The contradiction is that government provides necessary oversight to “business”, yet also needs “real business input.” Furthermore, how to get that input without getting pushed to something in businesses best interest but not the country. And, where to draw the line.
Immelt and GE at first glance seems not a bad choice. Global 50 company with sterling credit ratings, is well managed, #1 or #2 in most of their business lines, and has a very rich shareholder base that provides much oversight and well as being subject to Sarbannes-Oxley.
Contrast with say Haliburton. Bush/Cheney ties are well known and what was good for the oil industry and Haliburton was good for the Texas base. While Hailiburton is a NYSE listed company, it’s has no where near the institutional and individual investor base of GE. Now, IMHO it’s not an implausible stretch to posit that the big oil greed for the Iraq oil fields and contracts helped push the arguement for the invasion and was a contributing factor.
The financial services industry were big on dismantling Glass-Segal and the whole opening of the banking sector that damn near brought down the global economy and required massive government investments to prevent the bankruptcy of Citi, Morgan, Goldman, etc.
Now GE is a big corporation and no saint, but I just don’t see GE in the same league as Haliburton. GE isn’t going to tip the scales in favor of an invasion. YMMV.
But one of the more common criticisms of Obama from the right is that he hasn’t spent any time in the private sector and doesn’t know how the “real world works”. So it’s hard to say that and then complain when he puts corporate shills in prominent positions. (I don’t recall Sam Stone making that particular argument, but I have seen some teeth-gnashing from the right about it.)
You don’t describe an entire economy as ‘crony capitalism’. The vast majority of medium and small businesses operate in the market and are not colluding with government for advantage. Even very large companies like Apple or Microsoft operate in competitive markets where they sink or swim on the quality of their products. Even the vast majority of GE’s business is dictated by market forces. They regularly get beaten in the market by companies like Siemens and Rockwell.
But there are cases where there is a very tight marriage between government and certain businesses, and government activities that tilt the playing field in favor of a constituent, contributor, lobbyist, or friend. That’s crony capitalism, and it happens in just about all countries in one degree or another. But it doesn’t define the entire economy, or even make up the bulk of its activity.
I’m not sure thats true. Small businesses have industry groups that are able to lobby the gov’t, even if the individual businesses are too small to do so. Many realtors are small businesses, for example, but their lobbying helps keep the mortgage tax deduction in place, which must be in the running for the largest gov’t induced market distortion in the US. And of course there are more levels to gov’t then just federal, a business too small to get the ear of Obama can still get the ear of the local city councilman. barbers for example.
Crony Capitalism doesn’t necessarily preclude fair competition amongst the players in an industry. I’d say the most common form in the US is companies getting regulations and laws passed that distort the markets to aid the industry as a whole. Farm and oil subsidies, for example.
I agree here, I can’t really see why Stone has labelled this crony capitalism. I can’t easily credit that GE is a company that needs to take on this role in any fashion to promote itself, and for a large American firm, it has played the global economy game a damn bit better than most.
As to Simplico, his definition of Crony Capitalism is so broad as to be meaningless. Evidently business is supposed to exist in some platonic vacuum w/o interacting with government. That’s pure shite. Business interests are as valid to represent in government as leftist idiocies. If crony capitalism is to have any meaning, it is about narrow interests getting specific contracts for themselves or crafting narrow regulation.
Elections have consequences. The President is entitled to pick people that he thinks will further his goals for the nation. You may cavil about the “real reason” Obama picked Immelt, but unless you’re living between Obama’s ears you don’t, and can’t, know.
Don’t like it? November 2012 is coming along shortly.
But let’s get serious for a minute. Let’s say you’re somebody who feels that “crony capitalism” (the practice of elected officials doing favors for their friends in big business) is a problem. What are you going to realistically do about it in the 2012 election? Vote Republican? Are you claiming with a straight face that that’s going to eliminate this particular problem because a Republican would never do anything like this?
No, no. To the contrary, I’d say that someone who believes that crony capitalism is a problem is out of luck, regardless of whether we elect a Democrat or a Republican. My cite is: 231 years of American history.
My point, of course, is not that you should read salon.com, nor anything else in particular. My point, of course, is that ‘crony capitalism’ is practically a given, for whomever is running things. And yes, that sucks. And I’m surprised that, with all the stories I’ve read recently about the Republicans taking over the House and installing their industry people in positions (particularly the energy and banking committees), that Sam Stone would limit himself to this story.
Clearly, though, you are correct that this is a dominating story in the current news cycle. I highlighted a story that is also in the current news cycle, though not as dominant, to broaden the scope…especially for you, as it turns out. You’re welcome, I’m happy to do it.
The problem with presenting the complaint in this way is that the reader in unclear on the complaint: is it against Obama, or the overall practice? And if against the overall practice, why limit it to Obama, who is by no means the worst offender – just the current one.
I wasn’t confused by the OP. It was clear to me that **Sam **is against the overall practice, and is using this particular, highly visible example as a lead-in. His follow-up post clarified that for anyone who was confused.
I don’t know that crony capitalism need be for big business, but I remain unclear, perhaps from my ignorance as to the real function and meaning of this appointment, as to why this is a favour at all. It appears to me that Immelt at best gets some ego strokes, and a lot of potential guff from political people of all stripes.
If it is supposed influence, well doubtless GE can pass that without putting itself up for ciriticism in public light.
If it is merely that he gets to advise the President… how is that crony capitalism? Whatever dollars he might see in this are trivial to someone like himself, so it is hardly a monetary reward.
Well, perhaps you should expand your critique even to the idea that this is particularly an example of crony capitalism. As per China Guy’s note.
I am somewhat befuddled myself, although it may be I have an incorrect understanding of the American system, this seems like the kind of thing that other than the ego stroking, is far more trouble than its worth, particularly for a busy businessman.
I’m fully aware that there are others, particularly agriculture subsidies. But with the changeover in House control, there are a lot of positions going to a lot of industry people. Right now. Examples that are just as bad, if not worse, which is what my original post was pointing out. But that assumes this is crony-ism to begin with…
IIRC, quite a few posters have defended installation of industry people in government with the claim that “they’re in the best position to know and understand the issues”. In other words, although there may be an appearance of “crony capitalism”, those people were actually the best qualified for the job. Also IIRC, this is particularly a view made by conservative/Republican posters as concerns energy-related (i.e., oil and coal, usually) and financial policy. Does Immelt fit that role, or is that just incidental to why he was chosen?
I don’t know…and I’ll be reading along to find out more…
Should we jump to a general rant about nepotism? That’s a pretty objectionable aspect of capitalism also. Or more closely related to the OP, let’s continue on the green jobs tack and bitch and moan about Van Jones, as Sam Stone has been wont to do in the past. Or do you have another direction this is likely to go (that hopefully aligns with Sam Stone’s intent) that’s eluding me?