Politics, News & Issues >
US Economy
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedAre corporate subsidies an essential part of an economic development strategy?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| No | 79% | 11 votes | Total: 14 votes | |
| Yes | 21% | 3 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe concept of corporate subsidies do not contribute to economic development but creates laziness, artificially inflated prices, and economic chaos. When a corporation is subsidized by the Govenrment, it must do everything the state asks of it if it is to survive. The fact that the Federal Government used money to subsidize Mc Donalds in other parts of the world does not contribute to the growth of a corporation. If the Government wants to make changes in the methods of the Corporation, it could force the Corporation to do things it would not be able to do if only to receive the subsidy. The general public also suffer since they feel that the subsidies will protect their lifestyle even though in the long run, the general public would suffer because of high prices or rationing of products.
In the same realm that State and Church should be separated, the State and the Corporations should be separated. This entails a total separation without subsidies, without contributions on both sides [i.e.: Corporations giving money to the Government or Politicians and the Government Contributing to the Corporations]. Corporations and Government are a mixture that should be avoided in order to stimulate competition and get the juices of energy for new concepts to take root. If Ford, Edison, and Firestone were alive today, they could not function in today's overregulated economy with the Corporate Subsidy being a part of the agony of doing business in the United States of America.
Coporations associating themselves with Governments usually have a way of losing money after the administation or government falls. An example of this was India and Coca Cola after the defeat of Indira Gandhi for reelection as Prime Minister of India in 1977. When we go back to Corporate Subsidies, the fact that it diminishes competition and does not help the companies, the employees, nor the area at large where the corporation is based.
Corporate Subsidies should never be used since the false sense of security that it gives to the people of the United States of America could prove fatal to the social fabric if it were to be removed. In order to avoid the pain and damage to the social fabric, Corporate Subsidies must never be allowed to function in the economy of the United States of America if there is to be a free market. A company and or a corporation has a product and as long as the people want the product, there will be more manufacturing of such products. If the people tire of such products, the company should find newer products or whither away without the help of the State in saving the company.
Learn more about this author, Roberto Alvarez-Galloso.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
Corporate subsidies are necessary for competition. The United States is very large and diverse. Developing competitive research and industry takes more time than, say, compared to Denmark or Japan.
In those countries, corporate subsidies enabled massive, fast development of work force skills and motivation, in addition to purchasing and implementing necessary technologies. It is not analogous with farm subsidies, which are in place to control the global market and keep the huge tax burden of so much land from undermining, financially, the owners.
Subsidies are a way of nuanced development, and are now more than ever, an important tool for government. Not only to get concessions from industry, but to of course, develop, or restrict development, if in the case the industry subsidized is doomed to failure...for whatever reason. Bad execution could cost all the people involved into economic failure, but subsidies can nix the business before it turns Enron. In other words, in requires oversight by the government.
Subsidies are especially useful now because the rate and depth of research is so dynamic. Computers have re-written almost everything having to do with science and research, with technological development and design. It is unprecedented in the history of man, and it promises to get only more sophisticated.
One may want to argue the peace and security of the world, but I would rather have Laos dependent on American technology and jobs, instead of Laos, through government subsidies (from a foreign government is pretty much the same...and does that sound cold war-esque?)developin g the means to produce technological devices essential to infantry technology. After all, it would be very cheap to pay workers one tenth to do somewhat simplistic tasks of operating machinery that manufactures nanotech...and the workplace rules regarding exposure and the resulting cost of medical care would be far less stringent.
Certainly, subsidies smack of Five Year Plans ala communism, but its not the whole system if it is used in the proper place at the proper time. Besides, the plans can be fitted to fit the nature of the system. Nature, now, is up for grabs, depending on how much computing power we apply.
Removing the system of subsidies would enable those who do have subsidies, say, the soviet space program, a heavily subsidized industry, to exceed and dominate. Smaller, less developed states can adapt quickly to innovations, given a neighbor helping hand.
A subsidy is the same as government directed industry, though a length of time or certain tax code specifications would blur the boundaries. The point is, history is captained by industry, by the personal enrichment of individual innovation, the freedom of expression, or the call to liberty, but by the large scale, highly organized application of human potential by the powers of government.
Learn more about this author, James Hinton.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
