[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!___
Charu datt wrote:

> 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?

    Let us dissect the oxymoron, shall we?  This is not your traditional Rs 2
per kg giveaway.  Of course, socialism has gotten us used to certain kind of
warped thinking.  Nonetheless, I have hope.  You see, the startup capital
(which came as taxed money) wasn't exactly "given away".  The Government
basically demanded that Boeing should produce product X for Y amount of
money.  Hence, the Government got something back for "investing" that tax
money.  However, the company was allowed to raise more capital to fund its
civilian operations in the stock market, etc.  What exactly was given away

> It could be argued that their success generates public
> benefits in
> the form of jobs- this sounds suspiciosly similar to the argument used
> for

    Yes, it could be argued but frivolous - why sweat it.

> 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.

    For a submissive population anything goes - yea cheltha......!

> 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.

    Not publicly accountable?  How absurd!  When the private power structures
have to compete, their power is checked and hence, accountable.  The global
capital could be let into India to create many Aerospace startups and the fact
that they have to compete means that their actions are accountable unlike your
MLA/MP owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL)!!  But what you said about
the GoI not letting the capital to flow into India is correct.  Why should it
when the GoI is a self-serving institution!?

Vamsi M.

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