Trump’s Fed Nominee Isn’t a ‘Big Believer in Democracy’ “Capitalism is a lot more important than democracy,” Stephen Moore said in a documentary
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Stephen Moore , President Donald Turmp’s nominee to head up the Federal Reserve, is coming under scrutiny for controversial comments he made about democracy and capitalism in a documentary.
Moore has previously said he would get rid of numerous government agencies, including: the Departments of Labor, Energy and Commerce, as well as the IRS and the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. He has also suggested that the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Education are also unnecessary. And, he’s opposed to a federal minimum wage and federal income tax.
The recently-surfaced comments from Moore about democracy come from a 2009 documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story, by Michael Moore (no relation). At the time, Stephen Moore was a Wall Street Journal columnist and editorial board member.
“Capitalism is a lot more important than democracy,” Moore said in the documentary. “I’m not even a big believer in democracy. I always say that democracy can be two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner. Look, I’m in favor of people having the right to vote and things like that. But there are a lot of countries that have the right to vote that are still poor. Democracy doesn’t always lead to a good economy or even a good political system.”
But, isn’t “two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner” essentially how our economy works now? The wolves are in the White House and they are deciding how much the American working class (aka the sheep) will get.
And, as CNN’s KFile points out, Moore espoused his anti-democratic views elsewhere, saying on the Thom Hartmann Show in 2010 that Hitler was elected in a democracy and that Saudi Arabia would not be successful with a democracy. And when he was asked whether capitalism or democracy was more important, Moore said, “I think capitalism, without free market capitalism, countries don’t get rich. And so I would rather have a country that’s based on, you know, a free enterprise system of property rights and free exchange of free trade of low tax rates.”
So as long as people are “free” to make as much money as they can, let’s throw away civil rights and democracy in favor of the almighty dollar. Sounds like a true, Trumpian nominee.
Tags
Who is online
51 visitors
This lackey's nomination is another low point in the Trump presidency*.
Considering that we are not a democracy but a constitutional republic means that he is right. Capitalism is all important to economic freedom
Good to know that Trump wants to put someone on the Fed Board that doesn't know the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic. Gotta love that extreme vetting done by Trump...LOLOLOL
It is s-o-o-o tiresome...
And s-o-o-o depressing to think that there are some people who imagine that there's air in that balloon.
I believe you should quit trying to distract
The United States is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens’ ideas and concerns in government. Voting is one way to participate in our democracy. Citizens can also contact their officials when they want to support or change a law. Voting in an election and contacting our elected official
That is false.
www.reference.com › Branches of Government
A: The government of the United States of America is a constitutional federal republic. It functions as a democracy and a republic because citizens elect individuals to …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Government_of_the_United_States
Don't bother, Don. Bf is in one of his "build my cred among the wingnut idiots" periods.
He's blasting out every bumper-sticker in the Conservative Creed, on the assumption the NT's Team Red will believe he actually adheres to any of this nonsense. He doesn't, any more than he adheres to any principle of any kind... but he's correct about the gullibility of Team Red.
You noticed that, did you? I thought it was just me.
I was responding to this statement:
My answer is still correct.
The truly interesting thing to consider, Don, is why the right continues to beat this dead horse.
They insist that the US is not a democracy, because killing democracy is one of their objectives.
They want a patriarchal plutocracy. Killing democracy is a necessary step. A Big Lie about the US never having been a democracy is a step in that direction.
Patently ridiculous and false.
Except it doesn't, as all the lovely Hillary supporters who want the Electoral College abolished keep reminding us.
It's very generous of you to presume that all democratic activity is perfect... but sadly it is not...
It's very generous of you to presume you know what I'm thinking....but sadly you missed it entirely.
You will notice that Americans do not actually vote for the office of president. We vote for representatives who will vote for the office of president.
Our country is a republic, and there are subtle but very, very important differences between our republic and a pure democracy.
Could you name a "pure democracy"? Just one?
There has never been such a thing. Your (anti-democrats') use of the term demonstrates that your real purpose is to destroy the carefully crafted, limited democracy that we have had since the Revolution, and replace it with a White-supremacist, patriarchal plutocracy.
They died out millennia ago, for obvious reasons.
The ancient Athenians might disagree.
Riiiight. Anyone who corrects your factual errors must be a white supremacist.... That's not utterly batshit, cat-lady crazy or anything.....
What must it be like in your private little universe?
Women did not vote. Slaves did not vote. There were lots of other exclusions. I think I've seen that the electorate was about 10% of the population.
Let me repeat:
Could you name a "pure democracy"? Just one?
There has never been such a thing. Your (anti-democrats') use of the term demonstrates that your real purpose is to destroy the carefully crafted, limited democracy that we have had since the Revolution, and replace it with a White-supremacist, patriarchal plutocracy.
The citizens voted. On everything. Pure democracy. They no longer exist, for some of the very obvious (well...obvious to most people) reasons you mention.
Do you favor restricting the vote? Who should be allowed to vote?
Age? Sex? Color of skin? Wealth?
It actually doesn't, and does at the same time !
US Citizens, over 18.
I think based on his comments, he wants all citizens to vote. Now who's allowed to be a citizen, that's up for debate apparently. He apparently thinks "pure democracy" is 10% of the countries populace, who are the only ones considered "citizens", controlling 100% of the decisions.
That was obvious to everyone except Bob, so well done.
Do you have a problem with the Constitutional definition?
*eyeroll* Don't guess at what I think. You're terrible at it.
In Athens, the citizens voted on every item. There were no representatives. Every single piece of legislation was voted upon by all the citizens.
In the US, the citizens don't even vote on the office of president.
Do you see the difference?
That's far more democratic than Athens...
Yes. Athens was a "direct" democracy, the US is an "indirect" democracy.
Neither case is "pure". There has never been a "pure" democracy.
Anti-democrats - those who wish to replace the current system with a far narrower electorate - use this non-existent, never-existed "pure democracy" strawman, since they can say whatever they wish about it.
I'm sure you don't believe there has never been a "true Scotsman", either.
The fact that you cannot cite a single "pure democracy" in all of history kinda sorta proves my point.
No true Scotsman would make such an error.
But we have a crony capitalism based system in use at present which as it is does not render equal economic freedom.
Moore is a hack. No serious economist gives him any credit at all.
Therefore he is ideally qualified to be a Trump nominee to the Fed.....
So, like Krugman, eh?
Obviously not.
All serious economists recognize Krugman as one of the best. Some folks, who know nothing about economics or economists, think they make themselves cool by attacking Krugman. That says far more about them than about Krugman.
Moore, OTOH, is recognized by... no one.
Hmm.
Me, I would rather go with someone who didn't wrongly predict the fall of the economy under Trump.
To each their own.
Do you really believe that, or are you repeating crap you know to be false?
False? LOL!
https://dailycaller.com/2016/11/09/paul-krugman-says-markets-will...
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/krugman-trump-global.
https://www.nytimes.com/.../paul-krugman-the-economic-fallout
Now, you are perfectly free to disbelieve what Krugman actually predicted, but it is out there for anyone with even a modicum of curiosity to look up and verify--for themselves-- instead of merely shouting FALSE!!!!!!!!!
I have cheerfully provided some sources for you!
... and you have ignored everything he has said since...
Anyone can be wrong, particularly when brutally disappointed. Krugman has since repeatedly said he lost it that night. If you wish, you can continue to live one one night in 2016.
It seems that the left has never been able to forget and let go of that night in 2016
Grown-ass adults usually can control their emotions better than that. Besides, don't economists deal in numbers? Nothing emotional about mere numbers.
What the hell else could he say after being proven so, so wrong?
Seems more like those on the left keep reliving that fateful night when their dreams were shattered.
Krugman has a long and fantastic record of being wildly wrong in his "predictions".
I realize that this is part of the Conservative Creed, but it is not true. The only case you cite is one that he walked back immediately, and repeatedly since.
I know of several others - that's the advantage of actually reading what he writes rather than what small minds write about him. In every case, he has recognized his mistake and presented an explanation. If you read economics, you know how rare that is.
Do you read any economics? Who are your favorite economists?
There's plenty more. Of course, one has to actually choose to look at them.
https://mises.org/library/fact-checking-paul-krugmans-claim-be..
The internet would peak and by 2005 would be a distant memory like Fax Machines. (You see how that turned out)
President Obama’s stimulus would create 4% growth (1.7% in fact).
The economy would crash when Trump took office (looks like the first year will be 3% compared to less than 2% average under Obama)
Austerity measures taken up under President Clinton and the Republican Congress would cause a recession (In fact they had more than 4% growth every year after austerity measures started, something that hasn’t been matched since)
Austerity measures in Germany would cause a recession (In fact Germany’s economic growth increased and their unemployment rate went down.
0% rate policy would bring nations a good economy. Europe, the US and Japan ran 0% or close to it for some time yes still stagnated.
Please do share when Krugman admits he blew it in those election-day predictions.
Your link doesn't work.
Simply Google it yourself if the link doesn't work.
And when, again, did Krugman admit his predictions made at election time were wrong?
I clicked on the link. Then in the upper right hand corner of the page it took me to, I typed "Krugman Predictions".
Voila!
I take it that you haven't actually read your own "evidence"...
And of course, you have no sources for the laundry list that makes up the second half of your post. (The single-spacing makes me think you copy/pasted it in from... somewhere...
)
OK, I get it... Attacking Krugman is an item in the Conservative Creed. So you must do it. But frankly... it's embarrassing...
Take what you want. You said my link didn't work, so I checked it myself, then told you how to access it.
Not my fault you didn't do it or didn't know what you were reading.
And where again is even an attempt to provide ONE link about what you claimed--that Krugman immediately admitted his mistakes on election night?
The link you should have presented is:
It's a poorly executed hatchet job.
As for Krugman recognizing that he lost it on election night, there have been lots. You'll notice that no serious economist, regardless of how conservative they may be, ever mentions election night.
oh, wait... that would mean that you actually follow economics... my bad...
Duly noted.
Are you simply denying that Krugman has made many wrong predictions?
Man, all that time haranguing me for my link, and you still refuse to back your claim u p with anything at all.
Hypocrisy much?
I know a special place to put that.
There's a big difference. I know what I'm talking about. I wanted to see if you do. And the answer is, "No you don't".
Gotta love that link, Bob!
I'm not trying to educate you. I don't care if you remain ignorant.
I'm interested in learning, from anyone who can give me newer, better information. That does not seem to be the case, here.
Good. No one asked you to.
Then perhaps you can start by learning that someone asking for a link from you to support something you claim is what typically goes on here.
... to no useful purpose, 99% of the time.
Awful hard to judge that when no link is provided, as in your case.
Pity 'bout that.
Not really, I have become accustomed to it by now.
It isn't like it is a surprise or anything any more when folks don't back their wild claims up.
That's no surprise!
Isn't capitalism without democracy fascism?
That's seems like a pretty good definition.
For the illiterate. Sure
No, fascism hated capitalism as much as their communist cousins do. Fascism is another form of socialism.
I think it's corporatism
another fable
Is Fascism a form of socialism?
Fascism is a form of socialism. The best example of Fascism was Nazi Germany. Fascism is the public ownership of all property except in name. It allows citizens to pretend that they own property, but they must use it in accordance with the wishes of the state.
Reference: www.reddit.com/r/badpolitics/comments/4nv4wh/fascism_is_a_form_of_socialism_oh_how_did_i/
Make a list of German corporations, before the dot-com period. Look at their activity during the Nazi era. Mercedes, Audi, Volkswagen, BASF, Bayer, Krups, Messerschmitt, ...
Capitalism gets along very well with fascism. There's no need for even a pretence of human rights.
Hitler used socialism to facilitate fascism. History helps context. It would also help those conservatives who want to equate nationalism with patriotism.
Some will never understand the difference.
He will either get fired or quit before trumps term is up anyway.
Look here. Moore being placed into The Fed? Really?
For conservatism he is perfect. Except neither he nor they will honestly admit that capitalism is the new 'cino'. Seeing as how capitalism is dead--murdered by Supply Side Economics.
Moore is not a serious pick. Aren't there any Big R Republicans left in America?
Steven Moore is a joke and not to be taken seriously. Moore is unacceptable...
A joke? Really?
"I'm like a really smart guy," DJT. There it is. There you have it.
Could you imagine nominating someone like Herman Cain to go along with Moore on the Fed...Wait, what Trump did.
capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other economic system out there.
although not an economic system, democracy still cant make that claim either.
it is capitalism which is the defining + factor above, democracy is just the common factor. that gives people the power to make good choices like capitalism, or bad choices, like socialism
[delete]
deleted for context, by charger383
Again please try to provide some factual linkls
I am the source.
and all of history backs me up on this one.
so, it is you who will need links to back your arguments against.
or just call me stupid and move along...
matters not which you choose.
cheers
Stupid.
History doesn't back you up on anything
Ok, so the guy that gets picked for The Fed doesn't like democracy. Got it.
But his compadres better watch their backs (Dr Carson, Betsy DeVos)
And if he hates democracy so much, why not dissolve The Fed, too? I thought conservatives didn't like the Federal Reserve?
trump continually puts people in positions that have been on record as wanting these agencies terminated.
This guy sounds like a Libertarian wet dream.
Of course he want the consumer protection bureau dissolved. As long as the wealthy can keep amassing money and screw over the little guy.
No federal income tax? One good thing from that is we wouldn't have to pay our fat cat officials.
What is ironic is that the right continually says the left wants to transform the US yet they continually back people that have been on record wanting to do just that.
I bet that makes you angry.
I bet you drink it all
Angry? No. Then again, I am not from the party that lives in fear of the evil socialist boogie man that seems to lurk around every corner.
I see that there is a disagreement on Republic v Democracy .. this is the differences as describe by a professor I had 30ish years ago ..
The United States is a Constitutional Republic and functions as a republic, by recognizing individuals rights (each individual has a voice) .. however, there are those that desire to replace the rights of the individual with the 'rule of the majority' .. these are the ones calling the United States a Democracy, desiring to ensure the individuals in the minority have neither the voice, nor the rights to refuse the majority ruling …
Doing away with the electoral college is an example of eliminating the minority voice, thus allowing the 'majority' to make the decisions .. eventually leading to dictatorial rule (?) ..
In a Republic the individual has god given rights of freedom, life and liberty, as written in the Preamble to the Constitution … a democracy has only government granted 'civil rights' .. so yes, the United States has both, the Republic through common law and the Democracy through statutory law.. but the individual is represented by a Republic .. not a Democracy.
...
Here's to hoping that the United States remains a Republic so the minority's voices will still be heard in this great Nation... not drummed out by majority rule...
Oh, crap. I referenced your comment in another seed.
I really need a vacation
Time for a road trip? : )
LOL! Yes! And now I'm back.
What school?
It needs to lose its accreditation.
that was uncalled for, Bob
boy, we really want to milktoast all the comments here don't we?
I think she was joking, John.
HA! .. such wisdom coming from the individual that says the United States functions as a Democracy ….
No, I wasn't
You, and a lot of these other comments are going much too far into the weeds to try and pull Moore out of the fire.
Moore's point is not that the US is a republic, it is that capitalism is more important than what the "people" may want. In other words if in a democratic vote the public decided that it wanted to change, remodel , or end capitalism, to Moore that would be the horror of horrors. To him capitalism is more important than the right of the public to choose their political and economic systems.
If we had a king (say, Trump) to Moore that would be fine as long as capitalism is not touched.
I am not making any attempt to 'pull Moore out of the weeds' …… I simply stated that the US is not a democracy .. and does not function as one because the majority does not rule. But you and those others that comment claiming the US is a Democracy need some help with understanding definitions - just cause one repeats Democracy enough times .. does not make it true..
There are societies with monarchs who are capitalists.
A monarch.... you mean like the English, Scots, Welsh, Spanish, Danes, Swedes, Dutch, Norwegians and Belgians have?
Moore has previously said he would get rid of numerous government agencies, including: the Departments of Labor, Energy and Commerce, as well as the IRS and the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.
Well at least he can remember which departments he would like to get rid of, that's a step up from Rick Perry. They must be accessing the GOP brain trust.