Conspiracy & Common Sense
“The alarming development and aggressiveness of great capitalists and corporations, unless checked, will inevitably lead to the pauperization and hopeless degradation of the working masses. It is imperative if he desire to enjoy the full blessings of life, that a check be placed upon unjust accumulation and the power of evil to aggregate wealth.” (Knights of Labor, First Constitution 1869)
The corporation, domestic or international, exists for one purpose only, to garner the greatest amount of income in the shortest span of time for its shareholders while shielding its executives and board members from legal liability. It has no other purpose. It will perform only those functions which will further those ends and, without the proper restraints, those ends will always justify the means by which they seek to fulfill their singular purpose. Even the shareholders are now becoming wary of the rampant fraud, bloated salaries of executives, and accounting boondoggles.
One might accuse me of falling prey to ‘conspiracy theorism’, and that any such cabal or collusion on the part of corporations is mere imaginative fancy on my part. Let’s check that out. Conspiracy is just a fancy word for plan. A conspiracy differs from a normal everyday sort of plan in that it involves secrecy and something, if when done to others, is either outright illegal or would be perceived as morally offensive were it to become known. Persons who engage in the ruthless pursuit of profits usually plan to do what it takes to further their interests, be it lobbying for tax and legal breaks, cutting workers salaries and benefits, and even, if it suits them, to drive a company into bankruptcy. When one considers the very recent history of insider trading violations, secretive and inept federal agencies, the bloated salaries of executives in failing companies, shady accounting schemes, and the blatant thievery of Wall St. from its investors, one is not hard pressed to make a case for ‘conspiracy.’ Yet, the free market and anti-labor spokespeople, hired by this cadre of the greed-driven privateers, continue to argue labels over substance, and have been more than effective at winning the hearts of Americans. As Arthur Miller said, “ Never underestimate the power of audacity.” Shamelessness abounds.
As evidence of this ‘conspiracy’, think back a few years when many American workers were first told about ‘upgrading’ their skills. Why would a corporation be forewarning us if they didn’t have something planned? It reminds me of the man who tells his wife to think about improving her cooking and her sexual talents. If the husband says it, then it means that he was thinking about it for some time already. It didn’t just pop up out of thin air. A wife should become suspicious of where her husband is getting these ideas and why, only now, was he voicing them. Who has he been talking to? Does he already have another woman in mind? Since corporate boardrooms are generally closed to the rank and file there exists that layer of secrecy that lends to their planning the moniker ‘conspiracy.’ Even the information they do share is, like our husband’s, carefully timed and worded, saying exactly what it means to say without actually saying it. It is their modus operandi.
The greatest change we can effect, as those who wholeheartedly support our fellow American Worker, is to remind others that there is a difference between real information and false advertising. Real information and common sense isn’t flashy or entertaining; it doesn’t always have beautiful people speaking it in carefully scripted mission statements. Plain reality is just that, plain. It makes no promises and requires no fancy theories or explanations to support it. Common sense is out in the open and the results are easy enough for a child to calculate. Conversely, think about how much rationalization and forethought must go into a lie or a crime. There is a lot more planning required for a bank robbery than there ever is for a trip to the supermarket. If someone attempts to sell you a product or an idea that you didn’t think of yourself or that you don’t really need, then why would you buy it based solely on the word of a slick salesperson or a colorful billboard? Common sense tells one to check out the product before buying. The free-privateers have been selling the American people many flashy promises, but no real substance. Do not trust their advertising. Keep your receipts and always complain when the product fails to perform up to snuff. Our silence is their victory.
9 Comments:
Shlomo,
As I see it, any individual or business can do evil, not just corporations, though, granted, the corporate structure (liability protection for owners and ability to sell public shares) allows a business to grow beyond what a sole proprietorship or partnership would allow.
Regarding "free trade," I've said that it's not really free trade unless people from China and Mexico are free to come here and work legally if they wish. Ultimately, I'm afraid that the root problem is that investors and consumers are greedy, seduced by dollar signs and "bling." They want high wages and high returns, they want numerous cheap new products and somewhere down the line they want a healthy environment and perhaps fair labor practices. I'm terrified of the day that the wool comes off society's eyes and people realize they can't have it all. I often worry about what our country will look like, whether or not it'll be safe to breath the air, drink the water or walk the streets without bodyguards and (guess) who will somehow be blamed.
BTW, check out Arianna Huffington's column in Salon.com today on Andy Stern, the man behind SEIU/Purple Ocean. I may want to work for him someday.
Ben Sorer Moreh, MBA
Ben Sorer,
Great comments thanks.
Re: Regarding "free trade," I've said that it's not really free trade unless people from China and Mexico are free to come here and work legally
Free trade means that those who do the trading are ‘free’ to make the rules without any restraint as to means or method. Following the adage “the dollar doesn’t know where it came from”, or some other rationalization, the privateers actually believe they are performing a public service by using slave labor, driving down wages for American workers, and selling us cheap and shoddy goods.
Free trade is fine in principle when it is FAIR trade; when the exchange of goods, labor, and wealth are on an even par, or at least when the nations involved play by the same rules. Kotfu mentioned the steel industry and I think that is a good example. How exactly was the mass importation of Japanese steel in the US market orchestrated? And who permitted this knowing full well that the American steel companies and their workers would be hurt? It was not as if a rogue freighter from Tokyo washed on the beach in Malibu and the crew began selling I-beams out of the back of the ship. The Americans involved in the importation wanted to flood the market and bring the price down so low that American companies could not compete, even if the Japanese steel was of lesser quality.
I don’t call that free or fair. Clearly there was collusion on the part of the government and big business to do harm to the American steel industry, the result of which is our greater dependence on foreign goods, and the local costs in tax revenue, urban blight, and unemployment. I know the capitalists love their ‘social darwinism’, and sit back and smugly say “too bad”, but that’s unacceptable to anyone with real ethics.
I think you are correct to say that raising the standard for everyone will correct many problems. I do not feel comfortable buying goods I know are produced from slave labor or made in American prisons by forced labor. I think back to Nazi corporations that used Jews, Poles, and Russians to mass produce goods for Germany, or the Russian Gulags. They did offer a health plan though. If you got sick they stopped the sickness – with a bullet!
Kol Tuv
Kotfu,
Thank you for your very thoughtful comments. I am sorry that we didn’t get more of a chance to debate the last time we bumped heads. It was a pleasure then and I hope to enjoy it just as much this time around. To make it easy, I’ll go point by point. As the Mishna in Avos 5:9 states “There are seven character traits of a golem and seven of a chochom...4) sticks to the subject at hand, 5) first things first, last things last……” I will try to be a chochom for a few minutes.
(Re: I also agree that some people get cheated in the corporate environment of today.)
I would rephrase it as “Many people get cheated BY the corporate environment of today.” We’re not talking one-time only blips on the moral/ethical radar, but systemic problems that, as government and corporations begin to share common goals, what little regulation and enforcement that does exist will dwindle to nothing. I believe that an honest look at corporate behavior since the late 1970’s will bear this out. Recidivist criminal corporations are thriving.
(Re: People who make a lot of money because they actually deserve it would no longer generate the same amount of cash flow in the economy and thus there would be a recession.)
There are two questions which you KNOW I’m going to ask, and I think I can anticipate your answer, if I may be so bold in doing so.
1)How much money does a person deserve for his work?
2)With so much wealth being pushed to the top of the corporate pyramid, why is there still a recession? Or a recession at all? Where is all the capital that was supposed to be creating jobs?
The first question is the hardest to answer. Normally, one would say the ‘market’ decides what that labor is worth. I agree, but with one other question. WHO establishes the ‘market’? If we have a ‘market’ decided by individuals trading goods for services, then the pricing is decided amongst them. With corporations, however, THEY are setting prices, in many cases, based on an arbitrary profit margin they must maintain for their shareholders, or operating as cartels in the same way the insurance and pharmaceutical companies do. The first consideration is not worker or consumer.
Let’s talk about the compensation packages of CEOs. Do they really work as hard as the guy who makes the product? This may surprise you, but I think they do. Running or managing is stressful, it requires skill, poise, diplomacy, and organizational ability. Managers have vast experience and educational advantages over most of the labor they manage. So I am not opposed to a CEO, charged with the responsibility of maintaining a profitable business, earning a good deal more than anyone else.
The question goes back to the first question of how much does he deserve? Is that set by the ‘market’, or as it is in most cases arbitrated between lawyers and the board of directors, apart from any ‘market’ concerns? These compensation packages aren’t even based on performance! That would be a HUGE step in the right direction were that to ever happen.
In 1980, the CEOs made roughly, on average, forty times as much as the average employee. I realize that they have some education and the related stress, etc., but to earn forty times the dollar amount (not to mention benefits and reduced price stock options) when everyone knows this guy is not working forty times harder than the laborer is insane. Remember, we are not talking about overall earnings of the company, only the CEO compensation. This was in 1980.
In 2005, that gulf between the CEO and the rank-and-file was extended to 530 to 1. That’s no exaggeration. I’m sure that Mr. CEO justifies it in any number of ways, but it remains a question of why he/she should deserve such a enormous benefit for his work. His work is not saving lives, not protecting the public interest, or even making our streets safer. His work is for the ruthless pursuit of profit, and those who are equally driven by this ruthless greed appoint him their temporary ‘Kohein Gadol’, ensuring that their culture of greed can continue unabated. It has nothing to do with our ‘market’, but an arbitrary ‘good ole boys’ network, that cares nothing for you, me, or any nation stupid enough to host their cabal.
The real question becomes: What justifies taking away the livelihood of a men making $13/hour, so that group of already immensely wealthy men can earn greater dividends on their investments?
Now, here is the corollary to the question. If these guys are making such enormous amounts of money, where are all the jobs they were suppose to be creating with that money? If there is investment, it’s not here in the US, which makes the problem double-trouble. They convince the American people that their system of doing business is good for America, then after we have sworn our allegiance to them they loot the company, and ship the dollars and the jobs overseas! Traitors! Scoundrels! Where is that greater benefit for society that was to be the payoff of allowing these CEOs to rape and pillage? I do not see them. I already know the philosophical answer to that dilemma, but I’d prefer something practical.
Re: I don't think that it does much good to complain about the greediness exhibited by consumers/investors. It doesn't do anything in the way of reformation and it neglects the fact that there will always be people like that.
I think it DOES. The people need to be aware of how this system is NOT working to their long-term benefit. Sure, having a PC, a car, and nice TV is wonderful, but if I am put out of work because the company wanted cheaper labor and higher profits elsewhere, and I’m subsequently left without a paycheck and health care, the amenities of modern life don’t mean as much anymore. Workers are consumers. The nation commits economic suicide by sending its jobs away.
There will always be people like that, you’re right. That’s exactly why we need socialism. The corporateers will never police themselves and as long a government is beholden to them, it will do nothing in the way of true corporate reform.
Enough people speak up and things will change. The trend towards fascism in the American government is a symptom of that sweeping sentiment for change swelling up. They planning something big, and taking whatever means necessary to drive all dissent underground.
Kol Tuv
Shlomo, what I meant was that if workers from "Country X" (e.g., China, Mexico) can't freely (no "strings," quotas or "cat and mouse games") pick themselves up and relocate to "Country Y," (e.g., the US, Canada, Europe) where they can earn more for their output, then they are essentially slaves, the "X" countries are slave states and the "Y" countries support and enforce the arrangement. Furthermore, when you pay $1 for a certain good or service that's produced in the US, you're "buying" the materials labor and producer's profit, but also for the worker's family's healthcare, the education of the worker's (your fellow citizen's) kids, protection of the worker's (your) environment. When you're buying a product produced in "Country X," you're paying for whatever health, education and environmental protection "Country X" provides for its workers (LOL,) you're not supporting your own community and "Country X" sure as heck ain't.
When "Country X" (the foreign producing country) appears to act as a responsible citizen of the planet, I rationalize "OK, they're entitled to a middle-class, too," but when it's just a big racketeer, getting by on slavery, environmental genocide and wholesale violation of intellectual property, then we're slitting our throats with every dollar that flows there.
It's pretty sad, that among many products, we don't even have a choice anymore.
Ben, Populist patriot with an MBA
Ben,
Well Said! Sadly, you're right. It is becoming harder and harder to find American made goods. I have a refrigerator made by General Motors (not GE) built in 1979. It still keeps my beer very cold.
The other issue that I will talk about in another post is that even when American companies innovate and produce the intellectual and patent rights are not honored in China and most of SE Asia, and then the knock-off products are shipped en masse to the US, costing more American jobs and putting the American compnaies out of business.
The capitalists don't seem to be bothered by this one bit. It is the free market, they say; social darwinism at its peak. They don't realize that this is not a matter of economics. It is matter of criminality.
We signed economic treaties with all these nations.Why didn't we at least try to ensure our intellectual and patent rights?
BTW, the poster caught my eye and I'm wondering about its artist (Courtney Allen) and its history. If you don't look carefully, it looks like a white person and black person shaking hands (and the nation giving its blessing.) Could this have been part of the artist's intent with the dark glove?
...we're talking about the 1940s, now.
It's a worker's glove. If the hand inside it is black, I don't know.
Kotfu,
In many place throughout Judaism the ‘middle way’ is praised. What does this middle way look like when applied to economics and wealth? Is money the most important thing that we should strive after? Is wealth the defining standard of a society?
What purpose does the wide disparity in income and wealth serve for our society? The assumption has been that as the wealthier get even wealthier, that the wealth will ‘trickle down’ some how to everyone else. The last 30 years has been proven has proven the ‘voodoo’ of Reagan and the ‘faith based’ economics of Bush to be false, if not dangerous perversions of sound economic policy.
The fallout of extremes is this. The Chazal, and rightly so, tell us in many places that chasing after money is a great evil. There is a story about the Besht that he wondered how it was that people were so swayed by avodah zara, even when the Beis Hamikdosh stood. A Tana came to him in a dream and said “Had you lived in my time, you would have run to do avodah zara!” The Besht then asked the Tana “So what is the avodah zara today?” The Tana answered “Money.” The Besht, after some thought, couldn’t figure out which was the worse of the two. I think this illustrates the problem.
We have a world where there are two extremes, those who have no time for life because they are chasing money to get wealthier, and those who have no time for life because they are chasing money to pay their bills, sent to them by those who are getting wealthier from those bills. So we have no middle way, no middle ground, between the people who are always collecting the money and those who are trying to collect enough money to hand it over to the wealthy. Everybody is eternally busy looking for money.
Is this the world you want?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home