September 19, 2007
In Defence of Wealthy Royals and Against Monopoly
I was seduced by this item noted via our News Room on the Moroccan Monarchy & the King's wealth to make a long comment in defence of a wealthy royalty (or as an observation that the criticisms were wrong headed in a typical wooley headed Left way) but against Monopoly - as a good Liberal that I am.
As a matter of data, I would take the Forbes "net worth" estimates with a large grain of salt. The wounded cries of patriots aside, the recent semi-transparency of the Moroccan monarchy no doubt distorts things (given the utter opaqueness of say the Emirates, and I do mean utter having worked there).
But a bit of analysis. There is no question the Alaoui dynastic family has a great deal of wealth, held privately, and further the Royal Court gets massive subsidy from the State Budget for its operations.
Those are two separate questions, although legitimately interrelated. While some good degree of Palace Expenditure is doubtless justifiable on a transparent basis for reasons of State - diplo receptions, functioning of the Executive, etc. - I am sure some could and should be justifiably imputed on the Alouie dynasty's personal fortune.
On the side of the King "owning" Marjane and other companies (via the lovely opacity of the ONA holding compnay), that is inexact. The King and immediate family indirectly have controlling interests in ONA, which holds a number of companies (Marjane, etc). However, the Royals are not the majority owners of ONA. Lots of others have a share of that pie. But, as noted, the Royals have both a legal (de jure via shareholding structure) and a de facto control of the company.
Nothing wrong with that per se, private enterprise is a good thing.
However, when the King as Head of State & Executive allows the Makhzen to put the machinery of State to work to favour contra law, regulation and National (versus personal) economic interest by trying to crush or thwart ONA competitors to preserve effective monopoly and thus earn extra profits (not just for the Royals, for the total shareholders of course, who are by extension free riding on the Makhzen exploitation of the situation), that's bad for the economy. It's bad for the average Moroccan who ends up paying higher prices for goods in ONA "fiefdoms" and its bad in that Moroccan (and foreign, I speak from experience) entrepreneurs and investors actively avoid trying to build businesses (and thus jobs) where they think ONA wants exclusivity or to be the Big Boy.
Ergo, the Makhzen spoils the free market game, which should be creating wealth, because the flunkies want to extract rents and play little games. You end up then with the average rate-payer and average Moroccan losing out, at the expense of some toadies for no particularly good reason.
Bad for the economy, really against the long term interests of the Monarchy, but does serve the short term interests of some toadies.
Posted by The Lounsbury at September 19, 2007 06:42 PM
Filed Under:
Economics
,
MENA Region General
,
North Africa
,
The Maghreb
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.aqoul.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/3455
Comments
This must represent a hitherto unsuspected meaning to the phrase "going silent".
But I'm definitely not complaining about it.
Nice info.
Posted by: matthew hogan at September 21, 2007 05:12 AM

RSS



