"Green," or "Clean" Jobs: - Like The Health Care Bill, Another Window To Fascism; State And Commercial Collaboration
by Larry Perrault on February 15, 2010 at 10:08 AM
All of my life, the old charge was that The Republican Party was the one in bed with business. But, true conservatives don’t favor corporations, they favor liberty. That charge was usually a canard, though we have seen instances as in Alaska, where corporate chums’ nests were feathered nicely by oil companies. But, who was largely responsible for cleaning that up? Oh, some supposedly dishonest know nothing named Sarah Palin that you may have heard of. And, speaking of “green jobs,” and criticizing Palin, NBC and their more rabid cable arm MSNBC, still make that pitch that she is dumb or dishonest at every opportunity. And they are owned by a corporate conglomerate, the apex of which is General Electric with their CEO Jeffrey Immelt, strangely a big Obama booster and apologist. Well, GE is all tooled up to peddle green energy products like solar panels and wind turbines when they get that little Cap and Trade measure passed. That’s just a coincidence, I’m sure; GE is just a company of good conscience that wants to help save the planet; billions of dollars worth.
We saw the government seduction of new business that lured insurance and pharmaceutical companies to the cause of the health care bill. This is all nothing new, but is as old as the hills. All forms of socialism/fascism (National Socialist: Nazi) are a government commandeering of or collaboration with established industry, since the initial establishment of communism which called for “workers’ control of the means of production.” It’s another coincidence that when the US government took majority ownership of US auto companies, private debt-holders were moved behind what was made the second-largest shareholder. Who was that, again? Oh yeah! The labor union. Even the initial actions of government regulation of private industry are steps in this direction. As much as the noise is about throttling big money, big businesses can absorb these costs while their potential competitors can’t. And if the potential competitors are stopped, big businesses will gladly pay the costs of regulation in order to secure market-share. They’d rather profit some from 100 million people than profit a little more from ten million. As long as the unit profit is black not red, the more the better.
I’ve always used an everyday example that everyone can understand. A minimum-wage law or hike, or a requirement of installing facilities to accommodate the handicapped (like me), doesn’t hurt McDonalds or Burger King who have established market share. But, it may well kill Fred’s Hamburgers in the cradle, who’s just trying to get going with a better burger. The government “benefactors” of low wage-earners and handicapped people who perceive a gain are winners. And, so are the big established businesses. Small or potential businesses are losers (sorry, Fred). But mainly, the loser is the public that will never get that better burger, or whatever the product or service is. Even Democratic-socialist countries like those in Europe will subsidize the big corporations that, directly or indirectly through subsidiaries, employ so many of their workers.
Here’s a link to a recent television segment about government cooperation with another “green jobs” provider: