We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina on the real relationship between big government and big business I would have had this as today’s Samizdata quote of the day if I hadn’t already done one earlier:
It is fashionable for the left to say we need big government to deal with big business. The opposite is true. Only big business can survive big government.
I plan on using that.
It is from an interview with Carly Fiorina by Jennifer Rubin, for the Washington Post. The rest of it is well worth a read also.
I have no idea what chance Carly Fiorina has of being the next President of the USA, but the nearer she gets to it, the happier I will be. Vice President maybe? Or would that be to underestimate her?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I have been happy so far with many of Fiorina’s statements as well as her chosen means to deliver them.
She is, however, going to have to come up with a good and believeable “story” for the masses about her not so auspicious time as HP’s head. I’m not saying I know anything good, bad or otherwise, only that her tenure as CEO will be politically troublesome with the anti-GOP media.
What jdm said. I knew her name long before she started in politics, because I have a lot of friends and acquaintances who have worked at either Lucent or HP. Nothing I heard about her was complimentary.
These decrees of yours are no different from spiders’ webs. They’ll restrain anyone weak and insignificant who gets caught in them, but they’ll be torn to shreds by people with power and wealth.
— Anacharsis (6th century BC) discussing Solon’s laws with him, as quoted by Plutarch, in Solon ch. 5; translation by Robin Waterfield from Plutarch Greek Lives (1998) p. 50.
I think that it would be great if she ran as VP to Walker.
I second Alisa’s motion.
But jdm is correct that Fiorina is going to have to overcome the negative perception created by the media (initially by the financial press, but now being taken over by the mainstream media) over her tenure at HP. I think history will judge (indeed, is already beginning to judge) that tenure as an unqualified success, but there’s no denying that at the time it was highly controversial and it did cost her her job. Romney never adequately dealt with the (largely spurious) attacks on Bain Capital from a reflexively hostile media. Fiorina will be subject to much of the same, and she’ll have to do better if she’s to have any hope of success.
I’d agree with that, Alisa. As Biden showed, the VP can actually be useful in saying things the President can’t/shouldn’t say. There’s a lot of things that need saying to the Left in general.
Given HPs relationship with the Feds, she ought to know.
Personally, I think she’s full of shit.
Typical equality bullshit politic-speak. Everything she’s saying is peppered with voter friendly terms. And the fact that voters will hate her because she was a CEO of a successful large corporation just goes to show how effective the dark wizardry of propaganda really is on the capitalism-hating unwashed masses. The left HATES Mit Romney when he gave more to charity than taxes and he was worth about a quarter of a billion dollars and the leftist vultures could not drum up any mud on this guy at all, (and in a time when Oprah was worth 4 times Romney), yet Bloomburg was worth 27 billion at the time (yeah, that’s billion with a ‘B’), and New Yorkers were gleefully goosestepping to every idiotic idea that poored out of his lips. I guess capitalism is OK in their eyes just as long as you’re Mussolini and it’s really crony fascism.
Everything she’s saying is peppered with voter friendly terms.
Seems odd to characterize this as something negative when trying to get elected. By voters.
I think I may have stolen that idea from Laird, in fact… 🙂
As to Romney, it was entirely his own fault, hostile media notwithstanding.
I’ll third (or fourth) Alisa’s motion and endorse Laird’s observation that, despite the furore at the time, it is indeed becoming apparent that she did a sterling job at HP.
jdm @ 9:52 pm – Very well put, Sir!
If the stupid party selected a female candidate it would certainly shoot the Democrats’ fox. I don’t know enough about her time at HP to comment, were any of her employees murdered by Islamic terrorists whilst she did nothing to help them?
The ‘problem’ with candidates like Fiorina and Romney is that they had real jobs before politics, in which they took risks, failed, succeeded and generally got dirty like the rest of us.
Better to glide into politics fresh from law or activism, where failure didn’t really have a downside.
Because a president should have very little experience with personal responsibility and real world consequences.
Oh, nicely put, Chip!
@ Thailover: “Typical equality bullshit politic-speak.”
On the contrary, clearly you either don’t comprehend what she is saying or you’re intentionally distorting it. You carefully omitted the preceding sentence: “The answer is less government. The way to [fix the economy] is to level the playing field.” In other words, shrinking the government gives smaller enterprises a chance to succeed and for the economy to grow. That’s hardly “equality bullshit”. I suggest that you have your bullshit meter pointed in precisely the wrong direction.
Indeed I think Thailover may need to degauss his bullshit detector. Given how much there is to detect, these things need to be cleaned periodically or they start honking when they detect pretty much anything.
That said, given than she is a politician, yes of course she will spout some bullshit, much like a lifeguard tends to get wet in the course of their business. But she does seem to consistently beat the big government bad, small(er) government good drum, which I think is a good thing.
Actually the comment is incredibly depressing.
Business taxation in the United States is very high (and NO most big companies do not get to dodge it – although there are a few pets).
And regulations hurt big business enterprises (not just small ones).
Indeed some regulations and taxes specifically exempt small business enterprises.
Both at the Federal and the State level.
So why did this lady (the ex head of the H&P) come out with the absurd statement she did?
Because she thought it would be popular.
Because the voters have been taught (by Hollywood films and television – as well as by the schools and universities) to hate “big business” “the corporations”.
But if “big business” is evil – if (Gabriel Kolko style “history” is correct that regulations and taxes do not really harm “big business” – that they are HELPED by them by reducing the competition from small business….. – then why vote for someone from big business?
Why not vote for someone who is sincere in their hatred of “big business” – why vote for someone who is just pretending to hate big business (and had really spent their lives in).
The whole political line is awful.
“The opposite is true”.
No NEITHER is true.
We do not “need big government to control big business”.
And big business does NOT benefit from big government.
The largest business enterprises in the United States will be destroyed if the present levels of tax and regulations are maintained.
And what of the economic crash?
Is that going to be blamed on “big business” as well?
We can have all the Welfare State we, the voters, want – as long as we get rid of “big business” and the “banksters”.
Can I have own show on “RT” now?
What does the United States really need to do in relation to “big business”?
It needs to get rid of (or at least radically reduce) business taxation – a lot of which (at both Federal and State level) only applies to business enterprises over a certain size – i.e. “big business”.
And the United States needs to get rid of lots and lots of regulations – a lot of which also only apply to business enterprises over a certain size – i.e. “big business”.
Do people now understand why I find C.F.s comments incredibly depressing.
Do people now understand why I find C.F.s comments incredibly depressing.
No, I don’t. (Unless you are depressed by being reminded that she’s right.)
She’s not saying what you seem to think she’s saying – that big business needs big government. She’s saying that big government is so vast and powerful that it squishes small businesses like bugs. Only big businesses are able to survive the repeated coshings. Her remedy – if you look at the rest of her interview – is the same as yours. Less government.
Like Perry, I like the cut of her jib. I’m confident she hasn’t got a prayer of winning the nomination, but I think she’d make a very serviceable VP candidate. Her alleged poor record at HP would get no traction as she wouldn’t be the P candidate, and, as a girl, she’d be able to lob mortars at Hillary that a man isn’t allowed to lob. (I suspect she’s actually running for VP.)
With this having been said, it is hard to see what is fundamentally wrong with her proposed direction, or any reason to be concerned should she take office or preside over the Senate.
I still need to understand more about her time at HP but it doesn’t sound like she did anything illegal or immoral – just hard business.
I also think that the quotes about ‘Only big business can survive big government’ and the ‘level playing field’ are poor turns of phrase that can be easily misunderstood. When seen in the context of the full passage from which they are extracted (thank you, Mr Ed), the overall meaning is much-more clear – and much-more appealing.
I also like the cut of her jib, and don’t see why she should be seen as running for the VP spot. Why not the President – she has a lot more real-world experience than the current incumbent, whose total qualifications for the job consisted of a couple of years in a no-contest seat in a State legislature, where he achieved – nothing. Same with the current Democrat front-runner, whose record in both executive and legislative positions seldom rises above mediocre, and who has committed acts which would get any officer of a publicly-traded company fired and imprisoned in short order.
llater,
llamas
DAMN I miss my Compaq Armadas.
Given a choice between two or more candidates with roughly similar ideological positions and all other considerations being more or less equal, I would err on the side of the one who has experience in an executive position in government – which is to say, either a former governor or a VP. Walker fits that description for me, while Fiorina does not, yet.
Lee Moore – I will leave aside whether H&P products are crap (although I think they are) as that is not relevant to the current matter.
I have explained to you twice that big government does not generally benefit big business (although there are indeed a few pets).
Indeed many taxes and regulations (both as State and Federal level) only apply to large enterprises (big business) and do not apply to small business enterprises.
So C.F. is NOT right.
I have now explained the matter three times – and you will still not understand.
A useful reminder of why I normally avoid threads now.
By the way…..
A policy of cutting business taxation and deregulation would tend to benefit “big business” more than “small business” – as many taxes and regulations only apply to “big business”.
So the “playing field” would be even more in favour of “big business” if a more free market policy was adopted.
You did not want to hear that.
But it happens to be the truth.
Of course getting rid of regulations that do apply to small business enterprises would benefit them – but such a policy would also benefit “big business”.
Bottom line.
Companies such as Ford, Du Pont, Huntsman Chemical (and so on) are what America is about).
If “big business” fails – America fails.
And if America fails – the West fails (and falls).
Those who are not prepared to stand up and defend “big business” are no use in politics.
People such as Jon Huntsman (senior), and Charles and David Koch are what capitalism is about.
Capitalism is a good thing – not a bad thing.
And people such as Jon Huntsman (senior) and Charles and David Koch generally do good not harm.
A classic case is the founder of Nike (still chairman of the board).
He created this vast “big business”.
Would it have better had he created some little “diner” somewhere creating bugger all?
How has the State of Oregon rewarded him for his life’s work?
By increasing the top rate of income tax and the Corporation tax of course.
But it is fine – because the new tax rates only apply to “the rich” and to “big business”.
Not to the “Mom and Pop stores” of “small business”. So that is O.K. then…..
If this is the sort of politics that it is the only acceptable form – if we all have to parrot attacks on “the capitalists” and “big business” (even if we have spent our lives in “big business”) then it is all a waste of time.
The West, if this form of politics is the only acceptable form, is already dead.
It was ever thus.
Someone who concentrates on defending “family farms” (some peasant plot) but backs away from defending the great landed estates of the Marquis of Rockingham, is of no use.
Just as someone who is prepared to defend the “honest village blacksmith”, but backs away from defending the great factories of Josiah Wedgewood, is of no use.
Yes (a thousand time yes) get rid of such things as the government “Export – Import Bank” (beloved by the Progressive Elizabeth Warren – by the way).
But do not pretend that mining and manufacturing are a matter of Mom-and-Pop stores.
The real danger is that men such as Henry Ford are out of fashion.
These days people just want to loot “big business” for short term gains – not invest for the future.
But why invest for the future?
Who not close down the R&D and of Du Pont (which the asset strippers want to do).
If there is NOT GOING TO BE A FUTURE.
If “big business” is the future why bother investing in R&D and in building great new manufacturing enterprises?
Just take as much money out of the business and run off to a island in the sun.
After all the government is just going to take the money anyway – if you do not loot it out first.
And what will be left?
Mom and Pop stores will be left (no nasty evil Walmart).
And “family farms” will be left (no great Texas ranches) peasant plots.
And little workshops will be left – not the evil factories of big business.
And it will not be the United States of America any more.
It will be more like Bolivia.
Lots of Mom and Pop stores there.
And peasant plots.
And little workshops.
Yes – Bolivia is the future. No more “Republican Capitalists”.
Thankfully I will not live to see it.
Want an illegitimate form of big business?
The present structure of BANKING (and allied trades).
The Wall Street credit bubble – backed up (for so many years) by the Federal Reserve.
Will C.F. be attacking that?
Not the existence of the Federal Reserve – oh dear me no.
The Credit Bubble is sacred – no one may attack it.
No old style Res Publica calls for lending to be from real savings – from the sacrifice of consumption over generations.
On dear me no.
The Credit Bubble is the new God.
Everything else (mining, oil drilling, large manufacturing) can go hang – it can die (indeed the EPA is busy trying to kill it off).
But the Credit Bubble will remain – on its own.
No large scale production needed – just consumption.
Lord Keynes (and Major Douglas) in power for ever. With J.B. Say forgotten or discredited.
Or at least till the end comes.
And it can not come fast enough.
I want it now – I want the end right now.
No its utter bullshit. Dealing with regulation is very much an ‘economy of scale’ thing. It crowds out smaller players and would be new players who may know the product but not arcane rules surrounding them. This is hardly a new insight.
Yes, that’s correct. Thank you for contradicting what you said earlier. But damn man, can you be a bit more concise? At least use paragraphs FFS!
@ Alisa, who wrote:
‘Given a choice between two or more candidates with roughly similar ideological positions and all other considerations being more or less equal, I would err on the side of the one who has experience in an executive position in government – which is to say, either a former governor or a VP. Walker fits that description for me, while Fiorina does not, yet.’
I agree – but I suspect that Walker is (at present) significantly less-electable as Prez than Fiorina, because if he rises to the top of the Republican charts, the Democrats will go after him with everything they have – a lot of which will be quite appealing to the voting blocs which Republicans need most. His sterling work in WI will be cast as being ‘against teachers’ and ‘taking the bread out of the mouths of hard-working public servants’ – all true, and very commendable of him IMHO – but these are positions that play well with soccer moms and squishy-left millenials. In a Walker-vs-Fiorina choice, it’s not so much that her lack of executive experience in the public sector plays against her, as that Walker’s experience can so easily be played against him.
I think.
I may be wrong. I also think she’s wasted as VP – ‘the bucket of warm p*Ss’ – but would allow as how a successful term or two as VP would be a very strong step up to the QB slot. It seems a waste.
llater,
llamas
It’s perfectly plain that you have not understood what Lee Moore wrote. You are criticising him for what you have not understood. Take issue with the quotes I put in from the article if you please.
Scott Walker is not going to win the nomination, let alone the election. To do so, he would have to stop being Scott Walker and start playing the crowd and the Big Boys’ game, and then nobody on either side would like him. He also has very little time in which to catch the attention of the general public. The Big Names in this bash are Rubio (ugh), Cruz (I’m disenchanted), Paul Jr. (sigh).
Even if the Kochs decide to put most of their dough into Gov. Walker, he’s not going to win.
But at least as things stand at the moment, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat.
As for Ms. Fiorina, she does not have a good rep at all in the libertarian circles I frequent. And that’s not only based on HP. I am trying to locate some of the sources of or reasons for negative criticism; at the moment, all I can do is issue this rather mild alert.
But regardless of the preceding sentence, “level the playing field” is standard, well-understood codespeak for “handicapping,” i.e. cutting everyone down to size. If this is not what she intended, then she is even more ham-tongued than most pols, including Mourdock. (Not including Zero, but he’s on another plane of exiguousness altogether.)
. . .
And since it’s been brought up, I for one like Paul’s posting style, even if it is a trifle telegraphic. For me the set-off sentences are physically easy to read. (It’s different when every sentence stands alone to convey some sort of fake drama or punch).
I kinda disagree with llamas and Julie on the electability of Walker.
1. I think with a bit of Koch money, he has a shot at the nomination. Not a great shot, but a shot. The primary electorate suits him.
2. But he’s never going to generate a lot of excitement. He comes across as boring. Personally I think that’s a great attribute in a President – if Silent Cal was into his 23rd term, the US would be in excellent shape. But these days a little charisma tends to go down well.
3. It’s true that the Dems and the meejah will throw the book at Walker. But they’ll throw the book at anyone other GOP candidate too.
4. What they have to throw at Walker are his policy decisions and some warmed up corruption allegations. I doubt the Clintons want the election to be decided on warmed up corruption allegations. And as for policy decisions, slapping overmighty unions about is not unpopular once one leaves the columns of the NYT and WP.
5. The big thing in his favour is his poverty. He cannot be smeared as a fat cat big shot. That’s worth a lot to a GOP candidate.
6. He’s also got a shot at winning his home state. Maybe no better than 50-50, but in a close election, Wisconsin’s 10 votes could be the deciding ones.
In the general election, I think he has as good a chance as any of the GOP contenders. Actually I think Fiorina might have a slightly better chance, but I don’t regard her as a contender.
But if the US goes seriously into recession by 2016, then even Montgomery Burns would win it.
“level the playing field” is standard, well-understood codespeak for “handicapping,” i.e. cutting everyone down to size
I understood it in precisely the opposite sense. She was talking about the burden of regulation and comparing the effect on big business (headache) with the effect on small business (death.) Economies of scale make regulations easier to deal with if you’re bigger. Consequently, although they’re irritating and costly for big businesses, they’re often a very good barrier to entry to smaller competitors. (Paul M is right that sometimes regulations only apply to businesses above a certain size – precisely in recognition of the economies of scale point – but this is often in areas where small businesses don’t really compete with big businesses anyway.)
In this context levelling the playing field simply means rolling it flat, not handicapping anyone.
I’m with Lee on this, both points (big business and Walker). Paul, you are so obsessed with defending Big Business (mostly rightly so), that you have absolutely missed that no one here, including Fiorina, was actually attacking them.
Lee, I just can’t let this pass:
I suggest that you check out WP, as under Bezos ownership it is a totally different publication from the old WaPo we all knew and detested so well.
Lee,
On Walker’s electability: I hope to goodness you are right, and that despite that he has stood his ground (unlike so many). Yes, short on glamour and charisma (and what a relief that would be!). Also probably on name-recognition, except for the pre-sold (moi) and all those folks who hate him for making the Wisc. teachers live on bread and water.
I have to note that in 2008, McCain was the candidate NOBODY wanted (except the Republican Powers at the time, I guess). Understand, this was my impression from news and the Net — mostly the Net. I hardly heard anyone among conservatives or libertarians praising the man. And when it was time to choose a running mate, guess who they picked: Mama Moose. A female hick from Alaska. Who went to a the *gasp* U. of Idaho. Idaho? Do they HAVE a University in Idaho? Ooops! McCain wasn’t supposed to win that election, and Gov. Palin almost won it for him. Nobody voted for McCain; we all voted for Palin. Pity she lost, but all those dead folks and their dogs….
It’s hard for Republicans to go against the Republican PTB. The very fact that Christie was spoken of hopefully is proof of where their hearts are. Republicans: The Me-Too Party. A.R. said it first! (That I know of, any way, and she said it of Goldwater as he seemed to shift more and more in that direction.)
As to interpretations and misinterpretations of Ms. Fiorina, I think it’s a case of de impestivus non est disputandum, if intempestivus will do for “interpretation.”
I too agree with Lee (and Alisa) on this. Sorry, Paul M, but you’re simply wrong. Regulations do benefit big businesses in a relative sense; what is a minor annoyance to them is deadly to their smaller competitors. And yes, many regulations which only apply to businesses over a certain size, but that’s usually defined as 50 employees, which is still very small. Size is necessary for certain types of companies (automobile manufacturers), but certainly not for all (even in the steel industry micro-mills can be very profitable). Many industries need huge companies simply to survive crushing regulation (think pharmaceuticals). Absent that they could be much smaller and still economically efficient. There was a time when they were.
In many industries there are no real economies of scale or scope other than the ability to afford regulatory compliance. For instance, in the US there are almost no tiny local banks left, simply because of the cost of complying with voluminous “consumer protection” regulations. A bank with 15 employees can’t afford 5 compliance officers, but that’s what the FDIC and CFPB rules necessitate.
Fiorina is right. And while “level the playing field” might mean “handicapping” to some, it’s very clear from the context that’s not what she intended by the phrase.
To be fair to Paul, I think that what may be bothering him is the actual expression she used (i.e. ‘Big Business’), as it came to have a largely negative connotation in the media and even in common parlance. I guess she could have chosen to put it slightly differently – such as maybe ‘very large enterprises’ or something of that sort, just to distance herself from that implied negativity. But that still does not mean that it was intentional on her part to use that common turn of phrase, and that she used in any sort of Occupy kind of sense. She may have, but as others pointed out, there is no indication of that which I can see so far.
Indeed.
Fortunately i don’t have to pick a fight with Paul Marks, because Laird has already said what i wanted to say:
“Regulations do benefit big businesses in a relative sense; what is a minor annoyance to them is deadly to their smaller competitors.”
I was going to add, however, that, once the smaller competitors are dead, big businesses can pass on the cost of regulations to consumers.
It’s also a matter of talent: some business executives have a talent for management and/or spotting market opportunities, others have a talent for dealing with the political class and the regulators. As things stand, the latter type of executive has a competitive advantage within big businesses.
WRT the candidates that Julie thinks have a good chance: all 3 of them are Senators. If the GOP nominates another Senator with no executive experience, then they deserve to lose; or perhaps i should say, American voters deserve the consequences of such a GOP candidate either winning or losing, neither of which is appealing.
(Of course Paul Ryan would be another matter: although in the legislature, he has been in a position of responsibility for quite a while.)
On the other hand, WaPo’s recent “FactCheck” piece alleges “misleading claims about [Mrs. Fiorina’s] business experience.” So is this a reversion to its former Leftist, or (possibly) present Democratic leanings? Or is it the real, unspun skinny?
Or is the truth somewhere in between?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/05/08/carly-fiorinas-misleading-claims-about-her-business-record/
When she ACTUALLY shrinks government, I’ll issue a public appology. I strongly suspect that she’s like the vast majority or republicans, double-talkers. To further explain my comments, “level the playing field” comes from the idea that inequality is bad. Perhaps she simply chose a poor means to express herself, but I highly doubt it, since public politics is the art of rhetoric, and there are people who make LOTS of money wordsmithing, to say X using these words rather than those words.
Julie, thanks for the link. It helped at least in filling a void I had about Fiorina.
Her claim to fame, so to speak, is her willingness and ability to “fight” (as Instapundit puts it); there is an implied sense of being a different sort of politician. As such, I find it short-sighted on her part to claim to have been more successful than she, in fact, was at HP. The claims she makes are questionable which only makes her look like a typical politician.
That said, however, the article uses some strange arguments and convenient lapses of memory about the economy of that time (1999-2005). It also conveniently leaves out the fact (and the context) that Fiorina was forced out due to a proxy fight with a Hewlett family heir.