See comments to https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/20/opinion/sunday/nafta-mexico-trump-ambassador.html.
Many “conservatives” complain about “liberals” attacking Trump and the Republicans. Have they forgotten their obstruction of many of Obama’s initiatives and the false claims about his birth?
After years of obstruction of Obama’s appointees, why are they in such a rush to appoint judges?
It seems to me that many “conservatives” only want to conserve their power. They completely ignore the Constitution, Washington’s Farewell Address (foreign entanglements), Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (government of the people, by the people, and for the people), and Eisenhower’s Farewell Address (military-industrial complex).
What would we call a party that considered these important thoughts in their own governance of our country?
Showing posts with label military-industrial complex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military-industrial complex. Show all posts
Saturday, October 20, 2018
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
“Real Republicans”
Should we even call “Republicans” “conservatives”? They certainly aren’t concerned with “Res publica” (public things) and the only thing they want to conserve is their power.
I think real conservatives from Edmund Burke to Dwight Eisenhower would not want to be associated with them. Remember Eisenhower’s warning about the “military-industrial complex”.
Posted as a comment: http://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/opinion/the-force-of-decency-awakens.html?comments#permid=26131193:26134931.
I think real conservatives from Edmund Burke to Dwight Eisenhower would not want to be associated with them. Remember Eisenhower’s warning about the “military-industrial complex”.
Posted as a comment: http://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/opinion/the-force-of-decency-awakens.html?comments#permid=26131193:26134931.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Corporations, persons, tools, and fools
Corporations are persons? Someone said that you know a corporation is a person when Texas executes one.
How did we get to this situation that corporations have “freedom of speech” and many other freedoms granted to actual living individual persons?
Corporations were originally created to give monarchs and other nobility a piece of the economic action. As the merchant class rose in the cities, the monarch couldn’t tax them because they had no land. By creating a corporation of a given business, the monarch could insist on a few shares of a corporation and rake in more in profits than he would have in taxes. Also, by giving a monopoly to a corporation, he protected it from competition.
These monopolies soon expanded far outside the monarch’s country with colonization of other parts of the world. An example is how British law forbade the American colonies from producing a long list of items or importing goods through any other organization than the British East India Company. Was the British East India Company composed of Adam Smith’s “order of men” who “were not to be trusted” with proposing legislation? The Boston Tea Party was an act of defiance against the corporate monopoly enjoyed by the British East India Company.
Is today’s Tea Party a tool of corporations who want to extract minerals without paying the full cost of such extraction? These corporations are waging legislative, administrative, and public relations campaigns to allow them to operate on corporate terms. Are these corporations composed of Adam Smith’s “order of men” who “were not to be trusted” with proposing legislation? Also as the British East India Company was a “foreign” entity, many of the extractors of today are entities from out of state or even out of the country.
Does “Open for Business” or “Business-friendly” apply to locally-owned companies or to large corporations that will move elsewhere whenever they think an area is not bending to their wishes? Does it mean that large corporations will be given subsidies, including reduced taxes, that aren’t given to locally-owned businesses? If we want truth in government, maybe we should insist that states and localities that claim to be “Business-friendly” should admit being “Corporation-friendly”.
Can you find “corporation” in the U.S. Constitution? That was deliberate. Many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention remembered well the dominance of a corporation over Colonial affairs and did not want a repeat of that stranglehold. Many of the national politicians of the time had a vision of craftsman and farmers plying their goods in local markets.
But with advances in transportation, the economic situation changed drastically. To build canals required capital. To gather capital, groups of people had to organize to buy shares and/or borrow money. If the enterprise failed, the shareholders didn’t want to be held individually responsible for the losses of the company beyond their own financial contribution. Wouldn’t you? Thus, the limited liability corporation came to the United States.
With the coming of the railroads came ever larger corporations. The Illinois Central Railroad hired a lawyer to get special privileges for it like breaking unions, hiring foreign workers, and gaining privileges not held by people. Yep, that lawyer was the “of the people, by the people, and for the people” guy. Apparently, the Civil War opened his eyes to many things. This excerpt from one of his letters shows this rather strongly:
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
My, how political parties morph over the generations! I think only two Republican Presidents have had similar misgivings.
Many decades later another war-time leader worried about the “military-industrial” complex. But one of his predecessors pulled a corporate branding trick on the American people. The Department of War was now to be called the Department of Defense. Now corporations weren’t in the business of selling war machines but were fulfilling “defense contracts”.
One of the political ironies is the political party the claims the federal government can’t do anything right bends over backward to lavish more money on the military-industrial complex. Do they not know that snafu and fubar are terms coined by the guys in the foxholes?
So, are corporations the tools of the people or are the people the tools of corporations? If we let the latter happen then we are the fools.
For a lot more about the abuse of and by corporations, see “Life, Inc., How the World Became a Corporation and How to Take It Back” by Douglas Rushkoff.
Mel owns shares in a few corporations and almost always votes against their overpaid executives and boards.
How did we get to this situation that corporations have “freedom of speech” and many other freedoms granted to actual living individual persons?
Corporations were originally created to give monarchs and other nobility a piece of the economic action. As the merchant class rose in the cities, the monarch couldn’t tax them because they had no land. By creating a corporation of a given business, the monarch could insist on a few shares of a corporation and rake in more in profits than he would have in taxes. Also, by giving a monopoly to a corporation, he protected it from competition.
These monopolies soon expanded far outside the monarch’s country with colonization of other parts of the world. An example is how British law forbade the American colonies from producing a long list of items or importing goods through any other organization than the British East India Company. Was the British East India Company composed of Adam Smith’s “order of men” who “were not to be trusted” with proposing legislation? The Boston Tea Party was an act of defiance against the corporate monopoly enjoyed by the British East India Company.
Is today’s Tea Party a tool of corporations who want to extract minerals without paying the full cost of such extraction? These corporations are waging legislative, administrative, and public relations campaigns to allow them to operate on corporate terms. Are these corporations composed of Adam Smith’s “order of men” who “were not to be trusted” with proposing legislation? Also as the British East India Company was a “foreign” entity, many of the extractors of today are entities from out of state or even out of the country.
Does “Open for Business” or “Business-friendly” apply to locally-owned companies or to large corporations that will move elsewhere whenever they think an area is not bending to their wishes? Does it mean that large corporations will be given subsidies, including reduced taxes, that aren’t given to locally-owned businesses? If we want truth in government, maybe we should insist that states and localities that claim to be “Business-friendly” should admit being “Corporation-friendly”.
Can you find “corporation” in the U.S. Constitution? That was deliberate. Many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention remembered well the dominance of a corporation over Colonial affairs and did not want a repeat of that stranglehold. Many of the national politicians of the time had a vision of craftsman and farmers plying their goods in local markets.
But with advances in transportation, the economic situation changed drastically. To build canals required capital. To gather capital, groups of people had to organize to buy shares and/or borrow money. If the enterprise failed, the shareholders didn’t want to be held individually responsible for the losses of the company beyond their own financial contribution. Wouldn’t you? Thus, the limited liability corporation came to the United States.
With the coming of the railroads came ever larger corporations. The Illinois Central Railroad hired a lawyer to get special privileges for it like breaking unions, hiring foreign workers, and gaining privileges not held by people. Yep, that lawyer was the “of the people, by the people, and for the people” guy. Apparently, the Civil War opened his eyes to many things. This excerpt from one of his letters shows this rather strongly:
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
My, how political parties morph over the generations! I think only two Republican Presidents have had similar misgivings.
Many decades later another war-time leader worried about the “military-industrial” complex. But one of his predecessors pulled a corporate branding trick on the American people. The Department of War was now to be called the Department of Defense. Now corporations weren’t in the business of selling war machines but were fulfilling “defense contracts”.
One of the political ironies is the political party the claims the federal government can’t do anything right bends over backward to lavish more money on the military-industrial complex. Do they not know that snafu and fubar are terms coined by the guys in the foxholes?
So, are corporations the tools of the people or are the people the tools of corporations? If we let the latter happen then we are the fools.
For a lot more about the abuse of and by corporations, see “Life, Inc., How the World Became a Corporation and How to Take It Back” by Douglas Rushkoff.
Mel owns shares in a few corporations and almost always votes against their overpaid executives and boards.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
The fallacy of Buy American
Once again the cry "Buy American" is heard from high and low places. One was Chip Cravaack, R-MN8, putting a statement into a transportation bill that the steel used in highways should be American-made.
A little aside I can't resist. Aren't the Republicans the one who are all for free markets and no government intervention? Shouldn't the free market decide the best quality for the lowest price? Not some government bureaucrat or politician?
I try to buy American and buy local, but in general this is only a preference, not an iron-clad rule. We buy local produce when it is available. I love my made-in-Minnesota Red Wing work boots and some of my made-in-America yard equipment. For decades I wore 36-30 Levis and then they suddenly became too long. It wasn't me that changed; I found the 30-inch inseam was actually over 31 inches! Could that have been because Levi Strauss outsourced the making of Levis and that somebody didn't make a proper conversion to metric?
On the other hand we own one American vehicle and one Japanese vehicle, each bought for specific reasons, not the country of manufacture. Can you find an American-made digital camera? Same for most computers and related stuff. The software might be made anywhere. I prefer a French music-composing program to a Minnesota program. Do you know anyplace in the U.S., other than Hawaii or greenhouses where bananas are grown? Would you rather have chicory than coffee?
On the other hand, we should be grateful that many other countries aren't pushing too strongly on Buy English or Buy German, and surprise, Buy Chinese.
Personally, I'm very glad that in the 60s and 70s European governments weren't pushing very hard to buy only European computers. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to live in Europe for six years maintaining software for Univac computers made in Minnesota. Our customers included Lufthansa, the French Army, and the Swedish Police.
Minnesota doesn't make many computers now-a-days, but many medical devices are designed and made in Minnesota. If we don't buy goods from other countries, should they buy our medical devices?
Farmers in the U.S. are glad that they have a big export market for all kinds of agricultural products, from grains to meat. Although India still has many import restrictions "Indian Consumers already buy almonds and grapes from California, and apples by the truckload from Washington." Adam Belz, "Minnesota looks for a bigger taste of India", Star Tribune, 2012-07-19
The military-industrial complex is probably very glad that military establishments around the world aren't restricted by Buy Nationally policies. Even the most militarily-oriented Congress couldn't raise enough taxes to buy all the weapons that the U.S. military-industrial complex could produce. So, those countries buying U.S. military hardware have to raise funds to purchase the hardware. To do that, they have to sell goods and services outside their own countries, for example, oil!
One of the most interesting news items is the direction of parts for wind turbines passing through the Duluth Harbor. Big blades are coming from Europe to U.S. destinations. Big blades are going out to many other countries, the latest being Brazil. Probably each set of blades had different features that met the requirements of the buyers.
And then there is the name game. Some years ago a U.S. city was considering buying a piece of heavy equipment. The city council favored Caterpillar over Kubota because the later was an American name. Surprise! The Caterpillar was made in Japan and the Kubota was made in the U.S.
It isn't easy being a free-marketer and a protectionist at the same time.
A little aside I can't resist. Aren't the Republicans the one who are all for free markets and no government intervention? Shouldn't the free market decide the best quality for the lowest price? Not some government bureaucrat or politician?
I try to buy American and buy local, but in general this is only a preference, not an iron-clad rule. We buy local produce when it is available. I love my made-in-Minnesota Red Wing work boots and some of my made-in-America yard equipment. For decades I wore 36-30 Levis and then they suddenly became too long. It wasn't me that changed; I found the 30-inch inseam was actually over 31 inches! Could that have been because Levi Strauss outsourced the making of Levis and that somebody didn't make a proper conversion to metric?
On the other hand we own one American vehicle and one Japanese vehicle, each bought for specific reasons, not the country of manufacture. Can you find an American-made digital camera? Same for most computers and related stuff. The software might be made anywhere. I prefer a French music-composing program to a Minnesota program. Do you know anyplace in the U.S., other than Hawaii or greenhouses where bananas are grown? Would you rather have chicory than coffee?
On the other hand, we should be grateful that many other countries aren't pushing too strongly on Buy English or Buy German, and surprise, Buy Chinese.
Personally, I'm very glad that in the 60s and 70s European governments weren't pushing very hard to buy only European computers. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to live in Europe for six years maintaining software for Univac computers made in Minnesota. Our customers included Lufthansa, the French Army, and the Swedish Police.
Minnesota doesn't make many computers now-a-days, but many medical devices are designed and made in Minnesota. If we don't buy goods from other countries, should they buy our medical devices?
Farmers in the U.S. are glad that they have a big export market for all kinds of agricultural products, from grains to meat. Although India still has many import restrictions "Indian Consumers already buy almonds and grapes from California, and apples by the truckload from Washington." Adam Belz, "Minnesota looks for a bigger taste of India", Star Tribune, 2012-07-19
The military-industrial complex is probably very glad that military establishments around the world aren't restricted by Buy Nationally policies. Even the most militarily-oriented Congress couldn't raise enough taxes to buy all the weapons that the U.S. military-industrial complex could produce. So, those countries buying U.S. military hardware have to raise funds to purchase the hardware. To do that, they have to sell goods and services outside their own countries, for example, oil!
One of the most interesting news items is the direction of parts for wind turbines passing through the Duluth Harbor. Big blades are coming from Europe to U.S. destinations. Big blades are going out to many other countries, the latest being Brazil. Probably each set of blades had different features that met the requirements of the buyers.
And then there is the name game. Some years ago a U.S. city was considering buying a piece of heavy equipment. The city council favored Caterpillar over Kubota because the later was an American name. Surprise! The Caterpillar was made in Japan and the Kubota was made in the U.S.
It isn't easy being a free-marketer and a protectionist at the same time.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Give Democracy a Chance
After reading of the popular uprising in Tunisia, I can't help but give this entry a parallel title to my previous entry.
The chance I hope for any democracies that arise in the Arab world by popular demand is that the U. S. stays out of the way. Almost anything the U.S. does, be it some support for the existing rulers or some support to the people is bound to backfire in one way or another.
The only thing the U. S. should do is to listen to whoever is in power, but promise nothing.
But, I'm pessimistic. Somewhere in the vast U.S. military-intelligence complex will be those who call for intervention in our national interest. Our only national interest is to help any U. S. citizens who want to leave countries in turmoil.
The chance I hope for any democracies that arise in the Arab world by popular demand is that the U. S. stays out of the way. Almost anything the U.S. does, be it some support for the existing rulers or some support to the people is bound to backfire in one way or another.
The only thing the U. S. should do is to listen to whoever is in power, but promise nothing.
But, I'm pessimistic. Somewhere in the vast U.S. military-intelligence complex will be those who call for intervention in our national interest. Our only national interest is to help any U. S. citizens who want to leave countries in turmoil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)