Ray Evans Harrell wrote:
[snip]
> It is not surprising that the for-profit sector would have feelings about
> being asked by the government to absorb that 40% in jobs that are not
> necessary. Ever wonder why they can cut twenty THOUSAND employees so
> easily and get a boast for their stock for doing so? This labor issue
> constitutes a hidden tax on the corporation. If you consider that the
> purpose of the corporation is NOT to produce a product, but that the product
> IS the profit to the management and shareholders then it makes no sense to
> deliberately spend more than you need, unless you have to for community
> survival.
[snip]
I thought this last item was what distinguished enlightened
capitalists like Nelson Rocdkefeller who realized
that you had to do something for the people or else there would
be no one left in 20 years to make profits from, from the myopic
"this quarter's bottom line" capitalisdts who will do whatever
it takes to beat wall street's predictions by a
penny or whatever.
> The problem is that they are basically false structures that have little to
> sustain them once they run out of victims to devour. That is social
> Darwinism at its most raw. (Remember California this summer?) The honest
> always admit that if you win someone else lost. The dishonest talk about
> win win which plays havoc with a game analogy. If there is not a winner
> and loser then there is no competition. Once the system has played out its
> myths and won as far as they can then they begin the implosion. (Some
> people speak of the Stock Market as the same model.) Enron began
> devouring itself once that happened. But the culture in Houston was such
> that many people that I know personally were excited by and happy to live
> within their environment. The problem was how much the rest of the world
> had to give in order for it to continue. Which is kind of the problem
> with all marketplaces where the purpose of trade becomes speculation rather
> than the development of a product and a quality of life that encourages
> humanity, growth and personal evolution. I have a personal belief that
> Clinton understood and accepted the above model. I also believe that he
> would not have let Enron collapse for pragmatic reasons that we are now
> seeing, even though it was a non Democratic company.
I see no problem with bailing out businesses, provided the government
gets an equity stake and a voice on the Board of Directors
proportionate to their assistance. Similarly, for persons to
be employees might not be so bad if they acquired an equity
stake and representation on the Board of Direcftors proportionate to
the surplus value they produce. Gradually, such procedures
might result in "capitalism" morphing into some kind of
material and not merely formal republic
(i.e., where the people did not just vote
on their political representatives but also on their managerial
representatives in that seconde but more important government
called "the economy").
>
> As for our government here, are any of you worried by the kinds of money now
> being put into the military and security machine? From a Supreme Court
> coup to another type of coup is not such a far jump, especially if you have
> all of the bases covered with your own people. Are we witnessing the old
> "Hero Tyrant" model, that took over all of the other great Democracies,
> asserting itself again. Hail who?
[snip]
George W could answer that question for you -- Hail to The Chief! ,
of course.
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/GeorgeWBush3.html
\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
