Socialist economic policy is a pet peeve of mine. Aside from the fact that its always a disaster, what really galls me is how arrogantly socialist government impoverish their citizens--telling them its for their "own good".

Greg Prince forwarded a subscriber-only article he knew I would be interested in, on the continuing travails of EADS, the corporate master of Airbus.

...EADS, formed in 2000 through a merger of primarily German and French aerospace companies, there are two of everything: two CEOs, two chairmen, two power centers, one in Toulouse and the other outside Munich (though its official headquarters are in the Netherlands). This isn't some novel approach to modern management. Rather, it's the result of a careful balancing act between the French and German governments, who have large minority stakes in EADS, hold outsized influence over corporate policymaking, and, in general, treat the company like just another state agency.

Never happen here right? Well this week we've seen the city of Chicago trying to impose wage controls on Walmart and other megasite retailers.. It may seem minor, but its the same imposition of a "superior political morality" over free-market economics. I shop at Walmart, particularly for groceries--I don't necessarily like it, but I have a considerably smaller grocery bill as a result. I don't see leg irons on the employees. Jeff, a neighbor of mine, works at my local walmart, managing the dairy department. Jeff has the usual complaints about woolly superiors, but his wages are about the same as with his last employer and with Walmart he knows he'll have a job as long as he wants it. Jeff has had a number of previous employers close stores right from under him, so stability is a major factor in working for Walmart.

This isn't just a "slice of life" anecdote--there is a lesson here. Companies that make profit get to stay in business. Companies that pay great wages and benefits and don't make profits--well, you know how it goes. The salient element here is a sustainable business model, but the city of Chicago is apparently run by people who don't actually have to produce wealth.

So apparently, are the governments of France and Germany.

Not that this is normally a problem. There are plenty of things a government can and should do that don't involve making profits. So why the inexorable attraction to compete in the private sector or otherwise meddle? Well, not everyone will know this, but while a sustainable business model produces profits, it also produces something else that politicians would like to have very badly--dependency. I don't know about you, but I have a "tire guy". When I moved to my current address, I asked around about where people got tires and they pointed me to a local shop and its manager. I've gotten such good service from this guy, that when he left to start his own tire business, I went with him. Politicians would kill for that kind of loyalty, and probably have. Even better is the dependency an employee has on his employer--hence Airbus.

Not only does politics infect EADS, but the company also has an outsized role in politics, particularly in France. Forgeard is a former advisor to Jacques Chirac; shortly before Forgeard was ousted, the Socialists prodded Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin to state whether the government stood behind the embattled CEO, which led to a vicious shouting match on the floor of the National Assembly. If problems persist, the EADS debacle could even be a campaign issue in next year's French national elections. Why do they care? Because the French see Airbus and EADS less as companies than as shining symbols of French civilization--when he rolled out the Airbus A380 at a ceremony last year, Chirac called it "the crowning achievement of a fantastic human and industrial adventure." Say what you will about U.S. corporate welfare, but even George W. Bush wouldn't make such a fool of himself over a jet plane.

Especially because, contrary to Chirac's plaudits, the A380 is an absolute failure. Setting aside the repeated delays in its delivery, the plane was an anachronism before it even left the drawing board. Thirteen years in development, it has come into being during a time when commercial carriers are moving away from big and clunky to fast and efficient. According to analyst Richard Aboulafia, the large-plane sector is only 5-10 percent of the commercial market, and that's space already well-occupied by the 747. The next size down, on the other hand, is 50 percent of the market. It makes sense--smaller planes flying more routes give flyers and carriers more options.

Well I told you that already, over several postings here and I'm not even "an expert". So how to make a socialist million?

Start with a billion...