Brilliant insight buried deep within the comments on the Sydney Morning Herald

[quaker bill]

16. "Because he is running capitalism" is not a criticism, it is a bit of information

An essential part of being President is running capitalism. It is part of the job and would be regardless of who is elected. The question is more how well a candidate would run it and who they would be seeking to benefit.

Mitt would not run it well and would seek to benefit the owners. Barack would run it better and seek to benefit the workers more.

The last person you would want in that job is someone who does not think this is part of the job. What we saw in 2008 was just a vague foretaste of what the true and sudden failure of capitalism would be like. To some small extent GWB thought it was not fully his job and he could let others run it through deregulation.

I am pretty sure it is not the fun or pretty part of the job, but it needs doing and doing it will always anger someone. It is clear that markets behave irrationally. They do so all the time which is why you need rules to limit the damage.