Published on May 10, 2011

More and more we hear that nothing can be done to tax major corporations because of the threat of how they would respond.  Likewise, we cannot stop their price gouging or even the government subsidies and tax loopholes they enjoy.  For example, as the oil majors reap stunning profits from high oil and gas prices, we are told it is impossible to tax their windfall profits or stop the billions they get in government subsidies and tax loopholes.  There appears to be no way for the government to secure lower energy prices or seriously impose and enforce environmental protection laws.  Likewise, despite high and fast rising drug and medicine prices, we are told that it is impossible to raise taxes on pharmaceutical companies or have the government secure lower pharmaceutical prices.  And so on.

Such steps by "our" government are said to be impossible or inadvisable.  The reason: corporations would then relocate production abroad or reduce their activities in the US or both.  And that would deprive the US of taxes and jobs.  In plain English, major corporations are threatening us.  We are to knuckle under and cut social programs that benefit millions of people (college loan programs, Medicaid, Medicare, social security, nutrition programs, and so on).  We are not to demand higher taxes or lower subsidies or fewer tax loopholes for corporations.  We are not to demand government action to lower their soaring prices.  And if we do, corporations will punish us.

Three groups deliver these business threats to us.  First, corporate spokespersons, their paid public relations flunkies, hand down the word from on high (corporate board rooms).  Second, politicians afraid to offend their corporate sponsors repeat publicly what corporate spokespersons have emailed to them.  Finally, various commentators explain the threats to us.  These include the journalists lost in that ideological fog that always translates what corporations want into "common sense."  Commentators also include the professors who translate what corporations want into "economic science."

Of course, there are always two possible responses to any and all threats.  One is to cave in, to be intimidated.  That has often been the dominant "policy choice" of the US government. That's why so many corporate tax loopholes exist, why the government does so little to limit price increases, why government does not constrain corporate relocation decisions, etc.  No surprise there, since corporations have spent lavishly to support the political careers of so many current leaders.  They expect those politicians to do what their corporate sponsors want.  Just as important, they also expect those politicians to persuade people that it's "best for us all" to cave in when corporations threaten us.

What about the other possible response to threats?  Government could make a different policy choice, define differently what is "best for us all."  In plain English, it could persevere in the face of business threats, and to do so, it could counter-threaten the corporations.  When major corporations threaten to cut or relocate production abroad in response to changes in their taxes and subsidies or demands to cut their prices or serious enforcement of environmental protection rules, the US government could promise retaliation.  Here's a brief and partial list of how it might do that (with illustrative examples for the energy and pharmaceutical industries):

  1. Inform such threatening businesses that the US government will shift its purchases to other enterprises.
  2. Inform them that top officials will tour the US to urge citizens to follow the government's example and shift their purchases as well.
  3. Inform them that the government will proceed to finance and organize state-operated companies to compete directly with threatening businesses.
  4. Immediately and strictly enforce all applicable rules governing health and safety conditions for workers, environmental protection laws, equal employment and advancement opportunity, etc.
  5. Present and promote passage of new laws governing enterprise relocation (giving local, regional, and national authorities veto power over corporate relocation decisions).
  6. Purchase energy and pharmaceutical outputs in bulk for mass resale to the US public, passing on all the savings from bulk purchases.
  7. Seize assets of enterprises that seek to evade or frustrate increased taxes or reduced subsidies.

Laws enabling such actions either already exist in the US or could be enacted.  In other countries today, existing models of such laws have performed well, often for many years.  These could be used and adjusted for US conditions.

Of course, it is possible to create a much better basis than threat and counter-threat for sharing the costs of government between individuals and businesses.  That basis would be established by a transition to an economic system where workers in each enterprise functioned collectively and democratically as their own board of directors.  Such worker-directed enterprises eliminate the basic split and conflict inside capitalist corporations between those who make the key business decisions (what, how, and where to produce, for example) and those who must live with and most immediately depend on those decisions' results (the mass of employees).

One concrete example can illustrate the benefits of this alternative to the threat-counter-threat scenario.  Corporations have used repeated threats (to cut or move production) as means to prevent tax increases and to secure tax reductions.  Likewise they have made the same threats to secure desired spending from the federal government (military expenditures, federal road and port building projects, subsidies, financial supports, and so on).  In effect, corporate boards of directors and major shareholders seek to shift tax burdens onto employees.  Their success over the last half-century is clear.  Tax receipts of the US government have increasingly come (1) from individual rather than corporate income taxes and (2) from middle and lower individual income groups rather than from the rich.  In worker-directed enterprises, the incentive for such shifts would vanish because the people who would be paying enterprise taxes are the same people who would be paying individual income taxes.  Taxation would finally become genuinely democratic.  The people would collectively decide how to distribute taxes on what would genuinely be their own businesses and their own individual incomes.

 

Permission to reprint Professor Wolff's writing and videos is granted on an individual basis. Please contact profwolff@rdwolff.com to request permission. We reserve the right to refuse or rescind permission at any time.

 

http://rdwolff.com/content/thr...and-business-threats

 

 

Here's a link to a radio interview on the article and argument.
http://rdwolff.com/content/voices-edge-radio-interview-5122011

.

.

"Everything is legal if the government can see you"-  KRS-ONE

Last edited by Muhammad Cipher
Original Post

Now see there, MC ..... you KNOW this is a subject that really gets my blood to boiling!!     Are you just trying to ruin my weekend before it even gets started good?? 

 

This article brings up a lot of good points ... but, all-in-all, I think people need to understand that the main, biggest, and bottom-line reason that corporate america gets away with the rape, pillage and plunder of the American public and our economy is because of straight-up CORRUPTION at the political/governmental level ... i.e., major corporations PAYING OFF political politicians (on both sides of the aisle) to the tune of MILLIONS (if not BILLIONS) of dollars to enact and protect "laws" that make sure that "they" (the corporations) not only keep what they have ... but also to take what we've got to add to their riches!!

 

Besides not having a president who will - let alone CAN - do anything to stop the kind of dirty, underhanded, under-the-table political payoffs that make sure that corporate entities keep politicians in their back pockets .... (and I'm not just talking about our current President ... but, ALL past and future presidents to come!!) ... the current crop of career/lifer politicians who are living high on the taxpayer- and corporate- hog are SO bought and paid for that there will NEVER be any political will to "threaten" them into a compliance of fair taxation.

 

That's just a pipe dream.  And no type of any REAL or responsible corporate economic reform will (probably) EVER come from ANY government-type action on the part of bribe-taking politicians.  That's like asking a fox to guard your hen house!!    And having some type of (un)real(istic) expectation that you will find more than a bunch of flying feathers there when you return the next morning!! 

 

Until THE PEOPLE revolt against being used and abused by corporate piracy  ... and decide to wipe out ALL of the current class of sitting professional-politician Congressional representatives on the corporate payroll .... AND ... replace them with not-yet-corrupted replacements willing to walk in the door and IMMEDIATELY implement a political correction to the current system of PAY-TO-PLAY politics ... BEFORE they, too, are bought and sold by the deep pockets of corporate interests ...there will be no help in sight for us. 

 

Either we HELP ourselves ... or there won't be any comin'!!  Period. Not from "the government."  Not from the/a/any sitting President. And definitely not from the "goodness of the heart" of corporate America in any shape, fashion or form. 

I don't completely disagree, although I'd word it a bit different.

 

Naturally I don't expect too much from this government.  However, governments are only governing bodies.  Once we decide to 'do for ouselves' according to our interest as a community-that is the basis of a governance in the interest of the people.  I do think that it was the author's intention to bust up the myth that the non action being taken by the US Government is reasonable and inevitable given the situation.  

 

Corruption makes the system sound and appear fixable through reform.  However, there is the very real possibility that the system itself needs to be engineered. There isn't anything in the laws of demand that the current economic system stay in place. 

 

In other words, I wouldn't call it corruption when a system works according to its design.  The current economic system (known as capitalism) functions in this very predictable fashion and has for some time.  However, people have been conditioned (more so in the US) to accept it as "normal" and to never entertain anything outside of it. 

Good article and brings ups very good points. If I'm not mistaken, this is what was done in Venezuela and it made a lot of rich, upper class, white Venezuelans upset. I know some who left the country because of the nationalization of the oil industry and the people are much better off for it. Maybe we should take a cue from them.

Originally Posted by Yemaya:

Good article and brings ups very good points. If I'm not mistaken, this is what was done in Venezuela and it made a lot of rich, upper class, white Venezuelans upset. I know some who left the country because of the nationalization of the oil industry and the people are much better off for it. Maybe we should take a cue from them.

 

I've long felt this is why Hugo Chavez is so hated by US interest.  There is an interesting Documentary produced by Naomi Klein (The Shock Doctrine) along with her husband called "The Take" that details how the people in Argentina took control after the IMF wrecked their economy.  Latin America has taken a completely different position and attitude to the world economy, their positioned in it, and how their domestic economies should operate in favor of the people. 

Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:
 

In other words, I wouldn't call it corruption when a system works according to its design.  The current economic system (known as capitalism) functions in this very predictable fashion and has for some time.  However, people have been conditioned (more so in the US) to accept it as "normal" and to never entertain anything outside of it. 

 

I'm going to disagree with this ... with the disclaimer that I don't necessarily believe we are on opposite philosophical sides of this fence, actually!! 

 

I get what you're saying, but .... I'm not so sure that this "system" is necessarily "functioning" the way it's "designed" to.

 

I mean ... I personally have no problem with "capitalism" as a system!  I'm all for individuals - and corporations - being able to make kabillions of dollars as a matter of enterprise!  What I do STRONGLY OBJECT to, is all the unnecessary, extreme and incessant "corrupt" methods of political protections that give UNFAIR advantage to companies to make and keep MORE money than they're actually entitled to!!! 

 

There are "laws" and "bills" in place that purposefully and unfairly and unlawfully (except that it IS technically, by legal manipulation "lawful") benefit and give economic advantage to big businesses to unreasonably increase their profit line. 

 

In other words ... even with fairer, less corruption-inspired legislative regulation of the capitalist system ... companies would STILL make billion-dollar profits ... they'd just be finding another way to do it OTHER THAN bending over and sticking it to the American public to do so!!!  Because there ARE other ways for them to make their money ... they just don't have to find them, because our government protects the unethical and grievously discriminatory methods they are already using!!

 

Enterprise and entrepreneurship as an "American way" is fine by me!!  If you build a better mousetrap, you deserve to be (adequately) compensated for your ingenuity and success.  BUT ... having the GOVERNMENT unrighteously subsidize your profitability by intentionally making and upholding unjust "laws" ... that work against the well-being of the general overall public  .... MOSTLY due to the fact that you PAY THEM extraordinary amounts of your ill-gotten profits to do so ... IS, indeed, CORRUPTION at its basest level!!! 

 

And given that it is so ingrained and incorporated into the fabric of the American economy ... it is THAT that gives it the appearance of being "normal" .... when it is actually - or at least should be - looked upon as an act of criminal conspiracy, in and of itself.

I tend to disagree with the premise of the argument in the article. My question is why can consumers seek the path of least resistance to their economic bottom line......but corporations cannot? Did consumers "threaten" American manufacturers with buying foreign products if the American mfg did not lower their prices or improve their quality? In capitalism the threat is implicit and not stated. Its what Adam Smith refered to as the "invisible hand", which is essentially the natural propensity of entities to act in their best economic interest, in a free market.

 

Consumers in America seek the path of least economic resistance or in other words...."the best value" for their dollar relative to needs and desires. That has led many Americans to purchase goods manufactured by non-American workers or companies that are not American owned (meaning the profit goes to foreign countries). However, when coroporations seek the path of least resistance by using foreign land and labor, they are the bad guys.

 

In capitalism entities are expected and assumed to do what is in their best interest, assuming every entity is FREE to make a choice. This, in theory, creates the type of competition that leads to better products and better productivity, as well as, keeping prices lower. Thus, the argument premise SHOULD be against CAPITALISM, if the author expects anything different. Capitalism is a zero sum game. Someones gain in the universe of capitalism is another entities loss. Profit is getting more out of something than you put into it, which can only happen if someone else in the transaction is getting less out of it than they put into it. This is why China's rise cannot manifest without a correlated fall of the US. Its zero sum. One of the biggest problems in the US, and that is at the core of our economic problems, is the trade deficit. The trade deficit is mostly the result of American consumers, decades ago, choosing not to be patriotic to American made goods. If the American consumer covets foreign goods then why does it not make sense for American corporations have things made in foreign countries, by foreign workers, and ship the finished goods back to the US? They would be foolish not to do so, given that American consumers REJECTED goods produced by American workers either for reasons of quality and or price. Its really the choices of the American consumer that is causing the trade deficit and, in turn, issues of debt. The economy could be turned around if simply Americans started buying goods produced in America. However, instead we blame the corporations.

Last edited by Noah The African

"Thus, the argument premise SHOULD be against CAPITALISM, if the author expects anything different."

 

 

Oh but it is, Prof. Wolff is a very well versed in and a strong supporter of the Marxian analytic-the article is a small attempt IMHO to introduce the idea of thinking about the current situation beyond the accepted framework of reforms, corruption etc. 

 

"My question is why can consumers seek the path of least resistance to their economic bottom line......but corporations cannot?"

Well, they do.  The issue is "what are the consequences of such?"  

 

This is the largest point of agreement between me and the professor-that is, Capitalism isn't a universal constant nor will the universe cease to exist if we decide not to use it as an economic system. 

 

"I personally have no problem with "capitalism" as a system!  I'm all for individuals - and corporations - being able to make kabillions of dollars as a matter of enterprise!  What I do STRONGLY OBJECT to, is all the unnecessary, extreme and incessant "corrupt" methods of political protections that give UNFAIR advantage to companies to make and keep MORE money than they're actually entitled to!!! "

 

ER-

 

I hear you, but I think this reinforces the idea of not questioning the existing framework.  While Noah and me don't agree on all the of the details, I think it safe to say we both understand that money "wealth" isn't infinite.  The only way for anyone to become a billionaire or for a corporation to make "kabillions" is if there are a massive amount of people from which that 'wealth' is extracted.  In that framework, what we see as 'corruption' on the part of politicians is actually a 'sound business decision' on the business as it secures their interest as well as ensures "competitive advantage"in the event that a small operation decides to challenge existing state of affairs. 

 

Last edited by Muhammad Cipher
Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:
 

ER-

 

I hear you, but I think this reinforces the idea of not questioning the existing framework.  While Noah and me don't agree on all the of the details, I think it safe to say we both understand that money "wealth" isn't infinite.  The only way for anyone to become a billionaire or for a corporation to make "kabillions" is if there are a massive amount of people from which that 'wealth' is extracted. 

 

 

Okay ... but here's the thing, MC ....

 

It's NOT that these corporations or billionaires are ONLY obtaining their wealth from extracting it (in normal, basic (and what would be "legal") capitalist forms) from consumers like you and me. 

 

Additional "kabillions" are received and added to the accumulation of their "wealth" from government-sanctioned "giveaways" of TAXPAYER (mine and yours!)  money in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, and other monetary protections that allow them to not only keep what they (legitimately) make from sales .... but also collect additional (illegitimate) types of funds .

 

The oil and gas industry is a mega-billion-dollar-profit-making entity just by being what it is.  However, they make/steal/are (legislatively/legally) given even more mega-billion-dollars, added to their coffers as "profit" - that they loophole their way out of paying taxes on!!! 

 

I'm totally, 100% with you on the whole "not questioning the existing framework" issue.  I accept that as "our" (collective) lack of responsibility to reign that in.  BUT ...  I don't agree that the system of "capitalism" in and of itself is what is necessarily dysfunctional.   The basis of capitalism could be a more workable and more fairly distributed methodology if not for the illicit practices of government/politicians to make it as economically unfair as it is today.

 

"I don't agree that the system of "capitalism" in and of itself is what is necessarily dysfunctional.   The basis of capitalism could be a more workable and more fairly distributed methodology if not for the illicit practices of government/politicians to make it as economically unfair as it is today."

 

Once you define Capitalism and the process by which it operates, the reason why the above can never happen is much more clear.  The "illicit practices" of governments to make it 'unfair' are doing so at the insistence of the very system that said to be 'workable'. That's not simply because of bad individual's in positions within businesses, but the structure of the opertation itself. Consider the fact that in other capitalist countries (Germany for one) much of what is happening in this country with outsourcing are criminal offenses.  That is, if they try it their property is seized by the German government. If every US politician were replaced tonight-the Capitalistic economic structure and every business large and small that operates within in it would still have the following task- Internalize/maximize profits-externalize cost/risk.  There isn't anything anywhere within that framework that promotes or encourages a harmonious or equal exchange.  The idea of the business and worker working in their own respective interest producing an equilibrium is a fantasy.  For starters, that's not the goal or objective of any business, nor does that argument suggest it's what they want-it only suggest that it is a by-product of their primary goal stated above.

 

Consider the following and its potential attractiveness among people who are out of work, not getting help from the government and yet wanting to control their communities.

 

Last edited by Muhammad Cipher
Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:
 Consider the fact that in other capitalist countries (Germany for one) much of what is happening in this country with outsourcing are criminal offenses.  That is, if they try it their property is seized by the German government.

 

 

---------------------------------------

 

Exactly!!  And as it should be!! 

 

And just because that's not the way it is in this country ... doesn't mean that the capitalist system here it somehow a right, or good or fair system or "as it should be" .... it simply makes it the way it is - here!!

 

Nowhere in the "definition" of capitalism is there a provision for the buying, selling and bribery of government officials!!  That's not a 'condition' of capitalism.  It's a whole separate occurrence in and of itself.  It is an "influence".  Not a "rule."

 

A company's maximizing for profits is not the problem.  Having a government THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE of 'We the People' - that is purposefully,  profoundly and detrimentally acting AGAINST our best interests ... and FOR the economical interests of the corporations IS!!!!

 

Again ... a company SHOULD be able to make as much money as it can make.  But it SHOULD NOT and does not HAVE TO BE paid taxpayer dollars for manufacturing it's product overseas.  It SHOULD NOT be subsidized ..... or bailed out with taxpayer money to keep it solvent in face of bankruptcy.  None of that is a 'byproduct" of the (capitalism) system.  If anything ... that would be a 'byproduct' of power, influence, unscrupulousness, corruption, and manipulation over those that control our legislative and governmental fate.

 

All I'm saying is ... and what was actually the main claim of the original article of this thread .... capitalism CAN BE controlled ... and STILL work in the manner it is, by definition, designed to.  Of course, at this point, corporations would not be too happy giving up the unfair economic advantages they've gotten used to receiving.  To which I would say, "Oh well.  Too bad, so sad!!"  They'd just have to learn to get over it.

 

 

Again, when can talk about the corporations all we want, but it is the AMERICAN CONSUMER, that has an affinity with either foriegn produced or foreign owned goods. If you want to know the big difference between our economy today and our economy 50 years ago, when it was at its peak, its that the American consumer consumed American made goods. Money wielding influence has been a CONSTANT upon our body politics, but Americans buying so much foriegn produced goods is not.

All I'm saying is ... and what was actually the main claim of the original article of this thread .... capitalism CAN BE controlled ... and STILL work in the manner it is, by definition, designed to.  Of course, at this point, corporations would not be too happy giving up the unfair economic advantages they've gotten used to receiving.  To which I would say, "Oh well.  Too bad, so sad!!"  They'd just have to learn to get over it.

 

I think many in the US share this sentiment, while others around the world are making no such assumptions. While we can post examples of capitalism being controlled, we cannot deny that capitalist have no desire to be controlled.  This is why "free markets" are pushed as a philosophical/ideological issue.  

 

Nowhere in the "definition" of capitalism is there a provision for the buying, selling and bribery of government officials!!  That's not a 'condition' of capitalism.  It's a whole separate occurrence in and of itself.  It is an "influence".  Not a "rule."

 

I wouldn't be so sure about that.  From the perspective of a capitalist Bribery is only a means to secure either a competitive advantage or secure resources for the continuation of its profitability.  Both of which are very much apart of the internal functioning and reasoning of capitalism.  To use Germany (again), their system functions with limitations on business not because of the system's ability to work well on its own, but precisely because of what it will do if allowed to run freely on its own rational.  As an aside, this is also why the IMF is hated worldwide.  One of the central conditions pushed on poor countries is the 'opening' of domestic markets that would allow multinational corps to enter and do what they wish, as they wish. 

 

Again ... a company SHOULD be able to make as much money as it can make.  But it SHOULD NOT and does not HAVE TO BE paid taxpayer dollars for manufacturing it's product overseas.  It SHOULD NOT be subsidized ..... or bailed out with taxpayer money to keep it solvent in face of bankruptcy.  None of that is a 'byproduct" of the (capitalism) system.  If anything ... that would be a 'byproduct' of power, influence, unscrupulousness, corruption, and manipulation over those that control our legislative and governmental fate.

 

Well, lets walk it through from a lay perspective.  When a business makes money (from $0.01 to Billions), it deposits that money in a bank.  The bank (suddenly flush with cash from huge profits) looks for ways of making money off those deposits but cause it wants to keep the business of those account holders.  Well, what does a bank do with all this 'new' money?  It could invest in community business, programs etc. But there's nothing that demands it, and there's much more risk associated with that with little return then say...making Student Loans at 12% after getting money from the government at 1.5% and then selling those loans as secularized debt.  Sending some money to the local/state/national political candidates in the hopes that those individuals will 'loosen' or muddy up the rules on what they can or cannot do. This is sold to the people via themes like "freeing the market" and "getting the government out of business" "we shouldn't allow the government to stifle innovation" etc.  Thus we get, the repeal of Glass Steagall, Bankruptcy reform (good business when banks do it, but people who do it are deadbeats), Tort reform (making it a illegal to take legal action against business), Direct to public marketing of pharmaceuticals (drug dealing with a smile)   etc etc etc.  

 

Now lets look at the latter part of your statement "If anything ... that would be a 'byproduct' of power, influence, unscrupulousness, corruption, and manipulation over those that control our legislative and governmental fate." I agree.  The algebra in this case works itself out in such away that shows big business (major capitalist) to people the people within a system that continuous produces such a by product.  

 

Keep in mind that in other capitalist countries (Germany, France, Spain, UK) this is not the subject of massive denial. 

 

 

Again, when can talk about the corporations all we want, but it is the AMERICAN CONSUMER, that has an affinity with either foriegn produced or foreign owned goods.

 

This "affinity" was cultivated by the economic system from both the business perspective and as a coping mechanisms (see any number of reports, essays on the growth of fast food and the dangers to agriculture).  The massive purchasing of 'foreign' produced goods could only happen if those goods had an internal point of distribution......enter Walmart.

 

This goes back to ER's statement on a company being maximizing their profits not being a problem.  The maximization come on the heels of a simple fact of capitalism that occurs no matter the size of a company.  A companies profitability increases in relationship to amount of productivity from its workforce.  There always exist the following tension and question: Is it possible to secure more productively while paying less for the increased productivity?

 

That is why the system itself has to be challenged.  Even when held in check by laws-the system goes to work to weaken them to get the answer they want to the above question.  While Germany doesn't have anywhere close to the financial sector of the US, they are not immune because of the interconnectedness of the current system.  They're pissed that being the strongest Euro economy they have to bail out the rest of Europe because its cheaper than paying the cost if it collapse.

 

*sorry for the long reply, this is a webby subject and its why I post those videos. Prof Wolff is much more eloquent than I in laying this mess out.....lol

This is the really curious thing about GRADUALISM and TECHNOLOGY.

 

Lyndon Johnson started complaining about the effect of media on politics in the late 60s.  He grew up in the days of smoke-filled-rooms when lots of stuff could be kept under cover.  But then came television and Kennedy and politicians had to become celebrities.  Of course it did not eliminate smoke-filled-rooms but the media had to be paid to make you a star so that was a another foothold for the financial interests.

 

Now we have the Internet.  The financial interests are going to try and manipulate that of course but the Web is a different kind of system.  We will have to see what happens.

 

Xum

All I am saying is that the American Consumer is the most coveted of consumers in the world, because of their purchasing power. The American consumer has been a large part, directly or indirectly, of China’s growth and job creation over the last decade or more, and a large part of the growth of the Japanese economy prior to that, as the American auto industry fell out of favor with American consumers.


Every dollar spent becomes a dollar earned. Spent dollars become revenue and or income. When American consumers spend their dollars on foreign goods, it becomes revenue and income in other nations, creating or preserving jobs and profits in other places. If those dollars were spent on American produced goods, then the revenue, income and profit would be preserved or created in the USA. If Americans simply decided to repatriate their consumption, millions of jobs would be created.


I understand the issues with corporations, their lobbying and what not. However, I think the lack of patriotism of American workers is a bigger problem than the corporations in regards to employment in America. The problem with Americans and likely humans in general is that we all want things to get better……but we want OTHERS to make the sacrifices. Instead of Americans looking at what we purchase or attempting to research what we purchase so that we give preference to American made goods, we would rather blame the corporations and try to seek changes in what corporations are doing instead of making changes to what we are doing.


I once read the book titled, “The 7 habits of highly effective people” and one of the main points was that highly effective people focused on their “Sphere of greatest influence”, which is the SELF. If the SELF desires an improvement in employment opportunity in America, then the SELF should seek out American made goods. However, the SELF, by nature, is SELFISH. The self is not really concerned with the American economy as much as it is concerned with the economy of SELF. Thus, the self will seek the path of least economic resistance and purchase that which is perceived as lower in cost and or greater in quality, which often is foreign. Then we condemn corporations for THEIR SELFISHNESS, when each entity is equally selfish, yet, we as individual consumers are not willing to give up the things we do, that reduce economic opportunity in America, because what we do is best for us. Yet, we want corporation to do the sacrificing by giving up what is best for them, when we are not willing to give up what is best for us.


People living in North Carolina could care less about people in Michigan losing jobs because so many Americans prefer buying foreign cars and People in Michigan could care less that people in Carolina have lost jobs because Americans stopped buy American made furniture. The American consumer is only concerned about the best value and their personal bottom line, which we are all trying to increase. The corporations are no different. They can go foreign to…..for their bottom line. The corporations are really no different than the individual in that we want to influence politics to our favor. We all have the same MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY……but what is difference is that the individual lacks the MEANS beyond one-man-one-vote. The individual does not have the money to buy influence like corporations have, but we do donate to campaigns and the like....trying to get the people in office that will do our bidding (hopefully). Corporations and the super rich simply have more success at this because they have more money to use to buy influence. There is no moral difference.
 

Last edited by Noah The African

{{{  I understand the issues with corporations, their lobbying and what not. However, I think the lack of patriotism of American workers is a bigger problem than the corporations in regards to employment in America. The problem with Americans and likely humans in general is that we all want things to get better……but we want OTHERS to make the sacrifices.  }}}

 

The Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about PATRIOTISM.

 

Patriotism is for suckers so they can be USED.

 

The Laws of Physics don't change style from year to year.  The Japanese cars were crap and the American cars were crap.  The Japanese cars were just slightly less crappy than the American ones.  I say they all know how to make rust proof cars that last 30 years and once they design excellent cars there is no reason to keep changing them.  Human beings do not change shape.

 

I have more respect for pimps and prostitutes than I do for economists.  We have probably wrecked the planet for our purposes with this planned obsolescence crap that the economists don't talk about.  Go into debt to buy more JUNK.  Add it to GDP.  Worship the Grossly Distorted Propaganda.

 

Double-entry accounting should have been mandatory in the schools for the last 40 years and EVERYONE should have been concentrating on NET WORTH instead of JOBS.  But INVESTORS want the worker/consumers to be DUMB.

 

900,000,000,000 cars in the world and the economics profession can't talk about the DEPRECIATION of all of that under engineered JUNK.

 

Xum

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×