Reply #11: Back in 1992 the late Senator Tsongas [View All]

[salin]

campaigned on rebuilding the economic engines via investment in infrastructure - attention to manufacturing - and thus nurturing the growth (once again) of a strong middle class. He was my first pick out of the then candidates for the democratic candidate race. The message didn't get picked up - but his strong emphasis of economic growth for the middle class was picked up and amplified by Clinton.

The sad thing is that in the growth of the 1990s, a trend that began in the mideighties continued - picking up steam by the end of the decade and turn of the millenium. Massive acquisitions and mergers that were not driven by increasing economic viability (eg vertical integration or logical diversification) but instead by increasing the appearance of growth and size and thus attempting to gain stock market value more than actual profitability. The cost of this trend (which in my mind picked up in popularity in the eighties leveraged buy-out binge) was two fold... First it encouraged companies to maintain a particular level of debt in order to not be TOO attractive for buyouts while at the same time not becoming to vulnerable to buyouts; and second, it increased to insane levels the debtloads carried by many large corporations. This is a factor that is seldom spoken about in the mainstream press (even the business press) though it was briefly a topic when Enron collapsed on itself. The problem is that increasing size of revenues now has to go towards debt-reduction/interest/etc. rather than towards corporate investment (eg r and d) ... and in trying to cut costs - pushes more focus on cheaper labor sources (they can't change the amount due on debts... but they CAN on labor.) Also not mentioned - is how much increased risk is carried by certain big investment banks. I believe that in the second corporate implosion (the WorldCom round) - that some banks, such as JPMOrgan Chase - were getting very nervous... that a few more massive failures would have a HUGE impact on their viability. Had this happened - what kind of financial crisis might have emerged?

I agree that the corporate eyes on short-term profit - at the exclusion of considering the need for a healthy consuming class (middle class as well as upper class) - would seem to be penny wise and pound foolish in the long run.

The thing, as a spiritual but left-leaning Christian, that I don't understand - is the religious right's complete deafness to the words in the Bible (old and new testament, but particularly in the teachings of Christ) that warn about greed. The damage inflicted upon others due to some extreme greed at the upper echelons of some multinational corporations - is incredibly broadspread and can have huge implications on the lives of many (thousands? more?), yet there is no push on those teachings. Instead there is obsessive use of religious rhetoric on personal sins that tend to primarily effect the individual, and perhaps one or two folks beyond the individual. It boggles my mind that gay marriage is repeatedly said by some republicans (most recently my former congressman John Hostettler) to be THE MOST SINGLE IMPORTANT ISSUE facing us today. But economic policies fueled by greed - no problem... nor the resulting crumbling of our economic infrastructure and long term stabilitiy... not a big deal... but the spector of gay marraige... *sigh*