Posted on 05/03/2009 9:11:26 AM PDT by Scanian
The New York Times must be getting increasingly desperate.
The publisher of the Times, Arthur Sulzberger, writes a paean in Time Magazine to Carlos Slim, the billionaire Mexican monopolist who threw the flailing Times a lifeline via a 250 million dollar loan earlier in the year.
This is a man who has set back development in Mexico by his monopoly (or near monopoly) of the telecommunications system in that nation. He has been milking his profits for decades, blocking technological development of competitors by using his influence with politicians. The Times has historically derided this type of crony capitalism, especially when it takes place in the developing world because of its effects on the poor.
Before Slim bought the obeisance of Pinch, the paper had run critical articles on him. Now Pinch's soul -- if he has one -- has been bought, lock, stock and barrel.
Behave now Pinch --you have a master, now. And it shows.
Here is Pinch at his most servile:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“What is thy bidding, my master?”
It's not crony capitalism. It's called Mercantilism. And it's a first cousin of Fascism.
Another one for the record.
This was "privatization", Mexican style. It's a well known event in Mexico - a meeting in 1991 where all the Mexican state owned industries were auctioned off for huge bribes to the Salinas family.
He's a thug like them, only slightly more polished. No one in Mexico could be that big and not be.
He should be arrested when he walks onto U.S. soil. By now you can bet that the DEA, ICE, FBI, NSA, and CIA have enough tapes to bury him and 500 others for the next 1000 years.
But Bush wouldn't, and we know the Kenyan won't.
Sickening.
What Mexico has is called Oligarchy. This is rule by a connected few, who possess both wealth and government connections. In an oligarchy, the oligarchs use their governmental power to create loads of regulations. These regulations are never enforced against the oligarchs, but prevent any outsiders from establishing any business that competes against an oligarch’s business.
Oligarchy is a form of rule, like monarchy, not an economic system.
Mercantilism is an economic system, like capitalism or socialism.
As any bum can tell you, being ‘pinched’ financially drives one to strange acts.
And, Pinch is ‘pinched’.
KEWL ! !
The absurdity reaches new highs when Sulzberger claims Slim is helping millions of people become part of the information age.
His efforts have retarded access to the internet because it has been profitable for him to derail competition and milk his monopoly.
"Patrón, take me away!"
Mercantilism is an economic system which holds that government should take an active role in protecting domestic industry, through tariffs and subsidies.
Oligarchy, like communism, is BOTH an economic system AND a form of rule. It is an economic system in that government takes measures to protect industries through tariffs and subsidies, but ONLY the particular industries of the oligarchs. We are seeing the beginnings of it here in the US, with the government choosing to prop up certain companies based on whether the choice benefits powerful donors.
To a large extent, it is a mistake to try to separate economic and political systems, in that they are largely interrelated, in that a given political system may be incompatible with a given economic system, and vice versa.
Pinch’s mouth may be moving and sound may be coming out of it, but it is Slim doing the talking.
Not at all true;
they never say a thing when the "crony capitalist" is a big Dimocrat constributor, like former NYT reporter Steve "Ismella" Rattner.
All sorts of "money quotes" in this article, but I liked the above.
You might want to think deeper about that one. If you tried, you could probably come up with real-life examples of virtually every combination.
"Oligarchy, like communism, is BOTH an economic system AND a form of rule"
I would have to say that statement is false. While communism is usually accompanied by a totalitarian political system (which could be monarchical like some African countries, or democratic like Venezuela), there are examples of communism on a smaller scale, like the Oneida Colonies, where the communist economy is overseen by a republican board of directors. And the textbook ultimate form of communism, is anarchical, with no government at all.
The interactions of the political and economic systems are important, and I think it is best to not oversimplify.
Oh, so it's kind of like what we have here.
Unfortunately those who cannot make certain connections, but rely on the shallowness of verbal terms too often lose, or purposely divert, the underlying insights which could free the species. Barack Obama, but more importantly his handlers, are exact examples of using verbal gymanstics to spin underlying truths. Lawyers in fact are trained to do this.
The fact is Leftism, whether its called feudalism, oligarchy, communism, etc. IS the need to manipulate other human beings because one really is either incapable, too lazy, or too narcissistic, to produce things of value that others would pay for.
Oligarchy is a good term to use, and it is both an economic and political manifestation. The US Senate is clearly an Oligarchy.
Sad to have to spend the time to deal with academic obfuscation.
The Oneida Community was in reality ruled by the charismatic personality of its founder, John Noyes, and effectively dissolved after a few decades as a result of the death of its founder. Regardless of the official forms, the reality was that Noyes ran things. And since the community was based in the United States, and subject to the laws thereof, it forms an invalid example.
As far as "textbook ultimate forms", that's where they are found, in textbooks.
In real life, wherever communism is tried as a sovereign political system, it is necessarily totalitarian. It rests on its ability to effectively enslave the productive members of society for the benefit of the rulers of the system, and its ability to prevent those productive members from leaving their slavery.
In countries like Venezuela, you have the situation where the unproductive form a democratic majority, and use their power to strip the productive minority of their wealth. The net result in a few years will be their collapse into poverty. This is why democracy does not work in places where the middle class is a voting minority. This is where the United States looks like its heading.
An oligarchic system uses the political side to enrich the members of the oligarchy and buy their loyalty, and the members of the oligarchy use their wealth and power to maintain the system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.