[Peace-discuss] Auto bailout - gas guzzlers guzzling more than
gas?
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Sat Nov 15 20:02:36 CST 2008
Laurie,
We still have entrepreneurs in this society running tiny companies. I
would refer you to the Yellow pages.
In the case of forests, not all of the old trees die at the same time,
but there demise certainly
does change the landscape as regarding opportunities.
Much of this horrific scaffolding of regulation that we have in this
country today exists purely for
the protection of giant corporations from new entrants. Take the FDA
for instance. Dont tell me
it aint so. I have been there and done that. I participated in the
meetings where it was discussed.
We need to phase out all forms of "corporate welfare". It sustains
unhealthy tissue in the economy
and ultimately leads to sinkhole collapses.
The interesting thing, and amusing to my sick sense of humour, so I am
sure you can appreciate it too, is how they,
the so-called leaders, continue to do the same stupid things, and the
voters continue to support them into office
even though the leaders continue to spit in the face of the public.
If we cannot find any way to promote entrepreneurship, everything you
buy will have made in xxxxx (somewhere else) stamped on it.
Maybe someday we will have a international regulation that requires all
products made in Amerika to have stamped on them "Warning. Made in the
U.S.S.A."
Wayne
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>
> > Nationalized, they will become administrative monsters like
> universities,
> > constantly wasting money, perverting reforms, and continually
> begging for
> > new infusions of money
>
>
>
> Aren't they already that as non-nationalized private organizations?
> The taxpayer has been supporting private enterprises for decades via
> subsidies and supports, tax laws and incentives, grants, and exclusive
> bidding and contracts. The only difference between nationalization
> and what we have now is that now the taxpayer has no control over the
> operation of the companies and gets none of the profits returned to
> them which would not be the case if the companies were nationalized. I
> doubt if anyone will be able to find a way to reverse history so as to
> go back to an old 18^th and 19^th century agrarian/entrepreneurial
> society in which companies were of the mom and pop variety or with
> less than 50 employees; they were also owned by the proprietors who
> managed them and served as laborers as well. For better or for worse,
> I think we are destined to have bureaucracies and large bureaucratic
> organizations to maintain a functional society in this day and age.
>
>
>
> Those are all things that plague any bureaucracy be it big or small;
> and bureaucracies seem to be inevitable in an industrial and
> post-industrial society. In fact, it may be that such things as
> waste of money, inefficiencies, and perverting of reforms are what
> enable bureaucracies to survive, adapt, and be productive. These days
> the term "small business" refers not to "mom & pop" enterprises which
> have few employees and administrative tasks to deal with the would
> require or benefit from a bureaucracy; it typically refers to
> organized enterprises employing 50 to 1000 or more employees and an
> extensive number and variety administrative tasks.
>
>
>
>
>
> >Let the collapsing big companies die like so many old dead trees,
> >so that fresh new growth can occur.
>
>
>
> I think that is totally optimistic and inaccurate to think that the
> existence of big companies NECESSARILY prevent new growth, although
> they may handicap and slow down new growth, and that the elimination
> of big companies will stimulate fresh new growth. There are many
> large companies that wait for small companies to take the risk of
> developing something and then they buy them out; just as there are
> many startup companies that will undertake projects with an eye to
> getting bought out by the big companies or they otherwise would not
> take on the project. Furthermore, many of the so-called fresh
> companies will only take risks of doing something innovative if there
> is no risk to them for doing so (i.e., they only do what there is
> definite guarantees of funding for the undertaking in terms of
> available venture capital, certain profits and sales, and protections
> from competition). Fresh and new growth does not generally mean more
> competition, more innovation and risk-taking, or better companies.*
> *Lastly*, *like in the case of forests, there is and will be a long
> time lag between the death of the old growth and the maturation of the
> new growth to the point that the new growth can pick up the slack left
> from the lost old growth.
>
>
>
> * *
>
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 15, 2008 3:13 PM
> *To:* LAURIE SOLOMON
> *Cc:* kmedina at illinois.edu; 'peace discuss'
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Auto bailout - gas guzzlers guzzling
> more than gas?
>
>
>
> The big companies need to fail because inherent decay and obsolences.
>
> Nationalized, they will become administrative monsters like universities,
> constantly wasting money, perverting reforms, and continually begging for
> new infusions of money.
>
> Let the collapsing big companies die like so many old dead trees,
> so that fresh new growth can occur.
>
> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>
> Try this on for size: If a company is too big to let fail, it should be
> nationalized since it is no longer a private operation with only local
> impact and consequences but a national operation with societal impact and
> consequences. The whole notion of Capitalism and free enterprise was, as I
> understand it, based on small local enterprises owned and directly run by
> entrepreneurial individuals whose own money was at risk so as to justify
> their getting the profits. It was not based on large national and
> international corporations run by hired managers who have little personal
> stake in the corporation other than employment and are protected by "Golden
> Parachutes" on behalf of institutional stockholders and third party
> investors who have little actual control over operations.
>
> If these corporations are going to use national resources and have such
> significance to the national economy and the lives of so many individual
> citizens, then they should be owned and operated by the citizenry for the
> benefit of the common good of the citizenry under governmental supervision
> and control.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net>
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of E. Wayne
> Johnson
> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 12:47 PM
> To: kmedina at illinois.edu <mailto:kmedina at illinois.edu>
> Cc: peace discuss
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Auto bailout - gas guzzlers guzzling more than
> gas?
>
> Just simply let the big companies fail. They eventually will anyway, and
> bailing them out only prolongs the agony and intensifies the impact.
> If the tree doesnt produce good fruit, why do we burden the ground with
> a bad tree?
> Cut the dead trees down, and make room for good new trees.
>
> If there is any benefit to the society from domestic auto production,
> some wise
> entrepreneurs will rise up and start producing cars again, or mopeds or
> bicycles or 3 wheel bikes, etc. which they could do
> now if they were not being crowded out by the giants who use government
> regulations as
> a barrier to competition and entry of useful new small businesses.
>
> Deep psychological blow?
> Oh my dear. You break my heart. Things are tough all over guys.
> But hey. I understand. Here's a hug and a hanky.
>
> Karen Medina wrote:
>
>
> Ricky wrote: >
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/newspid=washingtonstory&sid=aBlCucXR33Jw <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/newspid=washingtonstory&sid=aBlCucXR33Jw>
>
>
>
>
>
> "The failure of those companies would likely bring down parts-makers,
>
>
>
> dealerships
>
>
> and suppliers in addition to inflicting a deep psychological blow."
>
>
>
> The whole argument about "too big to fail" is frightening. I think there
>
>
>
> should be
>
>
> restrictions on how large any company / bank can become. Wouldn't a bunch
>
>
>
> of
>
>
> smaller companies create a more competitive environment? Allow the
>
>
>
> industries to
>
>
> change directions a bit faster? Spread out the profits? Have fewer
>
>
>
> extremely high
>
>
> paid individuals? Be kinder to their workers? Lay off fewer people in hard
>
>
>
> times?
>
>
> -karen medina
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Peace-discuss mailing list
>
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081115/afc0719a/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list