Friday, April 23, 2010

Obamafinance - Palin: Institutionalizing Crony Capitalism, Soros: Go for it

Update, 4/25/2010 - See comments below, which provide excellent perspective about this critical issue

Sarah Palin
says it is "crony capitalism." Has a friend sent her latest Facebook essay to you in an email?

The hacks at Goldman Sachs say the password is "partner," as Governor Palin points out, below.

Ron Paul says "corporatism."

Yes, yes, and yes. And such fascistic, ministerial control is the initial structural focus of the neo-Marxist. It is Barack Obama's necessary step onto the treasonous road to a pseudo-democratic “dictatorship of the proletariat” and the unnatural and impossible communist dream of egalitarian collectivism. In this scheme, "too big to fail" is the excuse where that excuse may work, while the point is that the few, large institutions should be amoeba-like consuming enough to afford control over the entire market and eventually, the entire economy.

In the wake of the recent financial meltdown, Americans know that we need reform. Not only have many individuals learned lessons about personal responsibility through this, but we’ve been able to engage in a discussion about government’s appropriate role.

The current debate over financial reform demonstrates what happens when political leaders react to a crisis with a raft of new regulations. First off, the people involved in writing government regulations are often lobbyists from the very industry that the new laws are supposed to regulate, and that’s been the case here. It should surprise no one that financial lobbyists are flocking to DC this week. Of course, the big players who can afford lobbyists work the regulations in their favor, while their smaller competitors are left out in the cold. The result here are regulations that institutionalize the “too big to fail” mentality.

Moreover, the financial reform bill gives regulators the power to pick winners and losers, institutionalizing their ability to decide “which firms to rescue or close, and which creditors to reward and how.” Does anyone doubt that firms with the most lobbyists and the biggest campaign donations will be the ones who get seats in the lifeboat? The president is trying to convince us that he’s taking on the Wall Street “fat cats,” but firms like Goldman Sachs are happy with federal regulation because, as one of their lobbyists recently stated, “We partner with regulators.”

They seem to have a nice relationship with the White House too. Goldman showered nearly a million dollars in campaign contributions on candidate Obama. In fact, J.P. Freire notes that President Obama received about seven times more money from Goldman than President Bush received from Enron. Of course, it’s not just the donations; it’s the revolving door. You’ll find the name Goldman Sachs on many an Obama administration résumé, including Rahm Emanuel’s and Tim Geithner’s chief of staff’s.

We need to be on our guard against such crony capitalism. We fought against distortion of the market in Alaska when we confronted “Big Oil,” or more specifically some of the players in the industry and in political office, who were taking the 49th state for a ride. My administration challenged lax rules that seemed to allow corruption, and we even challenged the largest corporation in the world at the time for not abiding by provisions in contracts it held with the state. When it came time to craft a plan for a natural gas pipeline, we insisted on transparency and a level playing field to insure fair competition. Our reforms helped reduce politicians’ ability to play favorites and helped clean up corruption. We set up stricter oversight offices and ushered through a bi-partisan ethics reform bill. Far from being against necessary reform, I embrace it.

Commonsense conservatives acknowledge the need for financial reform and believe that government can play an appropriate role in leveling the playing field and protecting “the dynamism of American capitalism without neglecting the government’s responsibility to protect the American public.” We’re listening closely to the reform discussion in Washington, and we know that government should not burden the market with unnecessary bureaucracy and distorted incentives, nor make a dangerous “too-big-to-fail” mentality the law of the land.

- Sarah Palin
Real reform and truly appropriate regulation can be very difficult to instill, amidst entrenched, corrupt politics and an ideological enmity to the truly virtuous republicanism authentic to America. I personally know of no one with better experience as a pathfinder in just that reform, than Sarah Palin.

Concurrently, George Soros weighs in. Yes, Marxists go right for the banks. To prove the point to which I above allude, that truly evil, transnationalist master of manipulation (and of timing) has just written on the subject, too.

Big news! He is for Obamafinance plus more and he spills the beans about what that means. He espouses the complete ministerial control of derivatives and has done quite a job of posing this anti-American tyranny as, of course, the only sensible and heroic solution, with the interest of the people in mind. He calls his essay, "America Must Face Up to the Dangers of Derivatives," as if Soros, the economy destroyer, cared about dangers to economies, in his Pinky and the Brain megalomind.

Soros' writings on the "open society" are hyper-abstract rationalizations for global Marxist tyranny. Have you noticed that Barack Obama does not like to use the word "freedom" in his speeches and has actually used the phrase, "open society," in lieu of that word? Substitute the words "globally controlled" for "open;" I leave it up to Soros, to explain the tortured pseudo-synonym.

Rep. Michelle Bachmann has called this initiative worse than Obamacare. Are we learning why?

AW - permission to repost


porcupinerim said...

Well done, Arlen. Spot on.

This is the reality we face; and a mechanism I had not appreciated fully until reading this post.

There are many ways for government to destroy industry, and even society. Those who fail to keep government within limits will pay a steep price.

"We partner with the regulators." Everybody knows the regulators are sluts today.

Sarah Palin definitely shines in this discussion.

Arlen Williams said...

Thank you, PR. I'm going to post two very salient comments from this article's posting in


It's not full-fledged "crony capitalism" as practiced in the Latin countries, but it's a big step in that direction. A firm deemed "too big to fail" by a government with unbounded power to bail such firms out has been told, in effect, that there's no such thing as too great a risk. That frees it to play all the longshots -- the gambles with the highest potential return. The Treasury will make good on its losses.

Of course, the most recently bailed-out companies include a couple that were coerced into robbing their stockholders and debt holders. That happens under a full crony-capitalist scheme sometimes, too. One way or another, when you deal with the Devil, the notes come due in brimstone.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Curmudgeon Emeritus of Eternity Road
3 posted on Sunday, April 25, 2010 4:47:19 AM by fporretto

Arlen Williams said...


At the height of the financial crisis in 2008, the Republican Congress correctly rejected the Paulson/Bush bailout scheme. McCain foolishly suspended his campaign and flew back to Washington to help save the day. During that week, behind closed doors, Paulson and others somehow convinced the Republican House to reverse its vote and allow the bailout legislation to pass.
Conventional wisdom says the entire financial system would have collapsed had the bailout not passed. Certainly, the McCain campaign collapsed during that week.

Would the financial system have really collapsed? Possibly not. The S&L crisis of the early 1990’s did result in the closing of many insolvent financial institutions but did not result in the financial system collapsing.

What if the financial system had collapsed? We might actually be better off today. The speculators would have been wiped out. Average Americans would have been protected by FDIC insurance. The failed financial institutions would have been reorganized in the bankruptcy courts with some being liquidated. The financially sound institutions, who engaged in responsible business practices, would pick up market share. General Motors and Chrysler would have been downsized and reorganized in bankruptcy courts (like the airlines were in the 1990’s) instead of becoming wards of the state. Obama would be president but he would not have administrative control over the banking system and automotive industry.

Likely a full financial collapse would have impacted large corporations in bed with the government to a greater degree than mid and small size companies. Out of the ashes of a collapse could have come a revitalization of American capitalism without the cozy mutual beneficial relationships between big government and big corporations. Instead, with the bailouts we accelerated a rush to socialism and state ownership of the private sector.

4 posted on Sunday, April 25, 2010 6:47:27 AM by Soul of the South