Economy: "Not Capitalist, Not Socialist," by E.J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post, 31 March 2009
Socialism - A broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.
Capitalism - An economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled.
The Dionne article helped crystallize a number of thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head for some time.
This article made me ask the question: Are we becoming a socialist society? After all, the government is "taking over" banks and "running" large automotive manufacturers.
One thing is for certain, the days of letting the market self-regulate itself are over. Why?
Because the free wheeling capitalist dream we have been living has provided a cover for legalized dishonesty. We have been lying to ourselves. Capitalist business practices have effectively fleeced the U.S. economy -- the world economy -- of its soul.
The financial mess has shown that, when left minimally regulated, many businesses and individuals are incapable of doing the right thing. They are incapable of doing the right thing because the system rewards profit. If the means of achieving that profit are not sufficiently defined or regulated, the process becomes a free for all, and the means to the profit is up to the individual. That is how we arrived where we are today.
Unfortunately, many of these businesses are now propped up by the government with tax payer dollars. And many of the individuals who used to run them have walked away with countless millions of dollars in their pockets.
The funny thing is these businesses and individuals are you and I. We have worked into positions of power within the capitalist model, thought we were doing the right thing, but we were duped by the legalized dishonesty of our financial system. Can we blame ourselves for being successful in an economic system that rewarded dishonesty?
You may say, "That is not me." I disagree, because we have all lived beyond our means for far too long. We spend money we don't have and save little to nothing of what we earn. The overwhelming majority of Americans carry a sizable credit card debt and have very little, if any, savings.
Our financial system can no longer be what it used to be. Does that mean we have to turn to socialism? I don't think so. As always, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.
I also found these articles to be interesting:
Rolling Out Obamanomics
The Price Is Not Right
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Obama's Plan for Afghanistan
Afghanistan: "Obama Outlines Afghan Strategy," by Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, 28 March 2009
On 27 March, President Obama outlined his anxiously awaited new plan for dealing with the declining situation in Afghanistan. Obama made it clear that his primary objective is to create a country stable and strong enough to prevent al Qaeda from reoccupying Afghan territory.
That's a significantly scaled down approach from the Bush administration, which sought the lofty goal of creating a stable democracy in Afghanistan.
Not surprisingly, Pakistan is front-and-center in Obama's approach. In a speech outlining the Afghan strategy Obama said, "Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al Qaeda and the violent extremists within its borders. And we will insist that action be taken -- one way or the other -- when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets."
Additionally, the strategy contains a regional approach. Obama said he plans to bring together "all who should have a stake in the region," including Iran, Russia, China, and India.
Keeping with the theme of narrowing the optic, within Afghanistan, Obama said he intends to focus on government incompetence, opium cultivation and heroin trafficking, and a poorly equipped and trained army.
A few thoughts:
-Narrowing the focus is obviously the correct approach at this stage in the game. A stable Afghanistan is a reasonable goal. Creating a flourishing democracy is much too broad.
-Zeroing in on Pakistan is one of the key factors in cutting off safe havens for Taliban and al Qaeda fighters attacking into Afghanistan.
-A regional approach sounds like a great idea, and makes for great PR, however, I'll be watching carefully to see if there is any traction in actually moving this lofty goal forward.
-Focusing on government incompetence within Afghanistan is going to be challenging. I've seen some reporting that suggests that the U.S. may move to support regional governance at the expense of the central government.
-Stemming opium cultivation and heroin trafficking is a no win situation because drug profits account for the overwhelming majority of GNP in Afghanistan.
-Building up poorly equipped and trained security forces is actually reasonable, and we have plenty of experience to draw from.
In the end, building up Afghanistan's security forces is the near-term Obama plan action item that is, realistically, likely to be achieved and pay the best return on investment.
Also, see:
"Measuring NATO Effectiveness in Afghanistan?"
"Pakastan's Nawaz Sharif: Friend or Foe?"
"Afghanistan Roundup"
On 27 March, President Obama outlined his anxiously awaited new plan for dealing with the declining situation in Afghanistan. Obama made it clear that his primary objective is to create a country stable and strong enough to prevent al Qaeda from reoccupying Afghan territory.
That's a significantly scaled down approach from the Bush administration, which sought the lofty goal of creating a stable democracy in Afghanistan.
Not surprisingly, Pakistan is front-and-center in Obama's approach. In a speech outlining the Afghan strategy Obama said, "Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al Qaeda and the violent extremists within its borders. And we will insist that action be taken -- one way or the other -- when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets."
Additionally, the strategy contains a regional approach. Obama said he plans to bring together "all who should have a stake in the region," including Iran, Russia, China, and India.
Keeping with the theme of narrowing the optic, within Afghanistan, Obama said he intends to focus on government incompetence, opium cultivation and heroin trafficking, and a poorly equipped and trained army.
A few thoughts:
-Narrowing the focus is obviously the correct approach at this stage in the game. A stable Afghanistan is a reasonable goal. Creating a flourishing democracy is much too broad.
-Zeroing in on Pakistan is one of the key factors in cutting off safe havens for Taliban and al Qaeda fighters attacking into Afghanistan.
-A regional approach sounds like a great idea, and makes for great PR, however, I'll be watching carefully to see if there is any traction in actually moving this lofty goal forward.
-Focusing on government incompetence within Afghanistan is going to be challenging. I've seen some reporting that suggests that the U.S. may move to support regional governance at the expense of the central government.
-Stemming opium cultivation and heroin trafficking is a no win situation because drug profits account for the overwhelming majority of GNP in Afghanistan.
-Building up poorly equipped and trained security forces is actually reasonable, and we have plenty of experience to draw from.
In the end, building up Afghanistan's security forces is the near-term Obama plan action item that is, realistically, likely to be achieved and pay the best return on investment.
Also, see:
"Measuring NATO Effectiveness in Afghanistan?"
"Pakastan's Nawaz Sharif: Friend or Foe?"
"Afghanistan Roundup"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)