Let's follow up on the preceding post, which discusses the "new" capitalism. Over on the Confluence
-- which I hope will come back in 2014 -- a reader named David Kowalski offered one of those insights that'll have you thinking: "Woah. Why didn't I
notice that?" I hope he won't mind it if I pilfer his words...
I saw an ominous and typical phrase in the NY Times business summary. The story about the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission departing his job said, “Wall Street is hoping for a friendlier regulator.” What a contradiction in terms. Wall Street obviously wants no regulation and merely federal bail outs and economic measures designed solely to pump more money into “the market”, aka the ongoing fraud machine.
When I first got out of college (1974) the business section in the Chicago Tribune covered local and regional businesses. Typical stories talked about new products or new managers being brought in and what changes were likely. They actually covered the effect of the changes on employees and customers. The wall Street Journal did somewhat the same on a national basis. Companies tended to be larger and their was more stock market coverage.
Now, the “business section” is pretty much all about the stock market except for stories about foreign trade and/or foreign deals and “investments”, aka outsourcing or takeovers. Fiat for example just took over the remaining 41% of Chrysler from the UAW Trust Fund (pension fund) doer a little over $4 billion. The deal was considered “fair” by the NY Times and the market disapproved, slightly. That means that the workers got ripped off but less than usual.
The text in boldface tells you everything you need to know. Next time a Randroid asks if you favor capitalism, ask: "Which
capitalism?" I had far fewer problems with the old vintage than with the new stuff.
And why do these "new capitalists" hate Obama so much? What has he done to inconvenience them?