Anonymous v. Koch brothers(dangerousminds.net)
dangerousminds.net
Anonymous v. Koch brothers
http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/koch_brothers_tea_partiers_union_bashers_anonymous_/
4 comments
I don't see how this is bizarre. He's trying to jettison anything that loses money. Selling a business for nothing is a net profit to you if the business is losing money.
As far as Koch Industries they specifically said (in the 2nd link you posted) that they have no interest in the power plants.
As far as Koch Industries they specifically said (in the 2nd link you posted) that they have no interest in the power plants.
For a moment let's assume that it is indeed in the government's interest to sell these properties.
Why is there a no-bid clause? Should the government not be obligated to try and get the best price it can on a major property sale?
The no-bid part just reeks of corruption - there's no solid reason to have it there. If someone bids ten dollars for a power plant and nobody else comes forward with a better bid, so be it, but at least the process needs to be competitive and transparent.
Why is there a no-bid clause? Should the government not be obligated to try and get the best price it can on a major property sale?
The no-bid part just reeks of corruption - there's no solid reason to have it there. If someone bids ten dollars for a power plant and nobody else comes forward with a better bid, so be it, but at least the process needs to be competitive and transparent.
If it's in the government's interest to sell these properties, the important thing politically might be to sell it as quickly as possible rather than wait to get the best possible deal. Trying to "get the best price it can" might be a false economy, letting the best be the enemy of the good. In the best case it adds delay, in the worst case fighting over the terms might prevent the deal from going through.
In other words, "Don't let the best be the enemy of the good."
In other words, "Don't let the best be the enemy of the good."
How about the better? There's vast oceans between "the best possible price we can possibly get" and "whoever offers first".
Just because a business is losing money, doesn't mean it has zero value.
Paul Collier, author of the "Bottom Billion", said poor countries get screwed for their resources because they don't put them up to bid. He even said the British government valued certain frequencies at 2 billion, but they later sold for 20 billion during bidding, so it's better for all governments to auction assets instead of pricing them or giving them away.
Paul Collier, author of the "Bottom Billion", said poor countries get screwed for their resources because they don't put them up to bid. He even said the British government valued certain frequencies at 2 billion, but they later sold for 20 billion during bidding, so it's better for all governments to auction assets instead of pricing them or giving them away.
True. And they should certainly try to get some money for their assets (and they haven't said they won't). But the point still remains. If you're actively losing money on an investment and selling it for zero is your only option it's still better to sell it for zero than to hold on to it.
You might want to look at the Russian privatization of the early 1990s for an example of exactly how not to do this.
Unfortunately, Walker seems to think that experience is an instruction manual.
Unfortunately, Walker seems to think that experience is an instruction manual.
It's a little disingenuous to call public utilities a money losing proposition. They're infrastructure. Communities invest in infrastructure to see dividends in prosperity, not cash.
But privatizing it isn't going to take the infrastructure away from the public. So the question is one of cash flow not the overall value of the asset.
No one's saying it was a bad decision to build the infrastructure. The the state only has so much money and this is taking more of it every month.
No one's saying it was a bad decision to build the infrastructure. The the state only has so much money and this is taking more of it every month.
Privatization doesn't take control of infrastructure away from the public. Also, up is down, black is white, and disagreement is agreement.
I'd argue that what's bizarre about it is the uncompetitive nature of the bidding. Sure, jettison anything that's losing money right now (as short-sighted as it seems) but at least get top dollar for it. As is, it seems a little shady - no?
Not if you're trying to act quickly. I'm not saying it's how I would react but he's clearly trying to take immediate action and a long, drawn out process isn't conducive to that.
Any government bidding program is going to take several years to complete. It's going to involve a committee to evaluate the bids. That committee will have to be formed meaning there will be politics involved in deciding who is on the committee. Once that's all done you'll have to put out the request for bids and wait for those bids to come in. Then comes the evaluation by the committee and so on.
Again I wouldn't disagree if you said he's acting rashly but it's consistent with his public stance to push these things quickly.
Any government bidding program is going to take several years to complete. It's going to involve a committee to evaluate the bids. That committee will have to be formed meaning there will be politics involved in deciding who is on the committee. Once that's all done you'll have to put out the request for bids and wait for those bids to come in. Then comes the evaluation by the committee and so on.
Again I wouldn't disagree if you said he's acting rashly but it's consistent with his public stance to push these things quickly.
> a long, drawn out process
It doesn't have to be that, either. A fixed, short to medium time frame will do for bids; it doesn't have to be all or nothing.
And honestly, perhaps he's 100% on the up and up (like every other politician), and Koch Industries is honest to a fault (like so many other corporations) and really DOESN'T want utilities at potentially criminally low prices; this non-bid clause give a huge appearance of impropriety. With nothing else anywhere to show that there isn't any, would it not be prudent to either explain his actions or change them accordingly?
It doesn't have to be that, either. A fixed, short to medium time frame will do for bids; it doesn't have to be all or nothing.
And honestly, perhaps he's 100% on the up and up (like every other politician), and Koch Industries is honest to a fault (like so many other corporations) and really DOESN'T want utilities at potentially criminally low prices; this non-bid clause give a huge appearance of impropriety. With nothing else anywhere to show that there isn't any, would it not be prudent to either explain his actions or change them accordingly?
> Any government bidding program is going to take several years to complete.
I doubt this. Governments routinely sell assets, such as property seized in criminal cases, tax foreclosures, and surplus equipment at auction and it doesn't take years. There doesn't seem to be anything about the proposed sales in Wisconsin that would require a long procedure.
I doubt this. Governments routinely sell assets, such as property seized in criminal cases, tax foreclosures, and surplus equipment at auction and it doesn't take years. There doesn't seem to be anything about the proposed sales in Wisconsin that would require a long procedure.
Well, since they got caught trying to slip this through, I'm going to bet that it makes this and any other asset sale they are contemplating even more drawn out.
Yes, I saw that, and perhaps I'm a bit skeptical yet but I'm not prepared to take a huge corporation's PR soundbites at face value.
They're becoming a pretty sharp political group.
How so? By hopping on the 2011 version of the George Soros freakout GOP supporters had years back?
By announcing that they're "targeting" an organization, knowing that that will be reported and that people will completely forget this "conflict" by the time whichever person or persons within Anonymous made this announcement lose interest in this "operation"?
OK, that last is almost kinda sharp.
By announcing that they're "targeting" an organization, knowing that that will be reported and that people will completely forget this "conflict" by the time whichever person or persons within Anonymous made this announcement lose interest in this "operation"?
OK, that last is almost kinda sharp.
1. They're jumping on hot topics like the Koch brothers.
2. They're bringing up politically salient points like the "clause would allow the sale of publicly owned utility plants in Wisconsin to private parties (specifically, Koch Industries) at any price, no matter how low, without a public bidding process."
3. Their writing sounds populist and they're boldly declaring attacks against powerful opponents which gives them a David v. Goliath story which is easy for the public to get behind.
4. Colbert did a story on them so their name is growing.
5. I'm not saying they're good or bad. But, whatever their ideology, they're becoming a stronger presence and they're getting better at diplomacy.
2. They're bringing up politically salient points like the "clause would allow the sale of publicly owned utility plants in Wisconsin to private parties (specifically, Koch Industries) at any price, no matter how low, without a public bidding process."
3. Their writing sounds populist and they're boldly declaring attacks against powerful opponents which gives them a David v. Goliath story which is easy for the public to get behind.
4. Colbert did a story on them so their name is growing.
5. I'm not saying they're good or bad. But, whatever their ideology, they're becoming a stronger presence and they're getting better at diplomacy.
1) So is everyone and his brother. Like the Soros freak-out or the Tea Party, it's a fascinatingly manufactured meme with real legs.
2) This is not their discovery. Or, you know, particularly remarkable. No-bid contracts have a long and dirty history.
3) That's not "sharpness", that's just grandstanding by individuals in a community that values attention-seeking.
4) And? See #3.
You're rather clearly confusing political acumen with "can get attention".
2) This is not their discovery. Or, you know, particularly remarkable. No-bid contracts have a long and dirty history.
3) That's not "sharpness", that's just grandstanding by individuals in a community that values attention-seeking.
4) And? See #3.
You're rather clearly confusing political acumen with "can get attention".
It's PR, what else is it supposed to do? It doesn't need to be rocket science.
Brilliance in obscurity has no political impact.
Brilliance in obscurity has no political impact.
digital warfare goes commercial
The sudden attacks on the libertarian Koch brothers from the Left is pretty silly and closed-minded.
They're not libertarian, they're movement conservatives.
And anonymous isn't part of "the Left".
In fact, almost any sentence involving a capitalized "the Left" is probably missing the mark.
And anonymous isn't part of "the Left".
In fact, almost any sentence involving a capitalized "the Left" is probably missing the mark.
> They're not libertarian, they're movement conservatives.
They've donated at least $20 million to the ACLU to fight the Patriot Act. They support the Cato institute. One of them ran for president on the Libertarian ticket.
The Koch family isn't unified in its views; collectively the group does support some "movement conservative" causes. For that matter, they've supported a few democrats and democrat-favored causes. But "libertarian" actually fits pretty well if you need an overall label.
They've donated at least $20 million to the ACLU to fight the Patriot Act. They support the Cato institute. One of them ran for president on the Libertarian ticket.
The Koch family isn't unified in its views; collectively the group does support some "movement conservative" causes. For that matter, they've supported a few democrats and democrat-favored causes. But "libertarian" actually fits pretty well if you need an overall label.
As I pointed out in my reply the Koch brothers opposed most of what the Bush administration did and both sides play the "money for a movement" game (again going back to George Soros and friends).
The Kochs have donated to several libertarian causes, many of which would be considered "liberal," such as in favor of abortion. Hell, David Koch was the 1980 vice-presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party.
The people attacking the Koch brothers are from the Left--left-wing blogs, left-wing radio hosts, and so on. You don't give any reasons why my statements missed the mark, so I can only assume you have none. You may not like the phrase simply because you don't like being labeled--I'm sure the Right feels the same way.
Anonymous is just a label any anonymous people can use, and I didn't make a determination about who any anonymous people belonged to. I simply described the recent attacks on the Koch brothers, which is most definitely coming from the Left.
The people attacking the Koch brothers are from the Left--left-wing blogs, left-wing radio hosts, and so on. You don't give any reasons why my statements missed the mark, so I can only assume you have none. You may not like the phrase simply because you don't like being labeled--I'm sure the Right feels the same way.
Anonymous is just a label any anonymous people can use, and I didn't make a determination about who any anonymous people belonged to. I simply described the recent attacks on the Koch brothers, which is most definitely coming from the Left.
Considering the Koch brothers right wing at all is an act of ignoring inconvinient facts. The Koch brothers have given more to the ACLU than they have to all political candidates combined (http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/25/the-koch-brothers-right-wi...). They oppose the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, torture of suspected terrorists, and the war on drugs. They're in favor of Abortion rights, stem cell research and Gay Marriage.
As for the rich creating so-called grass roots organizations I don't see Anonymous going after George Soros. So they can't be all that opposed to the practice.
As for the rich creating so-called grass roots organizations I don't see Anonymous going after George Soros. So they can't be all that opposed to the practice.
Wow. I was skeptical at this claim, but it appears to be true?
* http://drudgeretort.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/walker-to-make-...
* http://wisconsin.onpolitix.com/news/36834/governor-walker-an...
Bizarre.