Democrats + Big Business = Death to America

Of all the liberal canards about conservatism, the one that has become the most perplexing is the notion that Republicans favor the wealthy at the expense of the working class.  Every week we see more and more evidence of the ties between near-monopolistic big businesses and the Democratic party.  It's almost as if their desired structure for government is that of an oligopoly consisting of the federal government, Silicon Valley, establishment media and key, allied big businesses.

CNBC has reported that Apple owns more US Treasury securities than many nations on earth, in fact it ranks 24th among treasury holders, roughly half as many as Russia.  Meanwhile Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has hired a former Clinton pollster, perhaps for his own political ambitions or perhaps simply to try to help shape political opinion for his preferred candidate(s). From Solyndra, to GE, to Uranium One, the Democrats have been about graft and/or choosing winners that match their progressive agenda.  There are a myriad of other examples before you even get into the foreign donors issue. It's an unholy union that means death to America. 

The reason the unhealthy and likely frequently illegal relationships are so bad is because of the fallout.  For example, Big Business wants cheap, often illegal labor.  So the Democrats convince people that legal immigration and illegal immigration are the same thing and that not allowing everyone into the country is heartless. Meanwhile they convince voters that they are the party of compassion because they demand an untenable minimum wage.  It doesn't work, but it sure sounds compassionate.  The real fallout though is that by tilting the playing field in favor of mammoth companies by requiring things like Dodd-Frank compliance, or having employer requirements for Obamacare the smaller business struggle to comply.  Bigger business can absorb the burden in exchange for diminished or weakened competition from start-ups or smaller, more innovative companies.

This disincentive for smaller companies, ensures monopolistic or near-monopolistic environments in many industries and that in turn reduces innovation and international competitiveness.  Combined with the offshoring of jobs, America becomes less competitive, less innovative and therefore less influential globally.  At the same time as jobs erode, so does the standard of living for Americans.

But Democrats don't care because they get their slice of the pie in return.  Republicans don't get off the hook so easily either; many of them support the same status quo of decline.  The differences is that the Republicans at least have some diversity of opinion within the party.  The repeal Obamacare vote failed because of that diversity.  There are those within the Republican party who want more competitive diversity because they understand it will drive the economy, it will spur innovation and that will improve the lives of all Americans.  In that at least, there is hope for a different future than the decay and rot that the Democrats ultimately offer America.

Monopolies are bad. So what about government?

I've been carping about monopolies and oligopolies off and on for years.  They harm the economy in so many ways; reducing competition and innovation, encourage crony capitalism, ferment inefficiency, kill jobs, cause price increases and become expansive to the point of being able to squash new competition before it has a chance to grow and offer alternatives to consumers.

Yesterday Bloomberg had a story lamenting the same problem, and it's worth a read.  Not surprisingly the article points out that government has a role to play in resisting concentration in the hands of a few power players.  While the article hurriedly dismisses it in the following paragraph, there's still real truth in this part;

Regulation can increase monopoly power by raising barriers to entry. If a new startup has to wade through oceans of red tape, pay millions of dollars in compliance costs and develop a whole regulatory compliance infrastructure just to start to be able to compete in a market, it gives the big established players a huge and enduring advantage. Big companies are able to bear the cost of regulation much better than small ones. If it turns out that regulation is a central reason behind increased market concentration, I’ll have to become much more libertarian.

Truthfully there are a lot of reasons for monopolies developing. Government regulation and inaction are only part of the problem, but they are part of the problem. When a government can fine a Financial Institution billions of dollars for ethical mistakes or misdeeds, there's an incentive for government to allow those entities to continue to exist as cash cows for government coffers. Fining hundreds of smaller banks for the same issue is less technically feasible and obviously less lucrative for government.

Progressive liberals throw around words like corporate welfare haphazardly because they view big business as antithetical to a better life for the little guy. The problem with monopolies does indeed cause problems for regular people, as I've mentioned above. It's easy for a monopoly to offshore jobs and still sell in America and the government has done little to stop it because the sales are still there and therefore the tax revenue.

But if that's the case, if monopolistic or oligopolistic power, as it centralizes and hardens is problematic for big business, why do those progressives not see the same issue with big government, which has pretty much unfetter monopolistic power? Not only can it dictate in markets that it is involved in (see Obamacare) it can rewrite the rules at will. It's not just a player, it's the referee. That's doubly dangerous and as Ronald Reagan said government is not the solution to the problem, government IS the problem.  As government continues to erode freedoms many people continue to invest their belief in it as the solution to their problems.  

Unlike the private sector in government the solution is simple - smaller government, leaner with less authority and more power in the hands of the states offers more choice for people on how to be governed.  Don't like your state government and think they're doing a bad job?  Move to another state that's doing a good job.  There are 49 alternatives and if a state's doing a bad job they still have to compete with others for populace.  So it's in their best interest to get it right.  Despite the weeping from Trump's win, you don't see celebrities fleeing to Canada and Norway and New Zealand. It's easier to move to Arizona or Texas or California where their governance might better suit your personal style.  The federal government if it isn't pared back, will implode in time under it's own weight.  Enough voters saw that and it's a big part of why president Trump won the election.

Take a look in the mirror if you're anti-big business and anti-capitalism.  You're complaining about big business power but ignoring much bigger government power in a misguided faith that it will act differently than big business. Everything is driven by self interest; government is no different. You are on a path to cede all of your power to a central state that dictates everything, including how, when and if you vote.  That's not freedom that's a recipe for servitude.  

The Rationale for America is Quickly Disappearing

I recall telling a fellow Canadian something a couple of years ago when they had wondered aloud why Americans were so adamant about their guns and why they were so up in arms over government health care.  I explained to him that both issues stem from the same national sensibility and that America, as a nation was born of a distrust of government.  The English crown was the problem back then, but the DNA today remains the same - at least for many Americans - government cannot be trusted.

 

A light bulb went off for the Canadian in question.  It did not change his opinion on health care I am sure, but it did clarify his understanding of why people would have certain opinions on certain issues. In fact, he was the type whom I'm sure could and would apply that reasoning to views on other political topics.

Of course the explanation was a gross over-simplification of the conservative viewpoint on a number of issues.  But the simplification had its benefits in that it crystalized quite quickly an understanding that had not existed before. Also, I got lucky.  The conversation could have taken an entirely different, and more argumentative course if I had added one word to my explanation: healthy.  If I had said America was born of a healthy distrust of government, I'm sure I would have made no progress in that discussion.

The reason for the back story is that it relates to another issue. The original rationale for America is quickly disappearing.  The idea that the United States was the child of a core human wish for freedom (not democracy, but rather liberty) has been subverted in two fundamental ways.