The case against cronies: Libertarians must stand up to corporate greed

Being "pro-business" is not the same as being in favor of free enterprise.  Many businessmen are pleased with their special protection from competition or their government subsidy or special tax break or regulations designed to give them an advantage.  Many business people do not object to the government picking winners and losers as long as they are the one picked.  This article explains why crony capitalism is immoral and why advocates of free markets should expose and condemn it.

Crony capitalism is not just a national issue, but evident here in Nashville when a mandatory minimum fee and regulation are designed to protect established limousine companies from competition, when special tax breaks are given to HCA or Gaylord, and when eminent domain is used to take property from one person and give it to another.

The case against cronies: Libertarians must stand up to corporate greed

Timothy P. Carney , The Atlantic, April 30, 2013 - It's time for a free-market corporate social responsibility. Conservatives who rail against government hand-outs should also blast companies who seek shelter from Washington.

The Republican attack on President Obama's economic policy has changed subtly, but significantly, in the last three years. In 2009, he was allegedly a "socialist" and a "Marxist" who lusted for government control of the entire economy. But lately, that has given way to more nuanced charges of "crony capitalism" -- of giving special, friendly treatment to certain companies and industries, or allowing powerful corporations to essentially write the laws, themselves.

Republicans shouted about Obama's green energy handouts and industry bailouts. Mitt Romney assailed him for picking winners and losers. "Free enterprise works," Romney said in early 2012. "Crony capitalism does not."
.....
When the ethanol industry writes an ethanol mandate, or H&R Block hatches a policy that crushes its small competitors, it's legal. But it's also a naked attempt to extract money from unwilling payers, restrict the freedom of competitors, and deny options to customers. This is the sort of behavior conservatives and libertarians need to denounce. (link)

Top Stories

A Thanksgiving Lesson

As we gather together to celebrate Thanksgiving this year, let’s not only remember the lessons of Plymouth — let’s commit to proclaiming the virtues of self-reliance, property rights and free markets more boldly than ever.  Otherwise we’ll have even less to be thankful about next year.

By Howard Rich — The Separatist Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock in November 1620 began their new settlement utilizing overtly communist economic principles.  In addition to common ownership of the land, the Pilgrims farmed corn on a communal plot and divided their harvest evenly amongst themselves.

This is the theoretical Marxist utopia — minus indoor plumbing, NPR, MSNBC and portable electronic devices powered by Solyndra solar panels, naturally.  But did this early communist experiment work?  Did it succeed at putting food on the table?

Not according to William Bradford, an early Pilgrim governor of the colony best known today as the “Father of Thanksgiving.”

The communal arrangement initially employed by the Pilgrims was “found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort,” Bradford wrote in his journal, which was later compiled into Of Plymouth Plantation.

Why did this arrangement fail?  Because as has been the case from time immemorial, the equitable division of inequitably produced assets did not sit well with those whose labors yielded the harvest.
“For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense,” Bradford wrote.

But enmity amongst settlers wasn’t the real problem encountered at Plymouth — it was a shortage of food.  In his book Mayflower: A Story of Courage Community and War historian Nathaniel Philbrick discusses how communal farming and common ownership produced a “disastrous harvest.”

Faced with the prospect of starvation, Bradford “decided that each household should be assigned its own plot to cultivate, with the understanding that each family kept whatever it grew,” according to Philbrick.
Not surprisingly this approach replaced infighting and starvation with harmony and industry — not to mention an abundance of food.

“This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content,” Bradford wrote.

In other words where top-down planning based on communist ideology failed — the enforcement of private property rights based on free market ideology succeeded.

“The change in attitude was stunning,” Philbrick writes. “Families were now willing to work much harder than they had ever worked before.”

“The Pilgrims had stumbled on the power of capitalism,” Philbrick added, noting that “although the fortunes of the colony still teetered precariously in the years ahead, the inhabitants never again starved.”
As the United States moves further away from its free market foundation this Thanksgiving, the example of Plymouth is worth considering.  It is a cautionary tale — a grim reminder of where the federal government’s present trajectory is going to take our nation.

Already the “fair share” policies of Barack Obama — who is making good on his stated desire to “spread the wealth” around — have failed to produce the promised economic recovery.  In fact America’s central bank is now printing money indefinitely as government’s debt and unfunded liabilities race past the threshold of sustainability.

The result of this “stimulus?”  Income levels are shrinking, joblessness remains chronically high and economic growth is anemic.  And lurking around the corner are massive tax hikes and the full implementation of Obama’s socialized medicine law — both of which will result in additional large-scale shifts from the “makers” to the “takers” in our society.

Incentivizing dependency has clearly failed to stimulate our economy.  From 2000-10, government’s cash assistance to the poor increased by 68 percent — after adjusting for inflation.  Health care assistance increased by 87 percent, housing assistance by 108 percent and food assistance by 139 percent — again, all after adjusting for inflation.  Still, poverty in America climbed from 11.3 to 15.1 percent during that time period.

Government efforts to combat poverty have produced more poverty, in other words — and based on the ongoing entitlement expansion, the worst is likely yet to come.

As we gather together to celebrate Thanksgiving this year, let’s not only remember the lessons of Plymouth — let’s commit to proclaiming the virtues of self-reliance, property rights and free markets more boldly than ever.  Otherwise we’ll have even less to be thankful about next year.

The author is chairman of Americans for Limited Government.

Reposted from NetRightDaily.com

Top Stories

The indefensible public policy of shielding big taxi companies from competition

by Daniel Horwitz

Daniel Horwitz

The 149-page final report on “Taxicab and Other Passenger Vehicles for Hire in Nashville” released by the Mayor’s office yesterday has several important implications for the future of Nashville’s transportation industry, only a few of which have been picked up by local news outlets.   

Though I was among the first to question the value of Metro’s $172,810 expenditure on this study, let me also be the first to say that the fact-finding done by RPM Transportation Consultants appears to be exceptional, and that this alone may have been worth the price of admission.  Now that the underlying facts of the industry are no longer in dispute, we can finally shift the conversation to the indefensible public policy components of the current transportation licensing system, and can hold Metro legislators accountable if and when they refuse to reform it. 

The consultants’ final report includes a great many findings about both the taxi industry and the livery industry in Nashville, which I will address in turn.  With respect to the market for taxi services, the most important facts are as follows:

1)   The Transportation Licensing Commission has currently capped the number of taxi permits allowed in Nashville at 585, all of which are owned by one of five private taxi companies.

2)    In order to be able to drive a cab in Nashville, all taxi drivers must pay one of these private taxi companies a weekly fee (known as a “lick”) which ranges from $150/week to $205/week.

3)   Taxi drivers independently own or lease every single cab in Nashville.

4)   Taxi drivers themselves bear all the costs of insurance, gasoline, vehicle maintenance, and credit card processing, and also pay out of pocket for the FBI background check, driver training class, driving test, physical, and eye exam annually required by Metro.

5)    Each of Nashville’s five private taxi companies has designated its drivers as “independent contractors,” meaning that these companies do not have to provide employee benefits like health insurance or workers’ compensation, and also do not have to comply with minimum wage requirements. 

If this doesn't immediately strike you as outrageous, allow me to explain why, as both a consumer of taxi services and someone who cares very deeply about fair working conditions, Nashville’s current taxi licensing system has my blood boiling.  Take, for example, the business model of Taxi USA— Nashville’s largest cab company and the lucky owner of 205 of Nashville’s 585 taxi permits (over 35%).  “Developed in 2006 by two well known taxi industry owners and investors,” according to the consultants’ report, Taxi USA makes money by subleasing each of its 205 taxi permits to individual cab drivers at a rate of $205 per week.  Since most drivers work about 50 weeks each year, Taxi USA’s annual revenues amount to somewhere around $2.1 million annually. 

What operating expenses does Taxi USA have to offset these revenues?  Well, the company doesn't have to purchase any taxis— those are all owned or leased by the drivers themselves.  It also doesn't have to pay for insurance, gasoline, vehicle maintenance, or any other driving-related expenditures— cabbies bear those costs in full as well.  Additionally, rather than having to meet payroll and pay its employees a salary like a normal business, Taxi USA actually gets to charge its employees for the privilege of being able to work (which has got to be the most unbelievable legal scam I’ve ever heard of).  

 Finally, by designating its employees as mere “independent contractors,” Taxi USA’s owners also get to take advantage of a legal loophole that allows them to avoid having to provide employee benefits, and can fire workers who attempt to unionize.  With a system like this, it’s really no wonder that the secret shoppers commissioned by the Metro consultants found that “[n]o company was exempt from poor service.”  Taxi drivers in Nashville are affiliated with their parent companies only on paper, and as such, they have absolutely no incentive to care about the name painted on the side of their cabs.  Notably, unless Volunteer Taxi (Nashville’s first driver-owned and driver-operated taxi company) is granted the 61 permits it has requested on July 26th, the poor quality of taxi service in Nashville is unlikely to change anytime soon.

How exactly do Taxi USA and the other four taxi companies in Nashville get away with a scheme that allows them to generate millions in revenue with almost no operating expenses?  The short answer is that all of Nashville’s 585 taxi permits are owned by one of these five taxi companies, and the TLC has completely shielded these companies from competition by refusing to lift the artificial permit cap.  In terms of actual transportation services, though, 100% of the benefits to the Nashville community are provided by the “independently contracting” drivers themselves— not the “taxi” companies (which actually describe themselves as “franchising” companies anyway). 

Notwithstanding the fact that Michael Solomon, executive Vice President of Taxi USA, has publicly whined that running a taxi franchising company in Nashville is “a challenge” and that “everybody thinks it’s easy,” best I can tell, the job of taxi company management is merely to show up to work once a week, collect money from the drivers, and go home. 

In sum, by artificially restricting the number of taxi permits allowed in Nashville and thereby preventing anyone else from being able to compete, the Transportation Licensing Commission has created five outrageously profitable but completely unnecessary middle men who provide no goods or services whatsoever to the people of Nashville.  (For anyone who cares, this nonsensical system is quite similar to the former version of our Federal student loan program, interestingly enough.) 

Practically speaking, Nashville’s cab drivers are currently paying the equivalent of a $10,000 annual tax for the mere privilege of being able to drive a cab in this city, yet instead of going into Metro’s general fund, this tax is both levied and collected by the owners of the city’s private taxi companies.  Strange as it seems, this is precisely why the Metro consultants found that so many cab drivers actually oppose a fare increase (despite making only about $2.40 per hour after expenses, according to a 2008 preliminary report to the TLC).  If fare prices were to go up, the drivers complained, companies like Taxi USA would simply raise the weekly “lick” (tax) they have to pay, and the drivers themselves wouldn’t see so much as an extra dime.   

The solution to this problem is simple.  Similar to Tennessee’s “shall issue” system for everything from bartender certification licenses to attorneys’ licenses to gun carry permits, anyone who takes the necessary classes and meets Metro’s stated requirements for being able to drive a taxi should be given a taxi permit.  More specifically, anyone who wants to drive a cab in Nashville should be permitted to do so provided that he or she: 1) passes the aforementioned FBI background check, driver training class, driving test, physical, and eye exam required by Metro; and 2) complies with Metro’s maximum fare price and quality control ordinances.   

The notion that the Transportation Licensing Commission can use its power to protect Nashville’s existing taxi oligopoly (cartel) by continually refusing to grant permits to would-be competitors like Volunteer Taxi is absurd, and quite frankly, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that this kind of behavior “clearly violates Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of Tennessee” all the way back in 1956.  Personally, I don’t blame the Mayor’s Office for this mess at all; to the contrary, in fact, Mayor Dean has gone out of his way to understand the awful working conditions faced by Nashville’s taxi drivers, even though the TLC makes up less than .2% of the overall Metro budget.  But if your Metro Councilman is among those local legislators who oppose free market competition in the taxi industry, you really need to consider voting that person out of office in the next election.

With respect to the livery industry, the consultants’ findings were shorter but no less dire.  (For those who are unfamiliar with either the content or the lobbyist-motivated origin of the Metro livery regulations enacted last year— which require, among other things, that limo companies charge their customers more and wait longer to pick them up— a complete summary can be found here.)  Most importantly, the consultants concluded both that: (1) “there is considerable interest in being able to offer a lower cost sedan service at $25.00, if it is legal,” and (2) “the structure for regulating [sedan] service is reasonable, as is the $45 minimum fare which provides a sufficient ‘differentiator’ between taxi service and [sedan] service.” 

Even for those who are completely unfamiliar with the state of the livery industry in Nashville, there is no need to detail what makes this latter conclusion so stupid.  If there is consumer demand for a service, Metro’s role is not to make the provision of that service illegal.  If I want to take a limo ride for $25, and if the limo company wants to charge me $25 for that ride instead of $45, there isn’t a reason in the world why we should be legally prohibited from entering into that transaction.   

Metro also has no business whatsoever favoring the taxi industry over the livery industry, and given the blind eye that the Metro government has repeatedly turned to the plight of Nashville’s taxi drivers, the notion that these regulations were actually intended to protect taxi drivers is highly disingenuous at best.  At the very least, the attorneys over at the Institute for Justice (who have sued the TLC for “impos[ing] a host of arbitrary and irrational regulations on limousine and sedan services in an unconstitutional effort to eliminate competition in the transportation market and benefit a small group of industry insiders”) can be grateful that Metro’s consultants agreed that the purpose of the recent livery regulations was pure and unfettered economic protectionism, and that these regulations had nothing at all to do with public safety.  And just like the broken taxi licensing system, this mandatory price-fixing scheme similarly justifies voting out your Metro Councilman if he or she refuses to repeal it.  Price-fixing is not the government’s role, and legislators should be punished for sacrificing basic principles like this in order to appease the influential Tennessee livery lobby TennLA.

A former Professor of mine once observed that powerful business interests often follow the strategy “if you can’t beat the competition, make the competition illegal.”  That observation could not be any more true than it is here in Nashville’s transportation market, where entrenched local interests have, to this point, successfully fought tooth and nail to prevent free and fair market competition in the taxi and livery industries.  Without question, the only beneficiaries of the policies that have recently been promulgated by the TLC are the owners of Nashville’s pre-existing cab companies and Nashville’s most expensive limousine companies, whose interests have been steadfastly protected by the Metro government at the expense of both consumers and workers alike.  For obvious reasons, this is completely unacceptable. 

Taxi and limo drivers themselves, many of whom are refugees who proudly accepted American citizenship after arriving here, often lament that they are being denied a fair shot at achieving the American dream.  They are correct.  The right to work and to be free from economic protectionism can be seen as early as the 41st provision of  The Magna Carta of 1215, it was famously reinforced under English law in the landmark “Case of Monopolies” Darcy v .Allen in 1599, and the “sacred right of labor” implicit in the U.S. Constitution itself was referenced by members of our Supreme Court as early as 1872.  

 Whether people who want to earn an honest living should be prohibited from working through intentionally burdensome local regulations is not, and never will be, a partisan issue.  (And just for the record, I’m a Democrat.)  No matter what your political affiliation, we can all agree that these atrocious policies need to end.  If they aren’t repealed soon, the legislators who are responsible for maintaining them need to be replaced.  It’s that simple. 

Daniel Horwitz is a third year law student at Vanderbilt University Law School, where he is the Vice President of Law Students for Social Justice.  He can be contacted at daniel.a.horwitz@vanderbilt.edu.

Top Stories

Free markets can save the planet

For those who think global warming theory is all a lie and junk science perpetuated by Marxist scientist who are all a part of Al Gore's grand conspiracy, you will not be interested in the below article.

I have been skeptical of global warming alarmism. I have been convinced that some scientist really do cook the books to "hide the decline." I believe dissenting scientific voices have been marginalized and silenced. I think wind mills are folly and no solution at all and ethanol has been a huge waste of money and harmful to the environment. I think a lot of environmentalist do really silly, feel-good, symbolic things that serve no purpose. I think most carbon off-set schemes are a scam and a con game. Nevertheless, on balance, I believe global warming theory is valid and we have reason to be concerned.

I know that there are some environmentalist who think the only way to save the planet is to establish a one world government or drastically restrict national sovereignty, destroy free enterprise, drastically restrict freedom and to force people to live an austere existence with few creature comforts. I do not accept that.

I believe we can manage economic growth, lift people out of poverty, and address global warming by having more freedom, not less. I believe more capitalism, not less will solve the problem of global warming and other environmental problems. I believe the invisible hand of the market will lead to the right decisions assuming the cost of  externalities  are property entered into the equation. I believe technology and scientific advances can lead to a better world, not a less desirable world. 

Unfortunately most conservatives are sitting on the sidelines, ridiculing science, and taking a what-me-worry attitude rather than offering real alternatives to liberal prescriptions.  Unfortunately, their is not a debate about how to solve the problem of global warming because conservatives are still denying there is a problem. This article explains how markets can help save the planet. 

Free Markets Save the Planet 

Nick Sibilla, Reason, January 27, 2012

A startling new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) reveals a free-market way to thwart climate change: Create a free market in energy.   Fatih Birol, chief economist at the IEA, estimates that 37 nations spent $409 billion on fossil fuel subsidies in 2010. (By comparison, renewables received $66 billion in that same year.)

Impressively, if fossil fuel subsidies were eliminated, this would avoid 750 million tons of CO₂ by 2015, and could potentially save over 2.5 gigatons of carbon by 2035. The latter is 70 percent of what the European Union currently emits. In total, by ending these distortions in the energy market, the world could reduce half of the carbon emissions necessary to stop a 2°C (3.6°F) rise in global temperatures. read more 

Top Stories

State threatens suit against boat hobbyists

MURFREESBORO, TN (WSMV) -
The Tennessee Department of Revenue is threatening court action against a Murfreesboro man who built a small wooden boat in his garage with his 7-year-old son.
The state says that makes him a boat dealer and subject to paying extra taxes.
The boat is 14 feet long and made of wood. The family ordered the plans over the Internet because 7-year-old Carter loves to fish with his dad.
But when the Kings registered their boat and paid the boat registration fees, the nightmare started.
Letters from the Tennessee Department of Revenue say that because the Kings are boat dealers and manufacturers, they have to pay $539 dollars in taxes on the boat. (State threatens suit against boat hobbyists - WSMV Channel 4)

My view: You just can not make this stuff up! From ticketing a livery service for daring to only charge $25 for a 10 minuet limo ride rather than a mandated $45, to restricting casket sales to only licensed funeral directors, to charging someone a fine of $539 for building his own boat, it seems state and local government is determined to curtail freedom and protect established concerns from competition. Will someone in the state legislature move to repeal this law that requires a license to build a boat? 

Top Stories

Phil Valentine on the Metro Limo Price-fixing bill

Phil Valentine gets it even it not a single one of our fine Metro Council members do. Listen to Phil discuss the Metro Limo price-fixing bill and the pending law suit.

Top Stories

Facing the Trade off between Economic Security and Economic Freedom

I am concerned about the economic policy that an Obama presidency with a super majority in Congress may pursue. Assuming Obama is elected, it is my hope that he governs as the centrist he has portrayed himself to be; however, Obama's stated goal of "spreading the wealth around" concerns me.

There is a reason that the U.S. has led the world as the economic superpower ever since the industrial revolution. It is not simply that we are blessed with natural resources. It is not that we are naturally smarter than the people of every other country. The U.S. has had a political and economic climate that rewarded the risk taker and encouraged investment and there has been an American “can do” spirit and American optimism. Americans believed anything was possible.

Most American’s have always thought that their children would be better off than they were. American’s never accepted that some people were better, just because they were better off. Americans wanted to become better off themselves. We did not accept that we were born to a certain station in life. Whereas in much of the world, the non-rich resent the rich, in America many hope to some day become rich. It has only rarely been popular to hate the rich in this country. America has been more concerned with growing the economy and upward mobility than redistributing the wealth.

Our bureaucratic burden has been relatively light. In some third world countries it may take months, if not years, to do something as simple as get the permits to open a new business, whereas in a matter of days one can do so in most American cities. You do not have to present a market study to a bureaucrat and show the need for the new business. You don’t have to put up a huge bond. We have thought it was our right to follow our dream and take risk.

In America, while we have labor laws protecting the health and safety of workers and some laws protecting workers from discrimination in the workplace, for the most part, we have a mobile work place. The workforce can expand and contract as needed. If you recall, in France a couple years ago thousands of students took to the streets and rioted expressing their outrage at a law that would allow employers to dismiss any newly hired employee under the age of 26 within the first two years of employment. Despite France having a youth unemployment rate of over 20%, the French preferred job security to job growth. Americans have never expected security and have embraced risk. We have had the attitude that no one owes us anything; we have to earn it.

What has distinguished the US is that we have had, relatively speaking, a non-intrusive government, less regulation and lower taxation. Maybe the American Spirit is the reason we have non-intrusive government and lower taxes, or maybe it is those things that allowed the American Spirit to flourish.

Within democratic countries, there is a scale along which at one end there is relatively unregulated capitalism and opportunities for wealth creation, however there is little economic security and a lot of risk of failure. At the other end of the scale is a stagnant economy where few business decisions can be made without the approval of government and where success is punished, but there is less chaos and more “fairness.” There is trade off between economic security and economic freedom.

I hope that Obama’s economic policy is only a slight adjustment leftward along that scale and not a wholesale embracing of European-style social democracy. It would be ashamed to kill the goose that has laid all the golden eggs for all these many years. I hope the American dream and the American spirit has not been traded for the security of mediocrity. I would miss the America that was.

Top Stories

Japanese Music

For all you beer drinking county music fans who are never going to consume another Bud because they are owned a Belgium company: Stop consuming country music.

One of the biggest players in the music industry in Nashville is Sony Music. Sony owns Columbia, RCA, and Epic. Sony owns the copyrights to a lot of music including the former Tree music catalogue, which was one of the biggest county music publishers. They also own the Acuff-Rose music catalogue which includes all of the Hank Williams penned tunes. Your favorite county song is probably owned by Sony.

Do you know who owns Sony? The Japanese.

Think of all the great songs written by Willie Nelson and all the great songs written by Hank Williams. Think of He Stopped Loving Her Today, Crazy, I Saw the Light, and I Walk the Line. Are these songs any less American because they are owned a Japanese company?

Top Stories

This Bud's For You

Are you mad as hell that Anheuser-Busch was sold to foreigners?

Are you determined never to drink a Bud again? OK, Anheuser-Busch makes about forty brands of beer including Budweiser, Bud Light, Bud Select, Michelob, Michelob Light, Michelob Ultra, Busch, Busch Light, Busch Ice, Natural Light, Natural Ice and others. Don’t drink any of them.

Ok, switch to Miller. Well, Miller is owned by SABMiller which is a South African company. Miller makes all of the following brands so mark them off your list: Miller High Life, Miller Lite, Miller Genuine Draft, Olde English 800, Milwaukee’s Best, Mickey's, Icehouse, Hamm's, Red Dog, SouthPaw Light, and Leinenkugel's.

Ok, you say, I will drink Coors, good old Colorado Kool-Aid. Sorry, Coors is owned by the Molson Coors Brewing Company, a Canadian company.

OK, Pabst Blue Ribbon? Sorry, they are also owned by SABMiller.

Schlitz? That is another SABMiller company.

Rolling Rock? I like Rolling Rock. When I don’t drink Corona, unless Pabst is cheaper, I drink Rolling Rock. Rolling Rock, brewed in Latrobe Pennsylvania by Rolling Rock Brewery, was American before InBev bought it, then Anheuser-Busch bought it from InBev, and now InBev has bought Anheuser-Busch. So, Rolling Rock is now a foreign owned beer, again; I think.

Don’t despair. If you really want to drink American there are lots of American beers. The largest of the American brands is Samuel Adams, and there are many smaller American breweries and there are many local brewpubs across America.

But, why do you care if the parent company of your favorite beer is a foreign owned? I don’t. I am concerned about the falling value of the dollar which makes some of these acquisitions possible. But, I am just as concerned that falling dollar makes oil and other foreign good expensive, as I am that it makes American goods and companies a bargain for foreigners. I am also concerned about our tax policy that over taxes American businesses and puts them at a competitive disadvantage with foreign companies. But, I do not despair when an American icon falls into foreign hands.

Some years ago, many American’s were outraged when Rockefeller Center was purchased by a Japanese company. I think since then however, it is back in American hands. But, as far as I can tell, it did not affect me one way or the other.

Mercedes purchased Chrysler about ten years ago, and to listen to some pundits you would have thought America’s days were numbered. We are still here.

I see consolidations, changes in ownerships, and greater world wide economic integrations as the normal evolution of capitalism and see it as a positive development. It is a natural development that capital and labor will cross national borders and that the world will get smaller. Worldwide investment and trade is lifting people out of poverty and making the world a safer place. I suspect that Wal-Mart has lifted more people out of poverty than all the economic aid ever handed out. I suspect that China is less of a doctrinaire Communist state, partly due to Wal-Mart.

I have this theory: If prior to Peal Harbor, Japan would have had the same level of investment in Hawaii as they have today, Japan would have never attacked Pearl Harbor.

So, let us not despair about multi-national corporations owning your favorite beer. If it really bothers you, maybe you can invest some money in a mutual fund that invests in foreign companies including InBev. That way, you can be part owner of your favorite beer.

Let us all join hand: Red, Yellow, Black, and White; Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and Jew. Let us lift a bottle and toast the multi-national corporation, capitalism, free trade and the withering away of the nation state: “This Buds for you.”

Top Stories