The
Corporate Betrayal of America
บรรษัททรยศแห่งอเมริกา
โดย
พอล บุชเชต์
Multinational corporations have
built their businesses on the backs of American taxpayers. They've depended on
government research, national defense, the legal and educational systems, and
our infrastructure.
Yet they've turned around and mocked
us with declining tax payments. They've cut workers. They've refused to invest
their massive profits in job-producing research and development. And they've
insulted existing employees with low wages and dwindling retirement support.
บรรษัทนานาชาติได้สร้างธุรกิจของพวกเขาบนหลังของผู้เสียภาษีชาวอเมริกัน. พวกเขาพึ่งงานวิจัย, กองกำลังป้องกันชาติ,
ระบบกฎหมาย และ การศึกษาของรัฐบาล, และระบบสาธารณูปโภคของเรา. แต่มันกลับหันหลังกลับและเย้ยหยันพวกเราด้วยการจ่ายภาษีน้อยลง. พวกเขาลดจ้างคนงาน. พวกเขามายอมลงทุนจากกำไรมหาศาลในการวิจัยและพัฒนาเพื่อสร้างงาน.
และพวกเขาแดกดันดูถูกลูกจ้างที่มีอยู่ด้วยค่าแรงต่ำและเงินบำนาญที่หดหาย.
(Photo: Lindsay/flickr)
As a final disdainful act, many of
them have tried to convince us that they LOSE money in the U.S. while only
making profits overseas.
เพื่อเป็นการดูถูกเหยียดหยามที่สุด,
หลายบรรษัทได้พยายามโฆษณาชวนเชื่อพวกเราว่า พวกเขาสูญเสียเงินตราในสหรัฐฯ
ในขณะที่ทำกำไรได้แค่ในแดนโพ้นทะเล.
Here are the facts.
นี่คือข้อเท็จจริง.
Business Built on Our Backs / ธุรกิจแบบทำนาบนหลังของพวกเรา
(a) Research / การวิจัย
The most essential aspect of
business growth is the long-term basic research that is largely conducted
with government money. Starting in the 1950s, taxpayer-funded research at
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (the Internet), the National
Institute of Health (pharmaceuticals), and the National Science Foundation (the
Digital Library Initiative) has laid a half-century foundation for corporate
product development. Even today 60%
of university research is government-supported.
ปัจจัยสำคัญที่สุดสำหรับการขยายตัวทางธุรกิจ
คือ การวิจัยพื้นฐานระยะยาว ที่ส่วนใหญ่กระทำด้วยเงินของรัฐบาล. เริ่มต้นในทศวรรษ 1950s, งานวิจัยด้วยเงินภาษีที่
องค์กรโครงการวิจัยการป้องกันก้าวหน้า (อินเตอร์เน็ต), สถาบันสุขภาพแห่งชาติ
(เภสัชกรรม). และ มูลนิธิวิทยาศาสตร์แห่งชาติ (โครงการห้องสมุดดิจิตอล) ได้วางรากฐานมาครึ่งศตวรรษเพื่อการพัฒนาผลิตภัณฑ์ของบรรษัท. แม้ทุกวันนี้ การวิจัยในมหาวิทยาลัย 60% ได้รับเงินสนับสนุนจากรัฐบาล.
The tech industry is a special case,
with many computer and communications companies coming of age in the 1990s,
when industry funding for computer research declined dramatically and
government research funding continued to climb. As of 2009 universities
were still receiving ten times more science & engineering funding from
government than from industry.
อุตสาหกรรมเทคฯ
เป็นกรณีพิเศษ, เมื่อหลายๆ
บริษัทคอมพิวเตอร์และการสื่อสารเติบโตแข่งขันกันได้ในทศวรรษ 1990s,
เมื่อเงินทุนจากภาคอุตสาหกรรมเพื่องานวิจัยคอมพิวเตอร์ลดลงอย่างเห็นชัด และ
เงินสนับสนุนการวิจัยของรัฐบาลยังคงไต่ขึ้นสูง.
ในปี 2009 บรรดามหาวิทยาลัยยังคงรับเงินสนับสนุนด้านวิทยาศาสตร์และวิศวกรรมศาสตร์จากรัฐบาลมากกว่าจากภาคอุตสาหกรรมถึง
10 เท่า.
(b) Infrastructure / การสาธารณูปโภค
Thanks to the taxpayer-funded National Highway System, corporations have acquired access
to markets across the country for over 60 years. Along with road construction
came the water,
electric, and telephone facilities needed to sustain their businesses.
ต้องขอบคุณระบบทางหลวงแผ่นดิน
ที่สร้างจากเงินผู้จ่ายภาษี, บรรษัทได้เข้าถึงตลาดทั่วประเทศมากว่า 60 ปีแล้ว. พร้อมกับการก่อสร้างถนน
ตามมาด้วย น้ำประปา, ไฟฟ้า, และโทรศัพท์ ที่จำเป็นสำหรับธำรงภาคธุรกิจ.
Today, the publicly supported
communications infrastructure allows the richest 10% of Americans to readily
manipulate their 80% share of the stock market. CEOs rely on roads and seaports and airports to ship their products, the
FAA and TSA and Coast Guard and Department of Transportation to safeguard them,
a nationwide energy grid to power their factories, and communications towers
and satellites to conduct online business. Private jets use 16
percent of air traffic control resources while paying only 3% of the bill.
ทุกวันนี้,
ระบบสาธารณูปโภคที่สร้างและบำรุงโดยสาธารณชน ได้อนุญาตให้ชาวอเมริกัน 10% ที่ร่ำรวยที่สุด ชักใยผ่องถ่าย 80% ของหุ้นของพวกเขาในตลาดหุ้น. พวก
ซีอีโอ อาศัย ถนน, ท่าเรือทะเล และ สนามบิน เพื่อส่งผลิตภัณฑ์ของพวกเขา,
อาศัยองค์กรการบินและขนส่ง (FAA
และ TSA) และหน่วยรักษาการณ์ชายฝั่ง และ
กระทรวงการขนส่ง เพื่อพิทักษ์พวกเขา,
และโครงข่ายพลังงานทั่วประเทศเพื่อเดินเครื่องโรงงานของพวกเขา,
และหอสื่อสารและดาวเทียม เพื่อดำเนินธุรกิจออนไลน์. เครื่องบินเจ๊ตส่วนตัว
ใช้ทรัพยากรจราจรทางอากาศถึง 16% ในขณะที่จ่ายเพียง 3% ของใบเสร็จ.
(c) Law / กฎหมาย
A litany of advantages accrues to
the business world through the legal system. The wealthiest Americans are the
main beneficiaries of tax laws, property rights, zoning rules, patent and
copyright provisions, trade pacts, antitrust legislation, and contract regulations.
Their companies benefit, despite their publicly voiced objections to
regulatory agencies, from SBA and SEC guidelines that generally favor business,
and from FDA and USDA quality control measures that minimize consumer
complaints and product recalls.
รายการข้อได้เปรียบสารพัดที่ป้อนใส่โลกธุรกิจผ่านระบบกฎหมาย. ชาวอเมริกันที่ร่ำรวยที่สุดเป็นผู้ได้รับผลประโยชน์หลักในกฎหมายภาษี,
สิทธิเหนืออสังหาริมทรัพย์, กฎการแบ่งเขต, ลิขสิทธิ์และกรรมสิทธิ์,
ข้อตกลงทางการค้า, พรบ ต่อต้านทรัสต์, และข้อระเบียบควบคุมสัญญาว่าจ้าง. บริษัทของพวกเขาได้รับประโยชน์, ทั้งๆ
ที่พวกเขาจะส่งเสียงต่อต้านองค์กรควบคุมในที่สาธารณะ, จากระเบียบของ SBA และ SEC (คงจะเกี่ยวกับการธนาคารและการลงทุน/หุ้น???)
ที่โดยทั่วไปเข้าข้างภาคธุรกิจ, และ จากมาตรการควบคุมของ อย. (องค์การอาหารและยา)
และ องค์การเกษตร (USDA)
ที่ลดการร้องทุกข์ของผู้บริโภคและการเรียกคืนสินค้าให้เหลือน้อยที่สุด.
The growing numbers of financial industry executives have profited from 30 years
of deregulation, most notably the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Lobbying by
the financial industry has stifled reasonable proposals like a sales tax on
financial transactions.
จำนวนผู้บริหารของอุตสาหกรรมการเงินที่เพิ่มขึ้น
ได้กำไรจากการยกเลิกกฎควบคุมมาแล้ว 30 ปี, ที่เด่นชัดที่สุด
คือ การยกเลิก พรบ Glass-Steagall.
การล๊อบบี้ของอุตสาหกรรมการเงินได้กีดกันข้อเสนอที่สมเหตุสมผล เช่น
การเก็บภาษี ณ ที่ขายของการทำธุรกรรมการเงิน.
More big advantages are enjoyed by
multinational corporations through trade agreements like NAFTA, with international disputes
resolved by the business-friendly World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and
World Trade Organization. Federal judicial law protects our biggest companies from foreign
infringement. The proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership would put governments around the
world at the mercy of corporate decision-makers.
บรรษัทนานาชาติได้เปรียบที่มหาศาลกว่าผ่านข้อตกลงทางการค้า
เช่น NAFTA,
ด้วยข้อพิพาทระหว่างประเทศ ถูกแก้ไขด้วยธนาคารโลก (WB), กองทุนการเงินระหว่างประเทศ (IMF), และองค์การค้าโลก (WTO) ที่เป็นมิตรต่อภาคธุรกิจ. กระบวนกฎหมายของรัฐบาลกลาง
ปกป้องบริษัทใหญ่ที่สุดของเราจากการล่วงละเมิดของต่างชาติ. ข้อเสนอ TPP
จะทำให้รัฐบาลทั่วโลกอยู่ใต้ความเมตตากรุณาของผู้ตัดสินใจของบรรษัท.
(d) Education / การศึกษา
Public colleges have helped to train
the chemists, physicists, chip designers, programmers, engineers, production
line workers, market analysts, and testers who create modern technological
devices. At the primary and secondary levels, the "equal opportunity"
principle mandated by the Supreme Court in Brown vs. the Board of Education has
contributed to business growth, building the math and language skills that
until recently led the world.
วิทยาลัยรัฐได้ช่วยฝึกอบรมนักเคมี,
นักฟิสิกซ์, นักออกแบบชิป, นักเขียนโปรแกม, วิศวกร, คนงานในสายการผลิต,
นักวิเคราะห์ตลาด, และนักทดสอบ ผู้สรรค์สร้างอุปกรณ์เทคโนโลยีสมัยใหม่. ในขั้นปฐมภูมิและทุติยภูมิ. หลักการ “โอกาสที่เท่าเทียม”
ที่เป็นคำสั่งจากศาลสูงสุด ใน กรณีของ บราวน์ ปะทะ บอร์ดการศึกษา ได้ทำให้ภาคธุรกิจเติบโต,
สร้างทักษะคณิตศาสตร์และภาษาจนเมื่อไม่นานได้นำในโลก.
(e) Defense / การป้องกัน
The U.S. government will be spending
$55 billion on Homeland Security this year, in addition to $673 billion
for the military. Most of their resources, along with local police and
emergency services and the National Guard, are focused on crimes against
wealth.
รัฐบาลสหรัฐฯ
จะใช้เงิน $55 พันล้าน
ในการป้องกันถิ่นฐานบ้านเกิด ในปีนี้, เพิ่มจาก $673
พันล้านสำหรับกองทัพ.
ทรัพยากรส่วนใหญ่ของพวกเขา, รวมทั้งตำรวจท้องถิ่น และ การบริการฉุกเฉิน และ
รปภ แห่งชาติ, ล้วนเพ่งอยู่ที่อาชญากรรมต่อความมั่งคั่ง.
Belittling Us Instead Of Paying Us
Back /
เหยียดหยามพวกเราแทนที่จะจ่ายคืน
Instead of paying for their decades
of government-supported growth, corporations have nearly stopped paying taxes,
leaving payroll deductions and individual income taxes as the main
sources of federal revenue.
From 2003 to 2011 total corporate
profits more than doubled from $900 billion to almost $2 trillion, but the
corporate income
tax rate dropped by more than half, from 22.5% to 10%.
แทนที่จะจ่ายชดเชยการสนับสนุนจากรัฐบาลมาหลายทศวรรษที่ช่วยให้ขยายตัวได้,
บรรษัทเกือบหยุดจ่ายภาษี, ปล่อยให้หัก ณ ที่จ่ายเงินเดือน และ ภาษีรายได้บุคคล
เป็นแหล่งหลักของคลังรัฐบาลกลาง. จากปี 2003 ถึง 2011,
กำไรบรรษัทรวมทั้งหมดได้เพิ่มมากกว่าสองเท่า จาก $900 พันล้านถึงเกือบ
$2 ล้านล้าน, แต่อัตราภาษีรายได้ของบรรษัท ตกลงกว่าครึ่ง, จาก 22.5%
เป็น 10%.
On top of this, the most profitable
corporations get the biggest subsidies. The Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in welfare
assistance to financial institutions and corporations. According to U.S. PIRG
and Citizens for Tax Justice, 280 top-earning Fortune 500 companies, which
together paid only half of the maximum 35 percent corporate tax rate, received
$223 billion in tax subsidies.
เหนือสิ่งเหล่านี้,
บรรษัทที่ได้กำไรมากที่สุด ได้รับเงินอุดหนุนจากภาครัฐมากที่สุด. กองทุนสำรองของรัฐบาลกลาง ได้ให้เงินกว่า $16 ล้านล้าน
เป็นเงินช่วยเหลือสวัสดิการแก่สถาบันการเงินและบรรษัท. ตามรายงานของ U.S. PIRG
and Citizens for Tax Justice (US PIRG และ พลเมืองเพื่อภาษีที่เป็นธรรม), บริษัทที่ทำรายได้สูงสุด 280 ราย ในบรรดา 500 บริษัทที่ฟอร์จูนจัดลำดับ, รวมแล้วจ่ายเพียงครึ่งหนึ่งของอัตราภาษีบรรษัทสูงสุด
35%, แต่ได้รับเงินอุดหนุนภาษีจากภาครัฐถึง $223 พันล้าน.
What have they been doing with their
windfall profits? Anywhere from $2.2 trillion to $3.4 trillion in cash is being held by non-financial
corporations, who have chosen to fatten stockholders rather than invest in new
production facilities and the employees needed to make them functional. Worse
yet, as reported by The Nation, Market Watch, and Business Insider, they've been steadily cutting jobs in order to 'streamline' their operations.
พวกเขากำลังทำอะไรกับกำไรแบบบุญหล่นทับนี้? เงินสดตั้งแต่ $2.2 พันล้าน ถึง $3.4 พันล้าน อยู่ในมือของบรรษัทที่ไม่เกี่ยวกับการเงิน,
ผู้เลือกที่จะทำให้ผู้ถือหุ้นอ้วนมากขึ้น แทนที่จะลงทุนในกระบวนการผลิตสินค้าใหม่
และ แก่ลูกจ้าง เพื่อให้พวกเขาทำงานได้.
ที่แย่กว่านั้น, ดังรายงานโดย เดอะเนชั่น, กลุ่มเฝ้าระวังตลาด, และ
ข้างในธุรกิจ, พวกเขากำลังลดตำแหน่ง/อัตรางานจ้าง เพื่อ
ทำให้กระบวนการผลิตและบริหาร “เพรียวขึ้น”.
For the employees who remain, average
real wages were $17.42 in 2007, down from $19.34 in 1972 (based on 2007
dollars). Wages as a percentage of the economy are at an all-time low.
สำหรับลูกจ้าง
ผู้ได้รับค่าแรงเฉลี่ยจริง $17.42 ในปี 2007, ลดลงจาก $19.34 ในปี 1972 (คำนวณจากค่าเงินในปี
2007). ค่าแรงเมื่อคิดเป็นสัดส่วนของเศรษฐกิจ
ตกต่ำที่สุด.
An Added Insult -- Profits Declared
Overseas, But Not in the U.S.
การล่วงละเมิดซ้ำเติม—แจ้งกำไรโพ้นทะเล, แต่ไม่ในสหรัฐฯ
Multinational corporations use the
vacuous argument of an excessive U.S. tax rate to defend their tax avoidance,
although in reality the U.S. has the third-lowest rate of tax
revenue per GDP among all OECD countries.
บรรษัทนานาชาติใช้ข้ออ้างลมๆ
แล้งๆ ถึงอัตราภาษีที่สูงเกิน เพื่อปกป้องการหลีกเลี่ยงภาษีของพวกเขา, แม้ว่า
ในความเป็นจริง สหรัฐฯ มีอัตราภาษีต่ำที่สุดเป็นอันดับสาม ของ
รายได้รัฐจากภาษีต่อจีดีพี ในบรรดาประเทศ OECD ทั้งหมด.
The biggest tax avoiders are not
content to just shirk their tax responsibilities. To sustain the image of
profitmaking for their investors, many of them claim hefty worldwide incomes
while reporting little or no income in the United States. Pfizer,
for example, just declared their fifth straight annual loss in the U.S.,
despite a five-year income total of over $50 billion.
ผู้หลีกเลี่ยงภาษีรายใหญ่ที่สุด
ไม่พอใจอยู่แค่การปัดทิ้งความรับผิดชอบด้านภาษี.
เพื่อธำรงภาพพจน์ของผู้ทำกำไรสำหรับผู้ลงทุนของพวกเขา,
หลายคนได้อ้างรายได้ทั่วโลกอย่างเป็นล่ำเป็นสัน
ในขณะที่รายงานเล็กน้อยหรือไม่มีรายได้ในสหรัฐฯ.
ยกตัวอย่าง บริษัท Pfizer
แค่แจ้งการขาดทุนประจำปีมาตอลดเป็นปีที่ห้าในสหรัฐฯ, ทั้งๆ
ที่ยอดรายได้ห้าปีสูงกว่า $50 พันล้าน.
A review of SEC data reveals more
chicanery. In the last two years Citigroup reported $27.8 billion in foreign
income, but a $5 billion loss in the United States. Exxon credits the U.S. for
1/3 of its revenue and 40% of its assets, but only 15% of its income. Apple has
2/3 of its employees in the U.S. but claims only 1/3 of its profits as U.S.
income.
การทบทวนข้อมูลของตลาดการลงทุน
เผยกลลวงมากมาย. ในสองปีหลัง ซิตี้กรุ๊ป
ได้รายงานรายได้จากต่างประเทศเป็นเงิน $27.8 พันล้าน, แต่ขาดทุน $5 พันล้านในสหรัฐฯ. Exxon ให้เครดิตกับสหรัฐฯ
สำหรับ 1/3
ของรายได้ทั้งหมดของมัน
และ 40% ของทรัพย์สินของมัน, แต่เพียง 15% ของเงินได้. แอปเปิลมีลูกจ้าง 2/3 ในสหรัฐฯ แต่อ้างว่า เงินได้จากสหรัฐฯ คิดเป็นเพียง
1/3 ของกำไรทั้งหมด.
Summing Up the Absurdity: You Made
Us the Best, But We Don't Have To Pay
สรุปการรัดเข็มขัด:
คุณทำให้พวกเราเป็นเลิศ, แต่เราไม่จำเป็นต้องจ่าย
Forbes responded to suggestions of American decline with
this stirring defense: "We lead the world in Internet innovation, music,
movies, biotech and many other technological fields that require out-of-the-box
thinking. From Apple to DreamWorks Studios, from Amazon to Zynga, we are the
world's innovators."
Forbes โต้ตอบเมื่อมีผู้แนะว่า
อเมริกันกำลังถดถอย ด้วยคำปลุกเร้าเสือป่า: “เรานำโลกในนวัตกรรมอินเตอร์เน็ต,
ดนตรี, ภาพยนตร์, ไบโอเทค และ สาขาเทคโนโลยีอื่นๆ มากมาย
ที่จะเป็นต้องคิดนอกกล่อง. จากแอปเปิล ถึง
DreamWorks Studios, จาก
อเมซอน ถึง Zynga,
เราเป็นนักนวัตกรรมของโลก”.
They might have added, "And we
don't have to give anything back to the people who made it all possible."
พวกเขาอาจเสริมว่า,
“และเราไม่จำเป็นต้องคืนอะไรแก่ประชาชนที่ทำให้สิ่งทั้งหมดนี้เกิดขึ้นได้”.
Paul
Buchheit is a college teacher, an active member of US Uncut Chicago, founder
and developer of social justice and educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org,
PayUpNow.org, RappingHistory.org), and the editor and main author of "American
Wars: Illusions and Realities" (Clarity Press). He can be reached at paul@UsAgainstGreed.org.
พอล
บุชเชต์ เป็นอาจารย์วิทยาลัย, สมาชิกแข็งขันของ US
Uncut Chicago, ผู้ก่อตั้งและพัฒนา เว็บไซต์
สังคมเป็นธรรมและการศึกษา (UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org,
RappingHistory.org), และบรรณาธิการ และ ผู้เขียนหลักของ "American
Wars: Illusions and Realities" (Clarity Press). อีเมลpaul@UsAgainstGreed.org.
Published on Monday, April 8, 2013
by Common Dreams
One problem I had with this article
is that the economics is only part of the evil. No mention was made of how
corporations use their obscene profits to undermine the very democracy that we
live in. Bought politicians, anti-public legislation, illegal wars, corporate
control of the media and the dismantling of the social safety net are just as
bad as not paying any taxes. In fact these are the primary reasons that
corporations are able to get away without paying their fair share as the public
continues to endorse corporate chosen candidates to supposedly act in our own
best self interests. Until we can get a slate of legitimate candidates out
there who actually recognize the threat of the corporate business model and are
determined to reverse this injustice, nothing can change.
Strongly
agree.
The
take-over of the USA inclusive of govt and the duopoly parties by corporatized
wealthy empire capitalists took a leap upon Reagan's election in 1980, but was
completed by Obama in his first term. It is not sufficient to reduce Repub
power. We will get nowhere until Dem elites like Obama are rejected.
Maddeningly, Clinton has already been coronated to replace him in 2016. Neither
Bill Clinton nor Obama nor Hillary Clinton are the FDR we needed to reverse
what Reagan started. And there is no sign whatsoever the Dem party will offer
an FDR. Nothing short of an independent movement with a revolt mission has a
chance to slow the tide, much less reverse it.
Actually,
it all began when they shot JFK and America didn't lynch the Warren Commission
for treason. When the people accepted that a single bullet must have done
zig-zags in the air because anyone who says Oswald was not the lone shooter
just has to be a conspiracy theorist, evil men had a blueprint for public
domination and the means to get away with whatever they wanted. What President
will assert his authority after that?
I couldn't find the exact quote, but
I read somewhere that Capitalism is the flawed idea that wonderful things will
come out of everyone acting in their own short term selfish interests. I
suppose in small ways that maybe true. Capitalism gave us the computers that we
are all using to communicate with on this web site. But it has also given us
now endless wars, climate change, resource depletion, and an economic system
that now only truly serves a very small segment of the population.
All the little Eichmanns that now
run our large corporations are just following to a tee that primary rule of
capitalism and are just acting in the short term best interests of themselves
and their corporations and the rest of us and the environment we need to
survive in be damned. This article describes this foolishness quite nicely.
No alternative to our current
disastrous economic system is even offered because it so wonderfully serves the
small number of Eichmanns that run the rigged and totally corrupt show. But it
will be interesting to see how it all ends, and end it must because it is
unsustainable on so many levels. Of course all the little Adolfs can't see this
because to do so would be to not act in their own SHORT TERM best interests.
Hell, to even attempt to act in all our own collective LONG TERM best interests
would violate Capitalisms primary rule of acting in our individual SHORT TERM
interests.
Now how totally fucked up is that?
We
desperately need laws that add the "externalities" to the cost
accounting of all businesses. So that the bottom line is reduced by the amount
needed to clean up the environment, take care of employees, pay their fair
share of infrastructure costs, provide safety both of products and for
employees, provide education for employees, and pay a fair share for research.
We need laws, and need to enforce them, that make it part of the short term
interest of business to abide by these things. (I know I'm a dreamer.) The
current system is crude and medieval, based only on short-term greed. It
rewards destruction of the environment and exploitation of people. We as a
species need to act smarter.
You
are saying we need a modern democracy that includes the economy and you are not
alone.
It's
just the way they plan and want it...remember there is no common interest or
morality in this system as currently operated
Adam
Smith said that when people act out of rational self-interest, the market
produces the best outcomes.
Taken
to its logical conclusion, you end up with Ayn Rand's view that selfishness is
a virtue.
Marx
said that society should be guided by a different theory of justice: "From
each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This view
goes all the way back to the Bible. "All those whose faith had drawn them
together held everything in common: they would sell their property and
possessions and make a general distribution as the need of each required."
The
problem with capitalism is not that it is evil. the problem with capitalism is
that what is just is by definition what the market produces. This is also the
naturalistic fallacy (whatever is factually true about some action, you can
still ask the question: is it good or bad?). Defining what the market produces
as good is to commit the naturalistic fallacy. So, capitalists think, if the
wealth in a society becomes concentrated in a few hands, this is just.
Socialism proposes that whatever benefits the individual must be tempered by
concerns for society as a whole. The greatest good for the greatest number
instead of the greatest good for me and the hell with you (William Vanderbilt
famously said: "The public be damned").
What
capitalists fail to acknowledge is that the Constitution states that Congress
has the power to levy taxes to provide for the general welfare. Adam Smith
published "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776, so it is unlikely that the
Founding Fathers were aware of his ideas. The economic theory of the day was
mercantilism. Wealth should flow from the colonies to Great Britain. Hence the
taxes the colonists hated because they had no say in Parliament levying those
taxes. So, it is unreasonable to think this country was founded on capitalism.
Modern
capitalists are slaves to two fallacies. 1) Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism
(Spencer lived in the 19'th century, 100 years after the Constitution was
written). Spencer proposed that the struggle for existence (survival of the
fittest) produces the most fit humans. So, if you are rich it is because you
are more fit. Taxation of the rich to help the poor is unnatural because it
results in survival of the less fit (Romney's 47%). This is a fallacy because
Darwinian fitness refers to reproductive success, not economic success. Poor
people with large families are more fit (in the Darwinian sense) than are rich
people with small families. It is also circular reasoning. If I am rich, it is
because I am more fit and if I am more fit, it is evident in the fact I am
rich.
2)
Smith assumed that humans are rational (Smith was a man of the Age of Reason
when it was assumed humans are the only rational species). Smith was a
philosopher, not a scientist, so he never tested his hypothesis that humans are
rational economic actors. Behavioral economists (a new area of study) have set
out to test this hypothesis and have found that humans are as irrational when
it comes to money as they are when it comes to sex. The same pleasure centers
in the brain become active when humans seek out sexual partners as when they
accumulate wealth. Bill Clinton is proof positive that humans are irrational
when it comes to money and when it comes to sex. Clinton was irrational when it
came to Monicagate and he was irrational when he signed the repeal of the
Glass-Steagall Act.
Capitalism
didn't produce modern computers.
Graphical
demands for better images, especially pornography, drove much of computer
development in the last two decades.
But they're making it up to us now,
Paul! They're putting hard working Americans back on the payroll at 20
cents/hr! Prisons for profit are proudly able to put "Made in the
USA" labels back on our products! Oh, and they are thanking the taxpayers
for picking up the tab for housing, meals and healthcare for those steady
influx of prisoners. Let's hear it for job growth in the U.S.!
The corporate upper management class
are classic examples of patricians from throughout history: they believe they
are entitled to extra benefits while not paying for anything.
Thank you Paul Buchheit for
including free trade agreements in your article! Often times we find people
don't include how FTAs like NAFTA, CAFTA, KORUS and our involvement in the WTO
have devastated the U.S. economy.
While corporations and a few wealthy
individuals at the top reap in all the money and benefits due to free trade
agreements, the average middle class American has lost their job--due to
factories and businesses outsourcing overseas--which is especially prevalent in
manufacturing.
Until we close the tax-loopholes
that are enabling these corporations and amend "free trade" for
balanced trade, the destructing of the U.S. economy will continue. http://economyincrisis.org/
There is so much good that could
happen if wealthy corporations paid their fair share of taxes here in the
United States.
Last week I was talking to a young
man here in Ferndale, CA who owns the town's small candy shop. The shop has
been around for at least a hundred years and passed from owner to new owner,
the latest one made up of this young guy and his wife. Our conversation ping
ponged around until it found its way to a discussion on the difficulties of
running a small business this day and age. Right now, in Humboldt County, CA,
there is a measure on the local ballot to raise the minimum wage for employees
to twelve dollars an hour. Prospective employees around here are excited beyond
words about the possibility of that as a reality. But small business owners are
flipping out claiming that if the measure actually passes and becomes law, it's
going to create pressure on employers and result in big job losses for small businesses
around the county.
I understand why this young guy is
worried. For prospective employees it would a boon all the way around to see an
increase in the minimum wage. For the small business owner paying that wage, it
means less money coming in to the business as a whole and more going out in
terms of payroll deductions. The young man who runs the candy shop will now be
paying more in FICA, workers comp, disability insurance and social security
taxes. Both he and his business, as separate entities, will have to absorb the
extra costs which ultimately get taken out of his net income. The kids earning
the extra few bucks won't be affected at all. Anyone who has ever been a small
business owner knows exactly what I'm talking about. We are hardly in the same
income category as CEOs of major corporations.
I'm thinking about all those
subsidies and tax breaks that large, profitable, greedy corporations receive.
What if the business model in this country changed? Instead of giving large
multinational corporations big tax breaks and subsidies, the money due and
collected from those greedy, sycophant corporations could be re-routed to small
business owners to help them defray payroll costs and make possible higher
living wages for employees. They would now be the recipients of federal
subsidies. Maybe then small businesses might stand a better chance of staying
afloat; the owners of those small businesses could actually hire a few more
employees instead of worrying about having to let go of existing ones; and local
economies hosting those small businesses would thrive all the way around. It
could be a boon for everyone.
Wow!
Oops! I forgot, this is America,
land of the fucked (if you're in the 99%) and home to a culture that worships
the rich celebrity and duplicitous politician. For a moment there I actually
found myself imagining our culture steeped in equality and care for all its
citizens.
I
agree 100%. My husband and I owned a small business for 20 years and after we
paid our 4 employees, payroll, property taxes, expenses, repairs, etc. we made
just above poverty level. We did OK and we took care of our employees but it
was always from hand to mouth. The big conglomerates will be hurt very little
by the higher minimum wages but as a final wave it will take down most of the
small businesses left that have been able to survive the big box stores. The
further loss in competition will more then make up for the increase in wages.
BIG win for the corporations. I see it as just another in the long string of
money grabs by Big C's. I also believe this is all a precursor to an extremely
devastating inflationary rate period where that higher wage will be a joke. If
a loaf of bread costs 2cents then $2 per hour is a great wage. If that same
loaf of bread costs you $6 then $12 per hour does not mean a whole lot.
I
have often thought it would be immensely beneficial if we did as you say and
started giving massive incentives to small business owners. BUT this hurts the
control and monopolies of the big corporations and while it seems to make sense
to us as being healthy for American business and to create healthy competition
and more jobs, this is now a world where good business sense is an oxymoron.
Won't
you have to raise prices if you pay workers more? Remember, your competition
has to do the same thing. Yes, there would be some inflation, but at the same
time those at the bottom of the economic heap will gain income, possibly
getting them out of social safety net programs. A little inflation is not
bad--in fact, it makes bankers more eager to extend credit since loans they
previously made are paid back with money worth less and less.
the current system was set up by the
ruling class to oppress the working class who are the majority of this country
that is what needs to change by any and all means possible people need to take
the power into their hands and create a system that benefits the majority
rather than the minority only then will we have a true democracy
Agreed,
but if we are ever to do this we have to elect representatives that represent
us on a financial level. If say 20% of American's fall within a certain tax
bracket then we should have 20% representation from that same tax bracket. When
we have 99% of the people being represented by representatives that are the 1%
then it is foolishness and folly to ever think they will work against their own
best interests.
Ancient
Athens was as close to a true democracy as the world has seen, yet neither
women nor slaves could vote. Aristotle justified slavery (so long as the slaves
were not Greeks) by arguing that slaves were necessary to perform mundane tasks
freeing the philosopher kings to think profound thoughts.
Marx
said the owners oppress the workers and that workers of the world should unite
to overthrow the yoke of the oppressors creating a dictatorship of the
proletariate and creating a classless society. He was wrong because national
solidarity is much stronger than class solidarity (German workers have more
solidarity with German owners than they have with Russian workers). Marx
thought the revolution would occur in developed nations (Germany, Great
Britain, the US, etc.). Where did it occur: in feudal societies; e.g., Russia
and China.
Russia
and China never became classless societies. Orwell lampooned Russia under
Stalin in "Animal Farm": "All animals are equal, but some
animals are more equal than others.
Marx
thought capitalism will only fall through a violent revolution. Violent
revolution in the US is unconstitutional. The First Amendment states the people
have the right to PEACEABLY assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances. The Supreme Court routinely sides with the owners and against
labor. The court in all its infinite wisdom ruled that corporations are people
and are protected by the rights enumerated in the Constitution.
Eugene
Debs was a democratic socialist who thought capitalism could fall via the
ballot box. Debs got close to a million votes for president in1912. Socialists
have never gotten that many votes since. Bernie Sanders is the lone socialist
in Congress today and is a voice crying in the wilderness.
I, ME, Mine, ownership, world
monetary system and private ownership, debt, interest, but most importantly the
competitive nature of the game vs cooperation. Injustice, inequality under the
law, debt, corporate monopoly power etc. all at advantage in the monetary
system game. Division encouraged not unity, peace or contentment. A view of a
creator maker god, punisher, molding controlling or creating, but also savior.
All this and more are at the root cause of the problem. The game needs changing
then crime, war, prosperity, economy not waste or destruction can arise.
Humanity arises in or becomes out of the universe their is no separation except
what humanity has created in thought. We all are it and it is all it is.
Capitalism = Rich man's perfect
Monarchy
Businesses = Rich man's scepter
Government = Rich man's throne
Mother Earth = Rich man's toilet
Businesses = Rich man's scepter
Government = Rich man's throne
Mother Earth = Rich man's toilet
Kick backs, revolving doors,
campaign funding, bribery etc have allowed them to wrest control of our
political system & thus government...and they changed the rules over time
(including deregulation and the global trade agreements). Because corporations
are solely profit driven they cannot stop the increasingly vulture like or canabalistic
processes of eating their own. They are out of control and killing the goose
that laid the golden eggs...Earth. They have torn democracy to shreds.
"Kick
backs, revolving doors, campaign funding, bribery etc have allowed them to
wrest control of our political system"
You
realize, of course, that this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent:
If
I am in Kansas, then I am in the United States.
I am in the United States.
Therefore, I am in Kansas.
I am in the United States.
Therefore, I am in Kansas.
If
corporations control our political system, the the government does things I
don't like.
The government does things I don't like.
Therefore, corporations control our political system.
The government does things I don't like.
Therefore, corporations control our political system.
I really thought the political
pendulum would swing back to left or at least center with the election of Obama
in 2008. Instead he opted to "look forward not backward" and what
we've wound up with is even more of a police state, policies benefiting the 1%,
and zero representation of our views. Hell, Obama even locks up whistleblowers!
No dissent is allowed and we can't even protest (except in "free-speech
zones").
How we get the pendulum to swing in the opposite direction, peacefully, is the greatest challenge of our contemporary times.
How we get the pendulum to swing in the opposite direction, peacefully, is the greatest challenge of our contemporary times.
No, me no think so, Pat. I think if
there was any "betrayal" it was us betraying ourselves. Of course we
had plenty of help over the years by the liberal scribes (we know who they are)
who continuously backed the democratic party in order to protect their own
little bank accounts, publishing niche and access to the head weasels. Nader
tried to tell us.."there can be no daily democracy without daily
citizenship" (or something close to that). The natives (that's us) didn't
to our jobs. Corporate was allowed to do what they do: make as much money as
possible. It's what they do. Don't lay all of the blame on them.
Good article Mr. Buchheit, but, in
2016 Americans across the country except for maybe 2 million or so voters, will
line up to vote for one of the two corporate candidates again! Hillary or Jeb,
it really won't matter to the corporate elite, they'll be the ones playing the
tune and pulling the strings! Though I do have to admit, I think Hillary could
probably bitch slap Jeb Bush all the way back to the turn of the century!
"Hillary
or Jeb?" that's my take, too. too many here love the concept of
"leadership" even though most know that the political system has been
become corrupted to the max by big money interests, yet gain some personal
satisfaction from self-identifying with the imperial "greatest, most
powerful nation on earth." once, the elected were called
"representatives" but the concept has now morphed into "our
leaders." a democracy in which all respect one another's equal rights,
requires lots of individuals seeking leadership from their own inner
reflections of moral strength and conviction, not monetary influence peddling.
anyone who maintains his own ethical standard needs neither a leader nor a
groveling contingent of followers. gee, what the world needs NOW is lots
of self-reflective citizens who comprehend "as i would want others to do
unto me.
What
the world Needs NOW is LOVE, Sweet LOVE!
And
if it comes down to Clinton vs. Bush one can almost be sure that that election
will be marketed, as so many have in the past, as the biggest and most
important election of our lifetime.
corporate
candidates and, for the first and not the last time, vote for a third party
candidate who actually stands for integrity and compassion. I don't feel like
playing the charade anymore.
And
that means all these wonderful, outspoken liberal pundits will be telling the
peons that yeah, "neither Hillary or Jeb are really 'bad' candidates, but
we gotta stick with the dems, and please remember what those 8 years with Jeb's
brother were like ... do we really want to go back there again? ..."
i voted for Jill Stein in 2012 and I will NOT be going back to the 'two-winged dodo bird party' for love or money!
i voted for Jill Stein in 2012 and I will NOT be going back to the 'two-winged dodo bird party' for love or money!
Pwr
2 the GREEN PARTY peons!
GUILLOTINE THE POLITICAL DODO BIRD!
GUILLOTINE THE POLITICAL DODO BIRD!
Feeding at the trough
While we deal with what comes out
the other end
"The most essential aspect of
business growth is the long-term basic research that is largely conducted with
government money"
I guess Prof Buchheit didn't make it
to chapter IV of the NSF study "Science and Engineering Indicators
2012". I guess he has an excuse. Only looked at University research.
" Even today 60% of university research is government-supported."
Quote from the NSF study: "The
business sector is by far the largest performer of U.S. R&D.
R&D performed by businesses in the United States totaled an
estimated $282.4 billion in 2009 (table 4-1), about 71% of total U.S. R&D (figure 4-3). This predominance of the business sector has long been the case (figure 4-4),
with shares of national R&D performance ranging from 69% to 75%
over the course of the last 20 years. The business sector is also the
nation's largest R&D funder, accounting for about 62% of the U.S.
total."
R&D performed by businesses in the United States totaled an
estimated $282.4 billion in 2009 (table 4-1), about 71% of total U.S. R&D (figure 4-3). This predominance of the business sector has long been the case (figure 4-4),
with shares of national R&D performance ranging from 69% to 75%
over the course of the last 20 years. The business sector is also the
nation's largest R&D funder, accounting for about 62% of the U.S.
total."
BTW, I do think corporation should
pay more taxes. The tax burden has been shifted too much towards personal
income taxes.
Don't
confuse basic research with applied research. Business does not fund basic
research (e.g., demonstrating the existence of the Higgs boson); business funds
research that will make them money (applied research).
NSF
and NIH fund basic research (although NIH does fund research with the goal of
curing disease). The basic research to sequence the human genome had to be
funded by the government. However, business has jumped all over research based
on the human genome project that may turn out to be profitable; e.g., Monsanto
producing Roundup-resistant soybeans and then suing farmers who want to keep
seeds from their harvested crop to plant (this means they won't be buying seeds
from Monsanto).
NSF
and NIH use the criterion of scientific merit to decide who is funded and who
is not funded. Business doesn't give a hoot about scientific merit, their
concern is: will the research add to the bottom line?
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น