| BACKWARDNESS IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT - CORPORATE BAILOUTS |
http://groups.google.com |
| Robert Morpheal, Bob Ezergailis, Morphealism (morpheal@yahoo.com) |
2008/12/12 07:46 |
BACKWARDNESS IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT - CORPORATE BAILOUTS
It is my opinion that the US government had no constitutional, legal,
right, to bail out big corporations. The constitution demands that the
"general welfare" of "we the people" (not we the corporations) be
considered first, and that places the plight of threatened and
inadequate federal and state programs in precedence to corporate
handouts. Not to mention the plight of small business, farmers, and
workers in every other sector who would bear the prejudicial burden of
the bailout. General welfare means job creation of new jobs, when
sectors fail, as well as providing for other needs. It does not mean
propping up the failures. Some of the failures had the best MBAs,
accountants (remember that status craze and where did they take the
economy), the best engineers, IT professionals, and management that
money could buy. That goes for the finance sector, the automakers and
others in the same big sinking boat. They had what they said they
needed, and they failed. Now government needs to create alternatives.
At least in the immediate, and likely into the long term future. Every
penny of government money is needed elsewhere for that and for the
well being of people, and must not be given to the corporations it is
being given to. Only in that way can government assure it is
performing its primary function.
Some have a false belief in trickle down to grass roots from big
multinational corporation bailouts. While little does, it is not going
to be anywhere near enough. It is a disastrous policy and will fail.
The right and constitutionally legal strategy is to have trickle up,
from grass roots spending stimulating car purchases. Infrastructure,
education, housing, farming, environment, healthcare... spending can
all trickle up from "we the people" to support corporate industry.
People who have jobs will buy cars. Businesses that remain solvent
will buy cars and trucks. So where is the problem ? Grass roots
spending will support the corporations in question. Probably much
better than direct bailouts ever could, but of course it does leave
the corporations open to any competition. They might not get the
dollars, and someone else might. It all depends on what they can
provide as value. Well, that is only fair. Trickle up is the right way
around, and trickle down from big multinationals is backwardness.
Government spending on an American multi national manufacturing
corporation leads to the feeling of need to force grass roots buying
of the products of the supported corporation, and that is not really
free enterprise. How to do that is another question. Likely it will
a troubled economy. Legally you cannot interfere, if you are
government, to manipulate the factor of competition, unless you
introduce heavy tariffs, but that too is a thing of the past, and
globalization of investment and multinational manufacturing ended that
possibility in any really practical sense. So how do you arm twist
now ? There is no legal way to do it. So what happens to the
government money if bailouts happen ? The pay back in any terms might
never be materialized. That too makes it illegitimate.
Nationalizing some defense components of big corporate industry can
resolve the remaining issues and can cut defense costs significantly.
Very significantly. Yes, there are portions of the automakers and
other troubled industries that are significant to defense but in a
corporate bankruptcy and restructuring, those divisions can be more
readily nationalized at a much lower cost than otherwise. Not a bad
idea, that chapter 11. It could be good for Uncle Sam too, but Uncle
For large corporations, bankruptcy restructuring, is far from the end
of the world. It can be the beginning of a new lease on life. It is
far different for small enterprise, and individuals where fiscal
catastrophe can ruin families and entire life times. We cannot compare
the impact of fiscal suffering on a large corporation with the impact
on people. In fact large corporations do not suffer, but sole
proprietors, family run businesses, and individuals do truly suffer.
The question of where the government money is going to do the most
good is a very important question.
Remember too that multinationals are exactly that, and their supplier
base is also multinational. Globalization took care of that. You have
to look at where the parts come from, and who makes them. You have to
look at who has made a deal with whom, and where. You have to look at
who the investors are. Some significant portion is multinational, not
American. The big multinationals trade on the international market and
anyone can buy in, and many have bought in. It is not simply a matter
of American investment anymore. It is also not simply a matter of
American suppliers anymore. When that is all spelled out and accounted
place. Something is wrong with the initial perceptions that led to the
panic bailouts in the first place. It seems more like political spin
by a few, twisting the minds of government, away from its primary task
of looking after all of the people, to concerns about the investments
of some of the people. That strategy of looking after those
investments in fact not provable as a valid strategy for maintaining
the general well being of the largest portion of the population in the
short or long term.
What the United States has been trying to do wrong is a lesson in that
type of backwardness for everyone to observe and learn from. Perhaps
it is the American pyramid, with its eye too far up in the heavens
that is the problem. That eye cannot even see the grass roots clearly
from where it is situated, and the bottom third of that pyramid is
being crushed under the growing weight from above it. That weight
includes national debt, and an ever tightening strangle hold on much
needed funding for state and federal programs, including grass roots
economic stimulation with projects that have far more direct and deep
impact upon human well being, now and into the future.
We need an end to backwardness, and American leadership in
backwardness in economics in particular. We need progressive
economics. Something the backward politicians in Washington are
failing to really comprehend.
Robert Morpheal
Anyone may copy, duplicate, reproduce this article in any way, by any
means, in any form, anywhere, and is in fact encouraged to do so.
|
|
|