America’s president, straight out of the pages of Atlas Shrugged
Ben W. writes:
Reported at msn.com:
“A strong and durable recovery also requires countries not having an undue advantage,” Obama told journalists at the end of G20 talks in Canada.
Obama’s redistributionist encore, now internationalized.
LA replies:
If Obama’s logic were followed consistently, it would mean that the only way to achieve a strong and durable recovery is by the productive countries of the world reducing their gross domestic product and average individual income to those of the Congo.
- end of initial entry -
Paul T. writes:
Ben W. only gave the first part of the quote. Turning to the msn.com story, I find:
“A strong and durable recovery also requires countries not having an undue advantage,” Obama told journalists at the end of G20 talks in Canada.
“So we also discussed the need for currencies that are market-driven,” he added, welcoming China’s decision to let its yuan float more freely against the dollar.
I haven’t followed the stories on the yuan, but it sounds like Obama’s remarks about ‘undue advantage’ were aimed at China on that issue. I don’t get the impression that it’s a call for universal economic levelling.
LA replies:
The article is very brief, and provides no further context for Obama’s remarks. You may be right. At the same time, the language attacking some unspecified “undue advantage” conveys an unmistakable impression.
Here are commenters at Lucianne.com discussing the “no undue advantage” remark.
Ben W. writes:
Paul T. says: “I don’t get the impression that it’s a call for universal economic levelling.”
After telling Joe the Plumber that there is a limit to personal wealth and advising Germany to loosen the purse strings for Greece, that Paul K. doesn’t see past Obama’s statement is remarkable. Right, if we place Obama’s statements as good and even-handed scholars in the proper context … even 20 years of not hearing in Jeremiah Wright’s pew can be rationalized …
LA replies:
I don’t think that Paul T. was necessarily denying the fact of Obama’s overall socialist orientation; I think he only meant that the current statement does not seem to have that meaning.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 27, 2010 09:12 PM | Send