Friday, January 27, 2012

Beinart's critique of Obama's State of the Union Address

Been traveling, and no time to post lately. Just wanted to note Peter Beinart's critique of Obama's state of the Union speech. Finally someone with a public presence is saying what I've been arguing here for over a year: the main point that Obama needs to argue, and that the media need to take heed of, is that strong government and strong capitalist economy are not opposites. On the contrary government investment in infrastructure, health, education, and research are the keys, along with regulation that keeps competition fair and the public safe. I hope more voices join in.


  1. It would be nice also if he would mention that banks and auto makers have paid back the loans, or whatever percentage is paid back. I understand for instance that JP Morgan Chase repaid the whole amount almost immediately, that GM has paid back a substantial amount.

  2. Yes, the "bridge loan" that the Fed gave to the auto industry, in particular, is a striking example of where the Fed can play a role in emergencies. And it is the best argument against Romney and his way of thinking. As Krugman pointed out, a key difference of Government and Business is that when you cut employees you must also be aware that you are cutting customers, and the whole economy can sink. So Romney said that we should let the auto companies go bankrupt. And he predicted that they would go bankrupt anyway—which events have conclusively refuted. That he was oblivious to the economic disaster this would have caused, as opposed to the successful bridge loan, is why he'd be very dangerous a president.