> From: Kenneth G. Cavness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan > Subject: [TAN] The Rise and Fall and Rise and Fall of Progressivism > Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 9:48 AM > > K-Mart, WorldCom, Enron, Global Crossing, Anderson -- they're big names, > and even bigger bankruptcies (or, in the case of WorldCom, they will > soon be bankrupt). K-Mart's can be blamed squarely on the fact that they > got greedy and thought they could go up against Wal-Mart. But they had > to get greedy, because they're a publicly traded company. > > When a company is publicly traded, they are responsible to their > shareholders. Since the shareholders are, by and large, an anonymous > morass of investors, they cannot tailor their message to any one given > person. Instead, they must focus almost entirely on earnings and profit. > If earnings and profit don't rise, the investors get spooked and put > their money elsewhere. So, big spending on things like livable wages, > good health care, or a retirement plan for your employees has to take a
> back seat to whether or not your fourth-quarter earnings met > projections. > > For over three decades, now, the prevailing view has been that this is > as it should be. Regulating industries caused the industries to buck > more than a wild mustang, and they used their power and influence to > come up with some damn good arguments for their positions. It was > certainly enough to pull the wool over the eyes of those who either > couldn't remember what it was like in the days of Upton Sinclair's The > Jungle, or put up with little things like hiding asbestos health > findings because they could see the dollar signs dancing just behind > their eyes. > > In a true laissez-faire capitalist free-market system, it would be up to > the consumer to determine the safety and usefulness of any given > product. In our current system, however, companies are given a veneer of > safety around which they try to poke as many holes as possible in order > to maintain the appearance of safety while still spending as little as > possible doing so. In this economy and in this country, it is so much > more important to maintain a good image than it is to actually do what > is requried to be done to have a good image. > > In a heavily regulated economy, the government determines the safety and > usefulness of any given product. Normally, you'd think that the > government would be an impassionate observer, but because of the low > salaries that government positions by their very nature provide, a > government regulator is going to be open to bribes and kickbacks. You're > given little less assurance of safety under government oversight than > you do by eyeballing things yourself. > > And it's certainly obvious at this point that the current system isn't > working. The SEC and FTC seem to be powerless to stop the train wrecks > that are businesses at this point. Companies had to lie, cheat, borrow, > and steal in order to cash in on the stock market boom of the late > 1990's, and the kind of people they brought in to do this just kept > right on doing it, long after there was a profit in doing so. What's > worse, they then had to try to cover it up, so they looked at every > accounting loophole that the government has given them in order to do > so. > > So, what's my point? > > You're going to see, very quickly, two things: a rise in activism > amongst Democrats who finally have found the anecdotes to go along with > their points, and a rise in those who will jump to the Green party, > since it is headed by Ralph Nader, king of the consumer advocates. Those > in the Republican Party now who were there because of economic reasons > might switch, but those in the Republican Party who were there because > of social reasons will stay. > > Unfortunately, this means that the Democratic Party is about to split > right down the middle. Those that see it as the only way to effect > change will stick around, and those who see it as a failed party will > rush to the Green Party. > > Which means that the Republicans will stay in power. These are people > whose entire philosophy is a mirror of those of the upper eschelons of > Corporate America. They can craft legislation that will have a great > deal of bark and little actual bite, much as the corporate world crafts > press releases or has press conferences while giving out as little > information as possible. In other words, nothing will change. > > It won't mollify the progressives much, but they'll have their own > problems internally, fighting about which party, the Greens or the > Democrats, is ruining the progressive advantage. > > What's so bad about this? > > Nothing will change, but you will still have the agitators in Congress > and locally who will do all in their power to root out the corruption in > the economy. WorldCom's just the start. We all know that everyone was > doing this in the 90's, people, and it's only a matter of time before > the truth is illuminated in a corporation that actually has a huge > impact on America. When it does, you're going to see investors flee en > masse from just about everything. This will mean that the possibility of > raising capital will be lost to the other companies, who will have their > credit ratings lowered, which will mean that corporations lose yet > another way of raising capital, and that's by underwritten loans. > > Without operating capital, these corporations will have to rely on > things they haven't had to rely on for 30 years -- profit and real > earnings. They won't be able to grow unless they actually have the > profits to allow them to grow. This will cause investors to flee en > masse from just about everything. This will mean that the possibility of > raising capital will be lost.... > > Do you see the vicious cycle here? Our country is Parliament, and > accountants are the Guy Fawkes, their hands on a match. And whether they > get proven the fools, or get blown up, the outcome is still the same. > > We're headed for another Great Depression. > > Think I'm wrong? > > When the companies go bust, they will have to make huge layoffs. > Consumers will finally be shaken enough that they will have to stop > spending money and start saving, which will add further to the loss of > profits and earnings from these corporations. The U.S. consumer is the > sole reason we're not in a depression now. When they finally get > disillusioned enough to stop spending money, it's all over. The carnage > will be massive, and in many cases it will be final. > > Think the government will bail us out this time? I don't. We already > have a debt so high that it takes up a huge portion of our government's > spending. If it tries to bail us out now, it won't have a leg to stand > on. > > This entire country's economics are based on lies, deception, and > trickery, and it is our fault. For believing what we wanted to believe, > instead of looking for the real truths. > > So, what do we do? Can we put the genie back in the bottle? Is there any > way to say "okay, so we know it's all based on a pack of lies, but just > to keep things going, we're going to pretend we never heard this?" > > What do you think? > > > -- > Kenneth G. Cavness > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.cavness.org/ >
