Cal Thomas gives us an optimistic version of how the free market has worked for the poor in Africa, South America and etc. Who with a bit of hard work managed to become industry leaders in manufacturing projects among other things, despite obstacles put in their place by their own governments. Mr. Thomas in fact, goes through all these anecdotal stories to bash Senator Clinton and Senator Obama for playing up the "victimhood" and "can't do spirit" of the working poor in this country. How about that, if the gvt would just get out of the way of the impoverished of this nation, then they too could ultimately own their own versions of Microsoft.
What Mr. Thomas leaves out; is that part of the aid packages handed out to impoverished countries in the African continent, to Central and South America have been lending capital designed to create homegrown businesses in those self same impoverished regions. Only because of lending capital, has it been possible for the poor who want the jobs, who want the businesses to create the jobs, to go on and become success stories. As detailed in Thomas' republished to the Spokesman-Review editorial. What about this country?
Among the poor poor can't do it without gvt help "victims" just happen to be multinational megabuck corporations. While Thomas was bashing away at the above Dems for "preventing" the impoverished from thinking that they too can become yet another Bill Gates, guys like Gates who head corporations like Microsoft, ExxonMobile, Haliburton, etc. come making demands of gvt to either protect them from competition, within the U.S. itself from such terrible how dare they start up companies who make the same sort of TV, maybe better than mine software or microchip, even though I live on the other side of the state from the local farmer's market, I control what those fools can buy as seed or sell as plants and produce in the state because even that local operation presents a threat to my bottom line. Or as discovered in the time of the Reagan administration, we don't like the Japanese "dumping" onto the American markets microchips and etc. that are better, faster and cheaper than what we make. Or, because of exceptionally deep pockets, these same multinational megabuck corporations will also accept welfare. Of course they can't hope to get international trade deals without the help of gvt, but they can get juicy contracts on the basis of whom they know and what they are prepared to pay out through lobbying to get the special ear of their favorite politicians. As opposed to that Mom and Pop operation in Someplace, Tennessee that can do the same thing that Haliburton can do, but doesn't have a Dick Cheney, for example, going to bat for them. But of course, Thomas steers clear of any sort of discussions of that nature. In this country, success stories aren't the "rags to riches" fantasy stories that get shown in Hollywood. Nor are they "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" novels that I have seen over the years on the book shelves. No, either it is a "you got lucky" with the company you hired onto. Or you just happened to make the "right impression" when it came to your superiors, or you "inherited the business" from the deceased who first started the company and you are now carrying on the business basically in his name. Or you had a "great idea" that the banks were prepared to take the risk and lend money too. The venture capitalists also thought it was a great idea and supported your efforts. In short, working capital.
What Thomas takes great pains in all of his editorial to not say, is that while the poor should regain that optimistic can do spirit, what do they do for capital in order to create the business that finally makes them a success in life? Duh!
What Mr. Thomas leaves out; is that part of the aid packages handed out to impoverished countries in the African continent, to Central and South America have been lending capital designed to create homegrown businesses in those self same impoverished regions. Only because of lending capital, has it been possible for the poor who want the jobs, who want the businesses to create the jobs, to go on and become success stories. As detailed in Thomas' republished to the Spokesman-Review editorial. What about this country?
Among the poor poor can't do it without gvt help "victims" just happen to be multinational megabuck corporations. While Thomas was bashing away at the above Dems for "preventing" the impoverished from thinking that they too can become yet another Bill Gates, guys like Gates who head corporations like Microsoft, ExxonMobile, Haliburton, etc. come making demands of gvt to either protect them from competition, within the U.S. itself from such terrible how dare they start up companies who make the same sort of TV, maybe better than mine software or microchip, even though I live on the other side of the state from the local farmer's market, I control what those fools can buy as seed or sell as plants and produce in the state because even that local operation presents a threat to my bottom line. Or as discovered in the time of the Reagan administration, we don't like the Japanese "dumping" onto the American markets microchips and etc. that are better, faster and cheaper than what we make. Or, because of exceptionally deep pockets, these same multinational megabuck corporations will also accept welfare. Of course they can't hope to get international trade deals without the help of gvt, but they can get juicy contracts on the basis of whom they know and what they are prepared to pay out through lobbying to get the special ear of their favorite politicians. As opposed to that Mom and Pop operation in Someplace, Tennessee that can do the same thing that Haliburton can do, but doesn't have a Dick Cheney, for example, going to bat for them. But of course, Thomas steers clear of any sort of discussions of that nature. In this country, success stories aren't the "rags to riches" fantasy stories that get shown in Hollywood. Nor are they "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" novels that I have seen over the years on the book shelves. No, either it is a "you got lucky" with the company you hired onto. Or you just happened to make the "right impression" when it came to your superiors, or you "inherited the business" from the deceased who first started the company and you are now carrying on the business basically in his name. Or you had a "great idea" that the banks were prepared to take the risk and lend money too. The venture capitalists also thought it was a great idea and supported your efforts. In short, working capital.
What Thomas takes great pains in all of his editorial to not say, is that while the poor should regain that optimistic can do spirit, what do they do for capital in order to create the business that finally makes them a success in life? Duh!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment