Hugh Hewitt writes that the US is a 70/30 nation — with 70% on the side of free enterprise and 30% on the side of statism.
On Monday, Hewitt featured Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute and author of the new book “The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America’s Future.”
Mr Brooks speaks here:
And here:
. . . about the struggle between the traditional American culture of free enterprise and the current push during the Obama Administration towards a European-style social democracy.
One of the major questions I posit: have Conservatives actually learned their free enterprise lesson in consideration of TARP, the GM and various bank and agency/institutional bailouts?
I cannot say, for sure, that they have.
BZ
Capitalism, that allows for forwardism and progress, cannot be matched by ANY government.
An example: the iPad brought out by Apple, is selling once per every THREE SECONDS.
There is NO governmental comparison.
BZ
Free enterprise allows a Bill Gates/Paul Allen to create Microsoft or a friend of mine to go from a lot boy to the owner of a used car lot. The bigger the scale and the longer in business the greater the danger of oligarchies. My favorite president was Teddy Roosevelt who restored competition. The Senior Executives of large corporations, banks, labor unions and insurance companies have common interests with those in positions of power in the government. They also can achieve a common benefit screwing you and I. That is why I remain a Blue Dog Democrat.
Free enterprise, I submit, must be continued in our nation. As you so clearly point out.
The more competition — as we know — the better the product or service.
GOVERNMENT is NOT in the market to brook ANY competition AT ALL.
I remain a Conservative, but I completely UNDERSTAND your position.
BZ
WS Fool:
I also agree with your sentiment, but if you really want to be true to your Blue Dog Democrat self, you won’t cast your vote for any Democrat who sides with those who want to screw you and I.
(and as a result that would make you a defacto Blue Dog Republican).
Good post, BZ, and even better response to Well Seasoned Fool.
thanks, very good food for thought……
I think last night’s elections show something pretty spectacular…
The “silent” majority seems to finally have found its voice.
Now… it’s time for REAL CHANGE.
(And we cannot let our vigilance relax again, EVER.)
I’ve asked before and will continue asking until it becomes clear…
If this administration was ACTIVELY trying to destroy the economy, AND the country, how could they do it more efficiently?
Fredd: first, thank you very much for visiting, and for taking the time to comment. Please come back, sir. I am also unsure if WSF is truly a BDD.
Z: thanks so much. ;^)
Greybeard: and that’s an interesting question. Do you suspect the Obaka Administration is NOT “giving its all” to UPfit our economy to a more “global” level? What is your take on that?
BZ
Free enterprise allows hard workers to directly benefit… THAT is the American way!!!
Am I a Blue Dog Democrat? I would like to think so. The only GOP Presidential candidates I’ve voted for are Gerald Ford and Mc Cain. A blue dog is a yellow dog that has been chocked to death. LBJ said a true democrat would vote for a yellow dog if he was on the Democrat ticket. Since I vote for GOP candidates at the state and local level, might not be a blue dog. Maybe a blue dog with a brain?
Monopolies and oligopilies have a limited lifespan – approx. 15 years +/- 5 years. This was unknown at the time of TR as the ecoomic analysis and historical record hadn’t been available in-depth…
The concept of a ‘natural monopoly’ has fallen by the wayside: they are transient phenomena. While the problems they cause for price controls are a concern, allowing a market to exist and for companies to fail is a major part of the break-up of such activities. Inefficiencies of bureaucracy and inability to innovate marks the end of such organizations. IBM no longer rules the computing world, Ma Bell was a mandated monopoly, Microsoft is eroded as a market controller in the face of the ‘Nixs and internet apps, INTEL no longer is secure as a sole market decider…
You don’t need federal regulation to favor new market entrants: you need the ability of new market entrants to expand and regulations stops that. Large businesses seek to secure a permanent barrier to entry by ‘helping’ to form regulations that smaller businesses cannot absorb to become bigger. Regulations, in instances of even such simple things as the ADA require small businesses to retrofit buildings for disabled access, which large businesses can easily do but small businesses cannot due to capital investment and overhead costs being disproportionately high due to smaller business size.
I see no need and, in fact, a negative requirement for public sector labor unions: you don’t need them as employees work for the public, not the private sector. Thus no exploitation by government, hence no need for a union.
I want the little guy to have a chance to succeed. He can’t do that with overhead costs being applied by regulations from government. We did not have the major problems with huge companies wanting to suck of the government teat in TR’s time… but when government decides to meddle with business, business meddles right back to its benefit and that is to the benefit of the largest, not the smallest. That must end so there can be competition… remove the beds that corporations and politicians get into together, then get rid of their offspring, the regulations that keep the small business small, the big ones big and ‘too big to fail’.
Let the big fail. They deserve it.