[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Pete, > > Please don't give the liberals credit for discovering this, and don't demean > yourself with the name. There is very little in the article that I would > take issue with. Multinational corps exist only to make a profit. They are > amoral organizations. Which is why I grudgingly agree that there must be > some sort of oversite. > > The point missed by the article, or at least glossed over, is that the > multinational involvement does create some wealth within a third world > country. Unfortunately it is restricted to government officials and the like > who sell out their countrymen for a few dollars. So, we have corrupt > business men working with corrupt officials. It's not that much different > than what we have in the US... just to a larger and more visible extent. > > For instance, here in Chesterfield County VA, we have home builders > contributing, in various ways, to county supervisors and other officials, and > amazingly they get zoming changes that don't fit the comprehensive plan and > other benefits like the county providing roads to their developments... all > at taxpayer expense. > > There is a common misconception that businesses are in bed with conservative > politicians when the truth is that the businesses will work with anyone who > will throw benefits their way... while contributing handsomely to them. I've > been at business council meetings where some of the local businessmen were > complaining at local politicians for not throwing more money their way. It > had nothing to do with the public welfare, but their own financial welfare. > > So for us to expect these groups (businessmen and politicians) to function in > any other way will only lead us to disappointment when they are lacking the > ingredient of integrity. That should be the thing we look at in electing > officials, not what they are going to do for me! > > The point was made that this arrangement will not lift the poor out of > poverty. > >Nothing will lift the poor out of poverty if they are simply waiting to be >lifted.
> I know it will annoy some people when I say the most reliable helping hand > they >can get is at the end of their own arm. > > Larry Miller > You mean unions? What you should throw into your equation is that business own politicians and politicians own police and military. So when you say poor must lift themselves up you say they should fight that system. Now the system is designed so that you cannot win fighting within it (specially if you are poor). So the only way to fight the system for the poor is from without. That means confronting the system's enforcing parts, i.e. police and eventually, military. That means revolution. Is that what you are proposing? Or do you envisage other way? Or is your suggestion just another way of saying "fuck the poor, I'm doing all right"? _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
