Saturday, October 22, 2011
By Douglas V. Gibbs
It is fascinating that the liberal democrats running the federal government have been proclaiming that corporations are evil, corrupt and greedy, and that the bankers are as well. Yet, when those same evil, corrupt and greedy entities cry out that they may be on the edge of failing, it is the same institutions that the liberal democrats in charge of the government bailed out. Also, it is those same Wall Street fat cats and corporate giants that provides plenty of contributions for Obama, and various other democrats.
One must ask, did the bail outs buy votes? And is all of that anti-fat cat talk simply political platitudes designed to garner votes from frustrated citizens hammered by a bad economy and searching for someone to blame?
Could the Obama administration be practicing mercantilism, a type of preferential treatment for businesses that "play ball"? (a.k.a. mercantilism)
The corporations that everyone is pointing fingers at are largely ones that received some kind of payment from stimulus packages that enabled the federal government to get more involved in their business. Some of these corporations were outright saved by federal funds, and have been subjected to federal interference in how they do their business as a result. Of course, not every business received funds. This administration plays favorites.
Crony Capitalism, and mercantilism, are the names for this kind of government corruption.
Over 700 lobbyists in Washington, and a number of special-interest policies by this government (and for that matter, Bush's and Clinton's and so on and so on) have entangled politics and business. Corporations that should have failed because the market dictated that they do were saved by the federal government. How wise is it to bail out failing entities?
The free market is about competition, and letting the market determine the winners and losers, not government. How can an economy thrive when the government is going against the natural tendencies of capitalism, and forcing failures through bail outs to remain in the race?
There has even been evidence that the government funding does not help. If anything, it encourages companies to do the opposite. Take Fisker Motors, for example. The automobile company manufactures electric cars that only the richest can afford. But, the Obama administration felt they deserved a $529 million federal government loan guarantee. Did the company use that money to help the American economy? Did that federal money result in more American jobs? No, Fisker used the federal funding to assemble its first line of cars in Finland.
The company indicated it could not find a facility in the United States capable of doing the work - at first look I wondered if that was because of all of the market-killing regulations the federal government has in place.
Vice President Joseph Biden was proud of the loan, claiming it would create thousands of American manufacturing jobs. But no such luck for the democrats. The car company used all of the money to assemble the flashy, and expensive, electric Fisker Karma sports car in Finland.
Why didn't Fisker manufacture in America? Unlike the democrats who wants companies to base their decisions on what the liberals think is best for their socialist policies in the U.S., Fisker is in business to make a profit. In their case, they believe the best recipe for "winning" is to build their cars in Finland.
Fisker's loan was a small part of a much larger Energy Department gift to politically connected California-based electric carmakers producing sporty -- and pricey -- cutting-edge autos. "We'll give ya money," the liberal democrats seemed to say, "and you give us donations and votes."
Oh, by the way, Fisker Automotive is also backed by a powerhouse venture capital firm whose partners include former Vice President Al Gore.
Getting fishy yet?
And the Occupy protesters are mad at the corporations?
This all comes on the heals of the Solyndra fiasco, where your wonderful liberal Department of Energy, under the direction of President Barack Obama, pumped hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into that solar panel maker, only for the company to collapse, and file for bankruptcy - taking with it the hundreds of millions of dollars it received from the federal government.
The democrats say it was a worthwhile risk. Yet, they condemned, and regulated, the credit corporations and bankers for daring to take a risk.
The federal government takes these risks because they want to change the direction of innovation, and change who the winners are in the private sector. The problem is that if the market is not supportive of these industries, they will fail anyway. The government cannot determine where a private market goes. That is up to the consumers, and up to the producers. Markets are innovative by gauging what the consumer will buy, not by forcing onto the consumer what they demand them to buy.
Clearly, Obama, or any of his cronies, have the know-how when it comes to running any kind of business. The administration's choices have been idiotic, and they don't seem to understand that government interference hurts the market, rather than saving it.
The democrats say they were trying to create innovation, but all they are creating is a government interference precedent that will ultimately create an infrastructure for socialism, and the collapse of the private sector - should this continue.
Then, when the truth began catching up to them, they altered the evidence. According to a CNBC article, the Energy Department altered loan-related press releases.
Brookfield Asset Management has also received a federal government loan. Was this loan by the federal government to a private corporation for the purpose of saving the struggling economy? Of course not. Brookfield manages a wind power firm that the sister-in-law of John Podesta, President Obama's influential White House transition director, served as the lobbyist for. Their government gift? A $135.8 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy.
So, let's ask ourselves again: Is the anger by hard left liberals and the Marxist Occupy protesters, pointed in the right direction? Should they be angry with the corporations and bankers, and not government? Rather than point their angry finger at Wall Street, shouldn't they be chanting "Shame, shame, shame" at the federal government?
The Occupy protesters have screamed angrily at capitalism, calling it the root of our problems, and President Obama has been all too happy to voice support of those Occupy protest groups. During a recent speech dedicating the Dr. Martin Luther King Memorial Obama claimed that King would have supported the movement. Yet, it has been Obama’s mercantilistic policies that have helped create, and prolong, the economic conditions that are causing America’s frustrations, which include policies that helps political cronies, and bails out banks and financial groups that are politically connected.
Capitalism depends on freedom, and in turn generates more freedom. Therefore, it is clear that the Occupy protesters are not angry with the corporations for the reasons they think. Their anger was programmed into them by our liberal media, liberal education system, and liberal political rhetoric to believe that big government is the way to go, and that achievement in America is somehow greedy, corrupt, and evil.
Personally, I don't think it is wise to be angry with the corporations like they are. The production of goods, the creation of employment, and a growing economy comes from those corporations.
Are there fat cats that are ridiculous in their business practices? Of course there are. But a system where a corrupt leftist government controls the means of production is even more dangerous. Besides, the destruction of the economy is not coming from capitalism and achievement. The crux of the problem comes from big government.
The economy is in trouble, but the way to fix it is not to increase government, and handcuff the private sector. The way to solve the problem is less government intervention, and a vibrant free market economy that innovates based on the demands of the market. The way to solve the problem is not excessive government spending that mortgages our children's futures, or the dictates of a tyrannical central government.
Personally, I'm an optimist. I believe America's resolve is stronger than the damaging mercantilist policies of the Obama administration. The question is, will we turn this around in time?
No comments:
Post a Comment