The term "free trade" has to be one of the most abused names currently being used. It paints a picture that is at best only half true. The US, especially with Republicans, always rolls out this line when there happens to be one special interest group or another who wants to crush a world market. Under the banner of "free trade" they wipe out a market, such as the cotton market in Africa, and then march forward with one less competitor. Isn't capitalism great and aren't those poor countries freeloaders?
Using the example of cotton, thanks to taxpayer sponsored welfare for millionaire farmers in the US, they can sell well below the cost that local African producers can offer so it's impossible to make money. Out go jobs and money, forcing people to reach out for financial aid from foreign governments. In the US when China or other countries do this in steel, for example, we call it "dumping" and it's considered very bad if not illegal. Countries like the US or Europe have much deeper pockets and can afford to take legal action. The incoming millions and billions never quite trickles down as various people grab a piece. Is that bad? Of course, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking this doesn't happen in the US. Even when the US government is supposed to be monitoring US taxpayer money in Iraq, we end up with billions missing.
Our model for assisting countries (and people) in need is never going to be perfect and will always change. At the moment, it's increasingly obvious that the current model is in desperate need of change. It is possible to help poor countries without always throwing cash and expecting results. The problem now is that the West still wants to preach "free trade" rubbish instead of instituting fair trade policies.
There is an interesting story in the NY Times today about hedge funds and the substantial payouts for the leading managers of the big funds. Let's just say they're doing pretty well. What jumped out to me was the information about the previous years in which wealth distribution was so distorted. It should be at least a warning signs of an economy that has gone badly off course for decades.
In the south of France you have a number of beautiful mansions that were built just before the crash of 1929 and a fascinating book came out a few years ago detailing the history of those mansions. Quite a few were built by ultra-rich gamblers much like the hedge fund and Wall Street gamblers of today. One big difference is that back then when they went too far and failed, they really fell. Mansion after mansion was lost as the gamblers had nobody to bail them out as Paulson has done with Wall Street. Was it a good thing that the pre-Crash crowd fell so hard? Maybe not, but nobody forced them to roll the dice and those are the breaks of the game. That's how old fashioned capitalism worked.
Where I have a bigger problem is that this is the crowd who today calls anyone who raises the issue of wealth distribution a communist. I haven't heard the same smears of communism when Wall Street has been bailed out but rest assured, talk about creating an even playing field - which is different from everyone gets equal money - and you know where the GOP and wingnuts will go. Everyone in the US ought to have the same opportunity to be make money but what we have today is eerily similar to what we saw in 1928. The system has broken down and needs to change so we as a nation can move forward.
Good grief, no. The Republicans are always looking at new ways to punish the middle class and give a free ride for corporate America and here's their latest plan. Slap a VAT on who knows what and then slash corporate taxes, because the US is already known as such a tough place to do business. Uh huh, the world business community is always talking about what a tough place it is to do business. Who buys this nonsense?
The Treasury document is partly an attempt to counter a proposal by Charles Rangel, the Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, to cut the corporate rate to 30.5 percent from 35 percent. Rangel’s bill contains proposals to offset his tax cuts with the elimination of special tax breaks for corporations.
So Rangel is lowering the corporate tax rates but the GOP still isn't happy? I may have my disagreements with Rangel's new tax plan but I hope that he gives it right back to Paulson. I mean sheesh. I know Paulson is a nothing now that he left Goldman and went to work for Bush but this is just stupid. Maybe Paulson needs to get out more and see the world because the US is the business climate that most in Europe would love to have at home.
In 2002, the GOP shoveled out billions of dollars of handouts in the Farm Bill with the bulk of the money going to large corporate farmers who are certainly much wealthier than the average American. Corporate welfare if a familiar theme for the GOP who never mind slashing money for the poor and asking them to step up and work, but the same brutal capitalism is noticeably missing when it comes to handouts for big corporates.
As taxpayers continue to foot the bill for Iraq, costs that will be weighing on the middle class for years to come, now the special interests from corporate farms want those same people to take on even more costs that will again profit already very rich people. I wonder if this new breed of American business will ever get out and do work on their own or if they intend to live off of taxpayer handouts forever. They're always the first to attack any welfare for individuals but would like taxpayers to think their business is somehow critical and needs to be funded.
Farming is obviously important but if these corporate farmers can't figure out how to survive in business, maybe they're in the wrong business and should change fields. They won't though, because they know there will always be plenty of handouts from those in Congress who are afraid of modernizing the system and introducing the idea of fairness.
Besides being unfair to the bulk of Americans who are forced to subsidize Big Farm, it's also unfair to farmers in other parts of the world who don't enjoy such luxuries and are unable to compete in the US market. It also highlights the hypocrisy of GOP claims of "free market" business because the only time they ever want a "free market" is when they have a tilted balance like this and don't have to worry about competition. Competition is always for someone else.
In a market as large but as closed as the US, it's easy enough to manipulate politicians in Washington to see things your way and allow companies to become bloated and uncompetitive. Examples include the automobile industry and telcos who never seem to comprehend just out of touch with reality they are yet they continue to hold enough power to keep them on a not-so-competitive downward spiral, essentially helping global players move in and delivering lower quality to buyers in the US and around the world. Considering the overall competitiveness of the US during the Cold War - a key differentiator according to many - the US has lost its way in big business.
For the time being I still see few competitors to the US domination with new business creation/startups in various high tech fields though the trends in big business are significant enough that this too could change. Admittedly I have a small business bias after 17+ years with startups but it is no ones best interest to see these businesses decline. The jobs related to these companies are important so it's important that US companies are built for the future and not the past. Coddling and protecting the US behemoths from competition clearly helps the executive boardroom crowd shower themselves with money and a sense of self-importance but does nothing to prepare them for global competition, where they are becoming less relevant.
I know that this administration isn't very keen on reading history and they prefer acting as though we are living in a distant era, but building more roads in cities does not alleviate traffic but only encourages it. Add to that the damage to neighborhoods, the ugliness and of course, the additional opportunity to pollute they bring. Robert Moses figured out in the 30's and 40's that building roads does not help traffic and built a political empire based on toll roads, all while telling people how much better roads were compared to public transportation.
Considering the past six years of insider deals, no-bid contracts, incompetence and mismanagement, one has to be suspicious towards the suggestion of building toll roads by this administration. It always seems to be a game of "follow the money" with this crowd, so who are their friends who might benefit with such programs? With the GOP spending history and their love of corporate welfare on the back of the middle class, it might be a better idea to just take a pass on this.
What's so difficult about conservation and why does this crowd hate it so much?
