He was trying to make the same point that Elizabeth Warren made a while back — that anyone who is successful in American is successful in part because of the work of others — building roads, providing a stable system of law and order, educating the people hired to work, etc. etc. At the core, we have a banal truth that everyone can agree with. But there are differences in emphasis and outright misstatement that can pop up and look horrible taken out of context.
Here's how Warren put it:
You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.Now, that was really well put, a plain spoken statement of the truth, with a passionate edge that spins some listeners toward the idea of higher taxes for the rich and irritates the hell out of those who hear the power of these words and can't point to any actual misstatement.
And then there's Obama:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.The boldface part is a blunder. He couldn't have meant to say that, and he must be really sorry he did. He's got the core idea there: You got some help. Then, in the blunder, he needed a few more words: If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that alone. Somebody else must have helped you make that happen. Anyone who likes Obama can say, in context, you can tell these additional words are implied. Someone more neutral — me, perhaps! — would say, obviously those additional words were intended, but it was nevertheless revealing that he let it slip out in that form. We learn something about his orientation toward business, government, individual achievement, and the collective, and we should pay attention to that. And anyone who opposes Obama is going to nail him with these words, using them for humorous effect over and over again.
A Google search for "'you didn't build that' obama" turns up 485,000 results. An image search turns up many visual jokes.
Here's a useful website that somebody
Posts
242 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 242 of 242Sorry for the double post. First time commenter
CWJ,
"Warren's statement sucks as well. ... As stated, it is not the banal truth you claim."
Agreed. More importantly, the infrastructure that makes profitable businesses possible exists whether or not somebody gets off the couch, works hard, takes risk, and creates something. What Warren (and perhaps Ann) doesn't understand is that a profitable, legal business is win-win by definition. Society benefits regardless of how much the entrepreneur makes for himself. So who owes society more - the entrepreneur who enriched society while enriching himself or the couch potato, who merely enjoyed some of the fruits harvested by the entrepreneurs?
Most of us who have built businesses have done so despite government at every level placing fire hoops in front of us.
they were all interchangable parts
Except that Cadillac got there first and won a Dewar Trophy for it in 1908. The Germans didn't even enter the contest.
Curiously, Henry Ford had briefly been a part of its precursor company. Henry and Wilfred Leland, the father & son who took over and ran Cadillac from 1902-1917, then started Lincoln, which was shortly thereafter bought by Ford.
"For once, we have a presidential campaign which is becoming very close to a referendum on fundamental philosophical differences."
Do you really discern any fundamental differences between Obama and Romney...campaign rhetoric aside?
"Capitalism is a mutually beneficial transaction. Not only does the business owner benefit from the exchange, but the consumer benefits from the purchase, because the product is cheaper, better, or new, and serves them."
Except when the business sell adulterated goods or products of poor quality that may endanger the health or safety of the consumers, or when the business misrepresents value and overcharges or outright cheats the consumers, or when businesses engage in practices that poison the environment or are abusive of employees.
"If the business didn't serve people in some way they'd be out of business (unless propped up by the Gov't)."
Or unless they have established a monopoly or have essentially bought government in order to received preferential treatment.
Look, capitalism is just one economic system, very dynamic, propulsive, responsible for revolutionary change in technology, society, etc. And very productive and even beneficial in many ways. But, as with healthy cells in a body that become cancerous and begin growing out of control, destroying surrounding tissue and organs, capitalism not reigned in not only can be but is very destructive.
I left out, of course, that the prerogatives of capitalism have led to genocide, enslavement of human beings, impoverishment, and war.
Capitalism must be tightly reined in by government to protect the public from the consequences of bad behavior by capitalists.
Robert Cook,
Except when the business sell adulterated goods or products of poor quality that may endanger the health or safety of the consumers, or when the business misrepresents value and overcharges or outright cheats the consumers, or when businesses engage in practices that poison the environment or are abusive of employees.
Government does this more often and to a greater degree because it can force people to do the things it wants at the barrel to of a gun. In free market capitalism only mutually non-coercive transactions take place.
Look, capitalism is just one economic system
It is the only economic system that ever improved the lot of the average man and the poor.
capitalism not reigned in not only can be but is very destructive.
It hasn't been in the history of capitalism. In fact, as capitalism innovates ever more, technologies get cleaner. You know what is incredibly destructive, when not reigned in? Government. Ever seen how Soviet Russians lived? Or any of the eastern block under cancerous government?
Your fear of the private sector is irrational, especially when there is ample evidence that the prime mover of human misery throughout history has been government.
I left out, of course, that the prerogatives of capitalism have led to genocide, enslavement of human beings, impoverishment, and war.
Never has capitalism led to any of these things. ALL of these things existed thoughout all of human history. The frequency and severity of all have declined in the last 300 years as capitalism spread.
Robert Cook
I guess you missed the part about Gov't "overseeing the integrity of the transaction" That includes distortions like monopolies.
I thought communism and national socialism caused most of the genocide in the last century
I know you can't handle the fact that capitalism is the natural order. You want something you have to pay for it. You work for someone, you want to get paid for it. In both cases, in a fair exchange, both parties benefit. Your idea of capitalism is a cartoon
Robert Cook,
The decline in human slavery is due to capitalists' efforts. Capitalists recognize the dignity of their fellow man and took efforts to end slavery. The global slave trade was effectively ended due to capitalist England. And slavery was ended in the US by the capitalist north.
In addition to recognizing the dignity of their fellow man, it's easy to see that it's far more profitable to trade for mutual benefit, than to use martial tactics to enslave people and keep them enslaved.
Now, that was really well put, a plain spoken statement of the truth,
It was sneeringly put, not well stated, and there was no goodwill in it whatever. It was a dismissal, a condescention, worse even than Warren's big-butted You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: snivel, where all that follows the BUT is calculated to point out the entrepreneur as a parasite who's getting too big for his britches.
One of the beauties of the American republic is that people can voluntarily join together in mutual-benefit schemes such as roads. But Warren and Obama have both crossed the 'voluntary' line, with their machine-politics approach in which they - as government superiors of mere entrepreneurs - are making a cloaked claim for a payoff of fealty, if not outright baksheesh.
Obamacare and the Revenge of the "Secret Constitution"
A forceful and well-stated argument regarding the evils of government.
See? I'm bipartisan...government and unleashed capitalism are both inimical to human liberty.
Robert Cook
"Or unless they have established a monopoly or have essentially bought government in order to received preferential treatment"
U-cough-m Solyndra ring a bell.
That is the problem with our Gov't now. Both parties. That is why I'm a Tea partier. To take over the easiest party available. No crony capitalism! Our representives to live under the laws they enact.
I hate to rain on your parade, but you want "rein" as on horsies, not "reign" as do kings.
the prerogatives of capitalism have led to genocide, enslavement of human beings, impoverishment, and war.
That was greedy and power-hungry men--do you think they'll just disappear if capitalism and the wealth it creates do?
the prerogatives of capitalism have led to genocide, enslavement of human beings, impoverishment, and war.
the prerogatives of native tribalism have led to genocide, enslavement of human beings, impoverishment, and war.
the prerogatives of imperialism have led to genocide, enslavement of human beings, impoverishment, and war.
the prerogatives of Atilla the Hun have led to genocide, enslavement of human beings, impoverishment, and war.
the prerogatives of heredetary monarchy have led to genocide, enslavement of human beings, impoverishment, and war.
the prerogatives of mohammed have led to genocide, enslavement of human beings, impoverishment, and war.
the prerogatives of genghis khan have led to genocide, enslavement of human beings, impoverishment, and war.
the prerogatives of Pharoism have led to genocide, enslavement of human beings, impoverishment, and war.
the prerogatives of National socialism have led to genocide, enslavement of human beings, impoverishment, and war.
the prerogatives of Hernando Cortez have led to genocide, enslavement of human beings, impoverishment, and war.
the prerogatives of Moctezuma have led to genocide, enslavement of human beings, impoverishment, and war.
the prerogatives of Pope Alexander VI have led to genocide, enslavement of human beings, impoverishment, and war.
the prerogatives of Alexander the Great have led to genocide, enslavement of human beings, impoverishment, and war.
the prerogatives of Switzerland have led to the invention of the coo koo clock.
Oh, and the prerogatives of Marx,Lenin,Trotsky,Stalin,Khrustchez,Brezhnev,Andropov,Mao,Ho Chi Mihn,Pol Pot, Castro and whatever the fuck you believe in,lead to genocide, enslavement of human beings, impoverishment, and war.
I can't believe that people still exist that are unable to grasp the obvious on this subject, and who would openly admit it and argue the point. After the history of the 20th century, if you still think the free market is the dangerous idea, you simply have neither an open mind nor a feeling heart.
When you see people argue this stuff it is like they just ignore the evidence and then, as someone above put it, see a cartoonish version of capitalism and argue against it.
But, even that cartoon is better than the reality of the history of collectivism and overbearing centralized government, which is still worse than anything human imagination in fiction has come up with.
Don't you see that all the human evil you hate when it's done by capitalists is magnified and infinite under an all-powerful central government which has not only economic power, but legal, and physical power by force on top of it?
It's power you hate, and the rest of us agree with you on that, so why can't we all agree to not give the people making laws and commanding the military any more of it than we have to? You can't control citizens by giving a few of them exceptional power over all the rest any more than strapping explosives on a bull would make it better in a china shop. Think about the long-term result of what you espouse. It really only goes one way, every time it's tried, because power corrupts every time. We understand the things you want to prevent, but there are better ways, and empowering a few is simply not worth the cost to the many.
"Losers like you claim these people are nothing special to suckle your petty wounded pride for not having done anything close to as meaningful or valuable as the people you rage against. It is a way for you feel better to think that you're not really a loser, that it's everyone else's fault, just as the people you mention aren't winners, it's everyone else's fault.
Grow up, child"
You nailed it, Ken. C-fudd pretends to be a "conservative" but at heart he has the left-wing mentality of bitterness and resentment towards anyone of accomplishment.
I would argue that without Jobs's specific vision upon his return to Apple the company itself would no longer be in existence today.
"I would argue that without Jobs's specific vision upon his return to Apple the company itself would no longer be in existence today."
That is overwhelmingly self-evident to anyone with a clue, a cohort that obviously excludes C-fudd.
@AA He couldn't have meant to say that
What Shanna said in the first comment.
And you liked what Warren said, but she was off also ... because the entrepreneur himself/herself helped pay for the roads also. And at some stage in our country's devolement there were no "roads" and people still made things and made things happen.
These people just can not let go of the Group Think.
Obama has a strange habit of misspeaking, which is itself strange because we've been told over and over again how eloquent he is. So either his fans are wrong about his eloquence, or they're wrong about what he believes.
Personally, I think he meant every word of what he said. I think he was going further than Warren's comments, and meant to go further. I think that's far more likely than him misspeaking.
Blunder? Sure. But only because for once he revealed the truth about what he thinks of American small business owners. Just as he didn't misspeak in 2008 when he railed against those clinging to guns and religion. Every once in a while he says what he thinks, the rest of the time is lying and obfuscation. Which, by the way, isn't all that unusual for a politician. It's just that for some odd reason some people find themselves incapable of recognizing a baldfaced liar when he's staring them in the face.
"That was greedy and power-hungry men--do you think they'll just disappear if capitalism and the wealth it creates do?"
Uh, no, but if you read my post, you'll note I nowhere call for the abolition of capitalism. I do advocate for close and rigorous regulation of the practices of capitalists to protect the public from the negative consequences of of bad acts of those greedy men.
"Oh, and the prerogatives of Marx,Lenin,Trotsky,Stalin,Khrustchez,Brezhnev,Andropov,Mao,Ho Chi Mihn,Pol Pot, Castro and whatever the fuck you believe in,lead to genocide, enslavement of human beings, impoverishment, and war."
I guess it's good, then, that that I don't believe in the prerogatives of these men. (Although, I'll point out, not all of these men are the same as all the others.)
But this brings up a good point: humans are greedy. Greedy for wealth, status, and power. Whatever the economic or political system, human nature abides, and thus, regulation by humans of the behavior of other humans will always be necessary. Those who claim capitalists should have minimal regulation at most, that the mythical "free market" should have no impediments, are as self-deluded and utopian as any follower of Stalin or Pol Pot. Pointing out the ills of capitalism and calling for regulatory correctives to some of those ills is hardly to advocate for the abolition of capitalism.
But then, humans are so habituated to a binary view of life-- black/white, this/that, either/or--that we're as blinkered as carriage horse, and thus do the wars of Teh Stupid go on.
Did you read the blog column I linked to at 10:00 pm? I hardly fail to recognize the dangers and the evil done by unimpeded government power. It will be the tendency of ALL governments to move toward tyranny, and thus the people must be a check on government just as government must be a check on those who would prey on the people.
Rather than viewing any economic or political system as good, and all others as bad, we must recognize that ALL systems, being arranged and managed by humans, are bad, or potentially so. Rather than cheering for OUR team and sneering at all others, like soccer hooligans, we should always ruthlessly examine the systems in which and under which we live, to search for and hopefully prevent nascent ills from growing into the "natural order," which is not, as someone said, "capitalism," but which is tyranny by some men over other men.
Cook,
Do I discern a difference between the two men, rhetoric aside?
Yes, and it's not that small.
Obama is a committed statist-collectivist. His version of leftism has tinges of corporatism, but his basic philosophy is one of sacrifice of the individual to the collective (in his case, the state).
Romney is a modern Deweyan pragamatist (and I don't intend that as a complement), with a somewhat individualistic "sense of life". He has a pre-rational "belief" in the sovereignty of the individual.
But, my real point is not that the candidate choice is important. My point is that, because of Obama's commitment to his philosophy (where all men retreat when they are somewhat desperate), the rhetoric _will_ present an important choice to the electorate. Because of Obama's relative consistency, Romney's speech writers (some of whom obviously do understand the rational basis for pro-individualism), will be able to paint his campaign philosophically, as well. And thus, the election will be more about philosophy than any in my lifetime (even Reagan-Carter).
That is all to the good.
Robert Cook,
Rather than viewing any economic or political system as good, and all others as bad, we must recognize that ALL systems, being arranged and managed by humans, are bad, or potentially so.
This is patently false, unless you define 'good' in some weird way. Communism can only be 'good' if you think forced work and political control of most aspects of you life, under the penalty of death, is 'good'. Read Capital and The Communist Manifesto. They are based on forcibly over throwing the current system, whatever that might be, and enforcing a grotesque order through a police state.
The reality is that free market capitalism is the ONLY system in the history of mankind that has actually done any good. None of the alternatives have. While there is potentially some small harm done by this system, the trade offs and actual, empirically confirmed benefits far out way them.
There is only potential harm from communism, with no potential for good. Socialism isn't any better.
The above is true because free market capitalism is the ONLY system based on non-coercion and cooperation. All others are based on some form of command and control using the police state to enforce politically preferred outcomes.
Pure Ayn Rand fantasy world stuff. There were mass assembly lines elsewhere and the Germans actually had the 1st good gas-powered autos and they were all interchangable parts and were gearing up for assembly lines.
Ford was just the first here, and he AND HIS TEAM OF ENGINEERS and EFFECIENCY EXPERTS created a nice system.
No Ford, someone else would have done it.
Fucking Steve Jobs was just one of 20 or so key players that started up Apple.
No Apple, you would have had a cast of 20 other people doing the same start up scheme within years and Kumquat or Squash company would have made the products.
These are TECHNOLOGIES that opened new consumer markets.
I give you a classic Ayn Randian quote credit:
"Without Carrier there would be no air conditioning".
Do you really fucking think Carrier invented refrigeration??? That one Great Man of History? No one else..or that in 150 years someone else would not have figured out how to mass produce industrial, business, and home AC?
Without realizing it, you've proved my point.
Who's vision was it, Cedarford, that brought all those disparate thing together to build a cheap auto that a farmer or mechanic could own. That was his vision, a cheap automobile.
Wozniac and Jobs, Cedarford. Just Wozniac and Jobs. The idea was to build and sell a computer for eggheads and hobbiests. like the Altair 4000.
Carrier invented air conditioning, not refridgeration. Air conditioning takes the humidity out of air, but doesn't freeze it. Prior to his invention blocks of ice were placed in front of fans. Cooling the air, but doing nothing about humidity. If you can remove the water from the air and drop the airtemp just 10 degrees in relation to the outside air you get the impression of being much cooler.
Edison didn't actually build most of the things he patented, but he made it possible for those things to happen.
Goddard didn't invent rockets, but he proved liquid rockets could work.The trip to the moon went through his efforts.
The Wright Brothers. Everybody was out there trying to do it, but they did it.
John Browning
Vernier
"Oh. If they hadn't done it, eventually somebody else would"
If Michael Angelo didn't paint the Cistine Chaple ceiling somebody else would have
Yes. but "somebody else" didn't. They did.
Well, Ken, you're a robot, locked into the binary black/white, off/on, right/wrong mindset. Reality is vaster, more variable, and more slippery than the reality tunnel in which you reside.
"...free market capitalism is the ONLY system based on non-coercion and cooperation. All others are based on some form of command and control using the police state to enforce politically preferred outcomes."
Obviously, you're not looking at the world as it is.
A proposal for Mr. Cook:
Form a commune. If socialism is so wonderful, more and more people will want to join. Eventually everyone will join and voilà you have a socilist country!
The problem of course is that highly productive people will not usually agree to join communes. Hence the need for force and the reason socialist states always degenerate into police states.
dbp is apparently another person who does not read for comprehension but only for confirmation of his/her biases.
Robert Cook,
Reality is vaster, more variable, and more slippery than the reality tunnel in which you reside.
The set of binary strings is uncountable. The idea that sets of binary systems are not variable or complex only shows your lack of undertanding of the world.
Obviously, you're not looking at the world as it is.
Okay, tell me what other systems besides capitalism improved the lives of the common man and the poor. That you haven't so far really doesn't bode well for your claim that other systems can be chosen and still do good. I notice that you always keep it vague only mentioning "alternatives", but never say which specific alternatives do these things and how.
Robert Cook said...
Well, Ken, you're a robot, locked into the binary black/white, off/on, right/wrong mindset. Reality is vaster, more variable, and more slippery than the reality tunnel in which you reside.
When you can't refute the facts, blame the other guys intelligence.
I'm beginning to think, Bob, that you aren't an honest broker in this market place of ideas.
At what university are you currently filling young minds with dross?
"When you can't refute the facts, blame the other guys intelligence."
Pointing out that someone is subject to binary thinking is not a slur on his or her intelligence; this is a learned habit of mind common in many societies, including ours, and very intelligent people are no less prone to it than those of lesser intelligence.
"At what university are you currently filling young minds with dross?"
No need to be fear for our young...I'm not a teacher of any kind, any where.
"Okay, tell me what other systems besides capitalism improved the lives of the common man and the poor."
I was actually responding to your assertion that capitalism is based on cooperation and non-coercion.
Do you suggest that there is never coercion in capitalist economies, or that all economic activities under capitalism are truly cooperative?
Robert Cook,
Do you suggest that there is never coercion in capitalist economies, or that all economic activities under capitalism are truly cooperative?
Free market capitalism is based on non-coercive cooperation. Tell me, the last time you went to a grocery store, did anyone force you to go? Did anyone force you to buy anything, much less the particular items you bought? That is what free market capitalism looks like.
It is true, though, that this system is regularly perverted by government (which you approve of), forcing its subjects, I mean citizens, to buy things they don't want or need. Government, also, regularly dips into the pockets of its subjects, I mean citizens, to give that money to their cronies.
Ann, stick to law comments because your economic brain sucks.
You have to be really dense to even begin to think that what Warren said was a banal truth. You would be better served to just admit you can't sort out economics.
Now to get to where you just went that he "misspoke".... WOW.
As an attorney or judge to get up and say the witness misspoke disregard what he actually said?
That is galactically stupid on your part.
Cook cannot refute the fact that socialism necessarily involves compulsion, so he tries to make the claim that capitalism also involves compulsion.
There are cases where the choices offered by free markets do not feel free. Say for example, I came upon Mr. Cook stranded out in the middle of a desert with no water. I would give him some of my water at no charge. But let's say some heartless capitalist bastard would only give him a sip of water for $100. Innitially, one might consider that Cook is being taken advantage of. But is it really true? If the stranger didn't come by, then there would be no choice and the $100 bill in cook's pocket would be worthless since there would be nobody to trade it to.
We've had a lot of satisfied customers in 2012; we plan to close out the new year by offering some really cool stuff moving rorschach mask.
Post a Comment