Defining Terms

For those of you who want a brief description of economic systems, Neal Boortz has up a good description which I will post here:

* An economic system where both industry and business is owned and controlled by the government ..... Socialism.
* An economic system where industry and business is privately owned, but controlled by the government ..... Fascism.
* An economic system where industry and business is privately owned an privately controlled. .... Free enterprise.

Everyone said it couldn't happen...

...but Rep. Barney Frank is trying to make it a reality.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Beyond-AIG-A-Bill-to-let-Big-Government-Set-Your-Salary-42158597.html

He wants the right to regulate the pay of ALL EMPLOYEES of ANY company who received government funds. This means that Washington, D.C. could set the salaries, benefits, bonuses, and perks for virtually every bank in the country. Plus, presumably, the auto makers and other companies currently begging for bailout money. The bill would be retroactive, so everyone who has ever accepted a penny would be covered.

Who says they can't pass an Ex Post Facto law? The Constitution? Silly rabbit.

Does "Too big to fail" mean we're already living in a Socialist America?

Reading thru an article by Elliot Spitzer this morning, I was stricken again by the phrase "too big to fail" which has been flung around by protectionists and internationalists alike, of late. The phrase has been applied to multiple financial institutions and to the Big 3 car-makers, with the claim that if they went bankrupt that the economic ripples would become a tidal wave. Those looking to save the institutions are clear to say that they do not advocate socialism or nationalization as a cure.

But really, if we're even using the phrase "too big to fail" aren't we already socialized? A fundamental tenet of capitalism is that failure is a good thing. The ability to fail allows corrupt or inefficient companies to be eliminated without the need for outside influence. It punishes bad decisions (with bankruptcy) and rewards good decisions (with wealth). By saying a company is "too big to fail", we are (1) not allowing the market to work for us and eliminate failed companies, and (2) we are encouraging ALL companies to become "too big to fail". We have socialized our economy by deciding which companies deserve to live and die, and governmentally-enforcing which companies are on top.

It is time to start calling this "too big to fail" mentality what it is. And it is time to start thinking about allowing companies like AIG to fail. Some cancers can be treated. But others can only be cured by cutting them out, despite the pain and recovery time that the body must go thru.

Inspired by Banking Bailout, GM Says "Nationalize Us Too!"

Is there no one out there capable of thinking long-term anymore? It was bad enough that the Republican Party lead the charge to nationalize banking by buying equity stakes in the largest banks in the country. Now, GM and Chrysler are asking for the Federal government to buy a stake so that the two companies can successfully merge.

An injection of $3 billion in equity to support a GM acquisition of Chrysler would be roughly equivalent to the current, depressed value of the top U.S. automaker.

It would also give U.S. taxpayers a large stake in the turnaround of a struggling auto industry that employs over 350,000 American workers and is credited with supporting employment for another 4.5 million in related fields...

In addition to its equity stake, the U.S. government is also being asked to provide support for the GM-Chrysler merger by taking over some $3 billion in pension obligations under the terms of a proposal now before the government for review, the first source said.

How long will it be until we face the fact that some companies must be allowed to fail? It is one thing to attempt to stabilize the economic system by ensuring liquidity. It is another to prop up a manufacturing company with a proven history of incompetence. If we keep up these knee-jerk bailouts, we're going to suddenly find ourselves living in a socialist nation where the government sets the amount of our paychecks and decides who to hire and fire.

Irony approaching Overload!

Original from Townhall.Com.

An Expose of Sweeden's "Successful" National Recycling Program

In the debate over government-run Health Care, the question is often asked "What has the government ever run that worked, besides the military?" The first answer is usually "The Post Office" until people realize how often things get lost in the mail. The second answer is often the Sweedish recycling program, which is trumpeted as a profitable enterprise. At least one Swede strongly disagrees. And if this is the model for government-run Health Care, God help us all if it is ever enacted.

The authorities have established trash collection centers in most neighborhoods where you get to throw away your trash. These "centers" offer numerous containers where you can throw away your trash — there is one container dedicated for each and every kind of trash and they are all neatly color-coded to help you find the right one. But this means you better have separated your aluminum from your other metals and your newspapers from your soft and hard papers before you get here. You wouldn't want to throw away dirty milk cartons or unsorted paper, would you?

But it seems people do just that: they cheat if they believe they are better off doing so. So the authorities have responded by making it more difficult to cheat. Their first measure was to redesign all containers so that it is more difficult throwing the "wrong" trash in them. For instance, containers for glass have only small, round holes where you put your bottles, and containers for hard paper and carton materials have only letter-slit shaped holes (you need to flatten all boxes before recycling — that's the law).

Well, that didn't do the trick. People kept on cheating. And the more difficult the authorities made it to cheat, the more difficult it was to get rid of the trash even if you intended to put it in the right place. So people went to these centers and simply put everything next to the containers instead — why bother? The authorities responded by appointing salaried "trash collection center spies" (!) to document who was cheating so that they could be brought to justice. (There have actually been a few court cases where people have been tried for not following recycling laws.)

Are we really ready to face these kinds of central planning issues when we go to our doctors? I'd say no, but I will admit I have friends who would claim they already do in dealing with their health insurance provider.