Crony Capitalism Insidious Socialism

There was a Crooked Man…

Increase Font SizeDecrease Font Size

Why is crony socialism always known as crony capitalism? When socialist elites and insiders profit personally from market institutions, why is this only called, ‘crony capitalism,’ and not ‘crony socialism’? Why are only capitalists “greedy,” when actually socialists are just as opportunistic and ‘greedy’?

Slovenia is a case in point. Formerly part of soviet Yugoslavia, Slovenia is the prosperous country which divides the impoverished formerly socialist nations of the soviet bloc from the wealthy Western nations to its north and west. What distinguishes Slovenia from other former soviet countries is that it had not dismantled its socialist institutions–such as the national banks–and turned them into competitive private institutions. Fully half of institutional Slovenia is state-owned, which means they are state-subsidized, and subsidy means taxpayers pay for unproductive and uncompetitive enterprises that would otherwise fail. Always, always, always, state-subsidized enterprises are repositories of either incompetent or corrupt privileged elites; insiders who pocket taxpayers’ monies in the name of ‘national pride’ or ‘socialist solidarity’ or ‘public investment.’

Slovenia’s banks are in trouble. No kidding. What a surprise. The government has already bailed them out once, and now it appears the first bailout did not come with reforms, so still another bailout is necessary. But so long as the banks are state-controlled enterprises, the taxpayers of Slovenia will find that bailing out their nationalized/socialized banks will never end. Too understandably, calls for privatizing the banks are bitterly opposed by large companies whose management benefits personally by banks being state-owned, instead of competitive.

Whether capitalist or socialist, monopolies are marked by rising costs and falling value, and Slovenia’s banks are no exception. So why are crooked socialist companies and corrupt socialist managers known as ‘greedy capitalists’?

[Email comments welcome: duoism(at)sbcglobal.net]

Communist Plague?

Increase Font SizeDecrease Font Size

The red Yangtze river flows through Chongqing

From The Telegraph, this picture is of the Yangtze River yesterday at Chongqing, China. The Communist government says it has no idea why the river turned red. Hmm. Maybe they will blame Moses.

[Email comments welcome: duoism(at)sbcglobal.net]

The Corrupt Comrade

Increase Font SizeDecrease Font Size

Yesterday’s New York Times has an article on the 70 year old Wen Jiabao, prime minister of the People’s Republic of China and leader of the Communist Party, retiring with a personal fortune estimated at 2.7 billion dollars. His mother was a school teacher her entire life, his father tended pigs during the Cultural Revolution, and Mr. Wen has been a government functionary his entire life, growing up as a boy “in extreme poverty.”

Clearly Mr. Wen never accumulated his family fortune as a risk-taking capitalist. Just as clearly, the morality of communism is government-sanctioned theft. Whether capitalist or communist, as Acton noted long ago, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

[Email comments welcome: duoism(at)sbcglobal.net]

Las Vegas Energy Scam

Increase Font SizeDecrease Font Size

Energy Cost Chart Two.png

Nevada’s senior U.S. Senator and a former president of the United States gathered in Las Vegas this week to tout the opening of a massive wind farm in the Nevada desert, and the senator called for the nearby coal plant to be shuttered. And with more than 300 days of sunshine annually, Nevada is a prime location for solar panel farms. All of this is part of the effort to develop energy alternatives to carbon-burning energy, such as coal and oil and gas.

The above chart is from Tom Hartfield’s post on the science blog, Newton’s Blog. Note the cost of producing energy for the four separate sources. Those higher costs for solar and wind make them uncompetitive, which means they can only exist by taxpayers’ subsidizing their inefficiency (which the politicians conveniently leave out of their speeches). Natural gas is hugely cleaner to burn than coal or oil, and is by far the cheapest source of energy for the American economy, with supplies soaring and costs plummeting over the past five years.

So, why do you think there are no Nevada politicians at Las Vegas press conferences looking for ways to bring low-cost natural gas to Nevada consumers?

[Email comments welcome: duoism(at)sbcglobal.net]

Facebook Folly

Increase Font SizeDecrease Font Size

The stock price of Facebook fell today to its lowest level since the company went public just a few months ago. At $20 a share, the stock is down nearly half from its issuing price of $38 a share.

According to Elizabeth MacDonald at Fox Business News, the powers that be in the State of California projected Facebook’s price to fall to $35 a share and then rise to $42, for a multi-billion dollar gain for the State’s tax coffers. Those projections were figured into the State’s budget, so without the Facebook tax revenue the State of California’s fiscal calamity just gets worse.

Why would any government build a budget based upon projected gains in the stock market? For that matter, why would any government pay for, or subsidize with taxpayers’ money, the profitability of any commercial entity? Stocks fall in price; profits easily become losses: why are governments risking taxpayers’ monies in the ‘hope’ that unprofitable corporations will become profitable?

An argument could be made, rationally, that any government ‘investment’ in a corporation is a sure sign that the company is so toxic and unprofitable that the open markets will not touch it. Why then, do we elect and re-elect politicians who buy into failing corporations with OPM; ‘Other People’s Money,’ in this case, taxpayers’ money.

The politicians do it to fund their ideology’s stalwart loyalists. Conservatives subsidize those industries and corporations which vote conservative (ethanol for corn farmers), and the Left-liberals subsidize those which vote Left-liberal (funding for uncompetitive solar panels). Let’s distinguish the practice as ‘insidious socialism’ as well as ‘crony capitalism,’ since both ideologies do it and in both cases, taxpayers pay for ideological cronyism instead of efficiency, effectiveness, or profitability. The political ethical breach is made against the ethics of competitive capitalism.

[Email comments welcome: duoism(at)sbcglobal.net]

Senators in Solidarity

Increase Font SizeDecrease Font Size

The Washington Post ran an article on-line less than half an hour ago reporting that the United States Senate Appropriations Committee voted unanimously to reduce foreign aid to Pakistan next year by $33 million dollars. The reduction is designed to punish Pakistan for incarcerating Pakistani doctor Shakil Afridi as a traitor for helping the U.S. kill Osama bin Laden. The aid reduction is one million dollars for each year of Dr. Afridi’s sentence.

Let’s put this Senate committee solidarity in some perspective. First of all, $33 million is only 5% of the annual aid given to the Pakistani government by the United States. And second, the remaining 95% of aid still requires that all of it be spent on purchasing U.S. manufactured armaments. Hmm. Now, that Senate solidarity of Republicans joining Democrats is starting to look suspect.

The aid is given to Pakistan to secure its help in fighting terrorism. Arguably for the American citizen, killing Osama bin Laden is the most effective achievment for their tax dollars spent on anti-terror. Why is a citizen of Pakistan guilty of treason for helping Pakistan’s ally prevent further terrorism, if our foreign aid specifically is accepted by the Pakistani government to fight terror?

And why only 5% penalty? If any of our taxpayers’ money was being used to build schools or hospitals or aqueducts in Pakistan, even a reduction of 5% would be objectionable. But since the entire aid to Pakistan is a direct method of bribing Pakistan to fight terror while it is also an indirect method of financing American defense manufacturers, the mere reduction of only 5% is not even a slap on the wrist.

What it is, is legal-corruption, in the bipartisan guise of Senate cooperation and solidarity. The duopoly Senators do not want to upset the defense manufacturers in their States.