WSJ commentary: Why Capitalism Has an Image Problem (lame attempt to hype Romney)

[ProSense]

Why Capitalism Has an Image Problem

Charles Murray examines the cloud now hanging over American business—and what today's capitalists can do about it.

By CHARLES MURRAY

MMitt Romney's résumé at Bain should be a slam dunk. He has been a successful capitalist, and capitalism is the best thing that has ever happened to the material condition of the human race. From the dawn of history until the 18th century, every society in the world was impoverished, with only the thinnest film of wealth on top. Then came capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. Everywhere that capitalism subsequently took hold, national wealth began to increase and poverty began to fall. Everywhere that capitalism didn't take hold, people remained impoverished. Everywhere that capitalism has been rejected since then, poverty has increased.

Capitalism has lifted the world out of poverty because it gives people a chance to get rich by creating value and reaping the rewards. Who better to be president of the greatest of all capitalist nations than a man who got rich by being a brilliant capitalist?

Yet it hasn't worked out that way for Mr. Romney. "Capitalist" has become an accusation. The creative destruction that is at the heart of a growing economy is now seen as evil. Americans increasingly appear to accept the mind-set that kept the world in poverty for millennia: If you've gotten rich, it is because you made someone else poorer.

What happened to turn the mood of the country so far from our historic celebration of economic success?

- more -

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443931404577549223178294822.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Two points:

1. Being a CEO has nothing to do with preparing a person to become President. Krugman:
   
   

   Business Is Not Economics
   
   President Obama gets this exactly right:
   
   

   When some people question why I would challenge his Bain record, the point I’ve made there in the past is, if you’re a head of a large private equity firm or hedge fund, your job is to make money. It’s not to create jobs. It’s not even to create a successful business – it’s to make sure that you’re maximizing returns for your investor. Now that’s appropriate. That’s part of the American way. That’s part of the system. But that doesn’t necessarily make you qualified to think about the economy as a whole, because as president, my job is to think about the workers. My job is to think about communities, where jobs have been outsourced.

   
   A country is not a company — and it’s definitely not a private equity firm.
   
   And here’s the thing: Romney is running for president entirely on the basis of his business success...Once the Bain record becomes a liability instead of a strength, there’s nothing there.
   
   http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/business-is-not-economics/

   
   
   
2. It hasn't worked out for Romney because he is a "a privileged, elitist, awkward, weird, insensitive, jerk financier asshole." http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021032036
   
   Krugman, again:
   
   

   He’s No Averell Harriman
   
   Fred Kaplan has what I think is the best take so far on Romneyshambles:
   
   <...>
   
   I would only add that the bankers of yore operated by building relationships; Bain made its investors money in large part by breaking relationships, e.g. by walking away from implicit promises to workers. It’s not a style that makes for good diplomacy.
   
   http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/hes-no-averell-harriman/

Still, the WSJ's backhanded compliment is telling. It's basically an admission that Romney is floundering.

Excerpt of Kaplan's piece posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021032639

[ProSense]

1. Kick! n/t