Posted on 08/12/2009 8:31:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
"What disturbs Americans of all ideological persuasions is the fear that almost everything, not just government, is fixed or manipulated by some powerful hidden hand," Frank Rich wrote in Sunday's New York Times.
That manipulation should disturb us. But contrary to Rich, it is not the work of "corporatists" who have sprung up to attack progressive reforms proposed by Obama and the Democratic majority. Manipulation is what we got many years ago when we traded a more or less free market for the "progressive" interventionist state. When government is big, the well-connected always have an advantage over the rest of us in influencing public policy.
Observe: Although President Obama and big-government activists demonize health-insurance companies, the companies "are still mostly on board with the president's effort to overhaul the U.S. health-care system," the Wall Street Journal reports; and ...
Although the activists criticize Big Pharma, "The drug industry has already contributed millions of dollars to advertising campaigns for the health care overhaul through the advocacy groups like Healthy Economies Now and Families USA. It has spent about $1 million on similar advertisements under its own name," the Times reports.
Big Pharma and Big Insurance want Obama-style health-care reform?
t's not so hard to understand. "The drug makers stand to gain millions of new customers," the Times said.
And from the Journal: "If health legislation succeeds, the [insurance] industry would likely get a fresh batch of new customers. In particular, many young and healthy people who currently forgo coverage would be forced to sign up." No wonder insurers are willing to stop "discriminating" against sick people. (Forget that the essence of insurance is discrimination according to risk.)
Not that Big Pharma and Big Insurance like every detail of the Democratic plan. Drug companies don't want Medicare negotiating drug prices -- for good reason. If it forces drug prices down, research and development will be discouraged. (Depending whom you believe, Obama may or may not have agreed with the drug companies on this point.)
As for the insurance companies, they worry -- legitimately -- that a government insurance company -- the so-called public option" -- would drive them out of business. This isn't alarmism. It's economics. The public option would have no bottom line to worry about and therefore could engage in "predatory pricing" against the private insurers.
But despite these differences, the biggest companies in these two industries are on board with "reform."
It illustrates economist Steven Horwitz's First Law of Political Economy: "No one hates capitalism more than capitalists." In this case, big business wants to shape -- and profit from -- what inevitably will be an interventionist health-care reform. Can you think of the last time a major business supported a truly free market in anything?
In light of all this, it's funny to watch Democrats and their activist allies panic over the protests at congressional town meetings around the country. Tools of the corporate interests! they cry. But anyone opposing "socialized medicine" at the meeting can't be a mouthpiece for big business because, as we've seen, big business supports government control. Conservative groups may be encouraging people to vent their anger at congressmen who pass burdensome legislation without even bothering to read it, but that's no reason to insult the protestors as pawns. What's wrong with organizations helping like-minded people to voice their opinions? Why do Democrats, such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi, dismiss citizen participation as "AstroTurf" -- not real grassroots -- only when citizens oppose the kind of big government they favor?
They weren't so dismissive when George W. Bush was president and people protested -- appropriately -- his accumulation of executive powers.
"When handfuls of Code Pink ladies disrupted congressional hearings or speeches by Bush administration officials," Glenn Reynolds writes, "it was taken as evidence that the administration's policies were unpopular, and that the thinking parts of the populace were rising up in true democratic fashion. ... But when it happens to Democrats, it's something different: A threat to democracy, a sign of incipient fascism ... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls the 'Tea Party' protesters Nazis. ... "
So when lefties do it, it's called "community organizing."
When conservatives and libertarians do it, it's "AstroTurf."
Give me a break.
I expect the big Insco’s expect the gummit to hire out the execution of Obamacare to them. Then Obama will crow about how the gummit just saved big bucks in not hiring a megagaggle of public servants.
The Joker’s thugs scare them.
Stoessel does not answer the conundrum though, Conservatism supposedly supports Open Markets/Free Trade, yet the benenficiaries of that system are not bound by those principles and simply jump into bed with Statists who are anything but in favor of Open Markets.
So what are we to support? What is the best philosophy now that Corporatism has shown they lack any compunction when it comes to Socializing the American Economy?
Frank Rich. Why does that name sound familiar?
Francine B-tch should go back to reviewing Broadway Musicals. Her political writings are tho thilly...
Corporations and Government both have one thing in common. Both hate competition, and both will use each other to keep competitors out.
Big Business thinks that it’s going to realize cost savings and the Unions think they are going to secure the health care savings in increased gross income.
Corporatism supports ‘Value Capture’ (what we have now) a method of ‘capturing’ value without exchange. (Big Corp cannot exist without Big Govt protecting them from the ‘little guy’ or competitors and mandating you give up ‘value’ without receiving ‘value’ in exchange. )
Free Markets support ‘Vaule Creation’... Exchange of ‘values’, which benefits both parties, creating ‘wealth’.
Are we too far gone? Watch small businesses. They are the canary in the coal mine.
This guy belongs in the U.S. Senate, where ABC can never censor his opinions.
This is what I’ve been trying to tell friends, acquaintances etc ... big business LOVES REGULATION. What they fear most is open free competition.
They will not grasp that.
You have to give credit to Stossel for being an honest libertarian.
The whole idea that "big business" is against "Big Government" is silly. Big Business if FOR anything that they can use to make more money, or to ensure their survival. Really, the only difference between Big Government and Big Business, is that I can simply stop supporting Big Business by withholding my dollar, Big Government gives you NO SUCH OPTION.
He is indeed
big business LOVES REGULATION
BINGO! I heard a big corporate CEO say that very thing at a meeting. Regulations suppress competition and deepen their moat. Anyone who wants to challenge them has so many start up costs that it makes such a challenge very prohibitve
Jonah Goldberg:
First, one needs to remember that the New Deal was not the assault on big business that its fans claim. FDR may have talked a good game about going after “economic royalists,” and he did love confiscatory personal income taxes. But he and his Brain Trust also loved cartels, big businesses, and other “big units” of society. The notion that big business and big government are at war with one another is one of the great enduring myths of the 20th century. The truth is that ever since Teddy Roosevelt abandoned his love of trust-busting, progressives have liked big businesses big, really big. The bigger the business, the more reliable the partner for big government.
That’s why any huge corporation that plays ball on health care, or “green jobs,” or countless other initiatives, is hailed as a “forward-thinking” or “progressive” company. Companies such as GE, which stands to make billions from Obama’s energy proposals, are vital sidekicks in the new era of public-private partnerships. Why is Obama working tirelessly to save Detroit automakers? Because GM is a wonderful poster boy for peddling nationalized health care, and UAW is an indispensable cog in the Democratic Party.
Hillary Clinton’s health-care plan required working with large corporations and other firms. It was little guys for whom she had nothing but contempt. When warned her plan would crush smaller businesses, she shrugged, “I can’t go out and save every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America.”
Again, this is hardly a new story. Chiefly under the auspices of the National Recovery Administration, the New Dealers sought to create huge cartels and trade associations that could work side by side with economic planners. Small and independent firms, from movie theaters to dry cleaners to poultry distributors, were hounded and harassed by a government determined to “rationalize” the economy by sweeping away all those pesky-but-innovative competitors. Would Barney Frank rather work with one giant Fannie Mae that will always take his phone calls and do his bidding, or a thousand smaller firms that would need to be herded like cats? I think we already know the answer.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTM3ZmI0MDA2ZjM5OWRkZDk5N2Y1Njk3NDkzZmE1NDY=
F.A. Hayek dedicated his famous little book to “The Socialists of all Parties” for a good reason.
We are tripping down the hill to his predicted land of tyranny.
The recent high volume resistance directed at our Congress-clowns is all well and good but much too late.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.