“Government failures” are redundant. Everyone should have known what happens when people who don’t know what they’re doing play with capital that’s not theirs even before the depressing recession. Worst of all, even the successes of our suspiciously munificent federal plotters are nothing but. Leave it to this administration to redefine even more words in a way that renders even the most comprehensive dictionaries useless.
Command economy enthusiasts keep awarding tiaras to the prom’s thinnest fat girls. The fantastically busted LightSquared is just a bigger flame-out than neo-Trabant manufacturer General Motors, even though more heat is generated from exploded government-sponsored hybrids than worthless ground transmitters.
The alleged successes are almost as bad as the subsidized fireballs brought by spectacular hucksters who are unsurprisingly nonchalant with your earnings. It’s bad enough that the men spinning the mobile resist accepting that bankruptcy is the necessary and proper course for private purveyors of garbage. Or maybe companies fail for reasons more complex than nobody wanting to stock up on Buicks.
But at least no worker ever gets canned in Barack Obama’s America. Regardless, some nutbag right-wingy economists claim that open transactions are preferable to the miserable present alternative, where lots of people get to see what’s on the Discovery Channel when they awaken at noon because the economy rots due to spending that lamely props up archaically monolithic amalgamations. The best-case scenario involves playing favorites with companies that were about to cease existing because buyers weren’t interested in the selling.
Our new industrial ideal requires a change in focus by once-private enterprises. GM is better at not paying taxes than they are at building automobiles, in what the administration requests that you not use as a perfect symbol of the times.
In the flimsy auto peddler’s defense, they’re just playing a game that makes professional wrestling look upright by comparison. Just when they think they’ve got the answers, Rowdy Joey Biden changes the questions.
By comparison, Mitt Romney’s ability to turn the entrepreneurial equivalent of Arby’s into something edible is a testament to everything except his ability to be president. Showing how Americans can be fellow rich dudes is one of his few marginally politically pleasant qualities, although someone who has never run a business and has zero desire to would be an even better candidate. Our president is only the former, and it’s as morally and financially bankrupting as imagined.
Despite his filthily lucrative career and filthily clean family life, Romney remains politically amorphous. So, Mitt better emphasize how he’s a nice person who was an astute businessman unless he’d like voters to really examine his TARP-loving ways.
He might only be better as president by comparison in a two-man race. Mitt’s campaign is best served by emphasizing how he’s a seemingly impossibly decent person instead of his barely less-liberal tendencies.
But it’s fun for people who don’t have to meet a payroll to complain about businesses cutting employees. Every single termination is seen as an indictment of capitalism by people who downplay how Obamanomics has been curiously unable to get unemployment under eight percent. Perhaps the influence of unions paired with an astoundingly romantic view of humanity combine to keep them from admitting that some people might not productive enough to justify indefinite employment.
Advocates of incarcerating the market freaked when JPMorgan loses billions of their own money. Notably, they don’t seem bothered by the government losing trillions of your money. But that funding is just sourced from wealthy bastards, which means it’s really all of ours, pal.
We can’t have all this risk and failure by people striving to affect their own destinies through wagering on the outcomes: they could lose, which in turn costs them some of their own income. Nah: the present approach is much better for your prosperity, as it helps you focus on important things that can’t be bought with nonexistent funds.
But any half-shrewd investor doesn’t need bureaucrats telling him when a company went bad. A 10-figure oopsie will cause more people to avoid patronizing Mister Morgan’s eponymous enterprise more than any government diktat ever could. Wait: does the industry regulate itself?
We could try letting people choose their own risks someday. For now, we’ll apparently stick with the model which focuses on how you’re not bright enough to invest your intake. Government planners, who are a special type of scientist, are kind enough to decide what’s best for you. “We” doesn’t involve your consent.
Even if the D.C.-connected enterprises in question stay afloat, they’re a bad deal. There is one question that should be asked before every bit of supposed federal investment: “At what cost?” Of course, it’s posed essentially never, which is how we ended up grabbing income from people who chose to not invest it in flimsy Voltmobiles and investing it in flimsy Voltmobiles. We’re just too dumb to know what we need.
Pulling money from useful people would be a miserable enterprise even if the unfairly-blessed corporate recipient uses the windfall to postpone extinction for a few more months. The deplorable job the government inevitably does when they capriciously decide to manage our affairs serves as a discouraging example to humanity. “Let Someone Do the Screwing Up For You” is the rallying slogan for those who want everything regulated but the government itself.
Anthony Bialy is a writer and “Red Eye” conservative in New York City. He tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.