[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: demise of Aerospace Industry?



---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Topics under debate]: GOOD GOVERNANCE
___Help make this manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!___
---------------------------------------------------------------------
vamsi@siliconcorp.com wrote:

> Charu datt wrote:
>
> > [significantly] a development of world dominance in these
technologies,
> > consolidating international power of the governments of these
countries.
> >
> > These models are hardly a model of free market capitalism but I
digress.
>
>     "Free Market Capitalism" has nothing to do with where the
"startup"
> capital for these companies was obtained (taxpayer, stock market).  So
don't
> digress!  Jump right in my man.  The ownership of Boeing is the point
which
> you are struggling with.  You can buy Boeing stocks, even if you are a
common
> man, from way back when!!

A question here is- given that [public/my] tax money was used to fund
boeing's
startup, why should I have to buy their stock, thus paying twice, to
partake of
their profits? It could be argued that their success generates public
benefits in
the form of jobs- this sounds suspiciosly similar to the argument used
for
sustaining the govt owned Indian steel industry [it generates jobs], and
sidesteps
the issue of the transfer of public money to private profit. I'm not
advocating
the alternative of taxpayer funded companies being run as government
fiefdoms,
chaired by an MLA or an IAS officer, any more than I endorse such
corporations
becoming private fiefdoms of their management and boards. I think there
are other
alternative organizational structures and control arrangements that are
non-heirarchical and where power is decentralized. A useful starting
point could
be to look at the consortium model of airbus, and hybridize that with
your idea of
a large number of small independent companies that act as suppliers of
components
for the final product.

As I see it the fundamental obstacle to change is entrenched power that
profits
from the status quo. Even a suggestion of experimentation with change
will elicit
fierce opposition and propaganda aimed at discrediting the advocates of
change as
[take your pick:] evil, unpatriotic, greedy, foreign-corrupted, or all
of the
above.

This leaves us with a conundrum- to bring about change you have to
neutralize
entrenched power, to neutralize the entrenched power frequently requires
employing
equally concentrated power- putting it into the hands of someone else,
leading to
the replacement of one evil with another similar evil- witness
revolutionary
movements- the leaders of the rvolutions quickly become as corrupt as
those they
overthrow. Or, in another example, if you were to let in global capital
in the
form of say, boeing to compete with and dislodge AAI/HAL, the power
formerly held
by bureaucrats is transferred to company management which is not
publicly
accountable for most of its actions.

-Charu



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------