Nortel has cut off all pension and severance benefits to low ranking employees. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/11/26/nortel-raises-document.html I would classify that as corporate welfare.
You say, "it is not surprising that the modern-day leftist will do almost anything to increase the power of government." Surely it would not be hard to find examples of rightists "willing to do almost anything" to advance individual rights at the expense of group rights.
When the financial crisis hit and it became evident that the banks and the auto sector were in trouble, my first reaction was that I was happy there was a Republican in the White House and a Conservative in Ottawa. I had greater confidence in their ability to deal with this crisis than I would have had in a more leftist administration. Both Bush and Harper have betrayed their ideology. Can you tell me, Karl, did they do this because they were wanting to protect the poor [if so when did that conversion occur], or were they trying to protect their rich friends? You may not agree with Obama's or Jack Layton's policies, but in this case, at least, I think they are more honest.
In the Nortel Story above, the Nortel executives have awarded themselves very substantial bonuses, more than doubling the salaries they were collecting when the company was functioning.
ReplyDeleteYou start off with the question of is there a reason to trust me over you. I believe the answer is no, but i believe there are clearly differences of our approach if you are a true liberal and if i am a true conservative. I think they again boil down to compassion vs standards. In dealing with the crisis, liberals believe that the crisis was caused my a failure of capitalism, and as a result would propose solutions increasing regulation and other forms of government control. In the name of compassion, they would enable people to stay in their homes that clearly cant afford to and given they believe in Keynsian economlics, they would encourage government to spend lots of money to stimulate the economy thereby in theory helping everyone. A conservative, would let firms and individuals fail, to uphold the standards of society. They would be against any form of government power grab - even if that caused even higher unemployment and mass starvation as a result of the financial system collapsing. Ultimately individuals, not government, would get us out of the crisis.
ReplyDeleteClearly Bush acted more like a liberal as i describe it above. When did he make this conversion you ask? Well before he became President he was a fiscal liberal (even called himself a compassionate conservative). The right the US has always thought Bush to be far too liberal on fiscal issues. And as a mentioned earlier, it was the liberals that were particularly vocal in support of TARP and the stimulus, while conservatives voted against both. So yes, both Bush and Harper betrayed their ideology, you and i agree on that.
And to corporate bonuses, of course there is corruption. That is something shareholders should deal with as the issue is sometimes complicated. Its not some static analysis that says "$1mln seems like a lot to pay someone at a money losing firm". The owners of such a firm (the shareholders) would pay them a $1m if that individual's contribution was far greater, and by not paying them would result in departure of key employees and the destruction of the firm. If shareholders are wrong, ultimately the firm will fail, if one lets the market function.