I, for one, think that the auto makers should receive money, but we should fire the execs. There are way too many working Americans effected by this industry that are on the edge if we don't help them out where the execs failed. Wall Street has got theirs (to which I do not think they should have-and also in the manner to which that they have). As we move through and listen to the big three auto makers of America beg for money for their failed products and ideas we come to this video that I have below.
I find it interesting as to how GM is asking for $9 Billion, when if liquidated, as an on paper audit of the firm would indicate, that the company's true value is only around $3 Billion. Why the extra funding? Perhaps the extra is for the health and pension funds that Wall Street pissed away and will not return with their own bailout money, since they are using it to payout bonuses (I mean incentives) and spa trips, etc...Right...but I digress...Again, that is millions of Americans that rely on those companies for their retirement and insurance (just what Wall Street pissed away...)
Also, if the bosses couldn't do it right for the past few decades,(and of course we need to give blame to the Bush tax incentives for large car purchases and the fact that people bought them...) why would we give them these funds and still have the same failed managers and executives managing the firms? I agree with Michael Moore, as to, if we as tax payers are going to be owning these companies, we should immediately fire the managers and executives then mandate that with these tax dollar funds they make efficient electric and hybrid cars and trucks, as well as, build high speed rail lines for the country. It is our money and we need modern transportation like in Europe and Japan. All of that will put hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, to work for these new rail lines and retooling and re...
Just like what happened with Roosevelt and with the New Deal, then the car manufacturers were told NOT to make cars but were ORDERED to make tanks, guns, and items necessary for our society and the war effort. Well, guess what, we have a new war on. The war on fiscal solvency.
When a President declares war, as we have seen exemplified through this finally ending failed administration, lame ducked, shamed faced...sorry, I got carried away.
A President has special executive powers to mandate ideas, projects, processes, and regulations if there is a war on something. That's why they call it a war on something...anything...this way they can use special executive powers to make things happen that they normally would not. I say, let there be a declaration of a war on the economy. For this, Wall Street MUST give money to companies, small businesses and tax payers to help them with their financial messes to which Wall Street orchestrated. Detroit MUST make ecological affordable vehicles and high speed mass transportation to which will help our country move back and forth instead of the necessity to rely on the continually failing airline industry...Oh, yeah, those guys get bailed out too...remember those...
If we are going to go down this socialistic path, we as a society should benefit from OUR money and OUR needs. That's what socialism is, for the society as a whole and not simply for the rich.
Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism. I don't think that is altogether true or necessary. It is not necessarily a transition to communism. We can have socialism with capitalistic tendencies. Or should I say, WE DO HAVE socialism with capitalistic tendencies. Let's call it regulation with a bailout. Right now, what we have recently created in this country is the world's largest socialistic government, with capitalistic tendencies. There was not revolution, but there is class struggle, and even still the rich are currently winning this fight hands down. But, if the tax payers are going to be owning these firms on Wall Street, and in Detroit, we MUST have that accountability and oversight that the Republican party has so carefully forgotten about, as well as how much they deregulated over these past thirty years.
Ironically, (and perhaps it is the gods having fun with us), it was September 11th, when our own government financed a coup that assassinated and overthrew, Salvador Allende, the democratically elected socialist leader of Chile, in 1973. This is our pattern, is to state publicly and adamantly, and to brainwash our society that capitalism is the best system in the world and socialism or communism must be crushed. Make no mistake, I am not against capitalism. I enjoy the fruits of my hard earned dollars just as much as the next person.
What is the dilemma is that we destabilize socialist countries and overthrow democratically elected leaders of other countries after we demonize their leaders for running a system not like our own. We create crippling and stagnate economies after these actions in these countries for the American financial institutions to exercise their might in these "now democratic" societies. We then set up American corporate interests for raw materials and manufacturing to enslave the working class of these countries for the "now democratic" state, that is after we instill the new leader of the country that we want and who sees things the American way. Just like, back in Sept. 11, 1973, when we installed the murdering dictator General Augusto Pinochet. We have done this in Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Cuba, Iran...Iraq...
The irony is hitting us square in the face now and we must come to terms with our own societal two faced rhetoric as we have shown clearly to the world that a free capitalistic system is not the "only" way. There is no one way for anything. It is in our best interest to educate ourselves of our own misgivings and see the socialistic one way mirror to which we now find ourselves on the other side of.
Oh, sorry, I got sidetracked. I wanted to discuss cars...
Watch this! Perhaps Detroit can learn from this!!
This, the 212th entry in bloggoland! Thanks for reading and coming back. I always enjoy the comments, emails and the banter!!
(c)Copyright 2008 Doug Boggs
Showing posts with label global capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global capitalism. Show all posts
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Adam Smith today...
I wanted to keep my thoughts going with the current ongoing ideas, however, I needed to inject a bit today due to the current economic situation.
I wanted to dive into a few thoughts from Adam Smith, and his landmark book "Wealth of Nations", Book V, Ch.2, Of the Sources of the General or Public Revenue of the Society...
V.2.8
No two characters seem more inconsistent than those of trader and sovereign. If the trading spirit of the English East India Company renders them very bad sovereigns, the spirit of sovereignty seems to have rendered them equally bad traders. While they were traders only they managed their trade successfully, and were able to pay from their profits a moderate dividend to the proprietors of their stock. Since they became sovereigns, with a revenue which, it is said, was originally more than three millions sterling, they have been obliged to beg extraordinary assistance of government in order to avoid immediate bankruptcy. In their former situation, their servants in India considered themselves as the clerks of merchants: in their present situation, those servants consider themselves as the ministers of sovereigns.
V.2.9
A state may sometimes derive some part of its public revenue from the interest of money, as well as from the profits of stock. If it has amassed a treasure, it may lend a part of that treasure either to foreign states, or to its own subjects.
This seems to me to ring so true to today, just as it did then. Since this first publication back in 1776, I guess it shows that we have(?) come a long way as we look at our current state of affairs and the current band-aids that have plagued the American taxpayer in order to bailout the corporations. This shows us just how important it truly is for this current campaign and the result as to how and who should be running this country for the future. Do to the nature of our economic crisis, as well as, the global economic fallout and the necessary reparations to the perceptions of the world populace to our country this next leader is going to be pivotal to the future global political landscape for generations to come.
Let's look at the relevance to Smith's writings and today's economic crisis.
Recently, we have bailed out some of the largest corporations, and Treasury Secretary Paulson has publicly stated that we should make sure these businesses do not fail. There is some who think that Paulson has self interests involved in which companies succeed and which may fail due to some of the narcissistic patterns of funding and oversight thus far.
Perhaps this is the human pattern of self interest. The current Republican welfare state for the rich shows us that the trickle down theory of economics does not work. Smith tells us that the wages of the poor should be high in relation to their position, and he views that a common street porter was not intellectually inferior to a philosopher. In other words, as to the founding fathers, we are all created equal and should have equal rights and opportunities.
This brings me to Paulson's latest move. If we, as the tax payers and funders of the bailouts to the banks, insurance, and mortgage institutions that we have seen take place, we should also be given the voting rights as the stock holders to these firms. We should be given the opportunity to delegate our individual proxy votes for these companies with transparent oversight to these voting processes. This will give the American people the opportunity to truly protect the investment that our government has put our money into, and to maintain that the people that Paulson has placed into power positions are scrutinized and managed appropriately and fairly as with any other corporation. We, as tax payers, are now the major stock holders to these firms. As a Union of voters we should be given these rights and voting powers just as with any other corporate structure.
The interesting thing about this democratic capitalistic management philosophy that has transpired through the Bush administration is that we are riding a fine line to communism and or dictatorship. I use the first volume of Marx's major work, "Capital", which was published in German in 1867, as an example. In it, Marx focused on the labour(sic) theory of value and what he considered to be the exploitation of labour by capital. The labour(sic) theory of value held that the value of a thing was determined by the labor that went into its production. This contrasts with the modern understanding of mainstream economics, that the value of a thing is determined by what one is willing to give up to obtain the thing. Ironically, Smith is often cited for being the conceptual builder of free markets in Capitalism, and also cited as a main contributor to Communist theory, via Marx.
Smith believed that while human motives were often driven by selfishness and greed, the competition in the free market would tend to benefit society as a whole by keeping prices low, while still building in an incentive for a wide variety of goods and services. Nevertheless, he was wary of businessmen and argued against the formation of monopolies.
It seems that his fears have shown their relevance and we are in this global dilemma. AIG is the world's largest insurance firm, and is now quite possibly the world's fourth largest social benefiting program outside of Social Security, and Medicare which are also nearly bankrupt. For the third largest social welfare program we have the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bailouts and the new mortgage holding corporation of the United States of America. Then we have the multiple corporations that make up the new social banking system that has recently become part the nations growing stock portfolio program.
The difference to what the current administration has done here is created the sovereign social state policies that Smith discusses. The sovereign continually declare the welfare state as being dis functional until it is time to meet the needs of the sovereign.
An often-quoted passage from The Wealth of Nations is:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
It is for this reason and this reason alone that there MUST be full transparency and accountability to all actions that are taking place in today's economic crisis. We as the major stockholders to all of these new corporate structures must maintain our position of such and demand that.
(c)Copyright 2008 Doug Boggs
I wanted to dive into a few thoughts from Adam Smith, and his landmark book "Wealth of Nations", Book V, Ch.2, Of the Sources of the General or Public Revenue of the Society...
V.2.8
No two characters seem more inconsistent than those of trader and sovereign. If the trading spirit of the English East India Company renders them very bad sovereigns, the spirit of sovereignty seems to have rendered them equally bad traders. While they were traders only they managed their trade successfully, and were able to pay from their profits a moderate dividend to the proprietors of their stock. Since they became sovereigns, with a revenue which, it is said, was originally more than three millions sterling, they have been obliged to beg extraordinary assistance of government in order to avoid immediate bankruptcy. In their former situation, their servants in India considered themselves as the clerks of merchants: in their present situation, those servants consider themselves as the ministers of sovereigns.
V.2.9
A state may sometimes derive some part of its public revenue from the interest of money, as well as from the profits of stock. If it has amassed a treasure, it may lend a part of that treasure either to foreign states, or to its own subjects.
This seems to me to ring so true to today, just as it did then. Since this first publication back in 1776, I guess it shows that we have(?) come a long way as we look at our current state of affairs and the current band-aids that have plagued the American taxpayer in order to bailout the corporations. This shows us just how important it truly is for this current campaign and the result as to how and who should be running this country for the future. Do to the nature of our economic crisis, as well as, the global economic fallout and the necessary reparations to the perceptions of the world populace to our country this next leader is going to be pivotal to the future global political landscape for generations to come.
Let's look at the relevance to Smith's writings and today's economic crisis.
Recently, we have bailed out some of the largest corporations, and Treasury Secretary Paulson has publicly stated that we should make sure these businesses do not fail. There is some who think that Paulson has self interests involved in which companies succeed and which may fail due to some of the narcissistic patterns of funding and oversight thus far.
Perhaps this is the human pattern of self interest. The current Republican welfare state for the rich shows us that the trickle down theory of economics does not work. Smith tells us that the wages of the poor should be high in relation to their position, and he views that a common street porter was not intellectually inferior to a philosopher. In other words, as to the founding fathers, we are all created equal and should have equal rights and opportunities.
This brings me to Paulson's latest move. If we, as the tax payers and funders of the bailouts to the banks, insurance, and mortgage institutions that we have seen take place, we should also be given the voting rights as the stock holders to these firms. We should be given the opportunity to delegate our individual proxy votes for these companies with transparent oversight to these voting processes. This will give the American people the opportunity to truly protect the investment that our government has put our money into, and to maintain that the people that Paulson has placed into power positions are scrutinized and managed appropriately and fairly as with any other corporation. We, as tax payers, are now the major stock holders to these firms. As a Union of voters we should be given these rights and voting powers just as with any other corporate structure.
The interesting thing about this democratic capitalistic management philosophy that has transpired through the Bush administration is that we are riding a fine line to communism and or dictatorship. I use the first volume of Marx's major work, "Capital", which was published in German in 1867, as an example. In it, Marx focused on the labour(sic) theory of value and what he considered to be the exploitation of labour by capital. The labour(sic) theory of value held that the value of a thing was determined by the labor that went into its production. This contrasts with the modern understanding of mainstream economics, that the value of a thing is determined by what one is willing to give up to obtain the thing. Ironically, Smith is often cited for being the conceptual builder of free markets in Capitalism, and also cited as a main contributor to Communist theory, via Marx.
Smith believed that while human motives were often driven by selfishness and greed, the competition in the free market would tend to benefit society as a whole by keeping prices low, while still building in an incentive for a wide variety of goods and services. Nevertheless, he was wary of businessmen and argued against the formation of monopolies.
It seems that his fears have shown their relevance and we are in this global dilemma. AIG is the world's largest insurance firm, and is now quite possibly the world's fourth largest social benefiting program outside of Social Security, and Medicare which are also nearly bankrupt. For the third largest social welfare program we have the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bailouts and the new mortgage holding corporation of the United States of America. Then we have the multiple corporations that make up the new social banking system that has recently become part the nations growing stock portfolio program.
The difference to what the current administration has done here is created the sovereign social state policies that Smith discusses. The sovereign continually declare the welfare state as being dis functional until it is time to meet the needs of the sovereign.
An often-quoted passage from The Wealth of Nations is:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
It is for this reason and this reason alone that there MUST be full transparency and accountability to all actions that are taking place in today's economic crisis. We as the major stockholders to all of these new corporate structures must maintain our position of such and demand that.
(c)Copyright 2008 Doug Boggs
Monday, August 4, 2008
and nothing but the truth...
There is an unknown line that people know exists in order to reach, rich. That is, that it is a relative term, rich. In regards to the monetary definition it takes a bit more today than it used to twenty years ago. Back then, rich might have meant a few hundred million or so. But now...it takes a billion or more. There are over 1000 known ( I will add) billionaires in the world. This elite group of people keep getting richer and richer...exponentially.
Oh, by the by, I think minimum wage increased recently after about ten years.
If aliens were to show up here, with their advanced minds, and technologies and see the means of living with global business and commerce would they find our capitalistic means of opportunity (or control) good? Would they see that this fair, NOT, and balanced, NOT, process of economics appropriate for the long term survival of our species? As a global community it has come to that phrase.
Are what we doing and the road we are all traveling in this global community feesible to sustain ourselves as a specie? For how long? Do we continue despite the fact that our actions will create timetables for not only our survival as a specie, but perhaps the survival of the planet as well?
Oh, by the by, I think minimum wage increased recently after about ten years.
If aliens were to show up here, with their advanced minds, and technologies and see the means of living with global business and commerce would they find our capitalistic means of opportunity (or control) good? Would they see that this fair, NOT, and balanced, NOT, process of economics appropriate for the long term survival of our species? As a global community it has come to that phrase.
Are what we doing and the road we are all traveling in this global community feesible to sustain ourselves as a specie? For how long? Do we continue despite the fact that our actions will create timetables for not only our survival as a specie, but perhaps the survival of the planet as well?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
