The "green deal" of AOCs will require a ton of "cronyism"



[ad_1]

Amazon takes his balloon and goes home, and the Dems of New York are celebrating.

I was not a big supporter of the case that New York and Amazon have developed: the race between cities to corrupt companies and install them in their yard has a lot of problems.

But what's amazing to me is how Democrats can defend a Green New Deal that uses the powers of the state-taxes, subsidies, regulatory harassment, and so on. – to bring all industries to align with their vision of a just and green society, and at the same time denounce these tactics even when they are actually put into practice.

The GND's most prominent architect is New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. According to his proposal, the cows could suffer, but humans will flourish thanks to all the wonderful new jobs and the free health care provided by his utopian program.

AOC rejects the idea that the traditional market economy or tax accounting should be an obstacle to his project.

"I think the first thing to do is to break the misconception that taxes pay 100% of government spending," she recently told Steve Inskeep of NPR. "It's just not the way government spending works. . . . Government projects are often financed by a combination of taxes, deficits and other types of investments – you know, bonds, and so on. ".

When Inskeep pointed out to him that the deficit expenditure had to be repaid, AOC reversed with an impressive lack of embarrassment, saying that everything was fine because it is not an expense, but an investment. Borrowing tens of billions of dollars for its "investments" will pay off, "because we create jobs."

The agreement with Amazon would have created about 25,000 jobs with an average annual salary of $ 150,000, but AOC was against it, as this agreement was "a creeping drift of one of the largest companies in the world."

Maybe that did it. But I have news for AOC and others who are trying to use the original New Deal precedent as an excuse to replenish the group: this is how the New Deals work.

The original New Deal was a boon to big business. In their efforts to mobilize the American economy against the crisis, the New Dealers have always favored large companies and "associations" – cartels, guilds, unions, etc. Larger companies, individually or in combination, have written the "codes" – that is, the regulations – of the National Recovery Administration and other organizations to their advantage. Everything has been done in the name of efficiency and progress.

For example, the big movie chains of the 1930s – Netflixes and Hulus at the time – wrote these codes in such a way that the independents were almost abandoned, even though 13,571 of the 18,321 cinemas in America belonged to to independent owners.

A review panel chaired by legendary attorney Clarence Darrow investigated the NRA and found that "virtually all the codes we examined, a condition is persistent. . . . In Industry after Industry, the largest units. . . have written the codes to their advantage and then assume the administration of the code they have developed. "

This is what happens every time a government pursues an industrial policy: the bigger players demand to wet their beaks if they want to continue. The resolution presented by AOC provides for "investing in US infrastructure and industry to sustainably meet the challenges of the twenty-first century".

As Timothy Carney writes, my colleague from the American Enterprise Institute (and zealous foe of corporate welfare) in the Washington Examiner: "All of these dreams come true only if the federal government grants billions and billions to General Electric, Siemens, monopoly utilities, Tesla, Google and other corporate giants, who hire the right lobbyists and position themselves to stack the documents. "

The lesson to be learned from these efforts throughout the history of the United States and the world is that when the government takes the big companies in the arms, the big companies kiss and its embrace leaves us in the cold.

The agreement with Amazon was not the opposite of what AOC wants; it was an essay.

[ad_2]
Source link