Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: [Market-farming] Globalization / Food Quality / What to do?

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Pat Meadows <pat AT meadows.pair.com>
  • To: Market Farming <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc: Market Farming <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Market-farming] Globalization / Food Quality / What to do?
  • Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:30:15 -0400


PS - Tooth-pulling trip needs to be postponed so I have a
little more time.

>
>Thanks, Pat. You've given me much to think about. As I said, I'm still
>trying to wrap my head around all of this becuase it's such a *HUGE*
>issue. Hopefully my small actions (growin' and sellin') will mirror all
>the hot air I've blown out today! LOL!

Yup, think globally, act locally!

You don't want to fall into the trap of 'circular
reasoning'.

If you make certain (maybe unconscious) assumptions of 'how
things are' or 'how things have always been', then it's easy
to fall into that trap.

I'll try to explain what I mean.

In the USA, big corporations pay little, if any, income tax.
Here's the abstract of a NY Times article on this subject.
(I can't get the whole article now without paying for it,
but I read it earlier, when it was in the free section.)

-----------------------
BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK | April 6, 2004, Tuesday
In Study, Most Companies Reported No Taxes

By LYNNLEY BROWNING (NYT) 517 words
Late Edition - Final , Section C , Page 9 , Column 3
ABSTRACT - General Accounting Office study finds nearly
two-thirds of companies operating in US reported owing no
taxes from 1996 through 2000; says foreign companies doing
business in US are more likely than American-based ones to
claim they owed no taxes

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40713FA345D0C758CDDAD0894DC404482
--------------------------

OK: hopefully this establishes, to your satisfaction, that
big corporations pay little or no income tax. This wasn't
always true, btw, I can remember when it wasn't true (I'm
60), but it's true now due to a long series of changes in
tax laws which specifically favor big business.

So, XYZ Corporation pollutes the air that you and I breathe
and is allowed to do so (because The Clean Air Act has been
gutted by the present administration.)

XYZ Corporation is now not only allowed to pollute the air
it discharges from its smokestacks, but also it doesn't even
pay much, if any, tax.

This is properly called 'privatizing profits, socializing
losses.' The losses are borne by the environment and the
people (the citizens in general through their taxes).
The profit goes to the big corporation and is distributed
however its present management sees fit (largely into their
own pockets recently).

After I breathe the polluted air, I am sometimes
hospitalized for asthma (this has actually happened to me,
I've been hospitalized for asthma when we lived in a more
polluted environment than we now do).

I'm on Medicare as are millions of other disabled or retired
citizens. This means that the US people in general through
their taxes pay most of my hospitalization costs. The
cumulative effect of this hospitalization (and many others)
drives up the taxes people must pay.

Then the government turns around and says 'People are not
willing to pay more taxes.'

Well, no. They are not willing to pay more taxes *now*,
because they are *already* bearing the burden of all the
damage done by the corporations/big business/the Monsantos
of the world.

If the multi-national corporations, the Monsantos, etc.,
were forced to clean up their air before they emit it into
the atmosphere and if they were forced to pay a reasonable
share of their profits, THEN the (mythical) average Joe
wouldn't need to pay so much tax in the first place, and -
especially - would not feel unfairly burdened.

So this is an example, I think, of circular reasoning.

The effect (the peoples' unwillingness to pay more taxes) of
a specific act (Corporation XYZ being allowed to pollute the
air) is being used to justify certain political and economic
assumptions that lead back to even *more* of the same
effect. 'Can't afford to regulate this industry, the EPA
hasn't got the budget because people don't want higher
taxes,' etc. We've all seen and read lots of instances of
this. It goes around and around.

Something else to think about: capitalism always relied
upon a balance of power between labor and management.
Historically, this balance of power was what made capitalism
work to the benefit of the citizenry in general.

Now globalization is happening: and all the power has
shifted to management as big corporations are engaged in a
'race to the bottom' - a race to find the countries with the
lowest wages, lowest environmental laws, lowest worker
safety laws. Some companies that have shifted jobs from the
USA to India are *already* leaving India to go to countries
with even lower wages...

So the historical balance of power between labor and
management is gone now.

This actually 'breaks' capitalism as we once knew it, and -
unless stopped or regulated - will inevitably result in
driving the standard of living of all countries down to the
lowest common denominator.

On that happy thought, I finish. :)

Cheers,
Pat
--
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page