A worthy question

Uncle Sam continues to gain direct ownership of the "commanding heights of the economy:"

Congress and the White House inched toward a financial rescue of the Big Three auto makers, negotiating legislation that would give the U.S. government a substantial ownership stake in the industry and a central role in its restructuring...

The program would be overseen by an official, tapped by President George W. Bush, whom congressional aides and lawmakers describe as an "auto czar."

Probably an appropriate title, that. It used to be considered just a goofy nickname, but we seem to keep growing these "czars," for the 'war on civil liberties drugs,' homeland security, healthcare issues, you name it--if there's a perceived problem, it's time to conjure up Russian Royalty yet again. As long as we're at it, word is the news industry is also in a bit of a financial bind. Why doesn't Uncle Sam just buy direct stakes in the big media outlets and put a czar in charge of them, too? Oh, wait, maybe I shouldn't give them ideas...

It's curious that Americans put up with the casual use of the term. "Czar" denotes total authoritarianism--allegedly the antithesis of our country. The newest czars will wield influence their U.S. predecessors only imagined. As is often said, 'he who pays the piper calls the tune.' But as the government directs more and more of everyday life, William Grigg asks a darned good question:

If the key to prosperity is a centrally planned economy fueled by fiat currency, why isn’t Zimbabwe the wealthiest nation in history?