News & Politics

Rant

Obama's Socialism (Now in Color!)

Posted 35 months ago|4 comments|1,500 views
Written by
JAK Gladney
Saint Albans, WV
I am not much of a chart/graph fan. I subscribe to the theory that one can make statistics say whatever you want them to say (or, “there are lies, damn lies, and statistics”).

That said, here’s a chart for your consideration.

The pie chart to the left was recently published in the Atlantic Monthly, and discussed at length on Real Time with Bill Maher (liberal bias disclaimer). The field of blue represents the “Percentage of American corporate and business assets not held by the United States government ($39.2 trillion).” The red sliver at the 12 o’clock position represents the “Percentage of American corporate and business assets recently nationalized by the U.S. government ($82.3 billion).”

Much has been said of the red sliver as evidence of creeping socialism (at this pace, creeping is really the only adjective that fits—glacial may be another). For a generation impressed by visuals, the chart is pretty striking proof that, as Conor Clarke has noted, “putting the government in charge of private production is not the Obama administration’s guiding philosophy.” If it were, “99.79% of the American corporate assets that existed at the start of the Obama administration would not remain in private hands.”

The socialism argument has always seemed counter-intuitive. As conservative gadfly P.J. O’Rourke conceded on Maher’s show, if Obama is a socialist, he’s not a very successful socialist. Socialist dictators nationalize generally profitable, low-risk industries: oil, mineral resources, etc. Sarah Palin, commenting on Alaska’s practice of spreading state oil wealth among its citizens, captures the rhetoric of these practicing Stalinists:

“[Alaska is] set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” (again, credit Clarke for unearthing this gem)

So Obama uncomfortably accepted a book from Hugo Chavez (granted, an annoying, towering ignoramus, and unready social leveler), and reluctantly took ownership of an industry that made itself a dinosaur—consistently lagging behind foreign automakers in innovation, stubbornly resisting tougher fuel efficiency standards while gas prices soared. Not very compelling or fearful socialist credentials.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
YammeringBuoy
YammeringBuoy
35 months ago: My god, we are swiftly turning red....
35 months ago: Well done. It is my deepest hope that Obama is not a Socialist. Way to many Socialist disasters throughout history for us to want to go down that road.
Byron Watson
Byron Watson
Petal, MS
35 months ago: Well, as his supporters are quick to point out,
"Jeez, he's only been in office seven months!! Why don't you give him a chance and see what he's really capable of!"
When he collapses the energy markets with cap and tax, I guess he'll have to take that one too. That's a pretty big slice of the pie.
The banks, well that's a no-brainer.
The auto are only a symbol that the rest of the world sees. That's why he felt it necessary to humiliate them in the eyes of the world.
When Chrysler was bailed out in the 1970's to the tune of 1.5 billion taxpayer dollars they at least let them keep their dignity.
JAK Gladney
JAK Gladney
Saint Albans, WV
35 months ago: Ahhh...the banks. This was a long time coming. The government has taken banks into receivership, sight unseen, for years: the only thing that changed is the scale.

We learned nothing from the S&L scandals of the 80's. William K. Black has written persuasively about the crisis. For years we operated on the premise that most of these banks wouldn't assume unreasonable risk, despite growing evidence to the contrary. To give some idea of the institutional dishonesty at work, companies getting "Ninja loans" (No Income verification, No Job verification, no Asset verification) routinely received triple A credit ratings (zero credit risk!!!). Brazenly fraudulent acts like this were the rule, not the exception.

The FBI warned, in September of 2004, of an epidemic of mortgage fraud that would produce a crisis at least as large as the S&L crisis. The Glass-Stegall law was gutted (a bipartisan effort), FBI agents who worked on white-collar crimes were reassigned in the wake of 9/11, and the system cried-out for regulation.

Foreign banks played their part, too. Swiss bank USB--to cite just one example--was bailed-out to the tune of $5 billion, while under investigation in the United States for fraud. They eventually paid a $780 million fine with--you guessed it--US taxpayer bailout money. We in effect rewarded a foreign bank for defrauding American citizens.

I'm less than impressed with the current administration's handling of the crisis--some of this is probably panic. There's genuine fear that a majority of our larger financial institutions are insolvent, and the administration is afraid that if Americans really knew the true extent of this crisis, there'd be bank runs unseen since the 1930's--public confidence, already on shaky ground, would completely erode. They may be right.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.