I wish I could say that we built these bread racks at my employer, Jukt Micronics. But that's not how we make our wire front guards.
Awesome comparison, don't you think??
Awesome comparison, don't you think??
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
The most destructive company in America is about to go bankrupt !!
Busybodies in the USA have spent the last 20 years weeping, wailing, and rending their garments because of the destructive impact of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart supposedly kills downtown areas, they don't pay people "enough", and they purchase their merchandise from people of the wrong racial makeup.
Progressive city councils pass legislation almost every day, trying to force Wal-Mart (and no other company) to pay higher wages, build smaller stores, and basically, stay away.
They almost always fail.
(Full Disclosure: I work for a company that makes display fixtures for grocery stores. All grocery stores, not just Wal-Mart. I've shipped more fruitstands to more grocery stores than anyone who has ever lived. Hell, somebody had to do it.)
But if you think Wal-Mart is destructive, you shoulda seen Safeway. Back in the day, Safeway built massive (6,000 square feet in some cases) stores, stores that carried EVERYTHING you could ever want to eat. Some of their stores even had their own parking lots!! They didn't offer sales on credit to their customers!! Safeway was a threat to the American way of life !! The Mom 'n' Pop stores didn't stand a chance!!
And before Safeway was A&P, a company that few people under 40 have ever heard of. A&P's destructive tendencies gave it the reputation of "the most controversial company in the nation".
Marc Levinson of the Wall Street Journal has written a great piece on the A&P controversy, and I'm scraping and posting it here before it disappears behind a paywall. I've long known about the evolution of the grocery industry, and how government has fought progress every step of the way, but I've never seen this much online about what A&P went through.
Every day that you don't have to make your own soap, mix your own toothpaste, or stop at four different places for meat, tomatoes, diapers and razors, you owe that unimaginable luxury to the visionary pioneers at The Great A&P Tea Company, Safeway, and Wal-Mart.
Here's Mr. Levinson:
***********
Progressive city councils pass legislation almost every day, trying to force Wal-Mart (and no other company) to pay higher wages, build smaller stores, and basically, stay away.
They almost always fail.
(Full Disclosure: I work for a company that makes display fixtures for grocery stores. All grocery stores, not just Wal-Mart. I've shipped more fruitstands to more grocery stores than anyone who has ever lived. Hell, somebody had to do it.)
But if you think Wal-Mart is destructive, you shoulda seen Safeway. Back in the day, Safeway built massive (6,000 square feet in some cases) stores, stores that carried EVERYTHING you could ever want to eat. Some of their stores even had their own parking lots!! They didn't offer sales on credit to their customers!! Safeway was a threat to the American way of life !! The Mom 'n' Pop stores didn't stand a chance!!
And before Safeway was A&P, a company that few people under 40 have ever heard of. A&P's destructive tendencies gave it the reputation of "the most controversial company in the nation".
Marc Levinson of the Wall Street Journal has written a great piece on the A&P controversy, and I'm scraping and posting it here before it disappears behind a paywall. I've long known about the evolution of the grocery industry, and how government has fought progress every step of the way, but I've never seen this much online about what A&P went through.
Every day that you don't have to make your own soap, mix your own toothpaste, or stop at four different places for meat, tomatoes, diapers and razors, you owe that unimaginable luxury to the visionary pioneers at The Great A&P Tea Company, Safeway, and Wal-Mart.
Here's Mr. Levinson:
***********
A prosecutor in Franklin Roosevelt's administration called it a "giant blood sucker." A federal judge in Woodrow Wilson's day deemed it a "monopolist," and another, during Harry Truman's presidency, convicted it of violating antitrust law. The federal government investigated it almost continuously for a quarter-century, and more than half the states tried to tax it out of business. For its strategy of selling groceries cheaply, the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company paid a very heavy price.
Now, more than a century and a half after its birth near the docks of lower Manhattan, the Great A&P is reaching the end. The company, with holdings that include East Coast grocery chains such as Food Emporium and Pathmark, filed for bankruptcy in December 2010 and emerged from Chapter 11 status as a private company. Over the summer, news emerged that A&P had hired Credit Suisse to review its options, with a sale—to either to another grocery company like Kroger Co., or an investment firm like Cerberus Capital Management—a strong likelihood.
So far, no deep-pocketed shopper has plucked A&P off the shelf. The watching and waiting continues. When the company with the familiar name finally fades from the American scene, few will recall what A&P once was: the most controversial company in the country, the center of a struggle over the very nature of American capitalism.
Price-cutting A&P stores like this one in 1934 angered competitors—and Washington.
Then, in 1912, John A. Hartford, one of the two brothers who had taken over the company from their father, had one of those inspirations that change the course of business. He proposed that the company test a bare-bones format at a tiny store in Jersey City, offering short hours, limited selection and no home delivery, and that it use the cost savings to lower prices. The A&P Economy Store was an instant success. The Great A&P was soon opening one and then two and then three stores per day. By 1920, it had become the largest retailer in the world.
John Hartford and his brother, George, the firm's financial wizard, didn't stop there. In the 1920s, they integrated vertically. They opened a produce brokerage to supply their stores with fruits and vegetables, which many grocery chains didn't carry at the time. They acquired bakeries, canneries and bottling plants—and leveraged their ability to make everything from ketchup to chocolate bars to strike tougher bargains with suppliers. They refused to buy through wholesalers and demanded that suppliers pay A&P the standard wholesale commission. And they plowed A&P's cost savings back into lower prices, fueling relentless growth. In 1929, A&P became the first retailer ever to sell $1 billion of merchandise in a single year.
While shoppers flocked to A&P's 16,000 stores, small grocers and grocery wholesalers didn't share their enthusiasm. The anti-chain-store movement dates back at least to 1913, when the American Fair-Trade League pushed for laws against retail price-cutting. It grew through the 1920s, as groups such as the aptly named Association Opposed to Branch Stores in Missouri demanded action against the chains.
The U.S. Supreme Court lent its support to the movement in 1931, approving taxes based on the number of stores a retailer owned. No company suffered more than A&P, which operated several times more stores than any other retailer.
Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal piled on. The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, the centerpiece of Roosevelt's economic recovery program, tried to bolster profits by subjecting entire industries to "codes of conduct" created by industry committees. The code for food retailing imposed minimum price markups on almost every product, blocking more efficient retailers from offering lower prices than less efficient competitors. The business sector, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cheered such measures, as did many Republican politicians. When the head of a major trade organization complained that business was "being crucified on the cross of competition," no one thought it strange.
After the Supreme Court struck down Roosevelt's codes in 1935, Wright Patman, a populist congressman from Texas, took up the cause of the country's 600,000 or so mom-and-pop grocers. Restricting chains, Patman declared, would keep "Hitler's methods of government and business in Europe." The Robinson-Patman Act, passed in 1936, kept suppliers from selling more cheaply to large customers than to small ones, stripping A&P of its cost advantage. The law forced up grocery prices and devastated A&P's profits. Six years later, the Justice Department brought one of the most bizarre antitrust cases of all time, accusing A&P and its executives of illegally restraining trade by demanding lower prices from suppliers—and winning.
Thanks in good part to the Hartfords' tenacity, the restraints on discount retailing began to fade away in the 1950s. Chain-store taxes were gradually repealed, and state laws limiting price competition to protect mom and pop were taken off the books. By 1962, when Wal-Mart, Target, Kmart, and other modern discount formats were born, the pendulum had swung in consumers' favor.
By then, John and George Hartford were dead, and their company, after passing into the hands of less competent managers and going public, had entered a death spiral that appears to be in its final stages. A&P, once the country's best-known brand, is by now so tarnished it probably has negative value, and any buyer will likely retire it. But even if the Great Atlantic & Pacific doesn't live on in name, it will leave an important legacy: the idea that capitalism can benefit consumers, if only capitalists will allow it to do so.
***************
The luxuries that A&P brought us are now so commonplace that our miraculous abundance now seems almost normal.
And somewhere this morning, working in the back room of a Wal-Mart, a stockboy (or girl) has come up with the idea that will destroy Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart won't stand a chance
Progressives and other busybodies will try to stop him, and call him "a giant blood sucker", a vulture, or just a greedy bastard.
He will be accused of cutthroat competition, monopolistic behavior, and being un-American, all for trying to improve on Wal-Mart's methods.
I wish I could figure out who he is, and start buying stock early.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Lenny Bruce on Capitalism vs Communism
"Capitalism is the best. It's free enterprise. Barter. At Gimbels (department store), if I get really rank with the clerk, 'Well I don't like this', how I can resolve it? If it really gets ridiculous, I go, 'Frig it, man, I walk.' What can this guy do at Gimbels, even if he was the president of Gimbels? He can always reject me from that store, but I can always go to Macy's. He can't really hurt me. Communism is like one big phone company. Government control, man. And if I get too rank with that phone company, where can I go? I'll end up like a schmuck with a dixie cup on a thread." - LENNY BRUCE
Friday, February 8, 2013
John Mackey of Whole Foods Market on Capitalism
Go here for the video....
If you buy what I'm selling, you get something worth more to you than your money. If you give me your money, I get something worth more to me than what I'm selling.
People prosper just a tiny bit more every time that happens.
The purpose of the Statists is to ensure that it happens less and less and less.
Capitalism is the greatest creation humanity has done for social cooperation. It has lifted humanity out of the dirt. In statistics we discovered when we researching the book, about 200 years ago when capitalism was created, 85% of the people alive lived on $1 a day. Toady, that number is 16%. Still too high, but capitalism is wiping out poverty across the world. 200 years ago illiteracy rates were 90%. Today, they are down to about 14%. 200 years ago the average lifespan was 30. Today it is 68 across the world, 78 in the States, almost 82 in Japan. This is due to business. This is due to capitalism. And it doesn’t get credit for it. Most of the time, business is portrayed by its enemies as selfish and greedy and exploitative, yet it’s the greatest value creator in the world.
If you buy what I'm selling, you get something worth more to you than your money. If you give me your money, I get something worth more to me than what I'm selling.
People prosper just a tiny bit more every time that happens.
The purpose of the Statists is to ensure that it happens less and less and less.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Sometimes you don't learn what you think you're going to learn.....
For the last couple of weeks I've had a great, great time with the Occupy Wall Street people.
Radley Balko recently provided a helpful link to a piece in Forbes, where a typist named Kyle Smith hopes that the OWS movement never ends.
Why?
Because, after all the rapes, thefts, tent gropings, assaults, Anti-Semitism, old woman toppling, public urination and the like, the cute little buggers might actually be learning something about human nature and how the world works.
Here's Mr. Smith:
Years from now, a major political candidate will come to the fore and say, “I got my political education as a member of a protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street. And it’s the reason I stand before you as a private enterprise-loving capitalist today.”
Some editorial writers have called for evicting the OWS squatters from downtown Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park (a better solution: Lock them in! Wouldn’t society be much better off without these malodorous whiners?), but the longer the occupation lasts, the more valuable the lessons being learned by these youngsters. Their college educations obviously didn’t include even rudimentary tutelage about how a marketplace — and by extension (since most things are connected to trade) society — works. But now they’re learning, for instance, that:
1) Rule of law comes first. It doesn’t matter whether your business is widget marketing or universal social justice: You can’t work until you have secured basic order, which requires a non-corrupt constabulary authorized in the judicious use of force. The Manhattan OWS site, which is largely covered with tents that lend shelter to peaceful protesters and privacy to opportunistic felons, is being linked to more and more reports of theft, sexual assault, random groping and even rape.
The occupiers, who operate on a foolhardy belief that they are a self-policing as well as self-governing organization, have reacted to crimes by forming “shame circles” in which, as if reenacting a scene from a Nathaniel Hawthorne novel, they surround malefactors and cry, “Shame, shame, shame!” (What, without trial?) Desperadoes, unfazed by such non-punishment, have declined to flee. A society that fails adequately to punish lawbreakers will disintegrate into chaos.
2) Welfare breeds freeloading. The idealistic, studenty, ultra-left-wing quality of the Zuccotti proceedings has attracted nutritious, restaurant-caliber meals, large donations of clothing and other goods and large cash balances. All of this private charity is very much in the tradition of free enterprise, but the political types have been unnerved by the increasing presence of ordinary apolitical homeless people who don’t know much about satiric anti-capitalist puppetry, but would very much enjoy a sandwich.
OWS has been shocked to discover these folk aren’t “contributing” anything (nothing important, anyway, like slogans or resolutions), and derided them as “professional homeless people” (to distinguish them from the amateur kind). Food preparers instigated what one protester called “blacklisting” of such individuals to keep them from sharing the bounty the “productive” members of the movement have secured.
This is a crucial battle between inactivists and activists. Consider this comment on the official OWS forum:
3) Private, profit-seeking businesses provide a social good. Before OWS began, among the corporations you would have expected to be the least likely to receive its blessing would have been McDonald’s, which has been wolfsbane to the collegiate left since at least the 1980s. Previously known mainly as rainforest-despoiling animal-butchering obesity-inducing corporate goons, Mickey D is now A-OK with OWS. A downtown franchise half a block from Zuccotti Park allows protesters to use its bathrooms without purchase and fuels discussion of the revolution with its generous, barely profitable Dollar Menu.
There are no facilities in the plaza, suggesting the movement would have had to keep its collective legs crossed for the past few weeks were it not for the burger profits that keep the restrooms working. McDonald’s is an especially salient reminder of why dreamy idealists are able to function: Because someone, somewhere who gets up and goes to work making things people actually want to buy is subsidizing them. Just ask Karl Marx, who was sent money by his buddy Friedrich Engels to support him while he was writing “Das Kapital” — money that came directly from Engels’ father’s worker-exploiting apparatus, also known as a “factory.”
And speaking of Karl Marx, here's one of Samizdata's quotes of the day:
"I wish Karl would accumulate some capital, instead of just writing about it." - Karl Marx's Mama
Radley Balko recently provided a helpful link to a piece in Forbes, where a typist named Kyle Smith hopes that the OWS movement never ends.
Why?
Because, after all the rapes, thefts, tent gropings, assaults, Anti-Semitism, old woman toppling, public urination and the like, the cute little buggers might actually be learning something about human nature and how the world works.
Here's Mr. Smith:
Years from now, a major political candidate will come to the fore and say, “I got my political education as a member of a protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street. And it’s the reason I stand before you as a private enterprise-loving capitalist today.”
Some editorial writers have called for evicting the OWS squatters from downtown Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park (a better solution: Lock them in! Wouldn’t society be much better off without these malodorous whiners?), but the longer the occupation lasts, the more valuable the lessons being learned by these youngsters. Their college educations obviously didn’t include even rudimentary tutelage about how a marketplace — and by extension (since most things are connected to trade) society — works. But now they’re learning, for instance, that:
1) Rule of law comes first. It doesn’t matter whether your business is widget marketing or universal social justice: You can’t work until you have secured basic order, which requires a non-corrupt constabulary authorized in the judicious use of force. The Manhattan OWS site, which is largely covered with tents that lend shelter to peaceful protesters and privacy to opportunistic felons, is being linked to more and more reports of theft, sexual assault, random groping and even rape.
The occupiers, who operate on a foolhardy belief that they are a self-policing as well as self-governing organization, have reacted to crimes by forming “shame circles” in which, as if reenacting a scene from a Nathaniel Hawthorne novel, they surround malefactors and cry, “Shame, shame, shame!” (What, without trial?) Desperadoes, unfazed by such non-punishment, have declined to flee. A society that fails adequately to punish lawbreakers will disintegrate into chaos.
2) Welfare breeds freeloading. The idealistic, studenty, ultra-left-wing quality of the Zuccotti proceedings has attracted nutritious, restaurant-caliber meals, large donations of clothing and other goods and large cash balances. All of this private charity is very much in the tradition of free enterprise, but the political types have been unnerved by the increasing presence of ordinary apolitical homeless people who don’t know much about satiric anti-capitalist puppetry, but would very much enjoy a sandwich.
OWS has been shocked to discover these folk aren’t “contributing” anything (nothing important, anyway, like slogans or resolutions), and derided them as “professional homeless people” (to distinguish them from the amateur kind). Food preparers instigated what one protester called “blacklisting” of such individuals to keep them from sharing the bounty the “productive” members of the movement have secured.
This is a crucial battle between inactivists and activists. Consider this comment on the official OWS forum:
“The money was sent for the protesters, not panhandlers. The protesters want jobs, but can’t find any. Panhandlers (In my experience, flame away) don’t want jobs. There is a difference for all the fogies spewing about hypocrisy. We should not allow people’s good intentions to be taken advantage of by miscreants and other parasites.But exactly! Having granted the principle that you must be willing to work if you want to eat, OWS has done all the heavy lifting for those who would question whether the policies of social-democratic welfare states are even moral, much less practical. (OWS hasn’t yet run out of donated pizzas, but Europe proves you will eventually run out of other people’s money).
3) Private, profit-seeking businesses provide a social good. Before OWS began, among the corporations you would have expected to be the least likely to receive its blessing would have been McDonald’s, which has been wolfsbane to the collegiate left since at least the 1980s. Previously known mainly as rainforest-despoiling animal-butchering obesity-inducing corporate goons, Mickey D is now A-OK with OWS. A downtown franchise half a block from Zuccotti Park allows protesters to use its bathrooms without purchase and fuels discussion of the revolution with its generous, barely profitable Dollar Menu.
There are no facilities in the plaza, suggesting the movement would have had to keep its collective legs crossed for the past few weeks were it not for the burger profits that keep the restrooms working. McDonald’s is an especially salient reminder of why dreamy idealists are able to function: Because someone, somewhere who gets up and goes to work making things people actually want to buy is subsidizing them. Just ask Karl Marx, who was sent money by his buddy Friedrich Engels to support him while he was writing “Das Kapital” — money that came directly from Engels’ father’s worker-exploiting apparatus, also known as a “factory.”
And speaking of Karl Marx, here's one of Samizdata's quotes of the day:
"I wish Karl would accumulate some capital, instead of just writing about it." - Karl Marx's Mama
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Michael Moore T-shirt
Go here to get one for yourself. Or for me. I'm back down to "large" instead of "Extra-large", just in case you're wondering.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
My Christmas gift to you....3 letters by Don Boudreaux
Don Boudreaux of the Cafe Hayek blog has been typing a lot. Think of this collection as my Christmas gift to you. Sorry it is late.
Here's a letter he wrote to The Boston Globe on your "right" to the services of doctors and nurses and pharmaceutical companies and hospitals....
He probably does it because he knows that we have a great system, and he doesn't want Messiahs, Nannies, Busybodies, Saviors, Prohibitionists and other pests to start jacking around with it.
He knows the cause of health, wealth, and having time to enjoy them.
Is Free Market Capitalism perfect? No.
But Utopia is not an option. Never has been, never will be.
Teachers and writers like Don Boudreaux, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek have done more for the good of humanity than all the government programs that have ever burdened the world.
Here's a letter he wrote to The Boston Globe on your "right" to the services of doctors and nurses and pharmaceutical companies and hospitals....
Ronald Pies, MD, asserts that every individual has a “right” to “basic health care” – meaning, a right to receive such care without paying for it (Letters, Dec. 26).Here's one written to the L.A. Times, on jury nullification in relation to the marijuana wars:
The rights that Americans wisely cherish as being essential for a free society require only the refraining from action. Your right to speak freely requires me simply not to stop you from speaking; it does not require me to supply your megaphone.
Not so with a “right” to “basic health care.” Elevating free access to a scarce good into a “right” imposes on strangers all manner of ill-defined positive obligations – obligations that necessarily violate other, proper rights. For example, perhaps my “right” to basic health care means that I can force Dr. Pies away from his worship service in order that he attend (free of charge!) to my ruptured spleen. Or perhaps it means that I have the “right” to pay for my health care by confiscating part of his income. If so, how much of his income does my “right” entitle me to confiscate? Who knows?
And if Dr. Pies is planning to retire, do I have the “right” to force him to continue to work so that the supply of basic health care doesn’t shrink? If Dr. Pies should die, am I entitled – again, to keep the supply of basic health care from shrinking – to force his children to study and practice medicine?
Does my right to basic health care imply that I can force my neighbor to pay for my cross-country skiing vacation on grounds that keeping fit is part of basic health care?
Talking about “rights” to scarce goods and services sounds right only to persons who are economically illiterate, politically naive, and suffering the juvenile delusion that reality is optional.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Reporting on the increasing number of jurors who refuse to return guilty verdicts against defendants charged with possessing marijuana, you quote a government prosecutor who tells jurors “We’re not here to debate the laws. We’re here to decide whether or not somebody broke the law” (“Juries are giving pot defendants a pass,” Dec. 25).And finally, here's an open letter/bitchslap to the president of the Sodexo Foundation:
This prosecutor is mistaken to assume that the law is simply that which the state declares it to be. A great advantage of trial by jury – an advantage applauded by the likes of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison – is to enable the community’s evolved sense of law and justice to moderate, or even to nullify, government’s criminal statutes. As Edward Gibbon observed, “Whenever the offense inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigor of penal law is obliged to give way to the common feelings of mankind.”
Fortunately, more and more people understand that punishing a peaceful person simply for smoking pot is horrible.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Mr. Stephen J. Brady, President
Sodexo Foundation
Gaithersburg, MD
Dear Mr. Brady:
Your foundation’s website says that “Forty-nine million people in the United States are at risk of hunger.” While this statement’s meaning is vague, I assume that you intend to suggest that 49 million people in America are so poor that they are at serious risk of suffering malnutrition.Why does Dr. Boudreaux go to the trouble of writing all of these letters? Why should he bother? He has tenure. He's got it made.
Yet today’s New York Times reports on a recent poll by the Pew Research Center that finds that the number of Americans who consider themselves to be middle-class is nine in ten (“So You Think You’re Middle Class?” Dec. 23). That’s 277 million (out of a total of 308 million) Americans who don’t think of themselves as being poor. Even if we assume that every one of the 31 million other Americans thinks of himself or herself as being, not rich, but poor – and even if we further assume that every last one of those 31 million people is “at risk of hunger” – your figure of 49 million ‘at-risk-of-hunger’ Americans seems impossible to square with the Pew survey results.
Are there really 18 million people in America who are so unaware of their own circumstances that, even though you classify them as being “at risk of hunger,” they classify themselves, not as poor, but as middle-class? Seems dubious, to say the least.
While I applaud your efforts to extend a helping hand to needy Americans, you should do so honestly. In fact, hunger is not a problem in America – not for 49 million people; not even for 31 million people. In fact, no modern American this side of mental insanity or criminal captivity comes close to starving to death.
Our society’s elimination of one of history’s most consistent killers – starvation and malnutrition from too little food – is complete. This victory should be celebrated rather than obscured by claims, such as that which adorns your website, that are somewhere between inexcusably obscure and blatantly false.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
He probably does it because he knows that we have a great system, and he doesn't want Messiahs, Nannies, Busybodies, Saviors, Prohibitionists and other pests to start jacking around with it.
He knows the cause of health, wealth, and having time to enjoy them.
Is Free Market Capitalism perfect? No.
But Utopia is not an option. Never has been, never will be.
Teachers and writers like Don Boudreaux, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek have done more for the good of humanity than all the government programs that have ever burdened the world.
Friday, May 14, 2010
The Lives Of Others - Getting the crooked timber of humanity to yield to your vision
I saw The Lives Of Others last night.
If you haven't seen it, the film tells the story of an East German couple (prior to The Wall coming down), a member of the Stazi (the notorious secret police), and how the experience of spying on the couple leads the policeman to his redemption.
It's probably one of the 10 best movies I've ever seen.
One of the saddest things about watching a film like this?
1) Not just the Socialist Body Count, which is a staggering number....
2) Or understanding the diminished lives of everyone who had to live in the Communist system, but....
3) Realizing that very few people in the U.S. understand the magnitude of the crimes committed by the Socialist regimes that were in power for most of the previous century. I'd bet that typical college graduates can tell you more about the anti-Communist witch hunts of the McCarthy era than can tell you about the body counts achieved by the socialist governments that prompted the witch hunts.
(In the U.S. during the McCarthy era, somewhere around 10,000 people lost their jobs or had to take less than desirable employment because of their previous association with the Communist party. An army dentist who was promoted despite being unwilling to answer questions about his political loyalties became the subject of a media whirlwind. 93 people were convicted of belonging to organizations that advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government. Around 300 actors and screenwriters were blacklisted and were unable to write for Leave It To Beaver.)
None of these things should have happened. It was a bad time. But let's look at what prompted the Red Scare:
According to The Black Book Of Communisim, originally published in France, english translation published in 1999, these are the civilian lives claimed by Communism:
U.S.S.R. - 20 million deaths
China - 65 million deaths
Vietnam - 1 million deaths
North Korea - 2 million deaths
Cambodia - 2 million deaths
Eastern Europe - 1 million deaths
Latin American - 150,000 deaths
Africa - 1.7 million deaths
Afghanistan - 1.5 million deaths
The international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power: 10,000 deaths
The total approaches 100 million people killed. I don't think that the crimes of the Socialists and the crimes of the United States can be seen as moral equivalents.
Here's Claire Berlinski, writing for City Journal:
In the world’s collective consciousness, the word “Nazi” is synonymous with evil. It is widely understood that the Nazis’ ideology—nationalism, anti-Semitism, the autarkic ethnic state, the Führer principle—led directly to the furnaces of Auschwitz. It is not nearly as well understood that Communism led just as inexorably, everywhere on the globe where it was applied, to starvation, torture, and slave-labor camps. Nor is it widely acknowledged that Communism was responsible for the deaths of some 150 million human beings during the twentieth century. The world remains inexplicably indifferent and uncurious about the deadliest ideology in history.
For evidence of this indifference, consider the unread Soviet archives. Pavel Stroilov, a Russian exile in London, has on his computer 50,000 unpublished, untranslated, top-secret Kremlin documents, mostly dating from the close of the Cold War. He stole them in 2003 and fled Russia. Within living memory, they would have been worth millions to the CIA; they surely tell a story about Communism and its collapse that the world needs to know. Yet he can’t get anyone to house them in a reputable library, publish them, or fund their translation. In fact, he can’t get anyone to take much interest in them at all.
Then there’s Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who once spent 12 years in the USSR’s prisons, labor camps, and psikhushkas—political psychiatric hospitals—after being convicted of copying anti-Soviet literature. He, too, possesses a massive collection of stolen and smuggled papers from the archives of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, which, as he writes, “contain the beginnings and the ends of all the tragedies of our bloodstained century.” These documents are available online at bukovsky-archives.net, but most are not translated. They are unorganized; there are no summaries; there is no search or index function. “I offer them free of charge to the most influential newspapers and journals in the world, but nobody wants to print them,” Bukovsky writes. “Editors shrug indifferently: So what? Who cares?”
The question is not so much "Who cares?" as "Why do we feel this way?"
For reasons that I'll never understand, a lot of intelligent people are able to give Socialism a free pass because the goals of Socialism are so "humane" and "egalitarian". The death camps, which you have to have for the people who decline to be Socialized, are overlooked as a fluke, or the unfortunate products of Socialism veering from the true path. (The Black Book Of Communism, which I'm only 1/10th of the way into, puts that myth to rest nicely. The tragedy in Russia wasn't caused by Stalin corrupting the ideals laid down by Lenin. Both of those jokers operated from the same playbook.)
Remember the 1960's era hippies, with their copies of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book?
How many Fidel Castro apologists have you met in your life? I've known about a dozen, and read pieces by dozens of others.
Look at Sean Penn, praising Socialist nutcase Hugo Chavez.
Now....what would happen to Sean Penn's career if he praised a Nazi? What if Penn defended someone really horrible like Joseph Goebbels, but whose policies, if you look at the death count, were less harmful than those of Karl Marx ? Would Sean Penn ever be in another movie? But for some reason, the Chavez crimes against humanity and property are more wholesome and his defenders are more politically "aware".
If someone praised Auschwitz "Doctor" Josef Mengele, invited him to speak at a church in New York City, and then crowed online about Mengele's greatness and wisdom, do you think that person would deserved to be shunned for the rest of his life?
But why do we accept this with a shrug, when the guest of honor is mass-murderer Fidel Castro?
Free-market capitalism isn't perfect either. However, if capitalism is left alone (and if it's participants aren't declared Too Big To Fail), it has some self-correcting aspects that provide an incredible amount of wealth and prosperity to a massive number of people. Here's Jonah Goldberg on the strengths and weaknesses of Capitalism vs. Socialism:
If by “capitalist” you mean someone who cares more about his own profit than yours; if you mean someone who cares more about providing for his family than providing for yours; if you mean someone who trusts that he is a better caretaker of his own interests and desires than a bureaucrat he’s never met, often in a city he’s never been to: then we are all capitalists. Because, by that standard, capitalism isn’t some far-off theory about the allocation of capital; it is a commonsense description of what motivates pretty much all human beings everywhere.
And that was one of the reasons why the hard socialism of the Soviet Union failed, and it is why the soft socialism of Western Europe is so anemic. At the end of the day, it is entirely natural for humans to work the system — any system — for their own betterment, whatever kind of system that may be. That’s why the black-market economy of the Soviet Union might have in fact been bigger than the official socialist economy. That is why devoted socialists worked the bureaucracy to get the best homes, get their kids into the best schools, (see: Obama, Sasha and Malia) and provide their families with the best food, clothes, and amenities they could. Just like people in capitalist countries.
It’s why labor unions demanded exemptions and “carve-outs” from Obamacare for their own health-care plans. And why very rich liberals still try their best to minimize their taxes. (see: Hypocrisy Awards: The Whiteys)
The problem with socialism is socialism, because there are no socialists. Socialism is a system based upon an assumption about human nature that simply isn’t true. I can design a perfect canine community in which dogs never chase squirrels or groom their nether regions in an indelicate manner. But the moment I take that idea from the drawing board to the real world, I will discover that I cannot get dogs to behave against their nature — at least not without inflicting a terrible amount of punishment. Likewise, it’s easy to design a society that rewards each according to his need instead of his ability. The hard part is getting the crooked timber of humanity to yield to your vision.
"The hard part is getting the crooked timber of humanity to yield to your vision." What a great sentence. That's why the Socialists had to have the death camps, the thousands of torture rooms, the firing squads, the Gulags, and the re-education centers to straighten out the dissenters.
It's also why the Stazi officer in The Lives Of Others was camped out above the German couple's apartment, listening in with a set of headphones. There was always someone, somewhere, who wasn't loyal to the vision.
I hope you'll rent the movie.
If you haven't seen it, the film tells the story of an East German couple (prior to The Wall coming down), a member of the Stazi (the notorious secret police), and how the experience of spying on the couple leads the policeman to his redemption.
It's probably one of the 10 best movies I've ever seen.
One of the saddest things about watching a film like this?
1) Not just the Socialist Body Count, which is a staggering number....
2) Or understanding the diminished lives of everyone who had to live in the Communist system, but....
3) Realizing that very few people in the U.S. understand the magnitude of the crimes committed by the Socialist regimes that were in power for most of the previous century. I'd bet that typical college graduates can tell you more about the anti-Communist witch hunts of the McCarthy era than can tell you about the body counts achieved by the socialist governments that prompted the witch hunts.
(In the U.S. during the McCarthy era, somewhere around 10,000 people lost their jobs or had to take less than desirable employment because of their previous association with the Communist party. An army dentist who was promoted despite being unwilling to answer questions about his political loyalties became the subject of a media whirlwind. 93 people were convicted of belonging to organizations that advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government. Around 300 actors and screenwriters were blacklisted and were unable to write for Leave It To Beaver.)
None of these things should have happened. It was a bad time. But let's look at what prompted the Red Scare:
According to The Black Book Of Communisim, originally published in France, english translation published in 1999, these are the civilian lives claimed by Communism:
U.S.S.R. - 20 million deaths
China - 65 million deaths
Vietnam - 1 million deaths
North Korea - 2 million deaths
Cambodia - 2 million deaths
Eastern Europe - 1 million deaths
Latin American - 150,000 deaths
Africa - 1.7 million deaths
Afghanistan - 1.5 million deaths
The international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power: 10,000 deaths
The total approaches 100 million people killed. I don't think that the crimes of the Socialists and the crimes of the United States can be seen as moral equivalents.
Here's Claire Berlinski, writing for City Journal:
In the world’s collective consciousness, the word “Nazi” is synonymous with evil. It is widely understood that the Nazis’ ideology—nationalism, anti-Semitism, the autarkic ethnic state, the Führer principle—led directly to the furnaces of Auschwitz. It is not nearly as well understood that Communism led just as inexorably, everywhere on the globe where it was applied, to starvation, torture, and slave-labor camps. Nor is it widely acknowledged that Communism was responsible for the deaths of some 150 million human beings during the twentieth century. The world remains inexplicably indifferent and uncurious about the deadliest ideology in history.
For evidence of this indifference, consider the unread Soviet archives. Pavel Stroilov, a Russian exile in London, has on his computer 50,000 unpublished, untranslated, top-secret Kremlin documents, mostly dating from the close of the Cold War. He stole them in 2003 and fled Russia. Within living memory, they would have been worth millions to the CIA; they surely tell a story about Communism and its collapse that the world needs to know. Yet he can’t get anyone to house them in a reputable library, publish them, or fund their translation. In fact, he can’t get anyone to take much interest in them at all.
Then there’s Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who once spent 12 years in the USSR’s prisons, labor camps, and psikhushkas—political psychiatric hospitals—after being convicted of copying anti-Soviet literature. He, too, possesses a massive collection of stolen and smuggled papers from the archives of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, which, as he writes, “contain the beginnings and the ends of all the tragedies of our bloodstained century.” These documents are available online at bukovsky-archives.net, but most are not translated. They are unorganized; there are no summaries; there is no search or index function. “I offer them free of charge to the most influential newspapers and journals in the world, but nobody wants to print them,” Bukovsky writes. “Editors shrug indifferently: So what? Who cares?”
The question is not so much "Who cares?" as "Why do we feel this way?"
For reasons that I'll never understand, a lot of intelligent people are able to give Socialism a free pass because the goals of Socialism are so "humane" and "egalitarian". The death camps, which you have to have for the people who decline to be Socialized, are overlooked as a fluke, or the unfortunate products of Socialism veering from the true path. (The Black Book Of Communism, which I'm only 1/10th of the way into, puts that myth to rest nicely. The tragedy in Russia wasn't caused by Stalin corrupting the ideals laid down by Lenin. Both of those jokers operated from the same playbook.)
Remember the 1960's era hippies, with their copies of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book?
How many Fidel Castro apologists have you met in your life? I've known about a dozen, and read pieces by dozens of others.
Look at Sean Penn, praising Socialist nutcase Hugo Chavez.
Now....what would happen to Sean Penn's career if he praised a Nazi? What if Penn defended someone really horrible like Joseph Goebbels, but whose policies, if you look at the death count, were less harmful than those of Karl Marx ? Would Sean Penn ever be in another movie? But for some reason, the Chavez crimes against humanity and property are more wholesome and his defenders are more politically "aware".
If someone praised Auschwitz "Doctor" Josef Mengele, invited him to speak at a church in New York City, and then crowed online about Mengele's greatness and wisdom, do you think that person would deserved to be shunned for the rest of his life?
But why do we accept this with a shrug, when the guest of honor is mass-murderer Fidel Castro?
Free-market capitalism isn't perfect either. However, if capitalism is left alone (and if it's participants aren't declared Too Big To Fail), it has some self-correcting aspects that provide an incredible amount of wealth and prosperity to a massive number of people. Here's Jonah Goldberg on the strengths and weaknesses of Capitalism vs. Socialism:
If by “capitalist” you mean someone who cares more about his own profit than yours; if you mean someone who cares more about providing for his family than providing for yours; if you mean someone who trusts that he is a better caretaker of his own interests and desires than a bureaucrat he’s never met, often in a city he’s never been to: then we are all capitalists. Because, by that standard, capitalism isn’t some far-off theory about the allocation of capital; it is a commonsense description of what motivates pretty much all human beings everywhere.
And that was one of the reasons why the hard socialism of the Soviet Union failed, and it is why the soft socialism of Western Europe is so anemic. At the end of the day, it is entirely natural for humans to work the system — any system — for their own betterment, whatever kind of system that may be. That’s why the black-market economy of the Soviet Union might have in fact been bigger than the official socialist economy. That is why devoted socialists worked the bureaucracy to get the best homes, get their kids into the best schools, (see: Obama, Sasha and Malia) and provide their families with the best food, clothes, and amenities they could. Just like people in capitalist countries.
It’s why labor unions demanded exemptions and “carve-outs” from Obamacare for their own health-care plans. And why very rich liberals still try their best to minimize their taxes. (see: Hypocrisy Awards: The Whiteys)
The problem with socialism is socialism, because there are no socialists. Socialism is a system based upon an assumption about human nature that simply isn’t true. I can design a perfect canine community in which dogs never chase squirrels or groom their nether regions in an indelicate manner. But the moment I take that idea from the drawing board to the real world, I will discover that I cannot get dogs to behave against their nature — at least not without inflicting a terrible amount of punishment. Likewise, it’s easy to design a society that rewards each according to his need instead of his ability. The hard part is getting the crooked timber of humanity to yield to your vision.
"The hard part is getting the crooked timber of humanity to yield to your vision." What a great sentence. That's why the Socialists had to have the death camps, the thousands of torture rooms, the firing squads, the Gulags, and the re-education centers to straighten out the dissenters.
It's also why the Stazi officer in The Lives Of Others was camped out above the German couple's apartment, listening in with a set of headphones. There was always someone, somewhere, who wasn't loyal to the vision.
I hope you'll rent the movie.
Friday, April 23, 2010
John Stossel on Myths About Capitalism
If you didn't catch John Stossel last night, there's still time. Fox Business channel reruns each feature about 4 times.
Last night was about American myths. Here's Michael Medved on myth #4:
Myth No. 4: The current downturn means the death of capitalism.
"Capitalism is alive and well," Medved said.
"I'm also bugged when people argue that today's problems prove that capitalism "failed." What failed? We had a correction. A bubble popped. But from 1982 to now, the Dow rose from 800 to 11,000. Had it happened without the bubble, we'd say this is one of the great boom periods.
Medved added: "This is one of the biggest lies — the idea that because of capitalism, we're all suffering. ... Poor people in America today, people who are officially in poverty, have a higher standard of living in terms of medical standards, in terms of the chances of going to college, in terms of the way people live, than middle-class people did 30 years ago. It's an extraordinary achievement of technology and of the profit sector."
On a related note, here are some stats from The Austrian Economists site:
Ah, the failures of free market capitalism....
Remember to watch John Stossel.
Last night was about American myths. Here's Michael Medved on myth #4:
Myth No. 4: The current downturn means the death of capitalism.
"Capitalism is alive and well," Medved said.
"I'm also bugged when people argue that today's problems prove that capitalism "failed." What failed? We had a correction. A bubble popped. But from 1982 to now, the Dow rose from 800 to 11,000. Had it happened without the bubble, we'd say this is one of the great boom periods.
Medved added: "This is one of the biggest lies — the idea that because of capitalism, we're all suffering. ... Poor people in America today, people who are officially in poverty, have a higher standard of living in terms of medical standards, in terms of the chances of going to college, in terms of the way people live, than middle-class people did 30 years ago. It's an extraordinary achievement of technology and of the profit sector."
On a related note, here are some stats from The Austrian Economists site:
| % Households with: | Poor 1984 | Poor 1994 | Poor 2003 | Poor 2005 | All 1971 | All 2005 |
| Washing machine | 58.2 | 71.7 | 67.0 | 68.7 | 71.3 | 84.0 |
| Clothes dryer | 35.6 | 50.2 | 58.5 | 61.2 | 44.5 | 81.2 |
| Dishwasher | 13.6 | 19.6 | 33.9 | 36.7 | 18.8 | 64.0 |
| Refrigerator | 95.8 | 97.9 | 98.2 | 98.5 | 83.3 | 99.3 |
| Freezer | 29.2 | 28.6 | 25.4 | 25.1 | 32.2 | 36.6 |
| Stove | 95.2 | 97.7 | 97.1 | 97.0 | 87.0 | 98.8 |
| Microwave | 12.5 | 60.0 | 88.7 | 91.2 | 1.0 | 96.4 |
| Color TV | 70.3 | 92.5 | 96.8 | 97.4 | 43.3 | 98.9 |
| VCR | 3.4 | 59.7 | 75.4 | 83.6 | 0.0 | 92.2 |
| Personal computer | 2.9 | 7.4 | 36.0 | 42.4 | 0.0 | 67.1 |
| Telephone | 71.0 | 76.7 | 87.3 | 79.8 | 93.0 | 90.6 |
| Air conditioner | 42.5 | 49.6 | 77.7 | 78.8 | 31.8 | 85.7 |
| Cellular Telephone | 34.7 | 48.3 | 0.0 | 71.3 | ||
| One or more cars | 64.1 | 71.8 | 72.8 (2001) | 79.5 | ||
Remember to watch John Stossel.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
From a restaurant in Egypt
This is why I love capitalism.
I'm not saying I would EVER go to Egypt and eat in a Pizza Hut. But some people living in Egypt now have that as an option.
I'm not saying I would EVER go to Egypt and eat in a Pizza Hut. But some people living in Egypt now have that as an option.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
John Stossel on Crony Capitalism
Tonight’s John Stossel program was on “Crony Capitalism”, also known as “Fascism”. I didn’t sleep well last night, it was a long day at work, so I’m just going to type as it plays.
Stossel started off by highlighting a company called Serious Materials, and the cozy relationship they have with Obama and Biden. Biden wandered through the plant a few times, looking exactly like Ted Knight from the Mary Tyler Moore Show, and said some good things about the company's obvious politically correct virtue level.
Obama gave Serious Materials a shout-out during a speech on the economy. Then the dynamic duo announced some tax credits for “green companies”. Only one window company was given their tax money back – Serious Materials.
Then Stossel showed the Company VP of Policy, hanging out with energy leaders in the Obama administration….and then he showed Cathy Zoi, who is in charge of Obama’s weatherization policy, talking about how they were going to have SWAT teams move in and weatherize entire neighborhoods with new storm windows, paid for by stimulus dollars.
Stossel eventually revealed that Serious Materials’ VP of Policy is married to Cathy Zoi. Well, shit. That takes some of the down-home, wholesome, green environmental goodness out of the equation, doesn’t it? Weren’t you happier not knowing this?
He brought on some panelists, Annette Meeks and Jonathan Blake, from the Freedom Foundation Of Minnesota. These two are familiar with the window industry, and knew that it was going through hard times. They started wondering why so much attention was being paid in the Mainstream Media, the Teleprompter Jesus Press Conferences, and press releases to one little ol’ window manufacturer. Then they found out that Cathy Zoe controls 16.8 billion stimulus dollars. That’s $16,800,000,000.00, if you like to see zeroes.
How in the heck did one window manufacturer happen to win this sweepstakes? Did it have anything to do with contributing thousands and thousands of dollars to the Obama campaign? And some other connections having nothing to do with their entitlement to your money?
(My biggest problem with Serious Materials is the little environmental savings counter on their website. You can see how many thousand pounds of carbon they’ve saved, how much energy they've saved, etc. I’ve saved far more carbon than that. So have Somali shepherds. How do we do it? By not manufacturing windows. Who and what exactly are they measuring against?)
The next guest was Denis Calabrese, who explained that Congress spends its day listening to lobbyists and donors, not debating the merits of specific proposals. They pick winners and losers, and the losers (at all the other window companies) don’t get the subsidies, the tax breaks, and the breaks on quotas. Tim Carney, author of “The Big Rip-off”, explained why Big Government just LOVES some Big Government. Why? Because the more a business is regulated, the harder it is for new competitors to enter a market. Carney gave example after example.
(This is why all sorts of lobbyists from Big Pharma and the insurance industry are showing up at Martha Coakley’s fund-raising banquets, BTW.) Both sides are cozying up to each other to stay in power.
THEN STOSSEL COVERED THE BUTTER VS. MARGARINE CONTROVERSY ! (It’s been one of my favorites for a long time.) The Butter industry was terrified of the margarine industry. They got Congress to pass legislation requiring margarine to be dyed PINK. Swear to God, it happened.
THEN HE HIT ANOTHER ONE OF MY FAVORITES. Go to Google, and put in the phrase “Guess who helped write the new tobacco bill”. I’ll be there. Typing fast as I can. No time for links. The alleged consumer protection in this bill was nothing but an industry protection bill. Philip Morris stock rose 35% immediately after Obama signed the bill.
THEN HE WENT OFF ABOUT BUILDING JETS AT BOEING AND LOCKHEED FACTORIES, jets we don’t need, jets that the military doesn’t want, simply to “protect jobs”.
Calabrese challenged Stossel to identify a single aspect of our so-called free enterprise system where our government wasn’t picking the winners and losers. Bill Gates and Company did very little lobbying until he got hauled into Congress for monopolistic practices. Then he hired a huge lobbying operation, and decided to spend a lot more time in Washington. His difficulties have ceased.
Then the focus switched to toys. Government, of course, had to get involved For The Children. They wrote a slew of regulations for testing that no small toymaker could ever afford. They regulated the sale of used toys, which meant that the toy resale industry was eliminated. (Don’t you know that Mattel and Hasbro partied hard when that regulation went into effect?) Goowill had to stop accepting used baby beds, strollers, play pens. They might not have been tested properly.
Anne Northrup, one of 5 commissioners on the Consumer Products Safety Commission, was brought out to explain how the process works. She evaluated a simple wooden locomotive, and immediately identified 5 or 6 tests that would have to be performed before it could be sold. She was surprisingly sympathetic to the plight of the small toy and resale industries and made some appropriate sounds. (Note to Mom: The Consumer Products Safety Commission has come out with a book of advice for people wanting to hold garage sales. Since the law is retroactive, it condemned a lot of products that were declared “safe” when they were manufactured. The handbook recommends scanning all items with an X-Ray Fluorescence machine. Swear to God, it says it. The machines cost $30,000.00)
Northrup went on to say that the Consumer Products Safety Commission isn’t going to send an inspector out to check your garage sale. (But guess what? This creates a chilling effect that makes you hesitate to sell and old item, or to purchase one. It IS illegal to sell this stuff. Check out a book called “Three Felonies A Day” when you get a chance. Chances are, you’re committing a large number of crimes without even knowing it. They’re not going to prosecute you unless they need to.)
The next segment was about the bad rap that capitalism has gotten during the last two years. Michael Moore’s movie came in for appropriate levels of abuse.
OK, THE GUY THAT STOSSEL SHOWED TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS BEFORE EACH SEGMENT? THAT’S GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY’S RUSS ROBERTS ! ! ! RUSS ROBERTS OF THE “CAFÉ HAYEK” BLOG ! ! I HAD NO IDEA WHAT HE LOOKED LIKE. HIT THE RUSS ROBERTS OR CAFÉ HAYEK LABEL AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST !
I love that guy. Russ Roberts is on Stossel. This is freakin’ great. Roberts explains that Capitalism requires prudence. And if you take out the potential for any kind of loss, you’re left with “socialism for the rich”. The taxpayers have to cover the losses. It’s almost always an after-the-fact bailout. Roberts went on to say that there was absolutely no evidence for a potential disaster if we didn’t bail out, Wall-Street or GM, or any other entity.
Marta Mossburg (spelling corrected on 1-16-10, see comment from Mr. MossBURG, below) of the Franklin Center, explained that most D.C. lobbyists have worked on Capitol Hill. If the tax code was only 10 pages long, instead of tens of thousands of pages long, the lobbyists wouldn’t be necessary. But then, Congress wouldn’t be able to sell tax indulgences in exchange for donations.
Lehmann Brothers wasn’t politically connected. They didn’t spend much on lobbying. They were allowed to go under. The others? They were too big to fail.
Russ Roberts – “Let’s let people fend for themselves. It’s called Capitalism. Why don’t we try it.”
I kind of miss the audience involvement. Yes, it was all hostile questions. Yes, many of the people asking the hostile questions were doofuses. But then, how many of the people who hold those Statist opinions….. never mind.
Stossel closed the program with a monologue about the Constitution and the Declaration Of Independence. They’re paper-thin. Then he showed a 3-foot tall stack of regulations about toy safety and manufacturing.
Stossel explained why Big Steel lobbied Washington/G.W. Bush to keep cheap foreign steel out of the U.S., and how they succeeded. Then he explained how this played hell with manufacturers who used steel. Plus, YOU had to pay more for anything made with the more expensive U.S. steel. But then, you don’t have a lobbyist.
If you made it this far, I’m amazed. Going to bed now. Good night. Remember to set your Tivo to record Stossel every week. There’s nothing else like it on television.
Stossel started off by highlighting a company called Serious Materials, and the cozy relationship they have with Obama and Biden. Biden wandered through the plant a few times, looking exactly like Ted Knight from the Mary Tyler Moore Show, and said some good things about the company's obvious politically correct virtue level.
Obama gave Serious Materials a shout-out during a speech on the economy. Then the dynamic duo announced some tax credits for “green companies”. Only one window company was given their tax money back – Serious Materials.
Then Stossel showed the Company VP of Policy, hanging out with energy leaders in the Obama administration….and then he showed Cathy Zoi, who is in charge of Obama’s weatherization policy, talking about how they were going to have SWAT teams move in and weatherize entire neighborhoods with new storm windows, paid for by stimulus dollars.
Stossel eventually revealed that Serious Materials’ VP of Policy is married to Cathy Zoi. Well, shit. That takes some of the down-home, wholesome, green environmental goodness out of the equation, doesn’t it? Weren’t you happier not knowing this?
He brought on some panelists, Annette Meeks and Jonathan Blake, from the Freedom Foundation Of Minnesota. These two are familiar with the window industry, and knew that it was going through hard times. They started wondering why so much attention was being paid in the Mainstream Media, the Teleprompter Jesus Press Conferences, and press releases to one little ol’ window manufacturer. Then they found out that Cathy Zoe controls 16.8 billion stimulus dollars. That’s $16,800,000,000.00, if you like to see zeroes.
How in the heck did one window manufacturer happen to win this sweepstakes? Did it have anything to do with contributing thousands and thousands of dollars to the Obama campaign? And some other connections having nothing to do with their entitlement to your money?
(My biggest problem with Serious Materials is the little environmental savings counter on their website. You can see how many thousand pounds of carbon they’ve saved, how much energy they've saved, etc. I’ve saved far more carbon than that. So have Somali shepherds. How do we do it? By not manufacturing windows. Who and what exactly are they measuring against?)
The next guest was Denis Calabrese, who explained that Congress spends its day listening to lobbyists and donors, not debating the merits of specific proposals. They pick winners and losers, and the losers (at all the other window companies) don’t get the subsidies, the tax breaks, and the breaks on quotas. Tim Carney, author of “The Big Rip-off”, explained why Big Government just LOVES some Big Government. Why? Because the more a business is regulated, the harder it is for new competitors to enter a market. Carney gave example after example.
(This is why all sorts of lobbyists from Big Pharma and the insurance industry are showing up at Martha Coakley’s fund-raising banquets, BTW.) Both sides are cozying up to each other to stay in power.
THEN STOSSEL COVERED THE BUTTER VS. MARGARINE CONTROVERSY ! (It’s been one of my favorites for a long time.) The Butter industry was terrified of the margarine industry. They got Congress to pass legislation requiring margarine to be dyed PINK. Swear to God, it happened.
THEN HE HIT ANOTHER ONE OF MY FAVORITES. Go to Google, and put in the phrase “Guess who helped write the new tobacco bill”. I’ll be there. Typing fast as I can. No time for links. The alleged consumer protection in this bill was nothing but an industry protection bill. Philip Morris stock rose 35% immediately after Obama signed the bill.
THEN HE WENT OFF ABOUT BUILDING JETS AT BOEING AND LOCKHEED FACTORIES, jets we don’t need, jets that the military doesn’t want, simply to “protect jobs”.
Calabrese challenged Stossel to identify a single aspect of our so-called free enterprise system where our government wasn’t picking the winners and losers. Bill Gates and Company did very little lobbying until he got hauled into Congress for monopolistic practices. Then he hired a huge lobbying operation, and decided to spend a lot more time in Washington. His difficulties have ceased.
Then the focus switched to toys. Government, of course, had to get involved For The Children. They wrote a slew of regulations for testing that no small toymaker could ever afford. They regulated the sale of used toys, which meant that the toy resale industry was eliminated. (Don’t you know that Mattel and Hasbro partied hard when that regulation went into effect?) Goowill had to stop accepting used baby beds, strollers, play pens. They might not have been tested properly.
Anne Northrup, one of 5 commissioners on the Consumer Products Safety Commission, was brought out to explain how the process works. She evaluated a simple wooden locomotive, and immediately identified 5 or 6 tests that would have to be performed before it could be sold. She was surprisingly sympathetic to the plight of the small toy and resale industries and made some appropriate sounds. (Note to Mom: The Consumer Products Safety Commission has come out with a book of advice for people wanting to hold garage sales. Since the law is retroactive, it condemned a lot of products that were declared “safe” when they were manufactured. The handbook recommends scanning all items with an X-Ray Fluorescence machine. Swear to God, it says it. The machines cost $30,000.00)
Northrup went on to say that the Consumer Products Safety Commission isn’t going to send an inspector out to check your garage sale. (But guess what? This creates a chilling effect that makes you hesitate to sell and old item, or to purchase one. It IS illegal to sell this stuff. Check out a book called “Three Felonies A Day” when you get a chance. Chances are, you’re committing a large number of crimes without even knowing it. They’re not going to prosecute you unless they need to.)
The next segment was about the bad rap that capitalism has gotten during the last two years. Michael Moore’s movie came in for appropriate levels of abuse.
OK, THE GUY THAT STOSSEL SHOWED TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS BEFORE EACH SEGMENT? THAT’S GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY’S RUSS ROBERTS ! ! ! RUSS ROBERTS OF THE “CAFÉ HAYEK” BLOG ! ! I HAD NO IDEA WHAT HE LOOKED LIKE. HIT THE RUSS ROBERTS OR CAFÉ HAYEK LABEL AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST !
I love that guy. Russ Roberts is on Stossel. This is freakin’ great. Roberts explains that Capitalism requires prudence. And if you take out the potential for any kind of loss, you’re left with “socialism for the rich”. The taxpayers have to cover the losses. It’s almost always an after-the-fact bailout. Roberts went on to say that there was absolutely no evidence for a potential disaster if we didn’t bail out, Wall-Street or GM, or any other entity.
Marta Mossburg (spelling corrected on 1-16-10, see comment from Mr. MossBURG, below) of the Franklin Center, explained that most D.C. lobbyists have worked on Capitol Hill. If the tax code was only 10 pages long, instead of tens of thousands of pages long, the lobbyists wouldn’t be necessary. But then, Congress wouldn’t be able to sell tax indulgences in exchange for donations.
Lehmann Brothers wasn’t politically connected. They didn’t spend much on lobbying. They were allowed to go under. The others? They were too big to fail.
Russ Roberts – “Let’s let people fend for themselves. It’s called Capitalism. Why don’t we try it.”
I kind of miss the audience involvement. Yes, it was all hostile questions. Yes, many of the people asking the hostile questions were doofuses. But then, how many of the people who hold those Statist opinions….. never mind.
Stossel closed the program with a monologue about the Constitution and the Declaration Of Independence. They’re paper-thin. Then he showed a 3-foot tall stack of regulations about toy safety and manufacturing.
Stossel explained why Big Steel lobbied Washington/G.W. Bush to keep cheap foreign steel out of the U.S., and how they succeeded. Then he explained how this played hell with manufacturers who used steel. Plus, YOU had to pay more for anything made with the more expensive U.S. steel. But then, you don’t have a lobbyist.
If you made it this far, I’m amazed. Going to bed now. Good night. Remember to set your Tivo to record Stossel every week. There’s nothing else like it on television.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
"Capitalism: A Love Story"
When I went to see Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" last night, I fully intended to purchase a ticket for a different film, just to get inside the theatre. (I wanted to see Moore's movie, but I have qualms about giving money to millionaire socialists.)
I forgot that plan in the ticket line. Oh well. I've supported worse.
I'd seen the preview, and had ranted on some of the same subjects.
Michael Moore creates movies in exchange for lots of $10.00 tickets.
Many of us value seeing Moore's movie more than we value our $10.00. Michael Moore values our $10.00 more than he values the time spent making his movies. Michael Moore and a lot of people made a voluntary financial exchange last night. That's called "Capitalism".
Why not engage in this voluntary Free Market exchange with Michael Moore, and let him explain to us why voluntary Free Market exchanges are evil?
If you're looking for a consistent, coherent attack on Capitalism, go elsewhere. The movie is a mishmash of attacks on things that Moore doesn't like, redeemed with some genuinely funny sight gags and film clips.
But if you want a beginner's guide to how Goldman Sachs looted the U.S. Treasury? Give Michael Moore your $10.00
Moore begins with footage from what he sees as America's Golden Years. Dad could buy a new car every three years, he had a pension, four weeks of vacation, and Mom didn't have to work. Why? Because during WW2, we bombed our economic competitors, Germany and Japan, into oblivion. (It was a preview of Cash For Clunkers. Destroy enemy cities, and then rebuild them. It creates jobs and stimulates the economy !!)
Then come some genuinely heartbreaking scenes of people being evicted from their homes, some of which had been in their families for generations. I don't remember any clear explanations of how homes that have been in one family for multiple generations can be foreclosured on, though. Was it an 80-year loan with a balloon note tacked on the end? Did the owners use the house as collateral for a business venture that didn't work out? Did the owner lose his job, and take out a loan against the property just to get by? I don't think Moore ever tells us.
A few of the episodes have so little to do with capitalism, they seem like they were filmed with another movie in mind. One episode where Moore went totally off the rails was an interlude about Judge Mark Ciavarella. This vile bastard, along with someone named Mark T. Conahan, took money under the table from a privately owned juvenile detention center, in exchange for sending more and more juvenile delinquents to the privately operated detention center.
I wrote an incoherent rant about Ciavarella and Conahan several months ago, and when Moore's attack on them began, I supressed an urge to walk down each row of seats and tell everyone to READ THIS.
But, like Michael Moore, I digress. Free Market Capitalism is about voluntary exchanges of time, merchandise, and property. Corrupt judges who can screw up the lives of 1,600 children by taking kickbacks are an argument for less government involvement in the economy, not more.
There are some funny scenes where the dialogue in an old Jesus movie is replaced with contemporary clutch-phrases. (A beggar comes to Jesus to be healed; Jesus turns him away because of a pre-existing condition.) I think the funniest one would be to have Jesus say "I don't think we should do this by ourselves. Let's get Caesar involved."
Then Moore got to the good part. He outlined how various financial institutions were making a fortune by placing exotic bets on the outcomes of our economic behavior. Hank Paulson got a lot of face time onscreen. Ditto for Larry Summers. Ditto for Tiny Timmy Geithner. You can quibble over Moore's choice of details, but he explains how that Unholy Trinity worked with Bush and a Democratic Congress to loot the Treasury. Timothy Geithner comes in for a lot of unexpected abuse. Even Chris Dodd's crimes against transparency got some screen time. I couldn't believe it.
It was more or less accurate and very entertaining, if you enjoy watching a comedy about how a pack of jackals got into your wallet.
Then the music changed. One could almost imagine the Lone Ranger riding over a hilltop. Moore's voice switched from despair to enthusiasm. The screen got brighter, and was suddenly filled with hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans, good solid Americans like you and me, and they were all focused on....
Barack Obama ! Barack Obama ! Barack Obama ! Holy shit, he's awesome ! !
And then everything got better? And then Obama didn't name Timmy The Tax Dodger Geithner to head up the Treasury? Larry Summers was banished from anywhere near the president's ear? Was Goldman Sachs Obama's #1 campaign contributor, or merely #2 ?? Coca-Cola went back to using sugar instead of corn syrup?
Did The Obamessiah come in and cleanse the temple? Or did he merely allow all the con artists to slide one seat higher in the pecking order?
We'll never know where Moore was headed with this awkward scenario, because the movie pivots over to a union strike at a door and window company.
Here's where it should've gone, though. The people who ripped you off with the Wall Street bailout are the people who ripped you off with the Stimulus Package. They take turns, leaving a few Geithners in place as a transition team.
You had no choice but to finance the Wall Street Bailout, the G.M. Bailout, and the Porkulus Package. Other people made that decision for you, and your grandchildren will have a diminished existence because of it. That's not capitalism. That's fascism. A corporatistic economic ideology where Government and business are intertwined.
Some billionaire capitalists financed this movie. A millionaire capitalist wrote it, directed it, and starred in it. That's ok. In our system, they have that choice.
This is the most pro-union movie I've ever seen, and workers should have a right to unionize. That's their choice. Employers should have a right to hire non-union workers. That's their choice.
Michael Moore has come under fire for using non-union labor to make this pro-union movie. Why did he use non-union labor? Because he had a choice.
If you support the right of billionaire producers to finance millionaire capitalist filmmakers who want to hire non-union labor to produce pro-socialist movies?
I forgot that plan in the ticket line. Oh well. I've supported worse.
I'd seen the preview, and had ranted on some of the same subjects.
Michael Moore creates movies in exchange for lots of $10.00 tickets.
Many of us value seeing Moore's movie more than we value our $10.00. Michael Moore values our $10.00 more than he values the time spent making his movies. Michael Moore and a lot of people made a voluntary financial exchange last night. That's called "Capitalism".
Why not engage in this voluntary Free Market exchange with Michael Moore, and let him explain to us why voluntary Free Market exchanges are evil?
If you're looking for a consistent, coherent attack on Capitalism, go elsewhere. The movie is a mishmash of attacks on things that Moore doesn't like, redeemed with some genuinely funny sight gags and film clips.
But if you want a beginner's guide to how Goldman Sachs looted the U.S. Treasury? Give Michael Moore your $10.00
Moore begins with footage from what he sees as America's Golden Years. Dad could buy a new car every three years, he had a pension, four weeks of vacation, and Mom didn't have to work. Why? Because during WW2, we bombed our economic competitors, Germany and Japan, into oblivion. (It was a preview of Cash For Clunkers. Destroy enemy cities, and then rebuild them. It creates jobs and stimulates the economy !!)
Then come some genuinely heartbreaking scenes of people being evicted from their homes, some of which had been in their families for generations. I don't remember any clear explanations of how homes that have been in one family for multiple generations can be foreclosured on, though. Was it an 80-year loan with a balloon note tacked on the end? Did the owners use the house as collateral for a business venture that didn't work out? Did the owner lose his job, and take out a loan against the property just to get by? I don't think Moore ever tells us.
A few of the episodes have so little to do with capitalism, they seem like they were filmed with another movie in mind. One episode where Moore went totally off the rails was an interlude about Judge Mark Ciavarella. This vile bastard, along with someone named Mark T. Conahan, took money under the table from a privately owned juvenile detention center, in exchange for sending more and more juvenile delinquents to the privately operated detention center.
I wrote an incoherent rant about Ciavarella and Conahan several months ago, and when Moore's attack on them began, I supressed an urge to walk down each row of seats and tell everyone to READ THIS.
But, like Michael Moore, I digress. Free Market Capitalism is about voluntary exchanges of time, merchandise, and property. Corrupt judges who can screw up the lives of 1,600 children by taking kickbacks are an argument for less government involvement in the economy, not more.
There are some funny scenes where the dialogue in an old Jesus movie is replaced with contemporary clutch-phrases. (A beggar comes to Jesus to be healed; Jesus turns him away because of a pre-existing condition.) I think the funniest one would be to have Jesus say "I don't think we should do this by ourselves. Let's get Caesar involved."
Then Moore got to the good part. He outlined how various financial institutions were making a fortune by placing exotic bets on the outcomes of our economic behavior. Hank Paulson got a lot of face time onscreen. Ditto for Larry Summers. Ditto for Tiny Timmy Geithner. You can quibble over Moore's choice of details, but he explains how that Unholy Trinity worked with Bush and a Democratic Congress to loot the Treasury. Timothy Geithner comes in for a lot of unexpected abuse. Even Chris Dodd's crimes against transparency got some screen time. I couldn't believe it.
It was more or less accurate and very entertaining, if you enjoy watching a comedy about how a pack of jackals got into your wallet.
Then the music changed. One could almost imagine the Lone Ranger riding over a hilltop. Moore's voice switched from despair to enthusiasm. The screen got brighter, and was suddenly filled with hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans, good solid Americans like you and me, and they were all focused on....
Barack Obama ! Barack Obama ! Barack Obama ! Holy shit, he's awesome ! !
And then everything got better? And then Obama didn't name Timmy The Tax Dodger Geithner to head up the Treasury? Larry Summers was banished from anywhere near the president's ear? Was Goldman Sachs Obama's #1 campaign contributor, or merely #2 ?? Coca-Cola went back to using sugar instead of corn syrup?
Did The Obamessiah come in and cleanse the temple? Or did he merely allow all the con artists to slide one seat higher in the pecking order?
We'll never know where Moore was headed with this awkward scenario, because the movie pivots over to a union strike at a door and window company.
Here's where it should've gone, though. The people who ripped you off with the Wall Street bailout are the people who ripped you off with the Stimulus Package. They take turns, leaving a few Geithners in place as a transition team.
You had no choice but to finance the Wall Street Bailout, the G.M. Bailout, and the Porkulus Package. Other people made that decision for you, and your grandchildren will have a diminished existence because of it. That's not capitalism. That's fascism. A corporatistic economic ideology where Government and business are intertwined.
Some billionaire capitalists financed this movie. A millionaire capitalist wrote it, directed it, and starred in it. That's ok. In our system, they have that choice.
This is the most pro-union movie I've ever seen, and workers should have a right to unionize. That's their choice. Employers should have a right to hire non-union workers. That's their choice.
Michael Moore has come under fire for using non-union labor to make this pro-union movie. Why did he use non-union labor? Because he had a choice.
If you support the right of billionaire producers to finance millionaire capitalist filmmakers who want to hire non-union labor to produce pro-socialist movies? Please consider the Libertarian Party. We're Pro-Choice about everything.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)