It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should governments hand out subsidies to corpations?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   
No corpation should receive subsidies no matter how many people that company employs. If the Government wants to keep unemployment low they should support free enterprise instead of strangling it.

Instead of handing out subsidies governments should.
Ensure there are interest free loans for people who start small business.
Dont tax small business in the first year and a lower tax rate in the 2nd and 3rd years.
Reform the education system so students learn something that might be of use to them.
Teach people how to run a small business instead of teaching them stuff that will be of no use outside of the classroom.

Government subsidies are a bad idea in the long term. Why should free enterprise be strangled when corpations are staying afloat with government handouts?




posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Your indignation is justified, but it will not help. The relationship between government and corporation is that of boss and employee. The government is the underling of the corporation. Those in government serve their corporate masters above all else. Bribes and kickbacks that come as 'campaign donations' are the tip of the iceberg. Congressmen are completely financed by the corporate world, because it is through control of the government that the corporate agenda is pushed. The corporations need the government, and especially the police and military, to put down any working class uprising. The corporation must be defended against everything from such low-level resistance as labour law reform to full-blown revolt of the working class. This is why the media is also such an important asset. The media wields tremendous power to illegitimize any working class resistance, and to win the minds of other who would consider joining the revolt.

The corporation is the dominant institution of our time precisely because capitalism is the dominant mode of production of our time.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
General Zapata I dont think that the police and military are corpations.
I dont think that he relationship between government and corporation is that of boss employee because not all companys get hand outs. I do think that governments use subsidies to gain votes rather then do what is right.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I never said that police and military are corporations, I said that they are employed by the government in the service of corporations, since government is virtually an employee of the corporation. Corporations do not have to get overt, obvious aid from government in the form of handouts for government to be aiding corporate control and profits. The war in iraq is a good example. Before the war, the situation in iraq was not of a 'favourable investment climate'. This has been rectified. War is a great way to open up new markets for exploitation by corporations.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by General Zapata
I never said that police and military are corporations, I said that they are employed by the government in the service of corporations, since government is virtually an employee of the corporation. Corporations do not have to get overt, obvious aid from government in the form of handouts for government to be aiding corporate control and profits. The war in iraq is a good example. Before the war, the situation in iraq was not of a 'favourable investment climate'. This has been rectified. War is a great way to open up new markets for exploitation by corporations.


Sorry my fault didnt get what you had said.
I would hardly call the current situation in Iraq a favourable investment climate. Should the sercuity situation ever improve then companys that took part in the war will do very well from the rebuilding of Iraq.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Hrrrrmmmm...

The last two ideas seem awfully radical. Mainly because I got a splendid education in the second to worst state for free, public education. I learned how to weld, how to build, how to farm...I learned how to do basic accounting stuff. I learned how to cook and do stuff around the house. And all of that came from my "horrid education". The school curriculum isn't the one that needs to be changed. After all, look at me. I graduated from a school of less than 500 k-12. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with education. You can learn your vocation in high school, because I could have went on to do welding for the rest of my life. (Great pay) I could have become a butcher. (Competition in FFA) I could have worked for the timber company. (Another FFA competition) The only problem with the education is the people learning.

Now, the one question I would like to pose is are you against all subsidizing? I admit, I know not the information on corporate subsidizing. The only type of subsidizing that I know is of agricultural. And that type is very good. Trust me, it keeps your ears of corn costing about the same amount. (It prevents serious over surplusing)

The first two changes are pretty good and promotes new entrepeneurs. But I am afraid that it would only be so temporarily. I can see many companies finding loop holes within it. (What's good for the goose...)



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11

Originally posted by General Zapata
I never said that police and military are corporations, I said that they are employed by the government in the service of corporations, since government is virtually an employee of the corporation. Corporations do not have to get overt, obvious aid from government in the form of handouts for government to be aiding corporate control and profits. The war in iraq is a good example. Before the war, the situation in iraq was not of a 'favourable investment climate'. This has been rectified. War is a great way to open up new markets for exploitation by corporations.


Sorry my fault didnt get what you had said.
I would hardly call the current situation in Iraq a favourable investment climate. Should the sercuity situation ever improve then companys that took part in the war will do very well from the rebuilding of Iraq.


In a country where a large percentage of the world's oil is placed, a fledgling democracy is taking hold where the administrators are desperate to rebuild the economy, and would most likely accept all foreign investment. I have a feeling shell and others are going to do very well there. Hell, Halliburton did!

[edit on 5-2-2005 by General Zapata]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   
OXmanK Im glad you benfited from your education in the second to worst state for free, public education.

As for agricultural subsidizing do farmers in America grow to much and drive the price of there prouduce down?


General Zapata Didnt Halliburton have to pay back money to the US government?
Halliburton are doing well because they are feeding the troops something the US military should be doing themselvs.

If the sercuity situation in Iraq improves then the likes of Shell could do well. Given the current state of Iraq most foreign investment would end up with a RPG in the middle of it.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Yes, they subsidized so the produce could have a somewhat consistent price. And to prevent the S/D being thrown into upheavel. If you took away the government subsidzing, the only people who could survive by farming alone are those who grow exotic plants or the big fat cats on top. But that is only one incidence of good subsidizing.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   
The free market produces the best result in the long term.
subsidies might keep people happy in the short term but they dont encourage economical farming practices.

Twenty years ago, the New Zealand government announced it was stopping all subsidies for farmers. At the time, those farmers thought the effects would be disastrous, but things panned out rather differently.
When you ask a question as a reporter and get blank silence back it usually means, in my experience, one of two things: either you are heading up the wrong track completely or you are on the threshold of some interesting territory.
source

Quote
Why New Zealanders don’t like subsidies
According to the Kiwi outlook, the ill effects of subsidies include:

1. Resentment among farmers, some of who will inevitably feel that subsidies are applied unfairly.
2. Resentment among non-farmers, who pay for the system once in the form of taxes and a second time in the form of higher food prices.
3. The encouragement of overproduction, which then drives down prices and requires more subsidization of farmers’ incomes.
4. The related encouragement to farm marginal lands, with resulting environmental degradation.
5. The fact that most subsidy money passes quickly from farmers to farm suppliers, processors, and other related sectors, again negating the intended effect of supporting farmers.
6. Additional market distortions, such as the inflation of land values based on production incentives or cheap loans.
7. Various bureaucratic insanities, such as paying farmers to install conservation measures like hedgerows and wetlands—after having paid them to rip them out a generation ago, while those farmers who have maintained such landscape and wildlife features all along get nothing.

This is a long article that has some good points

source




top topics



 
0

log in

join