While recently listening to an academician extol the virtues of a global economy and corporate outsourcing in a televised argument lecture sponsored by George Mason University, I was immediately impressed by the way he expediently circumnavigated the issue of an independent nation-state's sovereignty over its own unique and sufficiently effective trading economy. The monolithic quasi-governmental paradigm he proposed for the implementation of a global free-market interrogate system, inter-connecting the economies of developed First, Second, and Third World states, was cleverly disguised as socially innocuous by an apparently superficial motion to a tasteless utilitarian good. I couldn't more strenuously disagree with this application.
By using David Ricardo's and Adam Smith's postulations about the productivity resulting from a capitalist's investment-reinvestment motivations, in seeking unlimited profits, the scholastic pundit, supposedly a physician of firm and economics sponsored by the University of Michigan, applied this principle to investment proliferations of multi-national corporations. His transparent apologetics rationalizing the fallacious thinking behind a corporate agenda of outsourcing, what would be, .00 per hour jobs in the United States to people of Third World nations for .00 per hour were extremely lame. The most outrageous of his postulations was the thought that a nation's federal government (referring to that of the United States) should legislate laws enhancing a global union of economies placing its control in the hands of private quasi-governmental entities, such as the Federal retain Board or the World Bank.
Replacement Social Security Card Application
Reducing the amount of available lucrative jobs within the United States by hiring people of another country at lower wages, all for the purpose of expanding corporate profits, only serves to perform two things. It further destabilizes what is already a lop-sided U.S. Economy, while establishing a veritable economic caste system with artificially contrived limitations on whom may produce determined products, and why they are to be produced. In essence, such a system would originate a de facto economic dictatorship, where the unit of economic exchange would be standardized among the states comprising the system (much like the Euro), and the products produced, along with the means of production, would be corporately controlled. This type of global economy would forestall small businesses from being victorious in developing and marketing products. While there are many existing products and services available around the world, there are a exiguous amount of providers. In a global system, you would have something much like what is represented by Microsoft and Walmart. Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on computer operating systems around the world, and Walmart has the upper-hand in distributing software to the public, along with countless other products. When a Walmart Super-center moves into a U.S. Or foreign metropolitan area, 90 percent of all other smaller businesses selling the same products are shut down because they cannot compete with the prices offered by the larger store. In a global economic system, the only effective businesses in the cooperating nation-states would be the Microsofts and the Walmarts. people would either be forced to buy from them or have nothing.
Corporations have continually proven to be counter-productive to all small firm investments. This can be observed historically through the evolution of 17th, 18th , and 19th Century mercantilism in Britain. The kings, over the centuries, realized that more taxes would come into the Crown coffers if trading clubs were controlled and operated as appendages of the government. This became the goal in colonization in North America, and the British trading clubs (early multi-national corporations) accomplishing the firm of establishing British trade with other nations were controlled by the British Crown. The coming of British socialism, in its preliminary stages, was developed in England when it was apparent that small independent businesses could not furnish broad communal safety for their consumers. This, of course, resulted in incremental changes promoting socialized treatment and other industries which were considerable to lives of British subjects. Nonetheless, the gift day Uk had to go through a long painful duration of economic adjustment to clearly understand the evils of unchecked imperialism and government corporations. Still, there are few considerable industries in the Uk which are not controlled and operated directly and indirectly through Parliament and Queen Elizabeth Ii.
Invariably, controlling corporations succeed in smothering smaller competing businesses in a purely capitalist system if buy-out efforts fail. Both Smith and Ricardo extolled the power of competition in promoting increased levels of productivity in order for capitalists to get the top financial profits their investments. Adam Smith stated that the personel should always do what is best for him in reaping behalf from an investment of time and money. Later, Princeton's Dr. John Nash came along in the early 1950's to say that Smith was basically wrong in his investment that a person should be essentially greedy in working only to advantage himself in an investment, that doing what is best for a implicated group will promote the best effective ends of an investment. But this theoriization only yielded greater profits for the corporate system through increased cooperation among united participating corporations.The greater good, or increased relaxation of option among consumers, was drastically decreased, while productivity for all of the cooperating corporations was substantially increased.
In the paradigm laid out by the lecturing academician, the person model is conveniently supplanted by the legal synthetic person known as the corporation. However, in both cases, the person and the corporation, the element of investment motivation enters into the formulation, which propels the corporation, and the personel capitalist entrepreneur, toward maximum realization of profits without regard for the considerable tasteless good of all those others who are affected by the end product of the investment. When all cards are on the table, this motivation approximately always turns out to be unmitigated greed, a simple human condition which pre-supposes that an personel or an investing corporation can never be too wealthy and can never perform a high-enough profit, at the cost of the consumer. Yet, American constitutional government was theoretically established among men, in 1789, in order to insure that all Americans would be treated equally before the law, so that monopolies, trusts, and syndicates, benefiting the few and depriving the many, would theoretically not exist. This theoretical application of government made the laissez faire thought of unrestrained capitalism approximately unworkable in a regime where the poor person is really valued as greatly as the wealthy aristocrat.
Yet, it is quite determined that this is not a practical working reality in the present-day American republic. While the system of constitutional government is clearly defined in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution as, "establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the tasteless defense, and promoting the general welfare," the real effects of capitalism have dramatically visible that laws are not truly intended to insure justice, but, instead, communal order through maintaining a status quo.
Policies created by a government, really of the people, by the people, and for the people (as according to Abraham Lincoln) realistically advantage the greater good of the whole society, comprising the very poor, the middle-class, and the affluent wealthy. A global economy and a government designed to regulate such an economy would really not be implicated with the plight of the poor. The poor have always existed as a basic element of society, since the dawn of time, as a direct succeed of the most deadly of the seven cardinal human sins, unbridled greed. The poor will continue to be a part of any community that is based upon the economic survival of the fittest. This is the underlying thrust of capitalism, which is the lifeline of a perpetual economic aristocracy. A global economy will only serve to originate and claim a classified power hierarchy based upon wealth, where the poor will continue to be used and victimized by the caste which is most wealthy. For some one in such a system has to do the dirty work. Hence, trade by an nation's intelligentsia with the precepts of a global economy indicate two very illuminating aspects about such an educated group of individuals. First, and foremost, this coalescence defines the moral priorities of a people more curious in feeding the rapacious appetites of controlling corporations an their investors than caring altruistically for the poor portion of a state's people that cannot care for itself. Secondly, members of this supposedly intellectual group of individuals are relegating their identities as citizens of a republic, or of a singular nation-state, to a monolithic, quasi-governmental entity that has ever-expanding borders.
The study of the historical nature of U.S. Economic amelioration is not encouraging, for when the American republic was born through revolution, in 1776, the individuals representing the dissent were the wealthiest men in the American colonies. When these individuals got together to later frame a federal constitution through compromise, they could have, at first, thought about the plight of the poorest people of the new fledgling nation and his dependents before legislating laws for the advantage of whole nation. Yet, the primary economic motivation of the members of the Constitutional custom was a preservation of the representatives' financial status quo and its eventual betterment. They weren't about to relinquish their wealth through any type of laws that would bring about a communal equality inimical to their financial interests. Their minds, at the time the U.S. Constitution was framed, weren't set upon the basic human needs of the run-of-the-mill lower-class Americans who had fought with every last bit of their resources and bodily strength against the British during the revolution, but, rather, upon the wealthy aristocracy. Even the federal division of land, and the laws passed by the First Congress allocating a determined amount of acres of real estate to every man who had fought with the Continental Army, was not implemented as it was legislated. according to the primary Congressional Record, the affluent men who passed the law "regretted their allowing the best land to pass into the hands of those indigent who would not compose it to the best financial end." Consequently, the law was changed very fast afterward to allow land to only those who had the financial means to heighten it. As much as elected federal congressional office is today an entrance for the privileged few into affluence, one can really understand why an individual, dedicated to hedonism, would seek a political office in the House of Representatives or the Senate as a possible career. For example, I know of a former county prosecutor from Washington State who, at a county wages of ,000 per year, was supported by a state Democratic Party coalition to run for Congress. A less than formidable lawyer an effective prosecutor, he was elected and re-elected twice and now has a wages of 0,000 per year plus plush federal amenities and benefits. As a part of the ruling elect, is there any plausible, self-serving presume for him not to continue to seek re-election, besides the probability that person else might do a much great job of representing the people of his congressional district? This might be why the utilitarian good, which is the most good for the most number, or majority, of a nation's population, is hardly a notice when corporate profits are concerned.
For instance, introducing mass transit throughout the United States might have been a long-term goal of the federal and state governments at the same time Ford Motor firm was producing automobiles with a goal of providing a car, at an affordable price, for every family or person. Surely, person of vision, in the federal government, might have suggested the viability of developing mass transit when motorized communication became a reality. But a planned infrastructure has traditionally been considered inimical to the capitalistic free-market. In fact, after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the mere mention of state planning by government was regarded as evil. Consequently, the yield of tens-of-thousands of automobiles was encouraged and supported by federal legislation as thousands of poor people began working gainfully in Michigan in the mass yield of cars.
And as cars were produced, people hastened to buy them, not with cash, but with installment contracts for a price of about a thousand dollars. This price wouldn't have been affordable to most middle-class Americans but for the installment buying plans corporately concocted to allow consumers to immediately get the product with a low down payment and a sizeable monthly payment (for the singular timeframe) with interest for two years or more. Ford Motor prestige Company, a Ford corporate subsidiary, was established just for that purpose. In expanding to the sell price of the car, the buyer ended up paying thirty or forty percent more for the car by the time all of the payments were made. This surely increased the Ford Corporation's total profits, which propelled it and the governmental policies paving the way for corporate reinvestment, toward corporate control over the means of transportation.
When a large amount of deaths resulted from the use of automobiles, in the mid-1920s, an early federal court case, to decide either or not cars should be banned by the federal government as hazardous to the public, established a legal precedent that set the Ford Motor firm and the seven major competing automobile corporations on the road to perpetual fortune. A federal district court judge declared the motorized car a considerable evil. Instead of that decision, the ruling court could have declared the need for a federal bus system, or a rail system, inter-connecting the nation's cities. This, however, would have severely affected the prevailing popularity of automobiles and the corporate power to produce them.
As the issue of timeliness, or getting to someplace more fast or obtaining something in a shorter amount of time, became an overly-pressing concern to more-and-more Americans during the early 1920s, the thought of self-gratification became a trend in American society. The whim "why wait for something when you can have it now" became fashionable, which made the average hedonistic American use the avenue of installment buying to satisfy an appetite for what corporate America was providing, that being food, shelter, entertainment, and personal transportation. Then the Great Depression and bleak Black Friday, in 1929, arrived to herald a wake-up call to Americans who were enjoying possessing houses, appliances, cars, and many other considerable items without really owning them. When, suddenly, a great amount of Americans became bankrupt and out-of-work, when money became scarce, the average buyer sadly realized that installment buying wasn't what it was flippantly advertised to be when everything he owned was repossessed.
A global economy for the express advantage of corporate America is a goal that has been nourished since the 1950s within the emerging realm of neo-conservatism, in university classrooms, especially at the University of Chicago, and in meetings unknown to the public, between federal officers of the menagerial branch and high-ranking officers of private industry. It's quite wonderful how many cabinet-level appointees, chosen by American presidents, were corporate officers and Ceos prior to assuming the duties of Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc. Look at Dick Cheney, for instance. Isn't it considerable how Haliburton, the multi-national corporation for which the current Vice-President was Ceo, got the main government contract for the broad reconstruction in Iraq? There were at least twelve other corporations biding for the contract. I wonder how Haliburton won the bid? Some people, in the know, freely say that Cheney had a direct hand in getting the contract beloved for the corporation, which had made him a millionaire twice over. It is also true that Cheney presently owns quite a few Haliburton stock options, which increased greatly in value after the contract for Iraq was approved. The federal government obviously allowed Cheney to get away with such obscene graft.
Some communal servants in the federal government will say that corporate officers, especially former Ceos, make the best cabinet-level officers. I will, however, have to admit that most corporate Ceos are extremely devious and pragmatic in their attempts to produce great profits for their parent corporations, and that their honesty and integrity are dubious. The crimes that they commit over time are frequently so horrendous that countless lowly people are financially ruined through their devious collusions. And, unfortunately, most of them get away with their ill-gotten gains. Ken Lay, of the Enron Corporation, was a token example of unmitigated graft and corruption brought to justice. The amount of financial murders he committed through his underhanded dealings is inestimable. How he compared to the lowly street burglar, who steals and inadvertently kills during his crime, is quite interesting, for there are both serious crimes in the streets and in the suites. While a street crime commonly affects only one person or family, a suite crime many sway thousands detrimentally. I seriously believe that token investigations and subsequent prosecutions for corporate crimes are prominently publicized by the federal government to make it seem to the communal that efforts are being made to curtail corporate crime. Unbeknownst to the uninformed American public, there are many more corporate crimes being ignored, and really encouraged, by government. A global economy would cast the most evil corporate aspiration upon human community through government permission. It would make the domination of a poor personel human's basic life (that is what the person eats, the clothing he wears, where he resides, how he gets from one place to another, and, essentially, what he is allowed to purchase) the greatest goal of a global corporate union.
find The Evils of a Global economy
No comments:
Post a Comment