We all know how extraordinarily disastrous all things global turned out to be.
For a few select elitists, not so much, but in the overall scheme of things, by and large... the world finds itself a smoking, scraped out shell of its former self with no known way to recuperate..
The reasons are well documented so do not need a lot of examples, you will find them throughout this site.
One of the continuing idiocies still in play--is an ability for one country to come into another country and literally bye the assets, many of which represent key security concerns for the inhabitants. Some commercial enterprise lends itself well to foreign interest purchase, some... decidedly not.
Any domestic service, resource or product representing core reliance or national advantage needs to be exempted from foreign ownership--period! The list should be well thought out and extensive.
Imagine, a group who probably loathes you and your culture, lifestyle and aspirations is able to own and operate things you totally rely on.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
Certainly the companies up for grabs belong to a corporation, not you, so they can turn a profit for themselves anyway they see fit unless one examines their genesis and who and what enabled them.
But should Corporations arbitrarily be able to divest themselves to foreign interests without compunction?
It seems to me the folk on the street are the ones who provided the healthy standards, environment, infrastructure, security, transportation and energy network and labor which enabled said corporation to seed, blossom and thrive. Does anyone consider that?
Without a conducive environment--a corporation would not have been viable as a start up. So in a way, everyone in a community is a stakeholder in that endeavor and has investment there. The return should be stable and attractive domestic opportunities. Does anyone consider that?
There is also the question of well being... If the "sold to foreign interests" corporation represents a national trove of industrial, technical or other guarded trade secrets, then is not providing this to offshore competition a self-defeating move? Does anyone consider that?
Will this not disadvantage and penalize future generations? Does anyone consider that?
When the product is a wholesome food source for the country, can that safety be jeopardized by placing it into the hands of foreign interests? Especially when the foreign interest has an abysmal record in that regard! Does anyone consider that?
Beyond bottom line profit and a fast return, is there not a question of ethics or morals here, or are we simply saying the citizens of a country and their combined support for fostering domestic economic success is irrelevant? It sure seems so to me.
This particular case I am citing is about pigs, America and China... but the same social moral decline and erosion is happening almost everywhere.
It seems the majority lose and only a sliver of elite class win in these "global" escapades. I see no upside whatsoever for already beleaguered citizens. In fact--I cannot see one ounce of sense in this insanity.
The Treasury Department is reviewing the Smithfield deal, but can only block the sale for national security reasons typically related to computers or defense, not food. But with Smithfield selling food technology secrets China can use in competition against other American producers, a bipartisan group of senators wants food security elevated to the national security level.
However, it's probably too late to stop the Smithfield deal and it is likely to go through.
China has major food safety problems, starting with pork. Last spring, thousands of dead pigs were simply dumped into the river that supplies Shanghai with drinking water. Two years ago a Shanghui subsidiary was caught putting a banned chemical into pig feed to make the animals lean.
When I see the charade mounted around the topic of National Security and how "bad things" have to be prevented on behalf of citizens safety... it almost makes my head explode when I contemplate the damage commercial transactions such as this represent in context.
On so many levels.
Critics call it a threat to America's food safety and security. Well no feldspar... Sherlock!
Anyway, patriotism not withstanding along with sense, logic and social justice... In my view of the future I see "for sale" signs on children's backs, and many weeping widows--constitution, restitution replaced by destitution. If your governance cannot look out for your better interests... exactly what use are they?
And please don't tell me about the sanctity of "capitalism" -- I am down to here with that. Whatever hopeful start democracy fueled by capitalism had... that model was long ago perverted.
Foreign ownership is tantamount to silent, government assisted invasion. Forget "Red Dawn" these "sell-out" events are real... and happening NOW!
Stay tuned...
For a few select elitists, not so much, but in the overall scheme of things, by and large... the world finds itself a smoking, scraped out shell of its former self with no known way to recuperate..
The reasons are well documented so do not need a lot of examples, you will find them throughout this site.
One of the continuing idiocies still in play--is an ability for one country to come into another country and literally bye the assets, many of which represent key security concerns for the inhabitants. Some commercial enterprise lends itself well to foreign interest purchase, some... decidedly not.
Any domestic service, resource or product representing core reliance or national advantage needs to be exempted from foreign ownership--period! The list should be well thought out and extensive.
Imagine, a group who probably loathes you and your culture, lifestyle and aspirations is able to own and operate things you totally rely on.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
Certainly the companies up for grabs belong to a corporation, not you, so they can turn a profit for themselves anyway they see fit unless one examines their genesis and who and what enabled them.
But should Corporations arbitrarily be able to divest themselves to foreign interests without compunction?
It seems to me the folk on the street are the ones who provided the healthy standards, environment, infrastructure, security, transportation and energy network and labor which enabled said corporation to seed, blossom and thrive. Does anyone consider that?
Without a conducive environment--a corporation would not have been viable as a start up. So in a way, everyone in a community is a stakeholder in that endeavor and has investment there. The return should be stable and attractive domestic opportunities. Does anyone consider that?
There is also the question of well being... If the "sold to foreign interests" corporation represents a national trove of industrial, technical or other guarded trade secrets, then is not providing this to offshore competition a self-defeating move? Does anyone consider that?
Will this not disadvantage and penalize future generations? Does anyone consider that?
When the product is a wholesome food source for the country, can that safety be jeopardized by placing it into the hands of foreign interests? Especially when the foreign interest has an abysmal record in that regard! Does anyone consider that?
Beyond bottom line profit and a fast return, is there not a question of ethics or morals here, or are we simply saying the citizens of a country and their combined support for fostering domestic economic success is irrelevant? It sure seems so to me.
This particular case I am citing is about pigs, America and China... but the same social moral decline and erosion is happening almost everywhere.
It seems the majority lose and only a sliver of elite class win in these "global" escapades. I see no upside whatsoever for already beleaguered citizens. In fact--I cannot see one ounce of sense in this insanity.
Chinese pork conglomerate to buy Smithfield Foods for nearly $5 billion.
It would be the biggest Chinese purchase of an American company ever.
Supporters say that it would increase U.S. exports to China. Critics call it a threat to America's food safety and security.Who in blue blazes would think this is a fine idea?
Smithfield CEO Gene Groves is supportive of the deal. (For himself and the shareholders.)Enough said!
The Treasury Department is reviewing the Smithfield deal, but can only block the sale for national security reasons typically related to computers or defense, not food. But with Smithfield selling food technology secrets China can use in competition against other American producers, a bipartisan group of senators wants food security elevated to the national security level.
However, it's probably too late to stop the Smithfield deal and it is likely to go through.
China has major food safety problems, starting with pork. Last spring, thousands of dead pigs were simply dumped into the river that supplies Shanghai with drinking water. Two years ago a Shanghui subsidiary was caught putting a banned chemical into pig feed to make the animals lean.
When I see the charade mounted around the topic of National Security and how "bad things" have to be prevented on behalf of citizens safety... it almost makes my head explode when I contemplate the damage commercial transactions such as this represent in context.
On so many levels.
Critics call it a threat to America's food safety and security. Well no feldspar... Sherlock!
Anyway, patriotism not withstanding along with sense, logic and social justice... In my view of the future I see "for sale" signs on children's backs, and many weeping widows--constitution, restitution replaced by destitution. If your governance cannot look out for your better interests... exactly what use are they?
And please don't tell me about the sanctity of "capitalism" -- I am down to here with that. Whatever hopeful start democracy fueled by capitalism had... that model was long ago perverted.
Foreign ownership is tantamount to silent, government assisted invasion. Forget "Red Dawn" these "sell-out" events are real... and happening NOW!
Stay tuned...
Comments
Post a Comment