X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 09:16:30 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      andy f. quietly declares class warfare on the "rivet-heads"
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In solidarity with all of those poor oppressed corporations,
andy f. says:

>>>Really?  Paying Chrysler's managers less would be good for the
>>>economy?

>>Provided that the share of corporate income freed up by this
>>action was distributed among the workforce, such could be
>>reasonably argued.

>And, could be reasonably disputed.  O'Andy has claimed that there's a
>huge benefit, so let's see the argument.

You've seen the argument before so I'll reduce it here.

Putting more money in the hands of the middle class stimulates
important sectors of the economy like housing, autos and retail
(among others). Concentrating money in the hands of the top 1%
does not stimulate the "mass consumption" end of the economy
except through the extra availability of consumer credit.

Excerpt from interview with George Bush:

Bush>"Interest rates are down, and today yet there's another very
important credit card company came down on their rates. At some point
when those rates are, when people see the rates are where they are,
I beleive that you're going to see confidence start back in housing
or in consumer buying. And that's what the economy needs."

Interviewer>"But people don't have jobs, sir. They don't have any
income. They don't care what the interest rate is. They can't spend
any money. They can't borrow any money."


>And, if there's a
>significant social benefit, shouldn't society pay for it?

Ok andy, so if corporations provide a benefit to society (jobs) then
society should subsidize corporations, and if it would benefit
society for workers to earn more then society should subsidize the
corporations some extra, right? So you don't mind if your taxes
go way up for this extra benefit right?

At what point do you say that if a corporation benefits from society
(being allowed to participate in a market, use the workers trained
by that society, etc.) that it should pay something back?


>>>Would Chrysler get better managers for less or is the effect
>>>indirect?

>>They conceivably *could* get better managers for less, they *could*
>>reduce the number of managers and use the climate of fear as
>>a prop in negotiating the salaries of management downward.
>>(The way that it is done with the labor force)

>Then why haven't Chrysler's owners done that?  After all, they like
>money and savings from management are just as green as savings from
>labor.

Gee, do you suppose that it might be a (gasp) "class-thing?"

>The "climate of fear" comes from the fact that US "rivet-heads" cost
>more than other rivet-heads.  Chrysler would love to shut out that
>competition, but has failed.

Gee andy, isn't the first step in warfare creating in the mind of the
public and the military a sense that the "enemy" is not really fully
human? I seem to remember it involving the use of derogatory
terminology... krauts, commies, zipper-heads...hmmm, that last one
sounds a lot like "rivet-heads" doesn't it?

>-andy

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU