Posted on 12/06/2019 4:00:28 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
The Fox News host’s exposé on “vulture capitalism” goes to the heart of a debate on the Right about the role of government.
Tucker Carlson is perhaps the only major media figure in America willing to attack across party lines to make his point. On Tuesday night he went after Republican mega-donor Paul Singer in a withering 10-minute special segment on how Singer destroyed a small town in Nebraska in a hostile takeover of the sporting goods retailer Cabela’s.
For those who don’t know, Singer is a New York hedge fund manager who has made billions as a so-called “vulture capitalist,” buying up the sovereign debt of financially distressed countries at a discount and then cashing in later, using lawsuits to pressure governments to pay up. He’s done something similar with U.S. firms—buying up debt, shipping jobs overseas, firing American workers and cashing out—in some cases at taxpayer expense.
In addition to donating to the GOP and running his hedge fund, Elliott Capital, Singer also funds a lot of conservative media, which is why you won’t hear much criticism of him from right-leaning outlets or Republican politicians. That of course makes Carlson’s segment on Tuesday all the more remarkable.
Carlson’s report focused on the town of Sidney, Nebraska, population 6,282. Sidney was the longtime home of Cabela’s and once employed thousands of local residents. It was the economic anchor of the town. But Singer’s firm took an ownership stake in the company in 2015, when the Cabela’s was making nearly $2 billion in annual profits, and pressured the board to sell. A year later Bass Pro Shops purchased Cabela’s, the company’s stock price surged, and Singer cashed out for at least $90 million.
But Sidney was destroyed. As Carlson explained, “The town lost nearly 2,000 jobs. A heartbreakingly familiar cascade began: people left, property values collapsed, and then people couldn’t leave. They were trapped there. One of the last thriving small towns in America went under.”
What Role Should Government Play In Our Civic Life? The point of highlighting the fate of this one town and the role of Singer in its demise isn’t to vilify capitalism or the free market in general, but to point out how the system is engineered to benefit the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else. As Willis Krumholtz explains nearby in greater detail, the story of Cabela’s and the people of Sidney is an example of “financial engineering that paid a select few off, while the whole suffered.”
This critique goes to the heart of what the political right has been grappling with in the age of Trump. What is the proper role of the government and public policy in American society? Whose interests should it serve?
Much of what’s behind Trump-era populism, not just in America but across the West, is the dawning realization that the post-Cold War global capitalist system doesn’t necessarily benefit working- and middle-class Americans—or at least that free trade and global capitalism aren’t unmitigated goods. They have costs, and those costs are borne disproportionately by ordinary people, the kind of people who get laid off from Cabela’s for no good reason other than it made Singer a pile of money.
This isn’t just an economic question. The role of government is also at the center of the ongoing Sohrab Amari-David French debate on the right about whether the public sphere can really ever be neutral and what, if anything, conservatives should do to advance what they see as the good. Libertarian-minded conservatives like French look at drag queen story hour and conclude, hey, this is just the price of liberty. We can no more use government power to prohibit drag queens in public libraries than we can use it to prohibit any other kind of free speech
Ahmari and others have challenged this way of thinking, positing that liberty has an object, which is the good, and that government’s role is not just to protect liberty but also to promote and defend the good. Things like stable and intact families, prosperous communities, and vibrant churches and schools aren’t merely what we hope might spring forth from unfettered liberty secured by a neutral and indifferent government; they’re the entire purpose of securing liberty in the first place.
In the same way, champions of global capitalism might look at the desolation of a town like Sidney and conclude, hey, this is just the price of free markets. Carlson argues that no, this is the price of maintaining a system designed to benefit people like Singer at the expense of middle-class Americans.
All of this is part of a reckoning now underway in America about what our government is for and whose interests it should serve. The status quo of recent decades, in which both major political parties crafted policies that served the interest of an established donor class, is coming to an end.
The election of Donald Trump is a manifestation, not a cause, of this reckoning. And while the left descends into a fever swamp of utopian socialist fantasies carried over from the last century, the right is grappling with these questions in earnest.
The questions concern far more than just drag queen story hour or vulture capitalists like Singer. They cover almost everything we see around us today. What do we do about big tech? What’s causing rising mortality from deaths of despair? Why are so many once-thriving communities hollowed out? What’s destroying rural America? Why are so many young people struggling with depression and anxiety?
An aspect to all of these questions is what role, if any, should the government play, and what policy changes would actually make things better? To his credit, Carlson is probing these problems and looking for answers—even if it means going after the likes of Paul Singer.
What happened to Cabela’s is disgusting.
Truly disgusting.
Well written and thought provoking.
Why are not the Dems and their thousands of self righteous socialist lefty lawyers caterwauling for Singer’s tax returns?
Creatures such as Sanger should be investigated very closely. He needs to start being very charitable , or be made to return the money to the communities he has destroyed through development investment.
Possibly the funniest thing I have seen in my life was Bernie complaining about the “one percent”!
The author makes some interesting points. However, I would like to point out that “the government” isn’t some benevolent entity. It’s made up of a bunch of people who make Peter Singer look like a saint. Expecting to use the government to fix the problems caused by the Peter Singers of the world in today’s environment is like trying to use gasoline to put out a fire.
Singer likes RINOs like Mutt Romney and dead McCain. Sasse takes his money too while pooping on his State.
Did Singer break any laws? Just curious ...
Excellent article.
Been in a Cabela’s lately? The town wasn’t the only thing destroyed.
BTW, Cabela’s bears some responsibility for this. The company made some very bad business decisions which left it vulnerable.
Total BS.
Singer showed up at the end. This was precipitated by cabelas downturn. Had they not been public, singer could do nothing to them.
The prob I have with these kinds of stories is that they zoom in on some emotional negative and attempt to use that to disparage free markets overall - as if if we just went communist, nothing bad would happen. Puppies would no longer die.
The sad story here is the town that got wiped out by the reorg that Bass performed. As a failing company what would you have done, declare bankruptcy and shut everyone down? Would you shed tears if singer lost his investment?
Cabelas took a bad turn and some got hurt. That’s life.
What exactly should change here to “fix” this?
Companies not allowed to go public?
People are limited in the amount of stock they can own in a company?
Companies are not allowed to reorg or downsize? They must tough it out until total destitution?
People are not allowed to sell the stock they own?
Sad story for the town, but nothing here to change. Had there been no downturn springer wouldn’t even be in the picture. There’s no way to prevent a downturn even under communist rules.
The town depended on one business?
The well-being of the people is the highest law.
2000 jobs.
Less than 7000 population.
Yes, the town depended on one business.
Mike Rowe on the Dem debates:
“Look, in the end you’ve got millionaires arguing with millionaires over who hates the millionaires the most.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/16/mike-rowe-democrat-millionaires-arguing-over-who-h/
The root issue on the OP seems to be antitrust/monopoly law and how it is applied.
"Conservatives" haven't conserved a damn thing in the past fifty years, more like 75 really but at least there were a few people sounding the alarm and trying to stem the tide for the first 25 years of that.
Too many people have swallowed lie that the vultures are simply increasing efficiency in the economy like good capitalists. They're increasing the efficiency of a marginally capitalist international cabal, not the US economy.
All the theoretical BS about capitalism that destroys the nation it supposedly benefits isn't protecting a capitalist system in the US. In fact, by pushing the costs off onto the taxpayer while keeping the benefits for the wealthy it's a sure way to push the nation under discussion further into the socialist centrally planned economic system which is the goal of the very same "capitalists" who claim they deserve praise for their increasing the efficiency of the system they're actually destroying.
Unless it incorporates a strong strain of populist oriented economics, "Conservative" is just a synonym for Gradualism.
JMHo
Exactly right! What would we have government do - determine who may sell their property, and who may not? Fascism isn't a 'solution' to anything...
It is a sad story.
However, these same capitalist forces put the pony express out of business , and replaced it with rail.
What I find most disturbing is that the residents did not come together to form Nebraska Outfitters, with their skills and experience. Maybe it isn’t too late.
Say NO to Wall Street!
That would take this full cycle in a functional system.
Just thinking out loud as I considered that government should stay out of businesses.
What if the role of government was to curb immigration, illegal and legal, curb or stop tech’s H1B visas, shutoff green cards. Next, cut welfare. Increase tariffs. Regulate banking to not permit offshore banking for companies registered or licensed as a US company. Decrease small business regulation.
I think it is clear small towns should not rely on 1 big national or international business to sustain its people.
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.