That's because they only pose as our government, they belong to the bankers. So it will literally take the revolution of small businesses to heal our dying economy. I know the will to work and produce good products exist in this country I also know who dosn't want their apple cart tipped over by the unwashed mob as they refere to us.
The majority of us have to get our information on this subject - on which we base our opinions and decisions - from the mass media. I don't think most of the stuff we're fed is objective, factual, or complete. It tends to pick out the "sensational" bits, usually exceptions to the rule, and portray them as being "the reality." Why is this? Well, the news media is an industry unto itself, and it - like any other business - relies on increased "sales" (audience ratings) to keep going. Let's face it - real facts don't always attract new viewers/listeners...it just ain't "news", for the most part.
Take free trade for example - it's great to get all excited about it, either positively or negatively, but I've never seen an accurate portrayal of it in the mass media. It's always sensationalized, politicized, and twisted so that it's more "attention-getting."
As I see it, it's pretty simple. The benefits of free trade work for both businesses and consumers. Businesses get expanded markets for their products/services, while consumers get a broader choice of goods to buy.
The downsides? If businesses have costs that aren't competitive, they won't be able to take advantage of expanded markets. If the consumers don't have sufficient money or jobs, they will buy cheaper imported goods because they can't afford "Made in Canada."
I don't agree with restricted trade - like building a firewall around the country - because it negates the possiblity of those first two advantages. Instead, I'd like to see us get to the bottom of the reasons why we might not be competitive in our chosen business sectors, and then fix them.
When that onion starts to get peeled, it won't take long to figure out why some industries can't be competitive with foreign sources. Costs are too high. Regulations are too cumbersome. Controls are all over the map. The tax system - amounts and structure - are a big problem.
There is no sweeping singular thing that will fix these problems. It would require a careful, step by step analysis to get to each and every root cause. But if it were done, it would be easier to fashion a real plan that could address the things that hold us back and get on with becoming competitive. And building factories to produce things. And hiring more people to work in them.
That involves a lot of work, but why would it not be worth it?
Here's one small example of one of the nagging issues - cost of labour vs. output, or the return on that labour. There are a lot of "controls" on companies that hire people to do work for them. Everything from employment standards, minimum wages, union contracts, etc. Given that cost of labour is usually the highest single cost in a company, it's a good place to look for improvements.
An innovative thought (or an off-the-wall idea, to some)...what if the company was free to set their own employment policy? Pay rates, the whole thing. If they set up a pay system that was tied directly to the output of the job and how it fits into the company's results, they would likely end up with a some kind of measurement system that could be represented as a % of sales (or total cost - either would work).
That would remove the risk to the company of a fixed overhead burden that is there, no matter what the company produces. Incidentally, that's why layoffs of people are the first thing to be considered when the company runs into a problem. No point in cutting the paper clip expense in a downturn.
Anyway, the benefits to a system like this are many...good, productive employees would get paid more, the company could be free to make R & D and capital expansion decisions without worrying about labour costs sinking the ship (if you make nothing, you pay nothing or conversely, you makes lots and you pay lots).
To make the whole thing work right, employees would have to be treated like contributors to the business, as opposed to an expense line on the books. If each one is trained to do the job, empowered to make decisions on the job, given the necessary tools and facilities to get the job done, kept informed of the company's progress regularly, relieved of stupid control policies, and paid handsomely for all of it, it will work. In fact, if you take it to an extreme, why not treat every employee like their own boss? It would lessen the need for lots of supervisors and managers, and free up more money for more workers to produce more value for the company. Managers and supervisors don't generate value - they "manage" it, adding more money to the cost of running the company.
Now overlay that concept on top of what we have today, and you have a picture of the "worst case scenario" in terms of bad fit. Government structures have been crreated over a period of years to interfere with all aspects of running a business. Employees have generally not been trained or developed to think independently and perform with miminal supervision. Pay rates have been set that have nothing whatsoever to do with output, results, or productivity. So a complete overhaul of the whole employment system would be necessary, and that would take time. Lots of it.
The question is, is it worth it? The answer is, we might have no choice. Running to the government to "fix it" will just make things worse. That's how we got here in the first place. Governments really can't cope with this kind of thing because they make political decisions instead of objective ones.
Naysayers will oppose this kind of thinking by worrying about the nasty CEOs who will screw people for their efforts. Well, if you have a competitive and healthy employment market, the employee should have a choice as to where he/she will work. The bad companies will just die on the vine - as they should - because they won't be able to attract good employees. After all, who wants to work for a bad company anyway.
On the other side of the coin, could employees handle the responsiblities? Not currently, but a long term period of training would fix that. You can't expect a person who's never had to think about the long term impacts of his/her job on the whole company to just do an about-face, but it can be learned. People aren't naturally stupid, lazy, or selfish even if some appear that way. Those habits require time and training and some corners of industry (and government) have worked hard at it for many years. Lots of "undoing" to do.
Crazy thinking? Sure, to some. But the crazy times are here and they're only going to get crazier unless some dramatic changes take place. It's likely time for some "crazy" (innovative) thinking!
