20
Oct
11

Crony corporatism link-fest

First of all, Ari Berman notes that Occupy Wherever has hit K Street in DC, home of the lobbyist:

The financial sector has spent more money on campaign contributions and lobbying than any other sector of the economy—$4.6 billion on lobbying since 1998, according to Open Secrets. This year, commercial banks and securities and investment firms have spent over $82 million on lobbying, employing over 1,000 lobbyists.

$4,600,000,000 since 1998?  But that’s unpossible!  Citizens United wasn’t decided until 2010, and I am assured that it was only this misguided ruling that opened the floodgates of corporate funding into the realm of politics.  I am usually assured of this by the same people who persist in assuring me that the steady trickle of bank deregulation from the late ’70s to the middle of the last decade was ideological laissez-faire, free-market capitalism pure as the driven snow, and totally not an example of regulatory capture by the big investment banks that spend billions of dollars on lobbyists.  Sometimes it’s hard to tell the leftists from the GOP propagandists.

In any case, I’m pleased to see some anger directed toward the interface of Big Business and Big Government.

——

Next, we have a few comments on city-owned parking (oh yes, that again).  First, Matt Yglesias wonders why the City of Baltimore insists upon maintaining public car-parks:

Clearly, the ability to park one’s car is valuable. But that’s precisely why there are privately owned garages around to create competition. This is a service that can be provided at market prices for a profit. Alternatively, office developers or retail businesses may construct garages for their own use to encourage customers to show up. The availability of garages does create positive externalities for area businesses, but these can (and often are) re-internalized through deals to provide free or discount parking to people with validation from a nearby retailer. Parking is great—great enough to pay for.

But municipal provision of subsidized parking is another thing entirely. For one thing, it’s regressive. In almost every city, regular drivers are richer than transit users.

Regressive transfers.  Hmm… like city-funded sports arenas taking property taxes and municipal debt and giving it to fantastically rich team owners and pro athletes?  Oh hello Ilya Somin, what a great post on Yankee Stadium’s luxury parking garage!

Manhattan Institute scholar Nicole Gelinas has an interesting column about a massive financially dubious parking lot at Yankee Stadium, which Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr. claims requires a government bailout to prevent a local financial crisis

[…]

If the bailout does happen, it will add to the already record-breaking figure of over $1 billion in government subsidies for the construction of the new Yankee Stadium and related facilities.

It’s a pretty neat story, if you like reading stories about idiotic real-estate investments, strongly-implied but never-quite-stated government backing, and taxpayer-funded bailouts of optimistic investors.

——

Finally, here’s Warren (again) writing about crony corporatism in the environmental — oops, that needs scare-quotes: the “environmental” — movement:

The best example [of green cronyism] is probably corn ethanol.  A combination of subsidies and mandates have pushed an enormous proportion of our food supply into gas tanks, for little or even negative environmental effect.   Environmentalists and the Left turned against it, but for a few large corporations like ADM, the subsidies have become life and death, and they do anything they have to to get Congress to maintain them.

The best evidence that corn ethanol shifted from a green program to pure cronyism was the imposition of large import tariffs.  The only possible purpose of these tariffs was to enrich farmers and a few manufacturers.  After all, if one really cared any more about getting more ethanol in the fuel supply, one would welcome low cost imports.

[…]

Solyndra’s failure has been blamed on low cost panel manufacturing in China.   Again, if we care just about energy, we should be thrilled about low-cost Chinese solar panels.  If the Chinese government wants to somehow subsidize our consumption of solar panels, great!

(Emphasis added.)

So, let me get this square in my head.  If we don’t invest in renewable fuel sources like ethanol, Peak Oil will slip into our homes and murder us in our sleep, and if we don’t invest in clean energy sources like solar, Climate Change will boil the oceans and blister the earth.  Clearly those are bad things.  But because blah blah startup costs blah blah blah risky investments blah, we need to commit enormous amounts of government funding to develop energy sources like ethanol and solar, and sometimes things go bad (as with Solyndra) but dammit that’s just a price we have to pay to not get murdered in our sleep or scalded to death by a vengeful planet.

But if some other government wants to pay that price on our behalf — HOLY SHIT MAN WE CAN’T TAKE THAT LYING DOWN, WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING ABOUT THOSE ASSHOLES.

If the PRC wants to keep building coal powerplants, that’s bad, because shitting kilotons of radioactive soot into the atmosphere is rather less than neighbourly.  But if the PRC wants to massively subsidize solar panels, to the point that they become affordable to North American consumers… that’s also bad?  What, because they’re not made in a union shop?  I’m confused.

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Crony corporatism link-fest”


  1. October 20, 2011 at 14:11

    Dear lazyweb. Please mash the angry Muslim meme with a current US legislative member screaming “WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING ABOUT THOSE ASSHOLES!” Thanks.

  2. 2 Not Sure
    October 20, 2011 at 22:41

    From the linked parking lot article:

    “And the private sector neither can nor will construct a train through a built-up city.”

    Of course not. Is there *any* private sector company delusional enough to think it would *ever* be allowed to construct (privately, that is) a rail line through a built-up city?

    • October 20, 2011 at 22:46

      Not if Scalia’s right about Kelo getting overturned.

      I’ve been writing code on contract for about six months now. The commute from the bedroom to the living room has its ups and downs, but it’s pretty low on the ol’ carbon footprint. I am at a loss to explain why young, hip, tech-savvy people like Matthew Fucking Yglesias persist in thinking that passenger rail is the Next Big Thing in substitutes for automobile commutes.

      • 4 Not Sure
        October 21, 2011 at 18:50

        “I am at a loss to explain why young, hip, tech-savvy people like Matthew Fucking Yglesias persist in thinking that passenger rail is the Next Big Thing in substitutes for automobile commutes.”

        Probably because buses are too much like big cars. And everybody knows how much young, hip, tech-savvy people (well, some of them, anyway) hate cars.

        • October 22, 2011 at 00:38

          I need to do a better job of explaining myself.

          The substitute for commuting by car is not commuting by not-car. The substitute for commuting by car is working from home. At least, this is true (or will be in 20 years) for “knowledge workers”, a good 20 days out of the month or more. Laptop + wi-fi + Skype = I’m as productive watching LSU beat the snot out of whoever they’re playing this Saturday as I am dragging my sorry meatbag into the office.

          • 6 Not Sure
            October 22, 2011 at 16:53

            “I need to do a better job of explaining myself.”

            No- you were probably fine. I, on the other hand, am not young and hip. Tech-savvy, well… just so-and-so there. I’m sure it’s my fault for not understanding. :)

  3. 7 TMI
    October 21, 2011 at 12:02

    Because he’s young, hip, and tech-savvy.

    I’m currently installing a device, which cost me a bundle, because the FCC has mandated the device.

    It uses CAP-Enabled technology.

    http://blog.alertfm.com/post/2011/04/CAP-EAS-Messages-Now-Available-on-HD-Radio-Receivers.aspx

    Cool thing is, last time we had a major emergency, we lost access to the internet. I mentioned this fact to the FCC, but it was ignored. So, I’m replacing a very expensive–and working–device with a new, “hip” device using technology that is less dependable than over-the-air transmissions.

    I guess I’m creating a job, though.
    .


Leave a reply; use raw HTML for markup. Please blockquote quotations from the post or other comments.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


anarchocapitalist agitprop

Be advised

I say fuck a lot

Categories

Archives

Statistics FTW


%d bloggers like this: