I do not have cable nor do I have access to network TV. I read a few different newspapers and blogs online. I listen primarily to public radio and CBC and, as such, I am less bombarded with diversionary tripe than the average American but the media circus surrounding the death of a celebrity (even one so tragically weird as Michael Jackson) still finds its way in to my circle no matter how hard I try to shut it out.
We do not stop often enough to contemplate the damage it must do to our ability to reason to have our heads filled with such useless information day and night even when we do nothing whatsoever to seek it out. While I have never actually seen a program with Paris Hilton in it, I know that she is blond, that she has a sister named Nicole, that she made an “accidental” porn video, that she is heir to the Hilton hotel throne, and that she has done several reality shows. I don’t want to know any of this but it is pervasive. Our media, as our culture, seems to revel in such irrelevant gossip.
A few days ago a friend sent me the following quote from one of Noam Chomsky’s books.
“Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns.”
I have read a few of Chomsky’s books, most notably “Manufacturing Consent”, and I have always appreciated his wisdom but I was particularly impressed by this statement. The man has such a keen ability to identify truths about the systems used to control us and is able to articulate them with such precision and economy of language it is truly awe-inspiring.
Understanding that meaningful debate is simply not happening in our corporate media and that we are only having the “debate” it allows us to have is absolutely crucial to understanding how the status quo machine functions. With far too many topics, it seems that the media controversy generated is just such a framed diversion and that the substantive matter is left unexplored. I thought it might be beneficial to share some examples of items the media is buzzing about, how the discussion or debate has been framed and what I actually wish was being discussed instead.
The Deaths of Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett & Ed McMahon - I’m very sorry to be so callous about all three of them but … who cares? A million Iraqi children were starved to death and denied treatment under Bill Clinton and the United Nations. Then, Bush killed a million more Iraqi civilians and thousands of our soldiers as well. Now, Obama will accelerate these wars and employ more mercenaries to carry out the killing. The media debate should not be about how we should properly mourn three celebrities and what their accomplishments were. Instead, we might better explore why we are so damned shallow as to publicly grieve for pop stars while millions of regular folk die specifically because we are so apathetic about the conditions of their lives (and their deaths).
The Senate Coup - Framed as a war between Republicans and Democrats. Was the “coup” warranted? Who is to blame ? With perhaps the most dysfunctional state senate in the country on a paid leave, shouldn’t the media focus instead on how that inaction actually impacts the electorate? Lets talk about whether or not we still feel like employing these “servants”. Can we manage without them? Should we clean house and start all over again? Lets talk about that!
Iran - The discussion is about America’s stance with Iran. Is it “tough” enough? Is the Iranian government in the right unleashing lethal force on its “protesters”? This looks an awful lot like a revolution by a civilian populace against a theocracy that refuses to obey the will of its people (and not a riot or a protest as it is often portrayed on TV). With our invasion of Iraq revealing us as “democracy-bringers extraordinaire”, shouldn’t the media be discussing why we stand idly by in some instances (like this one)? Perhaps we should be helping those who are actually fighting and dying to be free instead of trying to force “democracy” on people who have have shown no desire to have it? What should our role be in the world? Should our warriors be used to aid in our own organized theft or should we use them instead to help civilians throw off the shackles of oppression?
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor - While the media would debate her appointment on a narrow ideological scale, pitting Rush Limbaugh ideology against Al Franken ideology, I just don’t see it. They argue amongst themselves that she is a “reverse racist” or a “minority feminist” but, as usual, they are totally missing the boat. Sotomayor served as a corporate lawyer for almost a full decade before becoming a judge and can the peoples’ interests ever really be served by yet one more corporate-thinking justice on our Supreme Court? I’m sure the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Monsanto and Halliburton are all happy but what about their victims?
President Obama - The debate rages. The fake right argues that he is a socialist. The fake left says he is a patient progressive tactician who is using incremental strategy to win small political battles. The real debate should be about whether or not it is even possible any longer to run actual human beings for office in our republic! This new president is beholden to the coal lobbies and big corn and the HMO’s and the banksters. They all have their hooks in him. Is it even possible for a president to have his own ideology and thought process in this day and age or is Obama proof that we are finally doomed to just having puppets and puppet-masters from here on in?
The War on Terror, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq - The question always seems to be whether or not we are fighting these wars “intelligently”? The question we should really be asking (of course) is who the heck are we actually fighting and why are we doing it at all?
Torture - Corporate media debate is framed thusly, “Does water-boarding constitute torture? Should we close Guantanamo Bay?” How about we discuss instead whether we are okay with improper confinement, beatings, kidnappings and the suspension of Habeus Corpus anywhere, at any time, in any place?! Is this really acceptable to the electorate? Is it Constitutional? Is this really what America has become?
9/11 - The corporate debate was, “Which country should we destroy now that we’ve been attacked?” The debate should have been over who really did it and why the government has consistently lied to us about pretty much everything that occurred on that day. Who blew up Tower 7? Why are we not investigating the Put Options placed on United and American Airlines that clearly indicate foreknowledge? If the towers weren’t a planned demolition, then why were there incredibly high concentrations of thermite found in all independent dust samples taken at Ground Zero? How could an airliner have flown into the Pentagon (and completely disappeared) leaving a hole far too small to fit such a plane?
Bailouts and Stimulus - Will our corporate welfare programs work? That’s what’s being debated by most media outlets. Lets talk instead about why we would even think, in a capitalist economy, about adding over $3 TRILLION to our national debt by shoveling money towards Wall Street’s gaping maw? Don’t we live in a capitalist system where dog eats dog and only the strong survive? Why all the aid for these vultures? Do we really want a federal government that feels duty bound to run our economic systems instead of sticking to the paving of roads and delivering of mail? Is it their job to economically indenture our grandchildren to China?
Lastly, what about the “debate” over what (nowadays) passes for political debate? The corporate media chats on endlessly about who “won” each televised photo-op while spending nary a moment on those excluded from both corporate campaign coverage and the corporate “debates”. Shouldn’t our media instead be discussing the fact that we are all being denied any other choice but Democrat or Republican in every single election cycle at every single level!? We are consistently presented with two terrible choices for almost every open office. Instead of revolution, we are acclimating ourselves to accepting the “lesser evil” every time (a choice that seems less relevant or intelligent with each passing cycle). How about a discussion of whether or not it is possible to have a true debate when both sides are in basic agreement about everything?
I could go on and on but I bet that you guys have plenty of other framed or boundaried discussions to add to my litany and I look forward to hearing about them.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Union Schmunion
Michael Douglas’ infamous character in the movie “Wall Street” (Gordon Gekko) said, “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” Then, I was pretty sure that this was empty-headed, bovine, fecal matter. Twenty years later, I am that much more certain. It is wonderful that more and more of us are beginning to see endless growth and non-sustainable business practices for what they are … a lie.
I know the people I work with and they know me. We live under a system of shared misery. I work for a living under circumstances remarkably similar to those of a worker. I do not own a house. I do not have a retirement fund. I am not rich. I do not take six-week ski vacations in the Alps. In fact, I rarely take vacations of any sort at all nor do I have time to ski.
I cannot afford many of the “finer things” in life nor do I wish to. I live simply. Like the majority of my workers, I do not have health insurance nor any other reasonable safety net. We are all in the same boat together and there is a mutual respect in that which helps us all to weather whatever conditions the world may throw at us. People often casually label me a “businessman” but I tell them that the term “empowered worker” is a far more accurate description of who I am.
The Times Union’s management undoubtedly has many decent people in it who truly care about the people who work under them but there’s a very important distinction to be made between having someone work under you and working with someone. The corporate “ladder” is used as a motivational tool to maintain healthy profit margins. What happens when the business model changes and the corporate template fails to deliver elevation of the few at the expense of the many is something we are all beginning to understand (some of us firsthand).
There are very few major daily newspapers that do not see themselves, first and foremost, as businesses. The corporate structure allows them to create, print, market and distribute massive quantities of newsprint that smaller media outlets could not even begin to contemplate. While efficiencies of production allow a relatively small number of workers to elevate themselves solidly into our dwindling middle class, the process of big volume and centralization of resource necessarily excludes many workers from said elevation.
In fact, in order to maintain profitability at margins acceptable to the ever-hungry shareholder, the corporate business model has to shake the tree on a fairly regular basis. It has to grind up and spit out a few workers every now and then in order to cut expenses and motivate those who are retained to even higher levels of efficiency and productivity. This creates an “us versus them” culture of loss and competition in the workplace. Our society has steeled itself to these losses and often turns a blind eye to those who are cast away.
It is strange to me, given this cycle of loss that so many workers seem to resent unions and union workers. Basically, unions are the only mechanism that has ever protected workers or attempted to limit the whims of corporations that seek to purge, grind and squeeze us. Why would we, their fellow workers, ever begrudge our fellow workers the right to organize and fight for things like a safe workplace, seniority, a living wage, health insurance, and paid vacations? We all must know that we all benefit by having that bar set higher. Every single one of us.
How any worker could be upset that some of their fellow workers have decided to stand up for their rights and demand a better share of the immodest proceeds of the corporate model (which, in its essence, seems designed specifically to get rid of as many of us as it can)? Why are union workers viewed with scorn by so many? Jealousy is perhaps the answer, but I think it runs even deeper than that. I think the mainstream media has given us all a terribly false picture of unions and the workers who have endured through a struggle that is, ultimately, the very history of our country.
The Time Union, for all intents and purposes, just canceled its union contract in April. It looks like this was a pretty purposeful move to rid itself of The Newspaper Guild once and for all. Everyone is saying that the changing “newspaper model” and the Internet are to blame but is this really what’s going on?
Knowing that the Hearst Corporation just finished construction of a $500 million dollar corporate headquarters in 2006 might lead a critical thinker to believe that the privately-held company is not doing so poorly after all but, without access to the books, we just don’t know. We are simply asked to take George Hearst III’s word for it that layoffs and the end of the Guild are necessary. This is, we are told, what every good media company has to do to survive.
When George’s great, great, grandfather was around, he was no doubt a hard man. He did not likely place a whole lot of importance on the plight of those outside his immediate circle. From what I have read, this amazing Hearst was kind of like Daniel Day Lewis in “There Will Be Blood” (except that he was a miner, not an oil man). He was a self-made millionaire at a time when that was an awful lot of money. He was also seen by many as nothing short of ruthless in his pursuit of both money and power. He died a U.S. Senator.
In settling a gambling debt, Hearst ended up owning the San Francisco Examiner and he turned it over to his son, William Randolph, who became a media mogul. William is arguably the most famous of the Hearst clan mostly for turning the acquisition of that one newspaper into a large, privately-held, media empire that still exists to this day.
Forbes estimates that the current incarnation of the Hearst Corp. grossed about 4.4 billion dollars in 2007 and had about 17,000 employees. To hear Steven Swartz tell it (now President of Hearst Newspapers), you’d think that Hearst and its subsidiaries were rolling in the dough. More specifically, in the piece cited above, he says that “targeted distribution” in 2008 saved the Times Union about $750,000 with no adverse impact on its advertising revenue. Does that sound to you like the kind of financial doom and gloom that signals imminent financial disaster?
Now, we all know we are in a recession and we’ve all heard the newspapers’ talk about the web-related “changing business model” and how it negatively impacts them all but we are at a severe disadvantage. Without examining Hearst’s books, how can we determine whether George III’s actions in trying to kill the Guild are self preservation or just greed? Lets explore those changing conditions a little bit.
Statistically, papers make about 15-20% of their gross revenue from actual subscribers. The rest is actually ad revenue. So, if the T.U. lost even half of its paid subscribers to its free internet site, it wouldn’t even lose 10% of its gross revenue. While that’s not a good thing, it’s also not the end of the world. While there might well be a corresponding loss of ad revenue, there would also be a massive savings, I have to imagine, in not having to print or deliver half of the physical papers which were delivered previous.
And, lets not forget that newspaper advertisers really have nowhere else to go in this market except the web (and who is selling that ad space?). When you are the area’s paper of record, I find it awfully hard to believe that the negative impact of lost subscribers or advertisers could really be anywhere near as terrible for you as it’s made out to be. The Times Union has not lost half its subscribers and, like every other paper, it now sells tons of additional ad space on the web (just look at this site). It doesn’t take much imagination to see that this new model should actually be a boon for newspapers, not their death knell.
For most papers, I have to imagine that the enhanced revenue stream has quickly offset the slight loss of revenue from decreasing subscriptions. This should yield the T.U. at least as healthy a bottom line as it has for many other papers, our town’s little corporate daily included. The Glens Falls Post-Star is certainly not doing well because it is a great paper. It is doing well because it is the only daily paper in town. They claim to be the most profitable paper in the Lee Enterprises chain (with more than 50 dailies across the country). Much of this “success” has been attributed to their web advertising and the ads they sell in the many little weeklies and magazines they also print.
While I am constantly amazed at how much smaller and more centralized my “local” newspaper becomes every year, it’s never enough for them. They regularly use outside sources to trim local expense. They killed their union decades ago so that they could lay off good people and great writers. This is a huge mistake in my view. While it is not, in any way, sustainable, it seems to be their actual business model. It is all about short-term gain simply because a company has a monopoly and the public has nowhere else to turn for its “news product”. My question to these titans of industry is what happens when the media consumer just turns you “off”? What happens when you devalue your product to the point that the “consumer” simply stops looking to you as a viable media source? The corporate media seems to really believe that people will just continue to read their papers no matter how bad they get. I don’t share their “optimism”.
Maybe I’m not seeing the bigger picture but it seems to me that the Times Union’s refusal to settle with the Newspaper Guild is not indicative of the maneuvering of an industry that is struggling to survive but is simply the squeezing of workers by an entity that, by all rights, should be doing just fine.
I am very interested to know what others think about this dispute and I very much appreciate, in advance, the Times Union being principled enough to allow me, and others, to voice our opinion on this matter.
I know the people I work with and they know me. We live under a system of shared misery. I work for a living under circumstances remarkably similar to those of a worker. I do not own a house. I do not have a retirement fund. I am not rich. I do not take six-week ski vacations in the Alps. In fact, I rarely take vacations of any sort at all nor do I have time to ski.
I cannot afford many of the “finer things” in life nor do I wish to. I live simply. Like the majority of my workers, I do not have health insurance nor any other reasonable safety net. We are all in the same boat together and there is a mutual respect in that which helps us all to weather whatever conditions the world may throw at us. People often casually label me a “businessman” but I tell them that the term “empowered worker” is a far more accurate description of who I am.
The Times Union’s management undoubtedly has many decent people in it who truly care about the people who work under them but there’s a very important distinction to be made between having someone work under you and working with someone. The corporate “ladder” is used as a motivational tool to maintain healthy profit margins. What happens when the business model changes and the corporate template fails to deliver elevation of the few at the expense of the many is something we are all beginning to understand (some of us firsthand).
There are very few major daily newspapers that do not see themselves, first and foremost, as businesses. The corporate structure allows them to create, print, market and distribute massive quantities of newsprint that smaller media outlets could not even begin to contemplate. While efficiencies of production allow a relatively small number of workers to elevate themselves solidly into our dwindling middle class, the process of big volume and centralization of resource necessarily excludes many workers from said elevation.
In fact, in order to maintain profitability at margins acceptable to the ever-hungry shareholder, the corporate business model has to shake the tree on a fairly regular basis. It has to grind up and spit out a few workers every now and then in order to cut expenses and motivate those who are retained to even higher levels of efficiency and productivity. This creates an “us versus them” culture of loss and competition in the workplace. Our society has steeled itself to these losses and often turns a blind eye to those who are cast away.
It is strange to me, given this cycle of loss that so many workers seem to resent unions and union workers. Basically, unions are the only mechanism that has ever protected workers or attempted to limit the whims of corporations that seek to purge, grind and squeeze us. Why would we, their fellow workers, ever begrudge our fellow workers the right to organize and fight for things like a safe workplace, seniority, a living wage, health insurance, and paid vacations? We all must know that we all benefit by having that bar set higher. Every single one of us.
How any worker could be upset that some of their fellow workers have decided to stand up for their rights and demand a better share of the immodest proceeds of the corporate model (which, in its essence, seems designed specifically to get rid of as many of us as it can)? Why are union workers viewed with scorn by so many? Jealousy is perhaps the answer, but I think it runs even deeper than that. I think the mainstream media has given us all a terribly false picture of unions and the workers who have endured through a struggle that is, ultimately, the very history of our country.
The Time Union, for all intents and purposes, just canceled its union contract in April. It looks like this was a pretty purposeful move to rid itself of The Newspaper Guild once and for all. Everyone is saying that the changing “newspaper model” and the Internet are to blame but is this really what’s going on?
Knowing that the Hearst Corporation just finished construction of a $500 million dollar corporate headquarters in 2006 might lead a critical thinker to believe that the privately-held company is not doing so poorly after all but, without access to the books, we just don’t know. We are simply asked to take George Hearst III’s word for it that layoffs and the end of the Guild are necessary. This is, we are told, what every good media company has to do to survive.
When George’s great, great, grandfather was around, he was no doubt a hard man. He did not likely place a whole lot of importance on the plight of those outside his immediate circle. From what I have read, this amazing Hearst was kind of like Daniel Day Lewis in “There Will Be Blood” (except that he was a miner, not an oil man). He was a self-made millionaire at a time when that was an awful lot of money. He was also seen by many as nothing short of ruthless in his pursuit of both money and power. He died a U.S. Senator.
In settling a gambling debt, Hearst ended up owning the San Francisco Examiner and he turned it over to his son, William Randolph, who became a media mogul. William is arguably the most famous of the Hearst clan mostly for turning the acquisition of that one newspaper into a large, privately-held, media empire that still exists to this day.
Forbes estimates that the current incarnation of the Hearst Corp. grossed about 4.4 billion dollars in 2007 and had about 17,000 employees. To hear Steven Swartz tell it (now President of Hearst Newspapers), you’d think that Hearst and its subsidiaries were rolling in the dough. More specifically, in the piece cited above, he says that “targeted distribution” in 2008 saved the Times Union about $750,000 with no adverse impact on its advertising revenue. Does that sound to you like the kind of financial doom and gloom that signals imminent financial disaster?
Now, we all know we are in a recession and we’ve all heard the newspapers’ talk about the web-related “changing business model” and how it negatively impacts them all but we are at a severe disadvantage. Without examining Hearst’s books, how can we determine whether George III’s actions in trying to kill the Guild are self preservation or just greed? Lets explore those changing conditions a little bit.
Statistically, papers make about 15-20% of their gross revenue from actual subscribers. The rest is actually ad revenue. So, if the T.U. lost even half of its paid subscribers to its free internet site, it wouldn’t even lose 10% of its gross revenue. While that’s not a good thing, it’s also not the end of the world. While there might well be a corresponding loss of ad revenue, there would also be a massive savings, I have to imagine, in not having to print or deliver half of the physical papers which were delivered previous.
And, lets not forget that newspaper advertisers really have nowhere else to go in this market except the web (and who is selling that ad space?). When you are the area’s paper of record, I find it awfully hard to believe that the negative impact of lost subscribers or advertisers could really be anywhere near as terrible for you as it’s made out to be. The Times Union has not lost half its subscribers and, like every other paper, it now sells tons of additional ad space on the web (just look at this site). It doesn’t take much imagination to see that this new model should actually be a boon for newspapers, not their death knell.
For most papers, I have to imagine that the enhanced revenue stream has quickly offset the slight loss of revenue from decreasing subscriptions. This should yield the T.U. at least as healthy a bottom line as it has for many other papers, our town’s little corporate daily included. The Glens Falls Post-Star is certainly not doing well because it is a great paper. It is doing well because it is the only daily paper in town. They claim to be the most profitable paper in the Lee Enterprises chain (with more than 50 dailies across the country). Much of this “success” has been attributed to their web advertising and the ads they sell in the many little weeklies and magazines they also print.
While I am constantly amazed at how much smaller and more centralized my “local” newspaper becomes every year, it’s never enough for them. They regularly use outside sources to trim local expense. They killed their union decades ago so that they could lay off good people and great writers. This is a huge mistake in my view. While it is not, in any way, sustainable, it seems to be their actual business model. It is all about short-term gain simply because a company has a monopoly and the public has nowhere else to turn for its “news product”. My question to these titans of industry is what happens when the media consumer just turns you “off”? What happens when you devalue your product to the point that the “consumer” simply stops looking to you as a viable media source? The corporate media seems to really believe that people will just continue to read their papers no matter how bad they get. I don’t share their “optimism”.
Maybe I’m not seeing the bigger picture but it seems to me that the Times Union’s refusal to settle with the Newspaper Guild is not indicative of the maneuvering of an industry that is struggling to survive but is simply the squeezing of workers by an entity that, by all rights, should be doing just fine.
I am very interested to know what others think about this dispute and I very much appreciate, in advance, the Times Union being principled enough to allow me, and others, to voice our opinion on this matter.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
General Motors Should Be Worker Owned
I am just as outraged about Obama’s bailouts as I was about Bush’s wars and his stimulus packages. They are expensive. They are of questionable value. They seem designed to benefit only the richest in our society. I am for a hybrid of the GM bailouts, though, and let me tell you why.
Whether you are anti-worker or pro-worker, we are all aware that unions have set the bar for all American workers for the better part of a century. As unions have weakened and membership has declined, benefits and wages for all have followed suit. The Big Three are one of the last powerful bastions of union manufacturing in our country. If we allow them to be killed off, it will just facilitate a quicker end to the American standard of living as we know it. That standard is the result of well over 100 years of struggle by workers and those concerned with their plight.
I see the previous bailouts (and most of the ones in the planning stages) as nothing more than corporate welfare, handouts for the ruling class. They will greatly increase the national debt. They will falsely elevate stock values. They have allowed bonuses for rich people who don’t, in any way, deserve them. I know trickle-downers who are actually prone to believe that this type of activity will eventually benefit those of us in the working class but they must not ever check. We’ve never seen a dime down here.
Reaganomics has never worked regardless of which corporate party runs the printing press. If you print money to give to big corporations, they just keep it. Their officers may vacation longer or they may buy more land in Costa Rica but we don’t ever get any of the pennies we’re supposed to get down here. Never happens.
GM is not an AIG or a CitiBank, though. It is subtly different than these other obscenely corrupt mechanisms in one major regard. It is a real employer of real workers. I read once that 1/12 of the jobs in our economy are dependent on some facet of the automotive industry. Imagine what would happen to our real economy if 1/12 of our jobs just “left the building”?
If allowed to, you can be sure that GM (and our other “patriotic” auto manufacturers) would run happily to China to reap the benefits of Clinton’s terrible legacy of globalization. They will simply move themselves and their parts operations to any place in the world where labor is cheap (or even free) and where steel and energy are cheaper, as well. GM has already been doing exactly this for several decades now.
So, I am for preventing the terrible blood loss that will ensue should we allow GM to fail but I am not for the Fed running our automotive companies. Nor am I for giving GM a blank check and simply letting them do whatever they wish (although that does seem to be the deal most of the banks are getting). But, if we really wish to know what this administration’s goals are in relation to GM, we need look no further than Obama’s Wall Street whiz kid, Brian Deese, who was just put in charge of dismantling GM. The guy has never even set foot in an auto plant. Having some 31 year old rainmaker ship all of our union jobs to China is not my own personal vision of fixing a serious problem. Its likely not yours, either.
The bailouts, as currently structured, leave the government in control of about 60% of GM’s stock and that is just not acceptable. The federal government is beholden to the wrong people and we cannot allow them access to 1/12 of our job base. Enough with the corporate welfare already!
GM doesn’t need a bailout. It needs a huge low-interest loan that will allow it to become a worker-owned company with a new agenda. Perhaps, it could once again make energy-efficient electric cars like the EV1?! It could get rid of the corporate fat-cats who ran it into the ground in the first place. Then, the collective could decide what their fate will be together without Wall Street dictating any of the terms. Look what Wall Street did to our economy (real and imagined). Do we really want these idiots put in charge of anything we have such a huge stake in? Really?
Whether you are anti-worker or pro-worker, we are all aware that unions have set the bar for all American workers for the better part of a century. As unions have weakened and membership has declined, benefits and wages for all have followed suit. The Big Three are one of the last powerful bastions of union manufacturing in our country. If we allow them to be killed off, it will just facilitate a quicker end to the American standard of living as we know it. That standard is the result of well over 100 years of struggle by workers and those concerned with their plight.
I see the previous bailouts (and most of the ones in the planning stages) as nothing more than corporate welfare, handouts for the ruling class. They will greatly increase the national debt. They will falsely elevate stock values. They have allowed bonuses for rich people who don’t, in any way, deserve them. I know trickle-downers who are actually prone to believe that this type of activity will eventually benefit those of us in the working class but they must not ever check. We’ve never seen a dime down here.
Reaganomics has never worked regardless of which corporate party runs the printing press. If you print money to give to big corporations, they just keep it. Their officers may vacation longer or they may buy more land in Costa Rica but we don’t ever get any of the pennies we’re supposed to get down here. Never happens.
GM is not an AIG or a CitiBank, though. It is subtly different than these other obscenely corrupt mechanisms in one major regard. It is a real employer of real workers. I read once that 1/12 of the jobs in our economy are dependent on some facet of the automotive industry. Imagine what would happen to our real economy if 1/12 of our jobs just “left the building”?
If allowed to, you can be sure that GM (and our other “patriotic” auto manufacturers) would run happily to China to reap the benefits of Clinton’s terrible legacy of globalization. They will simply move themselves and their parts operations to any place in the world where labor is cheap (or even free) and where steel and energy are cheaper, as well. GM has already been doing exactly this for several decades now.
So, I am for preventing the terrible blood loss that will ensue should we allow GM to fail but I am not for the Fed running our automotive companies. Nor am I for giving GM a blank check and simply letting them do whatever they wish (although that does seem to be the deal most of the banks are getting). But, if we really wish to know what this administration’s goals are in relation to GM, we need look no further than Obama’s Wall Street whiz kid, Brian Deese, who was just put in charge of dismantling GM. The guy has never even set foot in an auto plant. Having some 31 year old rainmaker ship all of our union jobs to China is not my own personal vision of fixing a serious problem. Its likely not yours, either.
The bailouts, as currently structured, leave the government in control of about 60% of GM’s stock and that is just not acceptable. The federal government is beholden to the wrong people and we cannot allow them access to 1/12 of our job base. Enough with the corporate welfare already!
GM doesn’t need a bailout. It needs a huge low-interest loan that will allow it to become a worker-owned company with a new agenda. Perhaps, it could once again make energy-efficient electric cars like the EV1?! It could get rid of the corporate fat-cats who ran it into the ground in the first place. Then, the collective could decide what their fate will be together without Wall Street dictating any of the terms. Look what Wall Street did to our economy (real and imagined). Do we really want these idiots put in charge of anything we have such a huge stake in? Really?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
