Submissiveness and Conformity in America's Business Leaders

by Jacob G. Hornberger

Russian billionaire Aleksandr Lebedev is selling all his Russian assets and moving his money elsewhere. The reason? According to the New York Times, Lebedev, who has supported the opposition to President Putin?s increasingly authoritarian rule, stated that police and regulatory inspections had become overly intense. ?The special services steamrolled my businesses into the pavement,? he said. ?I give up.?

It?s a classic case showing the benefit of a highly regulated economy and an extremely complex tax code. In such a system, the rules and regulations and tax provisions are so numerous and so complicated that it?s always easy for the state to find violations committed by people in the business world.

The result is inevitably a beautifully submissive and conformist business community. Business leaders know that if they keep their mouths shut about government wrongdoing or, even better, openly praise the government, the government will leave them alone. The businessmen know, however, that if they speak out against government wrongdoing or corruption, the government is likely to come smashing down on them with burdensome and intrusive inspections, followed by criminal indictments for regulatory breaches or some sort of tax fraud.

The situation is no different, of course, here in the United States. Have you ever noticed how rarely major U.S. companies and business leaders criticize the conduct of the U.S. government in foreign affairs? Hardly a peep about such things as torture, invasions, occupations, denial of due process, kangaroo tribunals, indefinite detention, assassination, support of dictatorships, and other such policies?

All we hear coming out of the business community are the standard inane bromides, such as ?Praise the troops for defending our freedoms here at home? or ?Thank goodness the U.S. government is spreading democracy around the world.?

Oh sure, it?s possible that all those business leaders in America?s major corporations honestly believe all that claptrap. After all, like the rest of us, most of them were sent into the government-approved school system where they were trained to become good, little citizens ? i.e., those who don?t challenge or question what their government is doing, especially when it comes to matters relating to ?national security.?

But business leaders in America have a very good appreciation of the power of the federal government, especially when it comes to regulatory bureaucrats and the IRS. If a businessman says the wrong thing, such as openly condemning President Obama?s assassination program, he knows that there is a good possibility that the federal hammer will be coming down hard on him soon. And the beauty of it is that the government can piously deny that it is punishing the man for opposing the government?s policies and claim that it is simply enforcing the criminal laws.

A good example of this phenomenon took place after 9/11. President Bush and his officials approached various telecoms and requested them to turn over confidential information relating to their customers. The business leaders knew that the president was asking them to break the law and to violate their privacy agreements with their customers. But they also knew what could happen to them if they refused to go along with the illegality ? the government could destroy them with regulatory and tax investigations and indictments, not to mention denying them government contracts.

So, the businessmen went along with the deal, rationalizing to themselves that they were doing it for the fatherland and in the interests of ?national security.?

Except for Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio. To his everlasting credit, Nacchio refused to go along with the illegality and chose to side with his customers.

Nacchio paid a high price for his principles. Oh, no, the government didn?t put him in jail for refusing to comply with the president?s illegal scheme. Instead, they sent him to the penitentiary for committing a regulatory violation ? ?insider trading? ? in much the same way that Putin is going after business people who dare to challenge his regime.

One of the best descriptions for the benefit of a state-regulated economy was set forth by Ayn Rand in her novel Atlas Shrugged in a statement made by the slimy state bureaucrat Dr. Floyd Ferris:

?Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?? said Dr. Ferris. ?We want them broken. You?d better get it straight that it?s not a bunch of boy scouts you?re up against ? then you?ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We?re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you?d better get wise to it. There?s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren?t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What?s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted ? and you create a nation of law-breakers ? and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that?s the system, Mr. Rearden, that?s the game, and once you understand it, you?ll be much easier to deal with.?

_
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Economy
- Boy Whose Hot Dog Cart Was Shut Down by the City of Holland Now Homeless
- Obama's Master Plan: Bailout Everyone
- Monsanto Awarded ONE BILLION Dollars Due To Patent Infringement For A Product That Was Never On The Market
- Social Security Ponzi Scheme Coming To An End
- New Hemp Bill Introduced in US Senate
- Gibson Guitar Forced to Pay $350,000 Ransom to Feds
- The Not So Super Hero
- Drawing back the Financial Iron Curtain to a Beautiful Anarchy w/ Jeffrey Tucker!

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Obama's Business Comment...

By Randall Holcombe

Many readers will be aware that last week in a speech President Obama said "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." There have been many comments on this already ? most of them I?ve seen have been negative ? but I?m still going to add a few words, because I find the comment so troubling.

If the credit for a business person?s success belongs to ?somebody else,? who is that somebody else?

In the same speech the president said "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges." That statement is true. But in no way does it imply that if a person has a successful business, ?Somebody else made it happen.?

Everybody?s well-being in a modern society depends on cooperation with other members of the society. Through specialization and gains from trade, we all are more productive, and we all benefit. First, consider the way that social cooperation works in the market sector.

People engage in exchange when they find it mutually advantageous. Both buyer and seller are better off because they have specialized, become more productive at some activity, and produced value for those with whom they trade. The only way a business person can succeed in a market environment is by purchasing inputs and combining them to produce output that is more valuable than the inputs they purchased. This is a creative activity that adds value to the economy, and the credit for that accomplishment belongs entirely to the business person.

Many people start businesses that lose money. The implication of President Obama?s comment is that those people aren?t responsible for their failures either. Other people are. No, he didn?t say that. Perhaps this is something the president should clarify. If you don?t deserve credit for your successes, perhaps you?re not responsible for your failures either. In the real world, people make choices, and they are responsible for the consequences of those choices. Both the good consequences and the bad.

How about the businesses that make money? They do that by creating value for their customers. Doing so is not trivial. It is a creative activity, and it also requires hard work. Just because the success comes from trading with others does not take away from that fact that successful business people were able to make those exchanges because their entrepreneurial activities added value to the economy.

Consider a spectacular example. President Obama? statement implies that Steve Jobs didn?t build Apple Computer, and the credit for the iPhone, the iPad, and all the other products the company has introduced goes to somebody else. ?Somebody else made that happen.? Who? The same applies to less spectacular examples. The person who owns a restaurant, or an auto repair business obviously depends on customers, but those customers patronize the business because the people who work there create value, which enables mutually advantageous exchange.

I would think it is so obvious that what President Obama said is fundamentally wrong that it almost goes without saying, except that the statement was made by the President of the United States.

Now, consider the president?s other comment. ?If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.? We already considered market exchange, where both parties help each other. How about that great teacher? Lots of people had the same teachers as Steve Jobs and other successful business people. I can assure you (as a teacher myself) that some students put more work into their studies, some students are more perceptive, and some students get more out of instruction than others who had the exact same instruction. Ultimately the teacher-student relationship is an exchange relationship like many others. Teachers are paid to teach, just like auto mechanics are paid to fix cars. Yes, some teachers are better than others, but some students are better than others too. I get paid to teach; students (and taxpayers) pay to get my lessons, and the students themselves deserve full credit for any successes they have after they leave my classroom. I hope I give them something valuable, just like customers value the auto repairs they pay for, or the iPhones they buy. But they put in the effort, take the risk, and think creatively to add value to the economy and benefit from gains from trade.

How about the bridges? The president said ?Somebody invested in roads and bridges.? This is an exchange relationship too. Taxpayers are the ones who sacrificed their incomes to invest in roads and bridges. The difference here is that they were forced into the exchange. We are compelled to pay taxes, and some of that money goes to build roads and bridges. If we are giving credit to anyone, it should be to the people who were forced to part with their earnings to pay for the roads and bridges everyone uses. The top 1% of taxpayers pay more than 36% of total federal income taxes, and the top 5% pay well over half of total federal income taxes. So if someone else deserves the credit for those roads and bridges, it is the very individuals President Obama wants to burden more by raising their taxes. But as with market exchange, just because some people produce what other people pay for does not mean ?somebody else? is responsible for people?s successes.

Every one of us owes our prosperity to the social cooperation that occurs in a market economy. We rely on our customers, our suppliers, and all of the many businesses that provide us with the goods and services that make our standard of living so high. But this is far different from asserting, "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." No, if you?ve got a business, you built it and you made it happen, by creating value for your customers. The business people, the entrepreneurs, and the business employees in an economy chart their own path and make their own successes. Success is not guaranteed and it does not come easy. When people are successful in business, we should recognize their accomplishments and applaud them, for in the process of succeeding themselves, they also have created value for others in the economy.

Over the past four years I have found myself in disagreement with some of President Obama?s statements and policies. But I don?t recall him making a statement before that shows such a profound misunderstanding of the economic forces that have produced the material prosperity that too many people take for granted.

View the original article here

Geithner: Taxes on 'Small Business' Must Rise So Government Doesn't 'Shrink'

By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Small Business Committee on Wednesday that the Obama administration believes taxes on small business must increase so the administration does not have to ?shrink the overall size of government programs.?

The administration?s plan to raise the tax rate on small businesses is part of its plan to raise taxes on all Americans who make more than $250,000 per year?including businesses that file taxes the same way individuals and families do.

Read More

Latest Politics/Corruption
- Twisted ethics of an expert witness
- US Pledges $300 Million More for Central America Drug War
- 14 Reasons Why Rick Perry Would Be A Really, Really Bad President
- Supremes Rule EPA Final Arbiter on Carbon Dioxide
- Gov. worker claims to see shark off S.F. coast, Gov. bans surfing and swimming for five days
- NYT's Love Affair With Fascism Continues
- FDA sends US marshals to seize elderberry juice concentrate, deems it 'unapproved drug'
- Church fined $4,000 for 'excessive tree pruning'

Thats right! We have to tax those small businesses so our benevolent government can continue to metastasize, er, uh, I mean GROW! "Our Government" meaning Exxon, Walmart, GE, Raytheon, Monsanto, Dupont, Goldman Sachs, Google, Apple etc....................

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here