Bailout 3.0: Lobbyist-Optimized, No Strings Attached

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | Bailout 3.0: Lobbyist-Optimized, No Strings Attached

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #426253
      eridani
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 10,151

      https://www.dailyposter.com/bailout-3-0-lobbyist-optimized-no-strings-attached/

      Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have framed the bill as a bipartisan effort to improve the United States’ manufacturing position against China. The concern is valid: While the U.S. leads the world in design of semiconductors — which can be found in everything from personal electronics to cars to drones — China leads in manufacturing.

      In part, that’s because American semiconductor companies have offshored manufacturing to China and Southeast Asia. In 2004, Intel’s then-CEO, Craig Barrett, defended a company decision to outsource jobs, saying: “You shouldn’t think of offshoring as a recent phenomenon. This has been happening for decades. It seems the press has just discovered it recently because it is an election cycle, especially in the United States.”

      Sanders’ initiative is designed to stop that. Companies receiving funding would have to agree to certain requirements that were included in the CARES Act last year: not to buy back their own stocks, not to outsource American manufacturing jobs overseas, not to repeal existing collective bargaining agreements, and remain neutral in any union organizing effort. Additionally, the amendment includes restrictions on executive compensation and employee classification, and requires collective bargaining agreements for contractors and subcontractors.

      Without that amendment, the bill would empower Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo to unilaterally dole out $50 billion to huge semiconductor giants, like Intel Corp. and Texas Instruments, with few strings attached — even though many of those companies have a long history of offshoring production and using extra cash to enrich shareholders rather than making domestic capital investments.

      Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

    • #426299
      jbnw
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,666

      All because the government accepted the idea that it was good business to make us dependent on other countries.

    • #426306
      Cold Mountain Trail
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 12,932

      Such bullshit.

      Manufacturing in China was a deliberate choice of Big Corp & Big Capital

      To drive down the price of labor and to drive smaller producers out of business

      It was in the works even before Nixon’s opening to China

      They’re always planning 30-40 years ahead, at least

      • #426332
        Populist Prole
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 615

        It’s infuriating over the years of reading/hearing them gaslight their way out of culpability and tell us they’re not pissing on us, and that’s just rain. The steady drumbeat of talking points of how offshoring was just their reaction to some unstoppable force of nature that they had no choice in, and not the deliberate choice made to just further fatten their bottom lines.

        Hell, for a while they were even trying to couch it in terms of some sort philanthropic venture of trying to bring prosperity to underdeveloped nations. And whaddya’ know, it just so happened that this resulted in bigger profits for the multinational corporations that did this. Accidental! Honest!

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.