The Brave New Globalist World (What is the real intention of the multinational corporations?)

interventionmag.com ^ | July 30, 2003 | Lawrence J. McNamee

[comnet]

It took generations of hard working, sacrificing Americans to build our economic system, a system now being dismantled by small-minded, greedy globalists. By Lawrence J. McNamee

As Americans witness the flight of their manufacturing and now white-collar service sector jobs to Asia and Latin America and other nations with low wages, some are asking, "What is the real intention of the U.S.-based multinational corporations?" Perhaps economic globalism represents an attempt to equalize incomes of the First World and Third World. Yet this policy is impoverishing American workers and providing highly exploitative, low-paying jobs elsewhere. This could be discounted as just misguided economic policy if the policy was not making the highest investment incomes in the world higher still.

When the United States shifted from a nation where most personal wealth came from some form of productive labor to one derived from the value of stock holdings, short-term thinking and shallow, self-serving policies took root. At that point the very nature of the game of capitalism changed for the United States and for the world. The speculative economy can be reported as doing well, while the productive economy and its workers' incomes are marginalized. Hence, we have our current "jobless recovery."

Today IBM contemplates firing thousands of American software engineers so that the company can employ thousands of Indian software engineers. The Indian professionals will work for a fraction of the salaries currently paid their U.S. counterparts. This is what commentator Kevin Phillips calls "the race to the bottom." In theory, minimized wages yield minimized costs which result in maximized profits. Unfortunately, this also increases unemployment and reduces the quality of life in the United States.

Such short-term economic thinking has the potential to turn the "race to the bottom" into a race to global ruin. Men are not angels, and appeals to the marketplace or to modernism are only a thin coating of gloss on the ugly surface of unchallenged greed. When coal miners went on strike in 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt asked mine workers and mine owners to come to the nation's capital and negotiate in good faith. Representatives of the mine workers arrived, while representatives of the mine owners refused, citing a sort of "divine right of capitalists" as their reason. Roosevelt threatened to nationalize the mines if the owners continued to refuse to negotiate. Divine right took a fast turn and the owners sent their men to Washington and the matter was resolved.

Even in this age of lightning-fast communication, there remains such a thing as the national interest. Until globalist corporate America understands it is the national interest, and not short-term profits and stock market prices, that represents the ultimate "bottom line," this erosion of the economic infrastructure of the United States will continue. More jobs will disappear here and the gains to our neighbors will be small and temporary. The clock is ticking off a countdown to the end of the political-economic system that took so much of America's strength and heart to build. At least two hundred and fifteen years of innovation and sacrifice is being downsized to nothing.

Lawrence McNamee is a History Instructor and writer in San Antonio, Texas. He is the proud son of a retired American industrial worker.

[maui_hawaii]

Fine, now answer the questions and quit dodging.

[vbmoneyspender]

I thought I was too stupid to converse with.

[maui_hawaii]

You certainly sound like it, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Now answer the questions.

[vbmoneyspender]

Gee thanks. You do know it is a ludicrous position to argue that you somehow get immunity if you commit a crime while acting as an employee of a corporation. With regard to your questions, are you suggesting it is dishonorable to try and run a business for profit. I consider running a business for profit a pretty high calling. It's not as important as my family, but my work ranks pretty high up on my list of things that I consider to be important. With regard to your hypothetical firing of an employee, if there was no justification for firing the employee then that is a stupid act. But if someone is so stupid as to fire a good employee, why would the fired employee want to work for an incompetent employer like that anyway? Finally, I get the impression that you think that you are owed a job and that once you get it, you are entitled to keep it for the rest of your life. Am I wrong about this impression?

[maui_hawaii]

You are absolutely wrong about your impressions. You have general cookie cutter argument that applies to everyone. Anyone who thinks there are responsibilities to go along with profits and power "think they are owed a job".

Its really a stupid comparison.

You think I am opposed to business? Are you nuts? I reported directly to the CFO of companies you've heard of. Try the top teir of the fortune 500...

You still have not answered all of my questions though. Disregard what you think I am 'suggesting' and answer.

In fact, your type of businessman is the wrong type of businessman. I remember back in the college days doing a case study during law class... We compared... One company had faulty products and were caught...

What they tried to do is fight and finagel, and "prove" they are fine... and called people "anti-business" etc...

In the end they went out of business. They had no credibility.

On the other hand, the Tylenol company had issued some bad medication. It made some people very sick. What they did though, is, at the cost of BILLIONS, had a huge recall. It hurt them in the short term, but in the long term they ended up growing several fold. It was because of legitimacy and honesty.

Running a business IS a high calling, but it depends what kind of business you want to run. A whole lot of this crap that is going on is teetering towards the former of my two examples. It will in the end not only damage themselves, it will damage all the rest of us too.

Now, tell me, "Profits are more important than...."

Lets also talk about short term profits vs long term outlook. There is very little thing such as a 'long term outlook'... Just like with the former of my examples, they tried to save 2 quarters of profits and ended up losing the whole company.

[maui_hawaii]

My type of businessman is fair, and just. People trust him and his products. The aim is to treat people fairly and give people what they pay for. The aim is to improve people's lives. If I make a little profit off of that, fine.

Your type of businessman is all wrong...employees are slaves and have no rights. They aren't owed jobs (which they themselves probably never said in the first place). Your type of businessman couldn't attract talent because he degrades who he employs. And above all, they don't invest in the people they want to actually SELL stuff too.

Business is a two way street, at least. Try running it as a one way, and you won't run it very long. You are trying so hard to get rich, and suredly you never will...

[ExSoldier]

"What do the corporations REALLY want?

1. Simple LOTS of profit for themselves and their underlings and to a lesser degree, shareholders.

2. ROLLER-BALL teams with motorcycles, and speed and no rules to keep the blood lusts of the peasants sated and HAPPY....this will keep the general polulace from arising once all the guns are eliminated, except those owned by the elitists are left...the ones which can destroy and entire tree with one squeeze of the trigger. Then the partygoers can have a giggle and return to the orgy and wait for the next match against the Samurai Japanese.

3 Until the hero named Johnathon E shows up and he grows bigger than even Kolbe Bryant....

[vbmoneyspender]

I answered your questions directly, you just didn't like the answers. And by the way, is that a management technique you've perfected where if you disagree with someone's arguments you call them stupid?

[maui_hawaii]

"Profits are more important than..." ??????

Lets start naming things.

If you would like, we can go the other way around, "Profits are NOT more important than..."

List please.

[maui_hawaii]

And by the way, is that a management technique you've perfected where if you disagree with someone's arguments you call them stupid?

When you become my employee, I will be nice to you.

In truth though it doesn't mean you have to be soft. Or put up with lots of crap.

It sounded to me like you had a big self righteous ideological rant going on, and needed a wake up. In other words, maybe its for your own good, so you know not to insult people yourself.

[maui_hawaii]

Simple LOTS of profit for themselves and their underlings and to a lesser degree, shareholders.

I will actually buy that. Only I think they are going about it in the total wrong way.

I might ammend things a bit though...

They want to get rich, really rich, overnite, or in the very short term and then retire at the age of 35.

They run their businesses accordingly.

[vbmoneyspender]

My work which I love to do and which I love to get paid to do is more important than surfing. Does that satisfy you? Probably not, but then again you apparently think that the profit motive is the entire basis for why most people engage in business. Only good people like you engage in business for higher purposes. Most other people like me are greedy bloodsuckers who only want to make money and have completely disassociated the profit motive from the idea of finding something that they love to do and then wanting to get paid to do it.

[maui_hawaii]

There you go again...making an ideology about it. You are trying to make it black and white instead of trying to get the point.

Lets say you have a drug company and some products come out tainted.

Do you follow the above A) example, or the above B) example.

Here is a hint, in running a business if you do things to hurt the people you sell to or make you rich and sucessful, its a bad move.

[vbmoneyspender]

No offense, but I think you are the kind of person who has a very liberal mindset. You apparently automatically assume that most people who engage in business are doing so only in order to get rich quick. You think that most people don't know how to engage in business correctly and only someone as educated as yourself knows the right way. That is exactly the way most liberals think about business people. And by the way, if you worked for me and started off an argument by saying that whomever you were arguing with was stupid, I would fire you. But it would be for your own good.

[maui_hawaii]

Only good people like you engage in business for higher purposes.

I know a guy who owns a strip club. In reality he is in it for the same 'higher purpose' too.

Its kind of weird, but his product is to provide an enjoyable place for the boys to get together and have fun.

Its "noble" in a weird kind of way, but its the same principle none the less.

[vbmoneyspender]

Here is a hint, in running a business if you do things to hurt the people you sell to or make you rich and sucessful, its a bad move.

Really? You mean if you provide a product or service to your customers that helps them, then they will come back and buy more products and services from you --and your company will then become successful? What a novel idea.

[maui_hawaii]

Liberal? Its as church going conservative as they come. I don't know anything more old fashioned than honesty with employees and providing a good service.

It sounds to me like you are the judge of all that is "conservative".

You apparently automatically assume that most people who engage in business are doing so only in order to get rich quick.

Its certainly been a problem going around some sectors of Wall Street. No where did I say EVERYONE, like you ALWAYS emphasized, ALL the TIME about EVERYONE, that I ALWAYS generalize ALL businessmen, into ONE category, and they are ALL bloodsuckers....

[Ciexyz]

Reading posts with great interest.

[maui_hawaii]

I can tell you have some kind of anarchist view of business and government. No government and business will be ALL good....

[vbmoneyspender]

Here is what you said

Corporations are entities with real, tangible power. Part of the problem with corporations is that people hide behind their corporate face.

You didn't say "part of the problem with some corporations" or "part of the problem with some small portion of corporations", you said "part of the problem with corporations" - period. Now, apparently you are acknowledging that any problems that exist with some corporations are not endemic to that business form but, instead, are applicable to anyone who engages in business, whether they engage in business by means of a sole proprietorship, or a partnership or a limited liability company or a corporation. And this is exactly the point that I was originally making If you have a problem with something a business does, your problem is not with some corporate legal fiction that the business is operating under but instead is with the people who are actually running the corporation. Finally, your apparent point that business people generally have venal motivations is a typical liberal conceit. I know of very few businesses that last for very long where they are trying to harm their customers. That just doesn't happen. The vast majority of businesses care about their customers and want to do good work for them.