Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Why are the best investors all socialists (or at the very least, heavy interventionists)?

This post has 4 Replies | 2 Followers

Not Ranked
Male
Posts 22
Points 470
Edgar729 Posted: Tue, Oct 23 2007 7:40 AM

Has the goverment put its hands so deeply into the economic matters of the country that they have literally twisted rational economic calculations? This market disruption by the goverment has made men like Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger billionares. Even though these men talk about the estate tax like it was a good thing, that the income tax is nothing to cry about, that the federal reserve provides a fantastic monetary support system, that gold is literally (in their words) "useless", that trade barriers are great things, and finally that they are "happy to write uncle sam a check every year". These two individuals are the best investment duo of the last century and they are not anywhere near a free market philosophy!

 The same can be said for Peter "economics is a waste" Lynch, Monish "Gold isn't good for anything but bracelets" Pabrai, or any other great investor. They are all either benefiting directly from the regulation structure in the country or are getting the new money created by the FED first and are therefor obtaining money at the expense of fixed incomers.

 Has anyone else noticed this phenomenon? That most business men/ entreprenuers/ investors sound more like politicians than profit seekers?

 

Do not depart from me O Lord
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,175
Points 17,905
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
They are statist rent-seekers, who no doubt probably benefit from the current system, or at least think they could never benefit outside of it. So should this be all too surprising?

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 633
Points 11,275
Torsten replied on Tue, Oct 23 2007 1:40 PM

People often think in the equation big_business = free_market / free enterprise.

Instead they have actually often a vested interest in high taxes and many regulations. Since this makes economic calculation and entry more difficult for new smaller competitors.

There may be other reasons as well.


 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 29
Points 570
Moderator

Torsten:

People often think in the equation big_business = free_market / free enterprise.

Instead they have actually often a vested interest in high taxes and many regulations. Since this makes economic calculation and entry more difficult for new smaller competitors.

There may be other reasons as well.

 Torsten has hit a good note here. Big business benifits greatly from various forms of protectionism. Subsidies protect its profits and take away risk from investment. Tariffs allow them to compete in domestic markets they otherwise could not, without sacraficing large profit.

 Many other policies also quell competition that would invariably arise on a free market. Licensing inhibits anyone from entering business without first a large sum of money to gain a license to do business in that market. Then over regulation makes the cost of doing business once the license is obtained so high that many smaller competitors who operate on the margin will have to drop out of the market. We could call these practices some form of backhanded monopoly.

Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 633
Points 11,275
Torsten replied on Sat, Nov 3 2007 8:16 AM

Except of course, also investors are children of the educational system. I'm not familiar with the people being mentioned, but I estimate them below 60 or even 50. So they went through schools and universities, while lots of ideological changes went on within Western countries. Part of this was putting more onus on state activity and of course this went hand in hand with an anti-free-enterprise mentality. The entrepreneur being a synonym for the goal-achieving White male.  

joecochran:
Big business benifits greatly from various forms of protectionism. Subsidies protect its profits and take away risk from investment. Tariffs allow them to compete in domestic markets they otherwise could not, without sacraficing large profit.
I actually think most of your super-wealthy investors are beyond dependence on tarrifs. What they might be interested in are government subsidies either to invest in a country or as protection/insurance for their foreign investments. I think some of the Western governments offer an insurance to large companies, if they shift their production facilities to an insecure third world country. I had papers on this, would have to find out about this, but I think they are getting money in case their assets are confiscated or the new facilities in Brazil or South Africa become a flop. In result corporates don't really care to employ decent managing directors their, which turns out to become a circus. Concerning this, I'm talking here from personal experience.  

Page 1 of 1 (5 items) | RSS