Liberalism vs Business is a false dichotomy.


We often hear liberals talk about the rich/corporations/businesses not
paying their fair share. And, we often hear of conservatives defending
businesses from radicals and the ignorant mob. And, to be sure, there
are groups within liberalism which are ideologically or socio-
economically anti-rich and even anti-business.  And, it's also true
that many businessmen--especially small businessmen--resent liberal
Big Government and want to left alone to make their own money.

But, the liberal vs business dichotomy is way overblown and may not
even be a fundamental fact of econo-politics. This is especially true
of Big Business. Big Business faces more social pressures than small
business. They have to be more mindful of its public image.
Corporations compete not only for market share but for the way they
are perceived--in taking care of their employees, in being a
responsible steward of the community they operate in, promoting just
causes, and various other factors. This public image-keeping is
expensive. A small business is much more adaptable. No one's going to
pay too much attention to what it does. Small businesses crop up and
disappear day in and day out. Their main objective is profit. Small
businessmen work hard--perhaps no one works harder--, but they are in
it for the money, pure and simple, not to be respected and loved.
This is why small businessmen tend to be more conservative than big
businessmen. Big Businessmen want help from the government to pay for
some of their expensive public image upkeep. Big Businesses want to
avoid scandals to maintain their highfaluting respect in the world
community. And, social activists are much more likely to target big
businesses over small businesses. A small restaurant may have rats,
but at most it will be shut down by the city. But, if a Big Chain
Restaurant has rats, it will be national news. If a small business
doesn't offer healthcare to its employees, no big deal. But, Walmart
was hounded for not providing healthcare to all its employees.

And so, many Big Businesses are not always anti-liberal when it comes
to economic matters. As far as many corporations are concerned, bigger
government means more profit to them. But, won't they have to pay
higher taxes? Yes, taxes will be higher under liberalism, but Big
Businesses can also forgo many of their obligations.  If government
provides healthcare, corporations no longer need to. Considering the
cost of healthcare, corporations feel they have more to gain by
government taking over healthcare.  This is because goverment-run
healthcare is rationed care which will strictly limit the care
patients will or won't receive. Under the current private healthcare
plans, great many employees can see any doctor for whatever ailment,
real or imagined. But, if there's rationed care, government will
decide who gets to see what. And, there will also be long waiting
periods. Everyone will have access to equal healthcare, but everyone
will get far less than what people who are insured are getting now.
Corporations figure that higher taxes to pay for rationed healthcare
will be far less costly than what they have to dole out now for their
employees. And, this may well be true would be true if American people
accept the tradeoffs from private healthcare to rationed care.  This
seems to be the case in some European nations. Corporations in Europe
actually benefit because they are not burdened with having to provide
healthcare for their employees.

But, we must take one thing into account. Europeans generally are
willing to do with less than Americans. Europeans, rising from the
ashes of WWII, came to expect less and do with less. They are content
with smaller cars, smaller serving sizes at restaurants, smaller
homes, and so on.  Germans are thrify by nature. Also, when socialized
medicine arrived in Europe, many people never had any healthcare. So,
they were grateful that they got any healthcare at all. They never had
an opportunity to compare a system of private healthcare vs rationed
healthcare. They only came to think in terms of rationed healthcare or
no healthcare. Following WWII when people were without jobs and on the
verge of starvation, this feeling was understandable in Europe.

But, it's different in America. What Americans expect from universal
healthcare is not what Eurpoeans expected--and have come to be
grateful for--in the post-war era.  The majority of Americans, over
several generations, came to enjoy private healthcare and for many of
them, it's the best in the world. The idea of a rationed care offering
the kind of care that the majority of Americans have come to expect
and enjoy is a joke. IF Americans will accept the European/Canadian
level of healthcare, universal healthcare may work in America. Also,
corporations and businessmen--who offer healthcare to their workers--
have much to gain.  But,--and it's a big BUT--, if Americans want
rationed care to provide the kind of care they are used to getting,
they will be sourly disappointed. If so, many Americans will grow
angry and demand better care. The only thing the government can do
that is raise taxes higher and higher until universal healthcare is
funded enough to provide the kind of care that Americans demand. That
means corporations will have to pay higher and higher taxes--which may
exceed the amount of money they saved by not providing employee
healthcare.

It's kinda like this. Suppose there's a bunch of people on the verge
of starvation. So, they are provided with universal food program where
they get oatmeal in the morning, burger for lunch, and fried chicken
for dinner day in and day out. Suppose these people are thankful for
this. Never mind that the menu is severly restricted. They are happy
they have any food at all. For these people, universal food program
may seem a blessing.
Now, suppose there's another bunch of people. Suppose the majority of
people have come to enjoy bacon and eggs for breakfast, a five course
meal for lunch, and a seven course meal for dinner. But, suppose not
everyone in this bunch enjoys the same amount of food. Some people
must do with less. The system is less equal. So, suppose someone
floats the idea of a universal food program. Suppose the people who
eat well think the program will mean most people will eat equally
well.   But, what people will get is reduced rations for all. Now,
will those people accustomed to good food accept new rations? Or, will
they rebel and go apeshit?  Knowing Americans, they will go apeshit
with the universal healthcare. Americans are simply used to much
better.

Finally, Big Businesses want government to take care of all the basic
needs of all Americans because they want us to borrow and spend more.
Why do people save and spend their money wisely? Because they have to
save for a rainy day. Why do they have to save for a rainy day?
Because you're supposed to take care of yourself and be responsible in
the US. But, what if the government provided you with all the basic
necessities? There is no need to be rational, responsible, or thrify
anymore. You just need to earn and spend--and borrow and spend. What
do you care if your bank account is zero? Government will look after
your basic needs. Now, government providing these basic necessities
means higher taxes, much of which will have to be paid by Big
Business. But, Big Business figures there's far more money to make
than taxes to pay in a society where people spend like crazy since
their basic needs are taken care of. There is some truth to this. Take
social security. It's because people look forward to being taken care
of by the government in the future that they don't save for the
future. One could argue this is good for the economy since greater
consumer spending means more economic activity and so forth.

Anyway, the point is Big Business is not necessarily averse to
liberalism. So, we should not suprised that most of Big Business is
behind Obama. Of course, one could argue they are behind Obama because
they project him to be the winner this november and want to be on his
good side. That's part of the reason, but not all.  Big Businesses
find it expensive to maintain their image as responsible corporate
citizens. The health care costs are out of control. Also, anxious
consumers who save for a rainy day are bad for business; they don't
spend enough. So, Big Businesses are willing to pay higher taxes so
that government will foist rationed care. Big Businesses are willing
to pay higher taxes that provide us with government provided basic
necessities.  With such security blanket provided for us, we will all
save less and spend more. Good for business--in the short term.

This is why conservatives must not make frame the debate as between
liberalism and business. Libs and buinesses--at least Big Business-are
on the same boat. Conservatives must make a philosphical argument.
Even if libs and Big Businesses may be right about some of the
economic dynamics of their proposals, their vision of society is
lousy. It's a society where we are nanny state dufuses who need our
diapers changed and tards who can't figure out how to balance our
check books.  We are to be treated and taken care of like children;
and we are supposed to earn and borrow money merely for hedonistic
consumption.

And, we must remember we are speaking of Americans here. Europeans,
who tend to be more intellectual and cultured, are less materialistic
and simple-minded than Americans. Europeans, even with government
provided necessities, tend to spend their money more wisely. Not
Americans who just love to spend and spend. Lacking culture and
intellectualism, Americans get their jollies through consumption.
But, in some ways, perhaps the nanny state is the logical outcome of
an infantile society. Our mindless capitalism teaches kids to have
fun, fun, and fun. Its main ethos is 'get paid, get laid'.  We are the
victims of our own success in the postwar economic order.  And, the
60s was truly odd and ridiculous in having fused idealism with
materialism. Even the anti-materialistic pretensions of the 60s
generation was a form of materialism. Hippies mooched off their
parents and their unifying anthems--rock music--were made possible by
modern recording, marketing, and sales industries. Or, consider all
those Dead concerts which again became popular in the 80s and 90s. The
themes were of 'going back to the garden' but Dead concerts brought
together tens of thousands of affluent suburban kids with their own
cars or their parents' cars to a giant concert to get down and party.
More like Garden of Heathen.
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]