Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member lorrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Redondo Beach, California
    Posts
    6,765

    Clinton’s Pay-to-Play Is the Natural Consequence of Big Government

    Clinton’s Pay-to-Play Is the Natural Consequence of Big Government

    Hillary is the definition of big government corruption

    August 26, 2016



    Hillary Clinton has been taking heat for her relationship with the Clinton Foundation.

    Did individuals and firms making large donations to the Foundation, or paying large speaking or consulting fees to Bill Clinton, get preferred access to Ms. Clinton as Secretary of State? Is there a revolving door between the Clinton campaign and the Foundation’s fundraising staff? Are these relationships the subject of the emails she deleted from her private server?

    These questions point to a more basic issue about the role of money in politics. What, exactly, do large corporations get in exchange for their payments to candidates and current and former government officials? Ms. Clinton gave 92 speeches between 2013 and 2015 that netted her $21.6 million, including $1.8 million for just 8 speeches to large banks. (CNN provides eye-opening details about her speaking requirements — the $225,000 fee is just the tip of the iceberg.)

    Ms. Clinton is hardly known for her business acumen; her infamous cattle-futures trades are widely recognized as a political payoff, and her views on corporate governance have been ridiculed by experts. Her opinions on world politics are already in the public domain, so I doubt Goldman Sachs was getting $200K worth of unique insight into global affairs. Bill Clinton, with zero experience in higher-education administration, bagged $17 million to be honorary chancellor of an obscure for-profit university. Why are these companies throwing their money away?

    Most people assume that campaign contributions, speaking and consulting fees and lucrative board positions for former and future politicians, and similar payments are pure graft, the kinds of pay-to-play arrangements common under crony capitalism. And some of these transfers surely do buy access and even specific policy outcomes.

    There are several problems with the common assumption, however. First, research on campaign contributions finds that the expected rate of return on these payments is quite high and yet, given the potential gains, the contribution amounts are remarkably small. Second, there is little systematic evidence that policies are, on average, greatly influenced by such contributions, leading some to suggest that this form of payment to politicians and political parties is mainly consumption, not investment.

    Lobbying as a Defensive Strategy

    A more intriguing finding, however, is that most large companies not only give generously, but about equally to both major parties, even when the parties’ candidates and representatives differ on particular issues. This suggests that payments to politicians are best understood as a form of insurance.

    Money in politics provides protection against what Fred McChesney has called “rent-extraction” by government. For example, before the mid-1990s, the tech industry had a very low profile in Washington — few contributions, no DC headquarters for the big tech companies, and so on. After the Microsoft antitrust trial, this situation was completely reversed, and now tech companies are among the biggest lobbyists in the US.

    The message was clear: you want to play ball, you pay up — or we shut you down. It’s not that companies are necessarily paying for specific outcomes; rather, they are paying for the right to do business at all.

    As Ludwig von Mises pointed out, doing business in a world of aggressive governmental regulation is tricky. One consequence is to make firms more bureaucratic, by which Mises means less effective at responding to consumer needs in the most efficient manner.

    The Cost of Compliance with Government Regulations

    Under capitalism, the size, complexity, and strategy of corporations, reflects the decisions of capitalist-entrepreneurs about how best to earn profit, competing freely with each other for resources and consumer patronage.

    Under interventionism — what we now call crony capitalism — the situation is different. Now companies must employ large staffs of lawyers, accountants, lobbyists, public relations teams, and others who focus not on creating economic value, but on satisfying legal, tax, regulatory, and other government requirements. That large firms are filled with such non-productive employees is not, Mises writes in Human Action, “a phenomenon of the unhampered market economy,” but a result of government policy.

    In his earlier book Bureaucracy, published in 1944, Mises challenges the idea that bureaucracy is a necessary consequence of firm size. “No profit-seeking enterprise, no matter how large, is liable to become bureaucratic provided the hands of its management are not tied by government interference.

    The trend toward bureaucratic rigidity is not inherent in the evolution of business. It is an outcome of government meddling with business.” By this Mises means that government interference impedes the entrepreneur’s use of economic calculation and the attempt to use prices to impose managerial discipline.

    Mises gives three examples: taxes and price regulations that interfere with corporate profits (distorting an important signal of employee performance); laws that interfere with hiring and promotion (including the need to hire people to deal with government); and the omnipresent threat of arbitrary antitrust or regulatory activity, in response to which entrepreneurs must become adept at “diplomacy and bribery.”

    This is why large companies send millions of dollars to the Clintons and other top politicians in both major parties.

    A President Hillary Clinton could direct billions to favored companies, and take billions of potential profits away from those that don’t “play the game.” Just as journalists know that tough questions will get them banned from future press conferences, business leaders under crony capitalism know that if they don’t contribute, don’t hire, don’t pay the right people in Washington or Brussels or wherever, they won’t be successful.

    The solution? Take away the ability of government to intervene in economic affairs. Just imagine the popularity of Ms. Clinton on the speaking circuit in a world like that!

    http://www.infowars.com/clintons-pay...ig-government/

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,815
    The clinton fdtn follows the anthony roberts plan of getting your $$$$. The podcast at link with young know nothings sucks - at one point the moderator says he is ok with gov't leaders doing a pay to play route - duh.

    But the exposing of how the fdtn operates in the Breitbart article below excerpted from it are eye opening. After @ 10 mins of pro hillary anti trump talk, they talk @ fdtn operations being low tier.
    Former Clinton Global Initiative Moderator Slams Foundation, Calls Events ‘Gross’
    Michael Loccisano/Getty Images

    by Katherine Rodriguez27 Aug 2016

    A former moderator for the Clinton Global Initiative’s (CGI) forums slammed the organization’s event and the Clinton Foundation on this week’s “Slate’s Political Gabfest” podcast, calling many of the events “gross.”

    Adam Davidson, a journalist who writes for New York magazine and hosts a show on NPR, said that many of the events are “all about buying access.”

    “It seems, to me, that it is all about buying access. It is incredibly expensive just to go to the thing, it’s $100,000-something,” said Davidson in the podcast.

    Davidson is no stranger to CGI events: he has moderated several CGI panels for the past few years, including last year, but notes that he is unlikely to be invited back again because of his comments that The Daily Caller reported.

    He then described how these types of events foster pay-to-play schemes.

    “There’s sort of these explicit ways in which you get access,” he said. “You pay more money to get more access to political leaders and to really rich people and to big corporate leaders.”

    “It just feels like the worst version of an elite selling access to the aspirational, creating this theatre of doing good, but it’s all about something else. It really feels gross,” Davidson continued.

    Later in the podcast, he said that the Clintons were “beholden to scumbags” in their work with the Clinton Foundation.

    “If you are planning … to run for president … don’t set up a foundation where you are beholden to scumbags from other countries. That’s ridiculous. And if you are secretary of state tell your husband not to do business with them.”

    Davidson’s takedown of the Clinton Foundation is the latest critique in a string of critiques of the Foundation.

    Recently, in one of its top headlines, The Huffington Post called for the Clinton Foundation’s closure.

    http://www.breitbart.com/hillary-cli...-events-gross/
    Last edited by artist; 08-30-2016 at 04:12 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Oh my God, this pair of fools are a disgrace to our country. How did they ever rise so far in our society and government? It's really a quandry at this point now that we know all that we know.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Similar Threads

  1. Half of Greenland's Warming Tied to Natural Causes NATURAL CAUSES?!?! NATURAL CAUSES
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-08-2014, 11:50 AM
  2. Gun Control: A Necessary & Natural Consequence Of Socialist Government
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-12-2013, 06:37 PM
  3. November's consequence: Paralyzed government - Pat Buchanan
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-19-2010, 07:16 AM
  4. The government failed Our natural heritage, our economy
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-18-2009, 02:23 AM
  5. Clinton Finds Way to Play Along With Drudge
    By Dixie in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 07:24 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •