Google Chairman Eric Schmidt and Great Britain’s Business Secretary Vince Cable have officially gone head to head to see who’s more ignorant about the true meaning of capitalism.
Schmidt technically started the spat by funneling $9.8 billion of international revenue to Bermuda last year to cut the company’s tax requirements in half. With that information now aired, he’s defending the decision, saying, “It’s called capitalism.”
Since Bermuda is a British territory, Secretary Cable had this to say in response: “It may well be called [capitalism] but it’s certainly not the job of governments to accommodate it.”
How wrong are they both about the proper definition of that word? Where can I even begin?
First of all, Schmidt is about as much a capitalist as Obama is. And newsflash: The President isn’t, considering how he throws taxpayer dollars at industries (e.g. automotive, alternative energy), advances government-paid health insurance, and favors high taxes and more spending.
That’s not capitalism; it’s socialism light, a form of government that tends to progress into straight-up socialism and therefore tyranny. Nor is capitalism the act of schmoozing the government out of taxpayer money, which is exactly what Eric Scmidt has been doing for years.
How else can you explain the following facts stacked up against each other:
· Back in 2008, Google was one of Obama’s biggest corporate donors, at least when it came to funding the inaugural ball, which it donated a total of $150,000 towards.
· In 2010, the National Legal and Policy Center urged the House Oversight Committee to investigate “a growing body of evidence” pointing to an “unusually close relationship” between Google and the Obama administration.
· In 2011, similar allegations came up, this time concerning Schmidt and company having given Obama special access to their new advertising program for his re-election efforts.
· Earlier in 2012, a federal appeals court refused to release information concerning alleged ties between Google and the NSA, which had come under suspicion earlier.
· And now it’s come out that Obama offered Schmidt his pick between Treasury Secretary, Commerce Secretary and the new “Secretary of Business” positions.
Schmidt picked none. Why would he want to work for the government when he can make so much more using it as an unfair disadvantage that has nothing to do with the free markets?
As for Vince Cable, why shouldn’t the government “accommodate” capitalism, when capitalism – the real kind; not the cronyism favored by Schmidt – is about allowing people the freedom to work and produce and design according to their own goals. It’s about the right to take responsibility for one’s actions and reactions. It’s about the ability to try for something better without having to kiss up to some government bureaucrat.
That's what capitalism is, even if neither government nor business knows it anymore.