'Once the Treasury has a voting stake, the bank might be pressured to tailor spending or financing decisions to suit partisan policies on the environment or labor issues, said Brown of Second Curve Capital. In recent years, environmental groups have attended Citigroups annual shareholder meeting to rail against financing for mountaintop strip mining.'
Another example from the same article:
'Any government investment in financial institutions raises the prospect of banks being ordered to focus on “state-approved social objectives” instead of increasing earnings, according to a report last week from the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, a 25-member group of financial-industry executives, lawyers, consultants and academics.'
Lawmakers know that the prospect of less capitalism and more government reliance is a goldmine politically. It guarantees reelection, guarantees positions of power in influencial committees, and guarantees an easy marketing platform. It also gives them another playing field that they have been so against all these years. The same companies that pay a kings ransom for taxes and employ the nations workers are now being controlled by those people. The same people that receive tax-payer money as a basis for their living are effectively taking the profit motive out of everything to promote their socialist and platform goals.
Karl Marx would indeed be proud...
Isn't this the same kind of "logic" we hear from gun owners who decry: "They're going to take my guns!" every time a 'liberal' candidate is on a ballot? I have not yet me a gunowner who's gotten so much as a knock on the door.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, you use the term 'control.' I will assume that you and I have a similar idea of what this means in the context you use it. I don't dispute the usage; I dispute the veracity. How can you or anyone know what is going to happen when it hasn't happened yet?
I'll also assume (and please correct me if I am wrong) that you were not in favor of the government getting involved in the case of GM to begin with. But I'm sure you want some sort of say in how the money you give to others willingly is spent. In fact, shouldn't a 60% owner have some say? The government's position is that it will NOT run GM. If at some point it does, you might have a case.
But your last paragraph is even more troubling. Aren't you a case-in-point that bigger government does NOT necessarily mean returning elected officials to their offices? What I mean is, you probably vote AGAINST those sorts of politicians, right? It doesn't seem that logic stands up to scrutiny, either.
When these things actually begin to happen, I'll be the first to agree with you. Until then, isn't it just speculation?