Crony Environmentalism

[Occam's Banana]

Wherein we discover what it takes to rent $3.8 million worth of land for only $1 per year - while getting a $0.5 million subsidy to boot ...

Crony Environmentalism
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/11/thomas-dilorenzo/crony-environmentalism/
Thomas DiLorenzo (13 November 2014)

Al Gore, a career “public servant,” reportedly became a billionaire just a few years after leaving his last government job as vice president of the United States. He achieved this miracle, according to news reports, through various “green” business deals. Such deals are always proprietary and few details about them ever become public. They usually involve the ancient mercantilist practice of bribing politicians for a special favor or subsidy. The bribe-giver becomes wealthy, and the politicians granting the favor/subsidy have the funds to finance the next campaign. Let’s call it crony environmentalism.

A rare glimpse of how crony environmentalism works was recently revealed in a November 12 article in the Baltimore Sun entitled “$1 could lease state’s $2.8 million farm.” The article was about an “agreement” to be presented to the State Board of Public Works between one Cleo Braver, an “environmental lawyer-turned-organic farmer” and the state government. Ms. Braver is also described as having donated “more than $40,000” to various Democratic Party campaigns in recent years, including $6,000 in the most recent governor’s race. The same politicians she gave all this money to sit on the State Board of Public Works that is being asked to grant her this massive subsidy.

The “agreement” that was reportedly reached between Braver and the administration of Maryland’s Democratic Governor, Martin O’Malley, was to lease to her a 255 acre farm in Kent County, Maryland that is worth almost $3 million for $1/year. In addition, she will be given $500,000 in state tax money and her proposed “food hub” for the distribution of agricultural produce will be nonprofit, which is to say, it will not pay taxes.

The ostensible purpose of all this is to establish a “food hub” on the Eastern Shore of Maryland that can “distribute organic and sustainably produced food.” Ah yes, there are the magic words: organic and sustainable. That makes everything kosher in the eyes of Cleo Braver, an “advocate for green farming techniques.” She claims there are “food deserts” in the region that lack “healthy food.” What nonsense. When pressed by a committee of the state assembly, Braver even admitted that “organic farming would not be required” for her hugely-subsidized “food hub” but would only be encouraged.

There are of course many food distribution hubs on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. They are privately-owned, capitalistic, and unsubsidized. And they distribute “organic” as well as non-organic food as consumer demand dictates. There is no need at all, in other words, for a government-subsidized food hub there. It will only allow Cleo Braver become wealthy by unfairly competing with the already-existing businesses. The Baltimore Sun quoted Ed Bush, the general manager of one of the existing food hubs, who said: “She would have a substantial advantage over the regular taxpaying Joe who – if we want to build our business – we have to pay for it in cash.” Exactly right, Ed.

Ms. Braver also owns an organic farm in Kent County, Maryland. This means that she can sell her goods to the food hub that she also owns, thanks to the massive government subsidy, and “pay herself what she thinks is fair value,” said Mr. Bush. “Prices should be set by the market” instead, he told the Baltimore Sun. Amen, Brother Bush.

Corruption, cronyism, and socialistic central planning of agricultural markets, hidden by the rhetoric of “green farming,” is what Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley calls “smart growth” policy. Crony environmentalism would be more descriptive. So-called smart growth is a very dumb, and very corrupt idea.


"Crony Environmentalism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/11/thomas-dilorenzo/crony-environmentalism/)" by Thomas DiLorenzo is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

[Natural Citizen]

Where can we find an actual definition for crony environmentalism? Seems like we're pulling these new terms out of our rear ends for a new generation of political people who don't feel like catching up with the rest of us. I'm still stumped on the crony capitalism meme. I don't know why they just won't call it fascism or mercantilism like it's been called like...forever.

Actually, cronyism is a new one itself and I see we actually have a tag for this?

I didn't read the paper yet. Just wanted to ask that question since the new term caught my eye.

[Occam's Banana]

Where can we find an actual definition for crony environmentalism?

Seriously? Is it really that difficult to figure out?

Are you actually going to pretend not to understand what the phrase "crony environmentalism" is meant to convey or connote?


Seems like we're pulling these new terms out of our asses for a new generation of people who don't feel like catching up with the rest of us.

So the application of an adjective (such as "crony") to a noun (such as "environmentalism") is "pulling new terms our of our asses?"

Silly me! Here I thought that was how English was supposed to work ...

(And who the hell are "we," "our" and "us" supposed to be?)


I'm still stumped on the crony capitalism meme.

Here you go (assuming that you "feel like catching up with the rest of us"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism


I don't know why they just won't call it fascism like it's been called like...forever.

Actually, cronyism is a new one itself and I see we actually have a tag for this?

Yeah, sure, okay - "it's been called [fascism] like...forever" (despite the fact that the word "fascism" did not even exist in English until the 1920s), whereas "cronyism is a new one" (despite the fact that "cronyism" predates "fascism" in English by almost a century).

:rolleyes:


Seems like we're trying to avoid discussing subject matter in a relevant way by placing the issues into context with a contemporary dumbing down of sorts.

I didn't read the paper yet. Just wanted to ask that question since the new term caught my eye.

So let me get this straight: you complain about people "trying to avoid discussing subject matter in a relevant way" while (1) saying nothing whatsoever about the actual content of the OP article (and even admitting that you hadn't bothered to read it), and (2) inanely focussing on the article title as if it were an exemplar of some kind of vague effort at "dumbing down" merely because it uses a word of which you apparently do not approve for some reason ...

[Ronin Truth]

Where can we find an actual definition for crony environmentalism? Seems like we're pulling these new terms out of our rear ends for a new generation of political people who don't feel like catching up with the rest of us. I'm still stumped on the crony capitalism meme. I don't know why they just won't call it fascism or mercantilism like it's been called like...forever.

Actually, cronyism is a new one itself and I see we actually have a tag for this?

I didn't read the paper yet. Just wanted to ask that question since the new term caught my eye.

https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&ei=Pd5kVPmcMYTZiAL1qoCoDw&ved=0CAYQ1S4#q=+Crony+Environmentalism

[Danke]

As Chinese leaders know better than anyone, the ultimate issue is American corruption. Washington is actually far more corrupt than Beijing. If you want to get something done in Washington, you do what you do in Jakarta: just slip some money to the right people. The point was made as far back as a generation ago by the prominent Japanese commentator and author Shintaro Ishihara. From an East Asian point of view, the United States is already, in its political dynamics, a Third World country.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?462831-Is-China-Sending-America-a-Message&p=5699781&viewfull=1#post5699781

[Natural Citizen]

Seriously? Is it really that difficult to figure out?


What is wrong with explaining it like a straight shooter?




They usually involve the ancient mercantilist practice of bribing politicians for a special favor or subsidy. The bribe-giver becomes wealthy, and the politicians granting the favor/subsidy have the funds to finance the next campaign. Let’s call it crony environmentalism.



Nooooo. Let's not call it that and instead call it what it is and lets debate it right.



So let me get this straight: you complain about people "trying to avoid discussing subject matter in a relevant way" while (1) saying nothing whatsoever about the actual content of the OP article (and even admitting that you hadn't bothered to read it), and (2) inanely focussing on the article title as if it were an exemplar of some kind of vague effort at "dumbing down" merely because it uses a word of which you apparently do not approve for some reason ...

Actually, what I did was go back and edit my response after reading the thing. Seems like you kept my response open for an hour or so before responding back. Did my response really annoy you that much? This is why I often use such language as "we". We tend to take things personal when we say "You" or "I". And it doesn't provide for stimulating debate on these things when they come up. Is bad energy.

Of course, we do have a slight generation gap between folks who are interested in these issues and we often find the variance of language to be confusing and counterintuitive when we begin to try to better understand application. Really, this is why I'd asked about adding mercantilism to the tag lines. Although it had crossed my mind previously in similar areas of discussion here.

[Natural Citizen]

https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&ei=Pd5kVPmcMYTZiAL1qoCoDw&ved=0CAYQ1S4#q=+Crony+Environmentalism

I never really click on blind links. Thanks all the same.

[Ronin Truth]

I never really click on blind links. Thanks all the same.

Crony Environmentalism
https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&ei=Pd5kVPmcMYTZiAL1qoCoDw&ved=0CAYQ1S4#q=+Crony+Environmentalism

[Occam's Banana]

What is wrong with explaining it like a straight shooter?

What is there to explain? The intended connotation of "crony environmentalism" is obvious - especially if one actually bothers to read the actual article (instead of just its title).

Equally obvious is your implication that those who do not employ your preferred terminology (whatever it might be) - in just the way that you prefer it to be employed - are somehow not "straight shooters" and are being deceitful or disingenuous (for the purpose of surreptitiously perpetrating some kind of "dumbing down" or some such) ...



They usually involve the ancient mercantilist practice of bribing politicians for a special favor or subsidy. The bribe-giver becomes wealthy, and the politicians granting the favor/subsidy have the funds to finance the next campaign. Let’s call it crony environmentalism.Nooooo. Let's not call it that and instead call it what it is and lets debate it right.

But you don't "debate it" at all (let alone "debate it right"). You just complain about how you don't want to "call it that" - and about how other people don't "call it what it is" (whatever that might be). You never address any of the actual substance - you merely quibble about nomenclature and cast allusions that are so vague and tangential to the topic that it is very difficult (if not impossible) to understand what you actually mean, if anything.

I also note that you previously complained about how "they just won't call it ... mercantilism" - despite the fact that in the very bit you quoted from him, DiLorenzo explicitly identified what he was talking about as (a particular kind of) mercantilism. I mean, come on ...

[Natural Citizen]

What is there to explain? The intended connotation of "crony environmentalism" is obvious.

Not to me. Please explain "crony environmentalism". Then we can move along to the your author's shortcomings. You...Occam's Banana. No links to what someone else has to say and relegated to as far as they wish to go with it. Show us your wisdom.


Aside from that. Substance. Heh...




You never address any of the actual substance - you merely quibble about nomenclature and cast allusions that are so vague and tangential to the topic that it is very difficult (if not impossible) to understand what you actually mean, if anything

Do you propose that the author of that piece offered broad enough substance with regard to the mercantilist components of the phenomenon in his pitch? I don't.

I post a great deal here. And much of what I post has a great deal to do with the subject. All you have to do is search for any thread that I've started. So you'll need to back that comment up about never addressing any of the actual substance with something. I'll put any subject matter the I've provided on the board up against anything that you've offered here any day of the week in the substance department.

[PaulConventionWV]

What is wrong with explaining it like a straight shooter?

It depends on what your definition of a "straight shooter" is. Someone who uses only the terms you use? That seems a little biased. Are you really saying that, because people have come up with a different term than you're used to, it must be the result of some kind of dumbing down?


Nooooo. Let's not call it that and instead call it what it is and lets debate it right.

And by "call it what it is" you mean "call it what it used to be called instead of what it's currently called" because you just can't handle new terms. What makes you think your way is the "right" way to debate it?


Of course, we do have a slight generation gap between folks who are interested in these issues and we often find the variance of language to be confusing and counterintuitive when we begin to try to better understand application. Really, this is why I'd asked about adding mercantilism to the tag lines. Although it had crossed my mind previously in similar areas of discussion here.

So what you're saying is that you're an old codger who doesn't like being confused with fancy new lingo, correct?

[BV2]

Where can we find an actual definition for crony environmentalism? Seems like we're pulling these new terms out of our rear ends for a new generation of political people who don't feel like catching up with the rest of us. I'm still stumped on the crony capitalism meme. I don't know why they just won't call it fascism or mercantilism like it's been called like...forever.

Actually, cronyism is a new one itself and I see we actually have a tag for this?

I didn't read the paper yet. Just wanted to ask that question since the new term caught my eye.

That's a good point. I wonder where the term originates, or even the practice of attaching crony to a word to create to a concept that is already signified by something else. New speakish it is. Maybe, by using the word crony as a prefix in front of components of facism or mercantilism encourages people to believe that they are actually separate entities. I'm not going to use the term "crony capitalism" any more. Call shit by its right name.

[Natural Citizen]

That's a good point. I wonder where the term originates, or even the practice of attaching crony to a word to create to a concept that is already signified by something else. New speakish it is. Maybe, by using the word crony as a prefix in front of components of facism or mercantilism encourages people to believe that they are actually separate entities. I'm not going to use the term "crony capitalism" any more. Call shit by its right name.

Frank Luntz 101...

[Natural Citizen]

It depends on what your definition of a "straight shooter" is. Someone who uses only the terms you use? That seems a little biased. Are you really saying that, because people have come up with a different term than you're used to, it must be the result of some kind of dumbing down?



And by "call it what it is" you mean "call it what it used to be called instead of what it's currently called" because you just can't handle new terms. What makes you think your way is the "right" way to debate it?



So what you're saying is that you're an old codger who doesn't like being confused with fancy new lingo, correct?

I understand and see political manipulation of linguistics. That is essentially the point I'm making here. But it goes beyond the screed in the op to better understand its function or political application in the general public today. Political people tend to be selective. And language is a great tool to create a political illusion and to selectively dodge the more critical aspects of a given issue while cherry picking those aspects which one seeks or needs to premise the terms of their own controversy. There are those who truly do support elements of mercantilism and fascism and the only real way for them to argue selectively against those aspects of the phenomenon that they do not support is by way of linguistic manipulation. These are stalking horses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking_horse). As far as the op, agriculture is a very broad topic. As are the politics of it. In fact, it is geo-political. But to look at the tag lines of the thread alone is indicative of the shallowness in approaching it. Again, it is very selective and tries to avoid the larger aspect with the use of the Frank Luntz kind of mindset.

But, yes. I'm old. That is irrelevant, though.

But for now I'll refrain from discussing it further and save my argument for the op should he choose to stop by. I have a lot to say to him about his little Crony Environmentalism meme and some other stuff. And it sometimes becomes the unfortunate task to call out a bullshitter.

[muh_roads]

I hate the term crony capitalism. I prefer to say crony corporatism. The focus of the term should be on the corporations and it has nothing to do with capitalism at all.

[PaulConventionWV]

I understand and see political manipulation of linguistics. That is essentially the point I'm making here. But it goes beyond the screed in the op to better understand its function or political application in the general public today. Political people tend to be selective. And language is a great tool to create a political illusion and to selectively dodge the more critical aspects of a given issue while cherry picking those aspects which one seeks or needs to premise the terms of their own controversy. There are those who truly do support elements of mercantilism and fascism and the only real way for them to argue selectively against those aspects of the phenomenon that they do not support is by way of linguistic manipulation. These are stalking horses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking_horse). As far as the op, agriculture is a very broad topic. As are the politics of it. In fact, it is geo-political. But to look at the tag lines of the thread alone is indicative of the shallowness in approaching it. Again, it is very selective and tries to avoid the larger aspect with the use of the Frank Luntz kind of mindset.

But, yes. I'm old. That is irrelevant, though.

But for now I'll refrain from discussing it further and save my argument for the op should he choose to stop by. I have a lot to say to him about his little Crony Environmentalism meme and some other stuff. And it sometimes becomes the unfortunate task to call out a bullshitter.

I think it's all in your head this time.

[Henry Rogue]

I have a problem with the term "public servant", talk about a loaded term full of obfuscation. Why not call them what they are, leaches on society.

[acptulsa]

I never really click on blind links. Thanks all the same.

I don't give google any business, myself. That said, a blind link is one where you don't know what site it leads to. You get a few blue key words and that's the link--destination unknown. That link was pretty naked, dude. If you can't see it leads to that nasty monster google, then it isn't the link that's blind.

Who is misusing English terms now...?

[Natural Citizen]

I don't give google any business, myself. That said, a blind link is one where you don't know what site it leads to. You get a few blue key words and that's the link--destination unknown. That link was pretty naked, dude. If you can't see it leads to that nasty monster google, then it isn't the link that's blind.

Who is misusing English terms now...?

Heh. Why do you want to fuck with me today, acptulsa? Is it just for shits n giggles or something?

[acptulsa]

Heh. Why do you want to fuck with me today, acptulsa? Is it just for shits n giggles or something?

You responded to me in the only other thread here we have interacted in today, NC...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?467423-How-do-you-rep-somebody/page2

And I was not only respectful there, and answered your questions politely, but I largely agreed with you.

An naked link is what it is. If you consider reminding someone that words and terms mean what they mean 'fucking with' someone, then why were you fucking with PCWV in this very thread?

[Natural Citizen]

You responded to me in the only other thread here we have interacted in today, NC...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?467423-How-do-you-rep-somebody/page2

And I was not only respectful there, and answered your questions politely, but I largely agreed with you.

An naked link is what it is. If you consider reminding someone that words and terms mean what they mean 'fucking with' someone, then why were you fucking with PCWV in this very thread?

That's actually a good point on the surface. I'll give you that. And because I firmly believe what I had mentioned to PCVW, you make a good comparison.

But I still think you're looking for battle. There is nothing to be had, acptulsa. :)

[acptulsa]

That's actually a good point on the surface. I'll give you that. And because I firmly believe what I had mentioned to PCVW, you make a good comparison.

But I still think you're looking for battle. There is nothing to be had, acptulsa. :)

Whatever, dude.