GM: The Shriveld Fruit of Central Planning

"The market, that means the buyers; the consumers, that means all the people...[U]nder planning or socialism the goals of production are determined by the supreme planning authority. The individual gets what the authority thinks he ought to get."~~Ludwig von Mises, The Elite Under Capitalism, an essay in Economic Freedom and Intervention

Via Hotair, General Motors "decides" to spend $40 million on a carbon emissions program.

I put the word, decides, in quotation marks because General Motors is no longer in a position to make decisions according to what consumers in the market desire.  They are not interested in supplying what consumers in the market demand and, since the government is the shareholder with the the endless flow of taxpayer funds (the carrot) and holds the power of regulation (the stick), it is likely GM simply is not permitted to decide matters for itself.

Would a majority of private shareholder, if GM had all private shareholders, support $40 million spent on a program neither desired by consumers nor mandated by regulations?

Worse yet, the convoluted anti-free market partnership of government and a major corporation--wrought by bailouts, initiated by Bush and finished by Obama--places the federal government in a position to plan a major sector of what is supposed to be our economy.  It makes cover for the age-old authoritarian impulse to control how people supply for the wants and needs of other people in society. (What is a free market capitalist economy other than one existing for and driven by the desires of individuals?) 

GM's "decisions" therefore political, not economical.  They act at the behest of government command, therefore ignore consumer demand.

Can we demand no more bailouts, please.

Quote of the Week (and a Great Article)

"Wisconsin looks a lot like Egypt this week. But while Arabs are fighting to end extraordinary overreach by government, Wisconsin union protesters are fighting to preserve it."~~~Chris Ewards of the Cato Institute

Commentary would only detract from the point made. 

Click here for the full article.

Since Ron Paul is Still The Topic Dujour...

Note the talk of social conservatism.  One can in fact be a social conservative and not be in favor of using the coercive force of government to advance those social values.  It's called consistency and principle...

sljfldjf

CPAC Friday. Ron Paul Speaks

I've noticed a significant difference between the, a) run-of-the-mill presidential hopefuls and, b) Ron Paul.  When a) speak in the the main ballroom, it will be mostly filled.  When Ron Paul speaks, people begin to line up to get in an hour ahead of time.

The line for Ron Paul went on and on into the main lobby.  Those turned away due to the capacity being filled (myself included) went to an overflow room equipped with a large screen streaming his speech live.  The overflow room was filled.  I was standing along the wall.

Another significant difference: energy and excitement.  When a) speaks and offers the standard platitudes about maintaining an endless war with no visible end (my words, not their political speak), a smattering of applause crops up in spots.  When Ron Paul talks of the insanity of continuing the same old foreign policy, bedlam erupts.

When a) speak in measured political-speechie tones about embracing "the principles that made America great," more smattering applause.  When Paul speaks of defending liberty, more bedlam.

Ron Paul is not a good speaker.  All the a) politicians are.  It is the principles of freedom that spark excitement, not the cadence of more of the same old rah-rah America platitudes.

Thursday afternoon, part II

This place is packed.  I just got shut out of Rand Paul in the main ballroom.  Grover Norquist noted that this year's attendance will exceed last year's record of 10,000+.  That's a good sign that a freedom-oriented movement did not cap out after last November's election.

Jumping subjects, I did manage to attend a panel discussion on cutting Defense spending sponsored by the Committee for the Republic.  Bruce Fein was on the panel.  Last year was the first I'd heard Mr. Fein speak.  He is well worth following; catch some Youtube samples of his arguments if you can.  Here's one:

CPAC, Thursday afternoon

New Gingrich?  Hmmm.  There must be an ethanol, global warming, or a Vote For Dee Dee Scozzafava break out panel here I was not aware of. 

CPAC is a big tent, all-inclusive minded bunch of folks after all.

CPAC, Thursday morning...

Alright, I made it to CPAC.  Driving into and around the Imperial Capital at 7:30 am on a week day sure is a great reminder of why I don't ever want to live here, but I made it.

Arriving too late to catch Michelle Bachmann's opening remarks, I managed to catch about 2/3 of her speech.  Being a tax attorney, she is well aware of the overly complex and invasive tax code and its job-killing consequences.  She's also a good public voice on the staggering effects of the debt and federal spending.  I wish figures like Representative Bachmann would take advantages of opportunities like this morning's speech to remind everyone just how terrible her party has been with these issues, in the very recent past.  It would be cathartic but very good to have a public airing of grievances on this subject.  I find it difficult to believe the big spenders and establishment-first curs are not still lurking around in the Republican Party, waiting for enough people to fall back asleep.

She's also dedicated to repealing Obamacare and is probably the strongest public voice keeping issue in at the fore.

Ron Johnson personifies what senators and congressman should be: not politicians.  Before being elected to the Senate in the fall, he never held political office.  He did not even work in politics.  He ran a manufacturing plant for decades.  He used the term, citizen legislator more than once, and I'm glad he did.

Johnson is refreshing.  He was unknown by everyone, ran a business in the free market, was told repeatedly he would never beat the leftist icon and sitting senator, Russ Feingold, ran a conservative campaign, and won in spite of the reflexive you've got to be more moderate to win in a blue state establishment mentality.  Freedom and limited government are his core principles.  And he's not afraid of losing reelection on those terms. 

Good on you, Senator Johnson. 


More later as random thoughts ping around.  I'll edit this page throughout the day...

He Said It. The Economic Absurdity of The Health Care Mandate

Any legislative provision that forces Americans into any economic transaction is wildly unconstitutional.  Why have a written constitution if the government can do pursue any matter it wishes?

Beyond the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate in the 2010 health care law, the fanciful economic wishful thinking that forcing Americans to purchase health insurance with the coercive force of the federal government will somehow drive overall health care costs down is too far removed from common sense to warrant debate.

It just makes no sense, has no precedent, and defies generations of economic experience.

Look at the cost and price of any economic good after the government subsidies or goads it along with coercion.  It goes up costing consumers and taxpayers (many times the same persons) more than what they would pay in the free market.

Then-Senator Obama made such a point in 2008 during his primary run against Hillary Clinton.  Via Hotair, here's the Fox News clip on the heels of the recent federal judge's tossing out the unconstitutional law:



At the risk of sounding flippant, it would be great if a copy of the Constitution and Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson made their way, respectively, onto the presidents teleprompters.