I think I would be posting this thread regardless of what party was in power.

This week I went to attend the grand opening of a new business.  The grand opening was attended by the Governor of the State as well as the local House of Representatives rep, state legislature wanks, Small Business Administration types, County pols, as well as a few mayors.  They nearly knocked each other over with all the back-patting about how they provided all sorts of stimulus money etc so that the "small business" startup could make ends meet.  Repubs and Dems alike were amongst the politicians there.

But there is a story that they did not tell, and perhaps they do not even know it.

The primary owners of this small business are multi-billionaires who are amongst the 10 most wealthy citizens of a "G8" country, and they have been connected to any number of shady international underworld types over the years. (I am being purposely vague here so as to keep myself out of a lawsuit)

Which to me raises two questions:

(a) Were the politicians so desperate that they felt the need to hand over precious tax dollars to two foreign billionaires with considerably shady histories?

...or...

(b) Were the various politicians and administrations simply too lazy or stupid to find out who they were really dealing with?

(a) sometimes (b)

That's the funny thing about this vaunted "small business."  The lapdogs of international capital like to use that phrase because it has a Norman Rockwell feel to it.  You think of Ma & Pa's Corner Grocery or something.  You don't think of Oriental billionaires (sorry about the slur)!

They say, "Small business creates most of the jobs in this country..."

And then they give government subsidies to Walmart!
::)

But there is a certain perverse logic to all this.  Business -large and small -  creates the jobs, so if you want to stimulate job creation you just about have to give the $$$ to business, or am I missing something?

Kickbacks.  That's almost always the answer.

But there is a certain perverse logic to all this.  Business -large and small -  creates the jobs, so if you want to stimulate job creation you just about have to give the $$$ to business, or am I missing something?


Businesses that are going to build anyway simply "play the game" and tell government wanks that they cannot afford to finance their new business.  As long as the government entities throw money at them, they are going to ask for it whether they need it or not.

The owners of this company are worth over $7.5 billion in personal wealth, and they themselves operate a venture capital fund which they use to fund projects that people bring to them.  So they're not short on cash, and the business which they are starting is not high risk.

Somehow I am thinking that there are business proposals from less well-heeled owners who would be more deserving of government help.

Besides, how does a 7.5x billionaire qualify for a "small business loan"?  Something is perverted/distorted in the system here.

And these comments are separate from the rather shady reputation of said billionaires; a simple web query regarding these guys would have opened the eyes of the various government bodies, had they bothered to do so.  I was shocked at the grand opening to see who was running the company; when I went home and did some more research I confirmed my suspicions.

Businesses that are going to build anyway simply "play the game" and tell government wanks that they cannot afford to finance their new business.  As long as the government entities throw money at them, they are going to ask for it whether they need it or not.



Just ask President Garfield.  You get the answer as to why Barack Obama is still around. 
Garfield said he wanted to get rid of the spoils system (bribery for political office/favor) and a dude who thought he was gonna get a gummint job for the asking was "disappointed."  "Shot by a disappointed officer seeker" they always said. 

Jimmy Carter wouldn't play the game and they didn't shoot him, they just shot down his character and robbed him of his message -- I ain't talking interest rates here -- Jimmeh Cawtah was trying to tell us to set long-term priorities as a nation...do we want to get along with the rest of the world?  Can we be reasonable with ourselves as Americans? 

Man, that's a bummer, Jimmeh!  Give us a cowboy on a white steed. 

Then a cowboy on a white steed you shall have!

Wait thirty years for us to run out of blow and Froot Loops and the party's over, baby!
8)

The primary owners of this small business are multi-billionaires who are amongst the 10 most wealthy citizens of a "G8" country, and they have been connected to any number of shady international underworld types over the years. (I am being purposely vague here so as to keep myself out of a lawsuit)

Which to me raises two questions:

(a) Were the politicians so desperate that they felt the need to hand over precious tax dollars to two foreign billionaires with considerably shady histories?

...or...

(b) Were the various politicians and administrations simply too lazy or stupid to find out who they were really dealing with?


As always, the answer is (c).

(c) If the people are too lazy or stupid to research what's really going on, why fault the politician for showing up to take the credit?

You donate money to a politician and a lobbyist.  The lobbyist convinces a politician gives you a thousand times as much taxpayer money in return.  In return for that favorOut of the goodness of your heart, you allow the politician to take credit for "creating jobs".  

The lobbyist is responsible for putting the understrikes in, which turns what would otherwise be bribery into fully-legal expression of everyone's First Amendment rights to freedom of association.


But there is a certain perverse logic to all this.  Business -large and small -  creates the jobs, so if you want to stimulate job creation you just about have to give the $$$ to business, or am I missing something?


The question, to a capitalist (as opposed to, for lack of a better word, a corporatist), is whose money, and by what right?  In a free market, your product would be good enough that you wouldn't need to hire a lobbyist to convince a politician to write a law that required taxpayers to purchase your product.  And you would (if you were a really idealistic capitalist) refuse money taken at the point of a gun just as you would refuse the proceeds of any other form of theft, because you'd know it comes with strings attached.  Even if they're as light as having to hire a lobbyist and let a politician take credit for the jobs created when you had to hire people to build your cool product.