Why the Rich Love Socialists
Posted by Joshua Claybourn on 31 October 2008 | 12 responses
My experiences in the smoke-filled back rooms of legislators and executives have always revealed a sad reality that surprises me at first: the really rich tend not only to tolerate socialists, but to assist them. The reason, I’ve found, is that a free market requires these obnoxiously rich folks to compete for their place at the economic pinnacle. But socialists are all about setting rules for who gets what, and when you’re among the very richest, it’s quite easy to influence these rules. Shannon Love has a post up reflecting these thoughts and explains it this way:
The ugly truth is that the really wealthy can manipulate the political system to their own ends better than ordinary people. They can lobby for specific tax breaks that only they can take advantage of. They can get government trade protection for their companies. They can get bailouts. . .
The history of Europe since WWII has shown that it really pays to be a big company in a socialist country. Socialists like stasis. Socialist politicians like to guarantee jobs. They like predictable tax revenue. To this end they select a handful of major companies and in return for heavy regulation, protect them [from] internal and external competition. The largest companies in Europe are much larger compared to the size of their national economies than are the largest companies in America. The largest companies in Europe also keep their top positions while a great deal of turnover by comparison occurs in American companies.
Meanwhile our own Zach Wendling alluded to something similar in his characteristically cynical prose:
…I’m increasingly of the opinion that democracy is a farce meant to legitimate the abuses of power perpetrated by the knaves and charlatans who prevail at the ballot.
You don’t have to be rich rich for it, and I think that there are interesting lines of thought that can be pulled out of this post and some of the ideas present in the post on down ticket voting.
I think that the use of the blanket term “socialist” is a ridiculous oversimplification though, but it’s too easy to get into long drawn out debates about the silliness of referring to modern economies as “free market” or “socialist”.
I remember Thomas Sowell (in Basic Economics, I believe) that both profits and losses communicate how resources should be allocated. State insulation from loss essentially translates into state subsidy for inefficiency.
Sorry, but all this talk about Obama being a Socialist is just plain silly. Under the progressive tax system we’ve had for almost a hundred years, wealthy Americans pay higher income tax rates than those not so wealthy Americans. And that’s called “sharing the wealth.” Obama is simply a liberal who wants to tinker with the progressive tax system to make it a little more progressive.
Do rich people liking Socialism because it gives them a leg up? I don’t know, but I do know they’ve certainly done OK under Bushism or whatever you want to call the last 8 years. I’d venture a guess that almost any political system, wealth=influence.
Tht should have read, “under almost any political system”
Sorry, but all this talk about Obama being a Socialist is just plain silly.
Was this comment intended for another post? Of course, Obama is mentioned nowhere in this one.
Josh
My first paragraph would have been perhaps more appropriate in the thread “The Coming New Old Deal?”
I think it’s well established that your typical businessperson is all for competition and free markets until s/he gets big enough that defending existing wealth/market share becomes the primary objective rather than making a bang. Then they’re all for government intervention to set the rules in their favor and regulate out competition. Josh has identified something similar here. This is why I think conservatives should oppose big business just as much as they do big government.
A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for Satan. You see the Satan worshiping sects have all made a pact to vote for McCain/Palin with the knowledge that McCain will die leaving Sarah Palin as president. She will abruptly continue the God-fearing policies of our Christian Brother George W. Bush. But I tell you, it is too soon. If we bring back Christ now it will be premature. He will not be strong enough and Satan will kill him. Revelations is only one possible future… but it’s not the only future. Humans shouldn’t be interfering with God’s plan. If we accelerate the return of our Lord, we will be damned forever in eternal darkness. So please, Christians all over America… do not vote for McCain/Palin.
That’s the funniest troll I’ve read in a long time. He should write for Saturday Night Live. (SNL could definitely use the help.)
There hasn’t been nearly enough attention paid to the Satan vote in this election cycle.
Dave wrote:
This is why I think conservatives should oppose big business just as much as they do big government.
Maybe I’m misinterpreting your meaning, but I don’t think conservatives need to oppose big business, so long as such businesses have gained their success fairly.
We should oppose efforts of big businesses to co-opt government power to pursue their own interest, but there’s nothing wrong with opposing certain bad policy ideas (like “windfall profit” taxes) just because defeating those policies also benefits big business.
I should have been clearer, Eric. You’re statement “We should oppose efforts of big businesses to co-opt government power to pursue their own interest” is basically what I wanted to say.