Corporate Socialism
On yesterday's road trip I listened to this episode of FreshAir. It's an interview with the author of Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You With the Bill).
To summarize, Corporations get more from the tax payers than that Cadillac driving welfare mother ever did.
The most interesting discussion was around GW's ownership of a Texas baseball team. The sale of the team is the primary source of Bush's wealth and the total profit from the sale of the team was less than the government subsidy of the team's stadium. Which leaves us with two points. 1) Bush squandered the subsidy, i.e, he lost money, and 2) he owes his wealth to a taxpayer subsidy.
To summarize, Corporations get more from the tax payers than that Cadillac driving welfare mother ever did.
The most interesting discussion was around GW's ownership of a Texas baseball team. The sale of the team is the primary source of Bush's wealth and the total profit from the sale of the team was less than the government subsidy of the team's stadium. Which leaves us with two points. 1) Bush squandered the subsidy, i.e, he lost money, and 2) he owes his wealth to a taxpayer subsidy.
posted by Lee at 1:50 PM
2 Comments:
Like many things entitled Free - this book is worth the price of a free lunch (Nullum Prandium Non es Gratuitum). That being said, I would agree that subsidies to things like baseball parks (which are after all private monopoly businesses) should not be done. But that is the decision of the local city boosters who think that a sports franchise is an economic asset. Most of the research suggests that is not true - sports teams generate low income part time jobs. In our home town the biggest boosters for a new Kings stadium have been the local politicos who like to stand next to the players and also cuddle up to the owners.
The more important point that should be made is that if we relied less on government we would have less corporate socialism - that goes for things which I believe are appropriate and for things which I believe are not. What is the difference between a tax loss carry forward which the author would describe as "corporate socialism" (which I see as a definition required because of an intrusive tax code) and the subsidy that you got and I helped to pay for you to be able to listen to Fresh Air? Is there any reason why government should continue to subsidize a private business that claims public benefits like NPR? What is the difference between NPR, which receives public subsidy, the the raft of other radio and television stations (the thousands now with satellite and cable) who receive nothing? Aren't they both examples of policies of a government that tries to do too much?
Are you asking if there is a difference between a for-profit enterprise and a government service?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home