Trump and the economic central planners

Discussion in 'Politics' started by wildchild, Jan 12, 2017.

  1. wildchild

    wildchild

    Was this a Bernie Sanders nominee? We are going down a really dangerous path here. Not that the Trump pompom boys care.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...ould-make-america-china-again/article/2611448

    Wilbur Ross, President-elect Trump's pick for Commerce Secretary, doesn't merely espouse government planning of the economy, he lobbies for it and profits from it.

    "One of the problems in our country," Ross said in 2010, "is we don't have an industrial policy." By "industrial policy," Ross meant federal laws that steer resources to certain sectors for certain activities.

    Ross, in a CNBC interview in the summer of 2010, expressed his admiration for China's five-year plans, the ones originated by Communist revolutionary Mao Zedong. "Is that something we should do here, Wilbur?" journalist Andy Serwer asked.

    "Yes," Ross responded, before lamenting our lack of an "industrial policy."

    Ross explained how he would use government to steer the economic ship: "We ought, as a country, to decide which industries are we going to really promote — the so-called industries of the future."

    This may sound like the sort of picking-winners-and-losers that defined Obamanomics. But in fact, went further, chastising Obama as too laissez-faire.

    "The Obama administration talks a lot about green industries — wind power and solar," Ross said. "Well, the truth is, China did a lot about it." Ross then praised the Communist Chinese government for forcing customers to buy wind- and solar-generated power at inflated prices.

    "They're now the leader in wind technology."

    If only Obama had China-ed it up a bit more, Solyndra might be alive today.

    This is the norm for Ross: advocating government intervention, and favoring the judgment of central planners over the judgment of the market.

    This sort of industrial planning isn't just less economically efficient than free enterprise, it's also a recipe for cronyism — for enriching the politically connected at the expense of outsiders. Ross's own career shows this.

    Ross's claim to business fame has been buying up failed companies, saving them, and selling them for a profit — sometimes a massive profit. This part of what he does, often disparaged as "vulture capitalism," is actually useful to society, because it returns the useful assets of failing businesses to where they can create value. This prevents fire-sales and it minimizes idle capital, while making men like Ross very wealthy. That's a good thing.

    But there's also a dark side: Those who buy up the debt or equity of distressed companies often find that big government is essential to their turnaround. And Ross played this game more than once.

    Ross in February of 2002 bought up LTV Steel and Acme Steel, folding them into his new creation, International Steel Group. Ross got a discount because domestic steel companies were withering under competition from lower-priced foreign producers. The next month, though, the Bush administration imposed tariffs, as high as 30 percent, on imported steel.

    That same month, the federal government, through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, took on LTV Steel's obligations to many of its retirees and future retirees. In other words, the government shifted costs from Wilbur Ross to the U.S. taxpayer.

    International Steel spent years lobbying to extend and expand such protectionist measures. In mid-2004, Ross took his company public and made billions in profits.

    Ross pulled off a similar gambit a couple of years later, according to Dan Ikenson at the libertarian Cato Institute: "Ross was a prominent advocate of textile quotas, which were important to his turning a profit for International Textile Group, essentially a replica of his steel-industry foray."

    Ross's International Coal Group (which bought up failing coal companies) also relied on government aid, including subsidies from Illinois.

    And while these subsidies and protectionist measures saved jobs at a few specific firms, they cost U.S. jobs elsewhere. U.S. companies that use steel — such as automakers — suffered thanks to the tariffs that made Ross billions.

    Wilbur Ross's success in business is, to all appearances, mostly due to risk-taking and smarts. His belief in Chinese-style industrial policy is probably honestly held. But the fact that central planning has enriched Ross personally tells us something: Big government tends to enrich the wealthy and well-connected, at the expense of everyone else.
     
  2. I'm sure there is a lot of truth to this, but it is not like Trump invented it. How do you think groups like Carlyle made their billions? Or Harry Reid or the Clintons? Podesta? Terry MacAuliffe? The principal reason for the existence of the democrat party seems to be so that insiders can get rich off various rent-seeking behavior.

    Obama was maybe not as sleazy as the Clintons, but he and his Justice Department extorted billions for various industries and then directed slush fund payments to far left democrat activist groups under vague headings like "community outreach" or "affordable housing assistance."

    Trump at least seems to intend to use the power of government to help working class people get decent jobs.
     
  3. I never saw Odumbo as merely "sleazy". He's been WORSE!

    He has actively done all he can get away with to DESTROY AMERICA! INTENTIONALLY! Has been his plan from day one. After all, he's a muslim... a closet terrorist. Anyone who doesn't "get that", has either not been paying attention or is walking around wearing blinkers.

    :(
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2017
    Clubber Lang likes this.
  4. fhl

    fhl

    The establishment has at the top of their wishlist another so called free trade agreement that's nothing more that a racket to reward and protect their big donors from competitors who are not big donors. That's why it takes a thousand pages.

    A real free trade agreement can be accomplished on one page. (which by the way i would be for)

    But that's not what these establishment types are for. They only very deceitfully call it a free trade agreement to reel in the suckers. The suckers for it then go on the internet and claim that Trump is doing away with the free trade they support.
     
  5. wildchild

    wildchild

    I by no means meant this as a defense of the central planners in democrat party. We really have democrat and democrat lite at this point.

    It would be nice to cut this shit out.
     
  6. Kind of late to the party don't ya think?
     
  7. No, I know you didn't. I think there is a reasonable position between no planning and having the government picking winners and losers. I don't like the idea of the government making direct investments or loans. That's how Obama paid off his pals in the solar industry. But some level of encouraging companies to build plants here and making sure their foreign competitors don't have an unfair advantage seems ok.
     
  8. fhl

    fhl

    Source Data: Yahoo Finance

    1/19/2001 to 1/20/2009 Decline

    S&P 500 $1,342.54 $805.22 -40%
    Dow Jones Industrial $10,587.59 $7,949.09 -25%
    NASDAQ $2770.38 $1440.86 -48%

    This is the stock mkt performance during the term of our last cuck president, George W Bush.

    I only note this so we can have it for comparison when the cucksuckers attempt to slime Trump at the first sign of a stock mkt decline.

    Because you don't think they're going to be silent if the stock mkt declines, do you?
    When Jeb Bush could have been so much better?
     
  9. wildchild

    wildchild

    When Obama took office the Dow was at 7949.09 and it still has a chance to break 20,000 before he leaves office. Based on that, I suppose you want a 3rd term of Obama.

    Do we need to go over the market's performance during the Clinton years?

    Your post is one of the dumbest I have seen in awhile. Moron.
     
  10. fhl

    fhl


    Obama goes along with the TPP. Trump is against it.

    Based on that, I suppose you want a 3rd term for Obama.

    So I guess my post isn't any dumber than yours, you cucksucker.
     
    #10     Jan 15, 2017