Government 5
Unfair Advantage
The unfair advantage provided by government purchasing is poisonous.
For instance, government purchases of Microsoft Windows. Why was that ever allowed? On countless government workstations, all over the world. Using the resources of the government – that is, the resources of the public – to directly finance a private company and enable it to obtain monopolistic control that buggers that same public.
Of course, this government support didn’t come without strings attached. We know that MS-Windows has “back doors” incorporated, to allow the company and “approved others” to spy on your computer and steal information from it.
MS-Windows is spyware, but of course that’s not the whole story.
Deliberate promotion of one company above its competitors, is obviously “wrong” on its face. There were alternatives that would not give unfair advantage to a specific company, like flavors of the operating system, Unix, and now, open-source Linux for PCs.
The farce of government having to “standardize,” on MS-Windows of all things is loco. Anyway, there were windowing operating environments for IBM-compatible computers well before Microsoft got into the act, like IBM’s TopView and Visi Corp’s Visi On, and of course, outside of IBM, there was the Apple Macintosh, which makes it a hollow claim that they had to fixate on Microsoft products.
Part of the lie was “ease of use.” Remember, MS-Windows isn’t “so easy to use,” it’s just became familiar. It’s no “standard,” Unix was the “standard,” originally. (Which must mean we were brainwashed into believing Windows was best and easiest.)
There were windowing systems for Unix, like X-Windows. Why in the world, then, would they all “standardize” on Windows? Where were the techs, advisors and consultants then, to tell them to stick with the proven stuff and not be tied to one corporation?
Naturally, though, there’s a lot more opportunity for graft and corruption when they pull a stunt like that and pick a favored company. Of course they’re going to “support their own,” at the expense of everything else. And that’s where we find a rat’s nest when we dig a bit.
Interesting...
Most state constitutions contain a provision that forbids a town, city, or municipality from owning stock in a corporation; however, a few state constitutions contain a provision forbidding that state itself from owning stock in a corporation.
Whenever the government owns stock in a corporation, problems may ensue.
-Harrison Sullivan, Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy; Government Ownership of Stock in a Corporation
This report goes on to detail conflict of interest issues, how government can come to manipulate the businesses it holds stock in for partisan political ends, and other problems.
Yet... a bit of research uncovers how, for years, government – at all levels – has been secreting the financial reports that keep tabs on all its investments and earnings, which collectively runs into the trillions. Keeping this information from the public helps justify the endless tax increases. So we must endure endless sob-stories – tales of government poverty and need to raise more funds.
There’s something that needs mentioning here: at least in the U.S., comprehensive financial reports, produced by and for government, like the Financial Report of the United States Government, show that it is already majority shareholder in many giant corporations, like Microsoft, according to Walter Burien. Strangely, A.I. like Google Assistant vehemently denies it, but this linked report proves that government has plenty of investments.
There’s a bit of subterfuge, where these holdings are through such things as government retirement investment funds, however, which the A.I. does admit to.
However, Burien says municipalities (governments) are majority stockholders, collectively, therefore the controlling interests in these major corporations.
Then we run into a problem, because the general wisdom seems to be that holding/investment management firms like BlackRock, State Street, BNY Mellon, Vanguard, Northern Trust, JPMorgan Chase own it all. (Though they call it “managing.” And it’s somewhat of a conundrum that they all seem to have ownership stakes in each other!)
Well, there’s that rat’s nest to try to untangle. For an easy answer, even the A.I. admits that government may have interests in BlackRock, et al. We sort of knew that by deduction anyway. Government owns securities from major corporations, as the big financial reports evidence, and these BlackRock types are major corporations.
Google AI Overview:
Yes, it's possible that governments indirectly hold a financial stake in companies like BlackRock and Vanguard. Here's why:
Government-issued securities:
Both BlackRock and Vanguard manage funds that invest in government-issued securities, such as Treasury bonds. These bonds are effectively debt obligations of the government, and the funds' shareholders (which can include individuals, institutions, and even government entities) are creditors of the government.
Pension funds:
Many government employees' pension funds are managed by BlackRock and Vanguard. These funds hold a variety of investments, including stocks and bonds, which can include holdings in BlackRock and Vanguard themselves.
Indirect ownership:
Government-controlled entities, like sovereign wealth funds, may hold shares in BlackRock and Vanguard directly, or through various investment vehicles. This can lead to an indirect government stake in the companies.
So why is government continuing to do things that are known to be “problematic,” as Sullivan explained?
Public Service Ads
Another form of unfair enrichment comes when government commissions so-called “public service ads.” For example, government will to decide to tell us what things are “bad” for us, as if we don’t already know the arguments, using our own money to do so, of course.
Like “the drinking of booze while driving is bad,” or “smoking is bad,” or “driving without your seat belt is bad.” Well, all this propaganda takes money to plan, design and produce, then broadcast and/or publish. And some ad agencies and other companies, like media companies, are pulling in the big bucks to do so.
It’s the same game as buying thousands or millions of copies of Windows for government. It was bad enough to see corporate interests, putting billboards advising “Take Care,” (a cynical plea to limit your boozing while on the road, by liquor companies), but then government picked up the ball and posted its own ads about drinking. Ridiculous, and just a payoff to their buddies in advertising.
And think on the back-room dealings that put particular businesses in the catbird seat to feast on those juicy contracts.
Kickbacks
Manufacturers may give a government a “kickback” to use their product – and why not? From the company’s perspective it makes real sense, of course. But it also means there is an economic “over-benefit” to the company. That is, they can now charge too much for their product, and/or kill their competition as a result of the government-enabled monopoly.
Government – in a fair system – should never be in the position to dictate market conditions that may lead to failure of certain companies because their competitors are getting fat on government contracts.
A more fair way used to be, for example, the method of selecting police cars in most towns, by having a competition between the various suppliers of vehicles, all of which could submit their entry for evaluation. At least then, it is a system based on merit.
Yep, This Stinks
Buying or working with bitcoin, as the state of Arizona is doing, means its government is, simply, involved in organized crime.
Why don’t Arizonans file in court against these politicians? File a grievance stating exactly what’s going to happen as the crypto con-artists suck up all the money, then collapse the racket. Get it on record. Once the inevitable happens, they can go back to court, say we told you so, and file criminally against the governor, and other guilty parties.
Regarding another transparently obvious con, the unaudited mess of this so-called “stablecoin,” this observation sums it up:
Tether scam’s exit strategy is horrifically to backstop the scam onto the American public.
- neofeudalreview on Substack
Making the relatively innocent taxpayers the bagholders.
Comments