All the roads, education, etc. means zilch without an individual to put those things to productive uses. Those individuals certainly “build that”.
The Onion buys Infowars
- Thread starter Marvin the Martian
- Start date
I read all of the speech, including the last sentence in the passage at issue. I have no doubt that Obama believes what he said. As I mentioned, that is in his DNA.
This is the reason I wrote what I wrote like this:
Well, it's that everybody does most of what they do out of self-interest.
Of course human interest also contains an element for doing things solely out of kindness for others. But I think it's pretty obviously in the minority of the things we spend our time, energy, money, and other resources doing. Or, at least, it's a secondary priority.And I don't think this is oversimplifying anything, either. I think we're just a bit uncomfortable admitting that Adam Smith was entirely right. But we shouldn't be. Admitting he was right doesn't turn us into a bunch of Howard Roarks. It's indisputably true that the primary reason people exert efforts, make sacrifices, and take risks in the name of producing value for others is not "benevolence" for those people...but to serve their own needs and wants.
This idea most certainly does not conflict with the idea that people are also, at their core, charitable. In fact, being prosperous enhances our ability to be better givers. So, really, they go hand in hand.
My Man Mitch, again:
Every day, we work to lower the costs and barriers to free men and women creating wealth for each other. We build roads, and bridges, and new sources of homegrown energy at record rates, in order to have the strongest possible backbone to which people of enterprise can attach their investments and build their dreams. When business leaders ask me what they can do for Indiana, I always reply: “Make money. Go make money. That’s the first act of ‘corporate citizenship.’ If you do that, you’ll have to hire someone else, and you’ll have enough profit to help one of those non-profits we’re so proud of.”
The more people in a society who subscribe to this general philosophy, the more prosperous that society will be.
You misrepresent what he said, is the problem. You've got to be trolling at this point. I thought we cleared this up many years ago.
I took Obama's speech as a paean to collectivism - which is why I consider it anathema to the ideas that will actually make our nation, or any nation, prosperous.
If you want to get a good idea of what a nation should do to be prosperous, go check out Javier Milei's recent interview with Lex Fridman. It's two hours long, but it's fantastic.
Personally, I think Obama would have far more sympathy for the Peronist/Kirchnerist policy framework that created the mess that Milei is in the process of fixing....and not much sympathy for the policy framework that Milei is implementing to reverse its disastrous effects. But, who knows, maybe I have a completely bad read on Obama.
Why would you think that? And as long as we are on Obama, he became very wealthy and he produced nothing to make lives better or advance science and knowledge. This point is ancillary, but it shows that he really doesn’t know how things work or what it takes to make things better.
Last edited:
What was the basic thrust of what Obama said....and what is the basic mischaracterization of what he said?
Are you saying he was simply touting the benefits of publicly financed infrastructure...rather than the notion of "sharing the wealth" kind of collectivism?
Never thought Obama's speech was anything close to a paean to collectivism. Always heard him saying a "no man is an island" kind of thing underlining the idea that we are all connected and should acknowledge the many helping hands we received along the way. That doesn't diminish the amazing things the entrepreneurs accomplish unless for some reason that you believe that entrepreneurs are islands. That seems completely counter to entrepreneurship to me as one of the greatest skills an entrepreneur needs to have is the ability to draw other people to their idea to help build it to its fullest potential.
Well, I disagree that was the point of his speech, but whatever. There's nothing wrong with interpreting themes differently. What triggers me is blatantly misinterpreting syntax, which is what CO is doing by denying the referent of Obama's "that" in the infamous phrase.
Collectivism is the opposite idea of individualism. It emphasizes the group over the individuals within it. Individualism emphasizes the individuals over the group.
And it’s important to realize what individualism does not mean. It does not mean that people are an island and do whatever it is they do without critical inputs from others. In fact, many entrepreneurs are quite literally reselling the labors of others (I’m one of them).
So what’s the upshot of this?
The upshot is that those “helping hands” weren’t acting primarily out of devotion to the group. They were acting primarily out of devotion to themselves.
That doesn’t mean they weren’t fully bought into the group. Many people are very devoted to their employers and their mission - sometimes with gusto. But try cutting their paychecks in half. It would almost instantly reveal that their primary motivation is their own well-being. And that’s because they’re normal human beings.
Of course they aren’t islands. But they’ll never accomplish their goals without making it possible for other people to meet their needs to by working for, selling to, buying from, investing in…etc their enterprise.
People will do that in spades. And those people doing that are absolutely necessary for the mission of the enterprise. But just don’t think they’re doing it “for the group” - each and every one of them is interacting with the organization because they believe that doing so will benefit them. If they don’t believe it will benefit them or that they could benefit more elsewhere, they will devote and apply their efforts and resources elsewhere.
It would be, yes. But I never said that entrepreneurs do what they do on their own without anything from anybody else. They did so with critical inputs from others — pretty much all of whom did whatever they did in service of their self-interest, not in service of the entrepreneur.
“The point is … that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
He's a dishonest, disingenuous, partisan hack. Why do you even bother?
No, it doesn't show that at all. That is a non sequitur.
He said it himself: “The point is … that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
What happened was, he gave a pretty solid speech, but the delivery/phrasing was such that it was easy to edit out a clip that made it sound like he was saying something he wasn't. And half of the people here, their first experience with that speech was to hear the misleading edit on one of their many right-wing newsfeeds. So that's what they think reality is, and it will never change.
Or, they're just dishonest partisan hacks like COH.
Again, it is very, very similar to the "very fine people on both sides" comment. People hear it within an outrage take, and just run with it. We're all susceptible to it.
‘That” appears in one sentence. The same sentence as ‘business”.
Ya wanna talk about Obama saying the system “allows” success?
He has no clue. The context of his whole public life and his work and economic policies is consistent with my view of him really favoring collectivism over individual achievement and accomplishments. Obama’s view hasn’t been too successful at any time in history.
No question. We all sometimes too quickly fall for the worst interpretation of something because it fits our preconceptions. The trick is to be willing to accept a change to your own understanding when presented with fuller information.
@crazed_hoosier2 See? COH should know better, but here he is quadrupling down.
Ha.
For Obama, hope and change for the economically deprived Blacks was more more and more collectivism. More ECE. More Medicaid. More SNAP benefits. More educational and criminal leniency. Well, less police, so I guess he has one “less”. Nothing changed and some things worsened.
Along comes Trump with oppounity zones and other programs to encourage entrepreneurs in the cities. Waddaya know? Black incomes and employment began to rise.
Obama is who he is. My interpretation of what he said is right in line with his whole public life.
Sounds like we agree on most of it and a thoughtful reading of Obama's speech would say that he agrees with most of it and said as much at the time, too.
I don't see where Obama or I are saying that entrepreneurs should be acting primarily out of devotion to the group. If that's what you say we're saying, then it's you putting words in people's mouths. It seems pretty obvious what Obama was saying and what I am saying is that it's worthwhile to acknowledge that the amazing advances (and even the pedestrian ones) stand upon the amazing societal foundation they were created on.
Yet another principle that conservatives used to not only recognize, but champion.
Lol. No. I’m calling Obama Obama. He is who he is. Remember he is the guy who lamented that the constitution prevented him from doing even more give-a-ways. I’m talking about that Obama.
It has. Many who call themselves conservative only care about individualism and not community. In fact, they call those who reference the value of community "communists" and "collectivists."
This makes no sense. There might be some conservatives somewhere who said that but I never heard or read that and I don’t know any conservatives like that. In fact, communities of people is a conservative cornerstone, not a governmental institution.
Well, you continue to blast an Obama speech that extolled the virtues of both, so I think you might be an example of these hard to find conservatives.
Obama was a communitarian. I'm guessing if you put away the pejoratives and the black and white thinking about individualism v. collectivism and actually read what he said, read about communitarianism as a set of ideas, you might find them pretty agreeable.
Blast? My view is more typical Obama than yours. He has been pretty consistent with extolling the benefits of increasing collectivism and central planning over individualism as I explained in #104. Not only is that in Obama’s DNA, I think it’s pretty much Democratic DNA. Example abound. The Dems are all in on internet access for rural America and that was a big feature of the infrastructure bill. Musk is already there. The Dems won’t use Starlink.
You are reading a lot into Obama that he never said, much like people have done to Trump the last 8 years.
Can you find an Obama quote where he actually even uses that word? What do you mean by it when you use it? If someone believes government should act for the "common good," are they "collectivist?"
No.
no.
This thought is a good window into Obama
Obama in his interview disparages the Constitution as merely "a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." He believes—and he's right—that changing this is the way to bring about "redistributive change."
This is a pretty clear statement in favor of the collectivism of governmental planning and control.
That's an opinion piece, CoH. I can find you a million of those that paint Trump as a fascist and an abject racist based on his out of context quotes. "Disparages" "merely" Come on, you can see that.
Obama was a garden variety liberal who thought the market was a great force, but sometimes produced unfair outcomes that govt. should regulate to make life better for the middle class and poor. He also, ala a garden variety liberal, believed in a degree of redistribution of wealth. He was justifying his positions, typically, with pretty standard communitarian ideas and language, which was new on the political scene, although Hillary had it too (it takes a village).
I think this is more garden variety conservatism. I think the garden variety liberal tends more toward regulating outcomes and then”allow” the market to reward the entrepreneurs.
Agree with this. A conservative would focus on opportunities to create wealth rather than redistribute already created wealth. Wealth that flows from inflationary increases in commodities and property complicates the analysts.
I’ll have some more thoughts tomorrow on all this.
But I’d be interested to hear of an example, hypothetical or real, of an unfair outcome produced by markets, who sits as the arbiter of what makes a market outcome fair or unfair to one or more participants, and how and why they ascended to this position.
