The Economist Defends Capitalism

http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2009/05/the-economist-defends-capitalism

An editorial -- or "leader," as the Brits call it -- in the latest issue of the Economist weighs in on a lot of the issues this Web site is concerned with, reminding readers that "America's free-market capitalism has always been a model for the rest of the world" and warning that President Obama and Congress "risk overreaching."

On this one the magazine has it pretty close to correct, though I'd quibble with the accuracy of the way the story of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is told. The Economist's defense of Mr. Obama from the charge that he is a socialist is also not entirely convincing. The magazine writes: "No true leftist would be as allergic as he has been to nationalising tottering banks, nor as coldly calculating in letting Chrysler, and probably General Motors, end up in bankruptcy court." Sorry, but if the government ends up controlling 70 percent of General Motors, what does it matter whether bankruptcy is or isn't involved? Is the magazine implying that a real socialist or "true leftist" would not let private investors own the 10 percent of GM left that won't be owned by either Uncle Sam or the United Auto Workers? With capitalists like that, who needs socialists?

What do you think of the Economist's take, commenters?

by Editor  |  May 28, 2009 at 3:27 pm Related Topics:  Auto Industry, Socialism receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free futureofcapitalism.com mailing list