…this [B.P. and U.S. Government] conflict is really a family squabble. It takes place amid a much larger conflict, and in this larger conflict both BP and the U.S. government are on the same team.
The larger conflict began with the end of the cold war. That ideological dispute settled the argument over whether capitalism was the best economic system. But it did not settle the argument over whether democratic capitalism was the best political-social-economic system. Instead, it left the world divided into two general camps.
On the one side are those who believe in democratic capitalism ”” ranging from the United States to Denmark to Japan. People in this camp generally believe that businesses are there to create wealth and raise living standards while governments are there to regulate when necessary and enforce a level playing field. Both government officials like President Obama and the private sector workers like the BP executives fall neatly into this camp.
On the other side are those that reject democratic capitalism, believing it leads to chaos, bubbles, exploitations and crashes. Instead, they embrace state capitalism. People in this camp run Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela and many other countries.
America is run by two “-isms” – corporatism and socialism. The government from the Fed to the Presidency is owned and run by the large corporations (Wall Street, big energy, etc.) while the government uses Socialism to buy and control the people.
Without going as far as #1, I have to question David Brooks’ assessment that President Obama is solidly on the side of democratic-style capitalism. His takeover of companies like GM, his throwing huge infusions of federal (borrowed) money into failing companies and industries, and not least his sweeping extension of unfunded medical insurance all point in a more ominous and ambiguous direction that’s more like European-style socialist capitalism.
David Handy+
actually, the US has promoted state capitalism for generations. The wealthy benefit from socialism, the middle class are instructed to compete. Occasionally, they get some protections from the corporations who often set the rules and buy the legal system.
We’re still a freer country. But we’re frugal with each other, and generally mean to our own citizens.
#2 – “socialist capitalism”
?
Actually, it’s probably more accurate to use the words “commercial” economy and “planned” economy. “Socialism” and “capitalism” generally don’t add to any understanding, because many conservatives seem to think that Sweden, being socialist, is a lot like North Korea.
Empirically, however, state investment has often benefited non-state market oriented institutions / businesses. They hire private companies; and state employees purchase goods from businesses as well. Never has there been a democratic institution, or a country, that has not benefitted from some investment from the public coffers. I wonder how we’d do if the government stopped funding roads, railways and the institutions that protect our liberties by ensuring that the powerful also play by the rules.