President Trump's spoils system appoints wife of racist to Air Force Academy Visitor's board position
Erika Kirk appointed to Air Force Academy board
thehill.com/policy/defen...

America's kill line merely serves as further proof of the failure of crony capitalism. It demonstrates once again that even a corrupt socialist system can triumph over a regulated market economy where power and capital collude.
youtu.be/bvVnbMRPFAU?...
#crony #Corruption #Socialism #capitalism

Trump’s Crony Diplomacy Federico Fubini shines a light on the corrupt business dealings behind the US administration's Ukraine peace plan.

#Trump’s #Crony #Diplomacy www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/t...

Is Trump a Socialist? Recently, a handful of people—none of whom have ever invited me to their birthday party—accused President Donald Trump of being a socialist. Gavin Newsom, who many pundits credibly believe is the governor of California, said Trump is committing socialism by having the federal government buy stock in private companies. At the time of writing, the government has taken shares in Intel, MP Materials, Lithium Americas, U.S. Steel, and even a Canadian mining company that mines cobalt or some other stupid mineral I hate. This raises the question: Is Trump, as Newsom contends, a full-blown socialist? Or is he just an asymptomatic _carrier_ of socialism, like I am with tuberculosis? Let's nail down what we're talking about. In socialism, the government owns the means of production. Instead of private companies making goods to satisfy customers and turn a profit, the state produces things to hit output quotas. That's a lot easier to do if you cut quality. The Soviet Union literally made televisions so poorly that they sometimes exploded. Not a great incentive structure for generating stuff, even if an exploding television is still an improvement over _The View_. A softer version exists in countries with national health care systems like the U.K., where doctors and nurses are government employees and hospitals are mostly run by the state. If you're talking about nationalizing an industry that provides goods or services—that's socialism. By contrast, corporatism or state capitalism—or if you want to be edgy, fascism—is when private companies technically _own_ the means of production, but the government controls the decisions. You own the shoe factory, but some bureaucrat in the capital issues diktats on what kind of shoes to make, how many, and so forth. You own the deed to the factory and you keep the profits from the factory, but the economy itself is managed from the top down by the central government. Think China. It used to be socialist under Chairman Mao Zedong. After starving umpteen million people, it switched over to state capitalism. Today, some of China's biggest companies are for-profit enterprises: the China Construction Bank, China Mobile, and Air China. They are technically not government agencies, but the government is a massive shareholder and steers corporate decisions. Capitalism is when the private sector owns and controls the means of production, earns profits or losses, and the government mainly acts as a referee—enforcing contracts, preventing fraud, and stopping people from dumping toxic waste or tuberculosis into rivers. The government doesn't manage the economy or tell businesses how to operate. You own the shoe factory, you decide what shoes, boots, or stilettos you will make, as well as how many and how high those stilettos are. You build products based on customer demand, or you will go out of business. There are a bunch of other economic systems, but we don't have time to get into them. Somewhere in between, you find social democracies like Sweden or Denmark, where the government levies taxes and redistributes them as welfare and social programs. And then there is crony capitalism, where powerful companies get favors and subsidies because everyone plays golf together. Which brings us back to Trump. In the last few months, the Trump administration has negotiated deals that give the federal government significant ownership stakes in private firms. The federal government now owns about 10 percent of Intel. It's a passive share, not a controlling stake. No one from Washington is voting on the board of directors or deciding which kind of computer stilettos Intel can manufacture. Similarly, the Defense Department invested $400 million in MP Materials in exchange for convertible stock. Odd, but not unheard of. Many public pension funds do the same. The more unusual example is the sale of U.S. Steel to Japan's Nippon Steel. The federal government demanded a "golden share," giving it extraordinary influence, including a seat on the board of directors and veto power over major decisions like shutting down plants, relocating headquarters, or changing the name of the company to something more cool, like Robot Flesh LTD. This isn't _socialism_. But it's a flavor of authoritarian economics. What emerges looks much closer to corporatism: an economy where the government becomes a direct player in business decisions rather than a neutral referee. And that _is_ a big problem. When federal bureaucrats have a direct leadership role in the corporate governance of a private company, they will steer that company toward political decisions rather than business decisions. Will it award contracts based on efficiency and cost, or based on which choice preserves government revenue? Will companies be allowed to fail if the government owns them? Probably not. Even passive ownership can change incentives: businesses take fewer risks, innovate less, and focus more on political approval than customer satisfaction. That's how economies drift toward top-down control and away from free enterprise. So is Donald Trump a socialist? No. I don't think he is. His logic seems to be: "Instead of giving money to big companies for free, we should be getting the most out of the deal, so let's have some stock and dividends." But the _effect_ of these acquisitions is that America is inching toward an economy in which the government doesn't play referee; it's a player on the field. And the government is a really, really stupid player. The real question isn't whether we're technically socialists like Venezuela or state capitalists like China. It's whether we want a free-enterprise system or an authoritarian system with government-guided boardrooms. Markets work when the government referees. They stagnate when the government becomes a player.

#Business #and #Industry #Capitalism #Economics #Executive #overreach #Politics #China #Crony #Capitalism

Origin | Interest | Match

Original post on reason.com

Is Trump a Socialist? Donald Trump’s new stock-buying strategy isn’t socialism, but it is a step toward a government-controlled economy. Recently, a handful of people—none of whom have ever i...

#Business #and #Industry #Capitalism #Economics #Executive […]

[Original post on reason.com]

These #crony capitalists are #morons

Original post on reason.com

Trump Says He 'Paid Zero' for the Government's $11 Billion Stake in Intel. Here's the Downside. This is corporate socialism in a MAGA hat. President Donald Trump negotiated a deal l...

#Business #and #Industry #Capitalism #Politics #Science #& #Technology […]

[Original post on reason.com]

Trump Says He 'Paid Zero' for the Government's $11 Billion Stake in Intel. Here's the Downside. President Donald Trump negotiated a deal last week for the U.S. government to take a substantial ownership stake in an American company. Despite his assurances, Trump's socialistic transaction is a terrible deal not only for the parties involved, but for the entire U.S. economy. "It is my Great Honor to report that the United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future," Trump posted Friday on Truth Social. "The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars. This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL. Building leading edge Semiconductors and Chips, which is what INTEL does, is fundamental to the future of our Nation." "I PAID ZERO FOR INTEL, IT IS WORTH APPROXIMATELY 11 BILLION DOLLARS," Trump added on Monday. "All goes to the USA. Why are 'stupid' people unhappy with that?" As of this writing, Intel's market cap is around $110 billion, so a 10 percent stake would indeed be worth $11 billion. But despite what Trump says, this was not a freebie. "Under terms of the agreement, the United States government will make an $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock," the company announced. "The government's equity stake will be funded by the remaining $5.7 billion in grants previously awarded, but not yet paid, to Intel under the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act and $3.2 billion awarded to the company as part of the Secure Enclave program….The $8.9 billion investment is in addition to the $2.2 billion in CHIPS grants Intel has received to date, making for a total investment of $11.1 billion." Intel added that "under the terms of today's announcement, the government agrees to purchase 433.3 million primary shares of Intel common stock at a price of $20.47 per share, equivalent to a 9.9 percent stake in the company." According to the _Financial Times_ , that was "below Friday's closing price of $24.80, but about the level where they traded early in August. Intel's board had approved the deal, which does not need shareholder approval." The _Financial Times_ added that under the agreement, "the US will also receive a five-year warrant, which allows it to purchase an additional 5 per cent of the group at $20 a share," but only "if Intel jettisons majority ownership of its foundry business, which makes chips for other companies." Trump may be expanding state ownership of private industry, but at least he seems to have no interest in seizing the means of production. The CHIPS Act grants were approved under Trump's predecessor, President Joe Biden. Before leaving office, Biden's administration rushed to finalize many such grants, even as Intel was the worst-performing tech stock in 2024; the government actually agreed to less than initially allocated when the company failed to hit certain milestones. Instead of rescinding those grants, as Trump reportedly threatened to do, he instead demanded a tenth of the business, as a result making the U.S. government Intel's largest shareholder. Every part of this transaction flies in the face of any sincere interpretation of free markets, including the Biden administration's original sin to approve billions of dollars for a struggling company. It is perhaps telling that as _Reason_ 's Eric Boehm noted last week, the idea that the U.S. government should take a piece of Intel in exchange for CHIPS Act funding was first floated by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.). Trump and his allies are now issuing talking points that could have come from the socialist senator himself. If the U.S. government insists upon dishing out taxpayer money to private companies, is there any reason it shouldn't, as U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick put it to CNBC, get "a piece of the action"? There are many reasons, in fact. "The most immediate risk is that Intel's decisions will increasingly be driven by political rather than commercial considerations," Scott Lincicome of the Cato Institute wrote Sunday in _The Washington Post_. "With the U.S. government as its largest shareholder, Intel will face constant pressure to align corporate decisions with the goals of whatever political party is in power." Not only that, Lincicome writes, but "Intel's U.S.-based competitors…might find themselves at a disadvantage when vying for government contracts or subsidies, winning trade or tax relief, or complying with federal regulations. Private capital might in turn flow to Intel (and away from innovation leaders in the semiconductor ecosystem) not for economic reasons but because Uncle Sam now has a thumb on the scale." Such market distortions may seem abstract, but they can have devastating consequences for the American industrial economy. "Will investors and entrepreneurs stay away from critical industries that might also see the U.S. government eager to get more involved?" Lincicome wonders. "Will future presidents, Republican or Democrat, use this noncrisis precedent to carry out their own adventures into corporate ownership with their own economic and social priorities attached?" Indeed, White House National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett told CNBC on Monday that he's "sure at some point there'll be more transactions, if not in this industry, [then] in other industries." Trump has made several such deals just since reentering office in January. He leaned on Intel competitors Nvidia and AMD to give 15 percent of proceeds from Chinese sales to the government; he demanded veto power over U.S. Steel as part of its sale to the Japanese company Nippon Steel; and MP Minerals, which operates a rare earth mineral mine in the U.S., got a $400 billion government investment that made the Department of Defense its largest shareholder. In his Monday morning Truth Social post defending the Intel agreement, Trump said, "I will make deals like that for our Country all day long." But as Lincicome notes, Republicans likely won't be in power forever; in time, a Democratic president would have the same influence on Intel—and beyond. "This is a product of both parties forgetting a cardinal rule of politics: don't give yourself powers you don't want your opponents to have," writes Ryan Young, an economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "The Democrats who passed the CHIPS Act likely did not foresee Republicans using it to essentially nationalize Intel. Similarly, Republicans cheering government takeovers of chipmakers will somehow be surprised if Democrats invoke similar powers in the health insurance, energy, and other industries when they are in power again."

#Business #and #Industry #Capitalism #Politics #Science #& #Technology #Technology #Crony #Capitalism

Origin | Interest | Match

Mortgage-Fraud Accusations Are Trump’s New Political Weapon The new probes represent an aggressive variation on efforts to use financial documents to take down opponents.

What's that term for when a public official uses his public office powers to persecute someone again?
Abuse of Power? Malfeasance? Demontrating again that Trump cronies are corrupt.
Mortgage-Fraud Accusations Are Trump’s New Political Weapon
www.wsj.com/politics/pol...

How Bribes Allegedly Killed Greenpoint Safety Upgrades Owners of a Greenpoint business were able to jettison public safety upgrades on McGuinness with cash payments and favors, indictments allege.

"They can kiss my ass:” Adams #crony on the take to preserve #motorist #impunity while endangering people's lives
www.brownstoner.com/brooklyn-lif... #brooklyn #greenpoint #cycling #streetsafety #ericadamscorruption #mamdani

2/

Adjacent to #crony #capitalism and eventually #authoritarianism. This nation-specific approach ignore people. It is all about "who is the king of the castle."

Can we actually focus on real #development irrespective of #borders?

The whole point of a crony #belief is to reap #social and political rewards, but in order to get these rewards, we need to advertise the belief in question. The greater our urge to talk about a belief, to wear it like a badge, the more likely it is to be a #crony.

-Kevin Simler

Name and shame the #Democratic #crypto #crony #Senators.

Every dollar “netted” in these corrupt #grifts is stolen from a naive #chump who thinks they can beat the house.

It’s like taking candy from babies.

Original post on reason.com

Tariffs Helped Wreck the Economy in the 1930s. Why Is Trump Making the Same Mistake? Far from del...

reason.com/2025/04/24/tariffs-helpe...

#Agriculture #Business #and #Industry #Tariffs […]

[Original post on reason.com]

DID HE?

the #Pentagon got bought off for $1T #Crony #Insiders knew when & where to drop their investments...  it seems to me that this all worked out quite well for the people who knew what was going on & how.  it seems random *from the frontman presentations*

Tara Copp of the Associated Press reported today that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has done some targeted staffing, too. His younger brother Phil Hegseth is traveling to the Indo-Pacific with the secretary in his role at the Pentagon as a liaison and senior advisor to the Department of Homeland Security. Hegseth also employed his brother when he ran the nonprofit Concerned Veterans for America, where the younger Hegseth’s salary was $108,000 for his media work. Copp notes that a 1967 law “prohibits government officials from hiring, promoting or recommending relatives to any civilian position over which they exercise control.”

#FIRE #INCOMPETENT #CORRUPT #FRAUD #LIAR #CRONY HEGSETH

Trump pardons Nikola founder Trevor Milton in securities fraud case Milton, who compared his prosecution by the Justice Department to its criminal cases against President Trump, said he had been "railroaded" in the fraud case.

“…Following Milton’s 2023 sentencing, the former Nikola CEO made significant political donations to Trump and his allies. This included $920,000 to the Trump 47 Committee in October of 2024…”

#crony
#cronyism

www.cnbc.com/2025/03/28/t...

Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.

Utterly disgusting. #Trump the #crony is politicizing #TheSmithsonian. Erasure of TRUE American history in front of our eyes
#trumpisafelon #idiot #MAGA #conservative #trumpisanidiot #trumpisnotpresident #Project2025

www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...

Temu must have had a sale…

#crony
#mtgisevil

DOGE will be turning a #profit alright just wont see it on usaspending.gov www.theguardian.com/technology/2... #crony #FederalDeficit

‘Are you a crony?’ Ex-1MDB chairman Lodin says ‘not’ in court, doesn’t even have Najib’s phone number despite knowing him for 40 years PUTRAJAYA, March 5 — Former 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) chairman Tan Sri Che Lodin Wok Kamaruddin today denied being a “crony” of former prime minister Datuk Seri...

‘Are you a crony?’ Ex-1MDB chairman Lodin says ‘not’ in court, doesn’t even have Najib’s phone number despite knowing him for 40 years #12thdefencewitness #1mdbtrial #crony #lodinwokkamaruddin #najibrazaktrial