There's no corruption in capitalism. Really.

[caramida]

From Harper's Index for October 2006:

Minimum amount of USDA farm subsidies since 2000 that have been paid out to people who do not farm: $1,300,000,000

Minimum value of “small business” contracts given out by the U.S. last year that went to Fortune 500 firms: $1,200,000,000

Dairy Industry Crushed Innovator Who Bested Price-Control System

I get really frustrated when folks claim that our socio-cultural-economic system rewards people who work hard and punishes layabouts. Many people who self-identify as conservatives rail against 'the Welfare state', even as they support initiatives that provide government assistance to those (rather, companies who purchase their candidates of choice) unable to compete in the market without help. Cornel West describes some of these people as free-market fundamentalists. At first I thought this was a misnomer, as these free-market fundamentalists don't hew to a strict view of the free market, where each actor has an equal chance in the market to face off against his or her competitors. Then I realized that 'fundamentalist' means less a fundamental interpretation of the intent of the original concept, and more a personal interpretation about how to self-justify one's own prejudice, nevermind the consequence. Just like much other fundamentalism, really.

Comments

[knaveofhearts.livejournal.com]

First, "free competitive enterprise" and "free-market" were your words, not mine. You may call it free-market, I did no such thing.

A small branch of a Big Business isn't always a tax shelter -- it's a way for a Big Business to be nimble and flexible like Small Businesses are. Twice I have worked for small branches, and they are very different from their parent companies.

Paying folks not to farm can make sense if it ensures that the soil is properly being taken care of and that the market isn't being totally screwed over. Both of those bother me as a libertarian, but destroying the soil by making wheat until nothing else can be grown just because wheat is the most profitable doesn't help everyone.

[caramida.livejournal.com]

Actually, "free competitive enterprise" are the SBA's words, right from their mission statement. It's great that small branches of big companies are more nimble than the big companies that own them, but does that mean they should get taxpayer dollars? The original intent of the SBA was to help folk who don't already have deep pockets. Now instead, folk like you and me (without deep pockets) get to pay folk like IBM and ExxonMobil (whose pockets are somewhat more capacious).

Paying folks not to farm was somewhat reasonable 75 years ago, when it was necessary to keep some folk from starving. Now, it's corporate welfare, pure and simple. If the market is resilient, then farmers can stop growing wheat for a couple years, and switch to soy for example, which replenishes the soil (which is what family farmers have done for dozens of generations), price supports undermine the resilience of the markets.