Onion Eater

Question: What’s the difference between Halliburton and the Post Office?

Answer: You can buy stock in Halliburton.

No, that is not a joke. From an economic point of view, that really is the only difference. (If I had answered, “the cool sunglasses,” that would have been a joke.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: What’s the difference between Halliburton and I.G. Farben?

Answer: Nationality.

Halliburton is an American company and I.G. Farben was a German company.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: What’s the difference between Halliburton and General Motors?

Answer: Sixty years.

General Motors prospered during World War Two and then grew bloated and inefficient and eventually needed a government bailout. Halliburton is prospering now during the occupation of Iraq, but will inevitably become bloated and inefficient and need a government bailout.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: What’s the similarity between Halliburton and General Motors?

Answer: At the time of their government bailout, pundits can/will be heard exclaiming, “But we must! They’re too big to fail!”

Those same pundits are/will be conspicuously silent on how the entire economy came to be held hostage by one big company.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: When Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae needed to be bailed out by the government, the Federal Reserve could have either opened the Discount Window to them or purchased their stock outright. What’s the difference?

Answer: Fascism or socialism.

“Today our primary focus is supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their current form as they carry out their important mission,” said Henry Paulson. Indeed, the government did choose to keep its current form: fascism. The Venezuelans can follow Hugo Chávez down the road to socialism, but George Bush will stick with fascism, thank you very much. “You know, there is an implicit guarantee,” he said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: From the point of view of the average American, what difference does it make?

Answer: None, unless he’s into reading the Sunday editorial page.

Under a fascist regime, editorialists will bemoan the existence of “those damned privately controlled bankers” and try to convince us that socialism would be better. Under a socialist regime, editorialists will bemoan the existence of “those damned lazy government workers” and try to convince us that fascism would be better.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: So what’s the best economic system?

Visit Axiomatic Economics by Victor Aguilar: -- Fascism: Socialism with Shareholders to see how Victor Aguilar answers this question.

Pickles

Aguilar just posted a new website page titled "Socialism without Seizure is still Socialism." Axiomatic Economics by Victor Aguilar: -- Socialism without Seizure is still Socialism

It is in response to someone who commented on this thread with an Ayn Rand quote.

DarkWizard12

I'm a fan of Onions and Pickles myself.

Scucca

The only thing perhaps interesting to talk about. Rand writes "fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government". Its a cartoon view of fascism. For example, consider Nazi Germany and the paper by Buchheim and Scherner (2007, he Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry, Journal of Economic History, Vol 66, pp 390-416):

Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency.

__________________

Pickles

Regarding Nazi Germany, Aguilar writes:


"Admittedly, pinning people down on exactly what they are advocating can be frustrating. Socialists masquerade as advocates of free enterprise, albeit with "improvements," while simultaneously denouncing everybody that they don’t like, which is just about everybody in the business community, as fascists. Genuine fascists, on the other hand, have traditionally masqueraded as socialists. This is what Hitler was doing when he took the name "National Socialist Worker’s Party," though he had no intention of nationalizing companies like I.G. Farben.

"Working-class Germans voted for the Nazis because they thought that Hitler would nationalize the factories and give them jobs. Instead, he gave them rifles, conquered Europe and staffed the factories with captured slaves."

Source: Axiomatic Economics by Victor Aguilar: -- Socialism without Seizure is still Socialism

The passage that you quote implies that Hitler had a philosophical attachment to the private ownership of corporations, believing them to be more efficient than state-owned industries. "There were several motives behind this attitude of the [Nazi] regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency," writes Buchheim and Scherner.

Actually, I don't think Hitler was that much of a philosopher. Everything that he did was based on pure expediency. He did not aspire to run a chemical company, he aspired to rule Europe. Leaving I.G. Farben in private hands was an expediency, that's all. It would be a grave misreading of history to paint a picture of Hitler today as some sort of free-market advocate.

Anyway, when one is using slave labor, efficiency is not one's highest concern. If the factories aren't producing enough, the solution is a military one: Just conquer another country and obtain more slaves.

Scucca

With the nazis we have a continuation of right wing ideology and a basic failure to construct a consistent political economic school of thought. They therefore continued the usual tales spawned by overly simple understanding of property rights (a geezer such as Coase, the forerunner of transaction cost theory, is ironically closer to Marx). Comparing that to socialism- a genuine school of thought- is particularly naïve.

Onion Eater

Extensive references then! Any chance of something from the American Economic Review, Economic Journal or Journal of Economic Literature? Just for the crack!

Scucca! You disappoint me. You claim that socialism is a genuine school of thought, but where are your references to support this fabulous claim?

From your comments at http://www.debatepolitics.com/econom...nevitable.html (Is the collapse of the dollar inevitable?) we know you to be an avid reader of academic-level journals. Surely, if socialism is really a genuine school of thought, there must be thousands of journal quotations that will support your claim.

It's actually through you coming clean over the references that a discussion would be enabled. Rant always has its place, but I'm always up for genuine economic comment.

Come on, put some effort in it! Give us just one quotation from any of the three journals you cited to support your claim. Just for the crack!

Scucca

Unlike you, I haven't pretended to come out with an academic-level paper. I've made a jolly obvious point. However, its easily supported by published analysis:

1) Already supported my nazi contempt with the paper Buchheim and Scherner (2007, he Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry, Journal of Economic History, Vol 66, pp 390-416)

2) My comment about Coase is supported by Philips (1985, Marx, the classical firm and economic planning, Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics, Vol 8, pp 266-276)

3) There are too many papers looking at socialist political economy. Here's one chosen at random (to ensure I haven't been biased): Yunker (2007,
A Comprehensive Incentives Analysis of the Potential Performance of Market Socialism, Review of Political Economy, Vol 19, pp 81-113)

Saboteur

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

"Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail." - Benito Mussolini

__________________
"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."

Quortix

And also become a " Gang-Rape [victim which is being] Cover-Up by U.S., Halliburton/KBR [and being] Told [...] She Could Lose Her Job If She Sought Help After Being Raped". Of course, the downside of working for Post Office is that you might get contaminated with Anthrax insidiously spread by the home grown scientist who happens to work at government biodefense lab but the invisible terrorists get the blame.


Halliburton has moved its corporate headquarters to the UAE city of Dubai but still an American company it's just if the CEO commit a crimes, he won't be extradited to the US.

__________________
Laura Bush/Chelsea Clinton '08