The event giving rise to the creation of this autoparts website is the filing of an Amended and Supplemental Complaint and papers opposing a motion to enjoin the Plaintiffs from pursuing this litigation. These papers, served and filed in the Clerk's Office on November 14, 2005, are available by link below. On April 24, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition papers to defendants' renewed motion to dismiss together with a cross motion to amend the complaint by addition of Appendix B-6.
A new judge (Richard J. Holwell) was assigned to the case and he denied defendants' motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs' cross-motion to add Appendix B-6 to the amended complaint, by the filing of a 2nd amended complaint. This was done on May 8, 2007. Links to the 9 files are included immediately below:
Note: The only material change from the Supplemental and Amended Complaint dated April 24, 2006 is the addition of Appendix B-6. The rest of the 2nd Amended Complaint is the same, except for correcting "xxxx" to read 1981 and to add "B-6" at appropriate places throughout the 2nd Amended Complaint.
At this time, the defendants can be expected to make a motion to dismiss the 2nd Amended Complaint.
The rest of the website is devoted to putting together what every U.S. citizen should know to be able to understand what is happening to their American Dream. But first, the litigation documents:
Documents Filed in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Enjoin
Based on the Jury's Decision in earlier (Part I) litigation:
Filing of Amended and Supplemental Complaint on November 14, 2005;
Additional Summons for Additional Defendants
Filing of Plaintiffs' Opposition Papers to Defendants' Renewed Motion to
Dismiss and Plaintiffs' Cross Motion to Amend Complaint with Addition of
Appendix B-6 filed on April 24, 2006
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It was never intended by the persons responsible that you and the rest of the American public understand how you as a small business owner, or employee of a small or large company, or unemployed recent graduate of a college or university or as a U.S. citizen or resident, are making less money and either working harder or unable to get a job to be able to work harder than before, and watching your American Dream and civil rights slip away from you and your family.
But there is an answer, and it is probably too complicated for most of you to take the time to comprehend. But I'll try to make it simple, and direct you to other websites of mine in which I develop the various lines of thought more fully.
You undoubtedly will agree that to unravel what is going on you need to be able to see (or understand) where the money comes from and goes to; also, you have to understand that power is a substitute for money. In recent years, rich politicians have shown their willingness to spend $100 million of their own money to purchase a position for themselves as a state governor, U.S. Senator, mayor of a large city, and in some cases membership in the House of Representatives. Other candidates, up until recently, were the impoverished standins for the large campaign contributors and, as everyone should know, pretty much does whatever the large contributor requests or demands. Power and wealth are somewhat interchangeable, and if you have one you are able to get (or do without) the other.
Note: Subsequent to writing the original version of this website, I have thrown my hat into the political ring in New York. I am seeking the office of Attorney General. See my websites at my campaign website and my related website to build list of Americans interested in keeping their jobs, earning more, obtaining a job or a better job, and stopping jobs from leaving the country. Also, to build an email list for my candidacy I have created a third website, website to building email list by giving members several days' notice that credit card or other payments must be made to avoid a latefee - the email notices enable me to send my campaign message with the notice. It goes without saying that I need money and volunteers in this campaign. The benefits to Americans would be formidable, because the office of the New York Attorney General is "the 2nd most powerful office in the United States", for reasons I explain in my website. See my campaign website
[End of Note]
Of course when you have a lot of wealth, such as being the controlling shareholder of one of the largest corporations in the world, you cannot remain at such level of wealth. You are forced into gaining more and more wealth, which basically means taking it from the public, and joining forces with competitors and enable them to divide up the combined operation with an agreed upon ratio, and then work together to take much more from the public now that there is far less competition. With competition goes price wars, and the costs of trying to offer new and improved products and services. It's much better to eliminate competition and focus on taking the public's money. It's more profitable for the already wealthy companies to do it that way, and of course devastating economically for the general public, of which 98%-99% of us are members.
If you were rich beyond anyone's ability to count or control, and wanted to get even richer, what would you do?
You would probably want to control as much business as you could (meaning, taking the public's money) in the United States and then extend your activities into all other countries of the world that have people and money. You need people to earn money and you need money (or oil, or diamonds) to be able to take the wealth of the hard-working people of the world away from them. What would even be better is to do it with the blessing of the U.S. government.
The way of doing that is to buy up the major media, which has been accomplished pretty much, with most of the major media in the hands of perhaps 10 individuals, who understand their role.
The role of the major media is not to inform the public on what it needs to know to protect itself from losing ground, from losing money, losing pensions, losing social security, or from working harder for much less money. No, the function of the major media is to omit, mislead and redirect the public away from what it should know, into safe areas, to help to ensure that the public does not understand what is happening to it, and to enlist the public in supporting diversionary issues of little consequence to the economic lords. For example, the main media offers sufficient diversionary sports reporting to absorb the energies of voters away from political issues and into the real issue for these voters as to who should win the next game, or will the glove fit? or will partial, full-term, less-than full term, incomplete, botched, no, almost none, rape-only, rape-only plus incestuous, or first trimester, or not yet end of 2nd trimester abortions are to be allowed, facilitated, encouraged, prosecuted, not prosecuted, discretionary prosecutions, or other ways of dealing with the problem, thereby knowingly diverting the voters from making the correct choices at the ballot box to prevent the politicians and their masters from stealing from the public.
Stealing from the public goes on in a variety of ways, perhaps as many ways as you have elected politicians, but some of the schemes are far more successful than others. Wouldn't you like to know how the largest fortune has been assembled from the 1960's to the present - under the name Wal-Mart, Inc.?
You have been reading about the evils that develop when you have concentration of wealth in the hands of Wal-Mart, but has anyone ever told you how the Wal-Mart wealth (with a value ranging from $200 billion to $250 billion because of stock-market fluctuations) was brought together during the past 45 years or so?
If you want to learn how this was done, you can read my website on Wal-Mart and then my website on Kmart, explaining how Kmart has no hope of surviving (or it's Doomsday for Kmart and other Wal-Mart competitors). The Wal-Mart website it at How Wal-Mart Became # 1 in the World and Is Able to Lay Off Its Costs on Others, entitled "How to Stop Wal-Mart from Expanding into and Destroying Your Community; and Stopping Globalism"; and my Kmart website is at Doomsday for Kmart, entitled "Doomsday Notice! - Analysis and Forecast for Retailing Business; Major Chain Retailers Cannot Compete against Wal-Mart and Are Doomed".
Sooner or later you should read my website on the federal antitrust statute known as the Robinson-Patman Act, enacted in 1936 for the purpose of preventing major retailers from driving smaller competitors out of business. My "RPA" website is located at Robinson-Patman Act Website.
It is interesting to note that the current wave of criticism against Wal-Mart is directed to the evils resulting from the exercise of market power based on Wal-Mart's size, and never on how Wal-Mart was able to grow to its present size. Wal-Mart is not more efficient, contrary to popular belief. It depends on obtaining illegally-low prices from manufacturers to be able to stay in business, and put competitors out of business.
When you have enough money to put your friends and employees into high office, you can expect a relaxation of any government activities directed against you, except if you really screw up (such as with Enron and Tyco). For the most part, when you have enough money, compliance with certain fundamental laws (such as the Internal Revenue Code, the laws requiring full disclosure by public companies, the antitrust laws, and the laws prohibiting insiders from stealing from the public company is not significantly enforced against these favored corporations by the U.S. Government. Instead, these corporations are pretty much allowed to do whatever they want. To a great extent, they are too large to regulate. There aren't enough personnel in the Internal Revenue Service to review all the records of a major corporation for the annual tax reporting, which pretty much means that the large corporation is free to report whatever taxable income it chooses. About 60% of the major corporations choose to report little or no taxable income, thereby depriving the United States of billions of dollars of needed income each year, and forcing the U.S. Government to collect that money instead from U.S. citizens directly, through additional taxation, or indirectly by reduction of services to them.
The major corporations are getting away with grand theft on a scale difficult to comprehend, while the voters of America are sipping their beer, looking at sporting events, and listening to the talking heads explaining to voters how everything is for their benefit. Thus, it seems safe to say that typical Americans believe that the U.S. Government is functioning on their behalf, by doing a variety of things that anyone would expect an adequate Government "of the people, by the people and for the people" should be doing, such as:
The U.S. Government consists of the Executive Branch (the elected President and Vice President and the President's appointees), the elected Congress (Senate and House of Representatives), the Judiciary (all "Article III" lifetime federal judges appointed or nominated by the President and confirmed with the "Advice and Consent" of the Senate; and a myriad of government agencies, headed up by political appointees of the President, with Senate approval.
Citizens have been taught to expect or believe that the U.S. Government, through these institutions, will:
[Note: See my 46 campaign issues, most of which deal with these problems. my campaign website] [End of Note].
In fact, the U.S. Government is doing none of these things any typical citizen would expect the Government to be doing. What is worse, the Government is actively seeking to take away the property, opportunities, rights and security of U.S. citizens for the benefit and profit of the world's major corporations (which may or may not be corporations owing any substantial allegiance to the United States through jobs for Americans or payment of U.S. income taxes).
The U.S. Government has been taken over by the major corporations, to loot the United States as well as any other countries worth looting.
Part of the looting process is to drive small businesses (owned by U.S. citizens) out of business, and take over their customers without paying the owner for his/her business.
Hundreds of thousands of businesses have been driven out of business already, during the past 30 years or more, with the major retailers such as Wal-Mart, AutoZone, Home Depot, Barnes & Noble winding up with the customers and profits, without having to pay for such valuable additions to their businesses. The value of this transfer of wealth can be calculated by adding up the value of the stock of each of the major retailers. To start off, the value of Wal-Mart's stock ranges recently from $200 to $250 billion, and as a quick estimate the value of all major retailers might be 4 times the value of Wal-Mart - or approximately $1 trillion, taken from small businesses, including wholesalers, jobbers and retailers during the past 30 years or more. [Note: Specialty retailers have a combined stock ("cap") value of $229.3 billion as of November 21, 2005. (http://biz.yahoo.com/p/rtnonamktd.html)
The interesting thing about this is that the major retailers are all operating at a loss. Take Kmart, for instance. With all of the added discounts, fees and allowances they get from manufacturers, Kmart is still unable to operate profitably. These discounts, fees and allowances are not given to the small competitors at all, which drives the small competitors out of business. But when Kmart receives only some of the discounts, fees and allowances being given to Wal-Mart, Kmart too is unable to survive.
If Wal-Mart is obtaining today about $60 billion in illegal discounts, fees and allowances, it is interesting to note that Wal-Mart only shows an annual profit of about $10 billion, after taxes. If Wal-Mart suddenly had to pay the same price for its goods as being paid by its competitors, including Kmart, it would have an annual deficit of about $50 billion, and could not stay in business.
The same is true of the other major retailers. They are permitted to remain in business only because they are given illegally low prices, that allows them to sell for less, while driving their law-abiding competitors out of business, and then take over such businesses or their former customers without compensation.
The way of stopping this and reversing the practice is to start enforcing the federal Robinson-Patman Act, and requiring manufacturers to sell to all competitors at the same price, with discounts only to reflect actual costs saved by the manufacturer by reason of the volume of purchase involved. Today, volume discounts are hardly justified because of the ease with which production can be started and stopped, and for much lower production volumes than in the past, thanks to computer controls and software. My book Saving Main Street and Its Retailers, and related website, at Saving Main Street and Its Retailers and Related Website together with my website My "Town Attorney General" Website explain how the effect of U.S. Government enforcement can be achieved by numerous "town attorneys general" [there are none so far] enforcing the nation's laws at the lowest level of government, with sufficient aggregate effect to compel the major-corporate wrongdoers to correct their unlawful business practices or be driven out of business by these town and village law-enforcement activities against them.
[Note: If elected as New York Attorney General, I would appoint a "town attorney general" for each of New York's 1,800 towns and villages, as a profit center for the town and its enforcer of the rights of the residents and small businesses, including their rights to enforcement of the environmental, antitrust, civil rights and various federal and state laws protecting human beings as distinguished from major corporations. [End of Note.]
People wonder what they can do to make things better for themselves, their family and their community. Elections every 4 years or so never seem to make a difference, other than to postpone, perhaps forever, any change for the better.
Actually, there is something which you can do, something which could make a big difference for you, your community, and even the United States as a whole.
What you can do is to sell my idea to the mayor or other appropriate officials of your town or village, and arrange for me to speak with them about the appointment of someone (hopefully me) as the Town Attorney General for the town or village.
As you can see from my townattorneygeneral website, a Town Attorney General should be able to raise each year, through litigation, somewhere around $5,000 to $15,000 per family for your town, all of which could be distributed to the residents of your town.
If your town does this successfully, it will induce other towns and villages to do the same, which will create a law enforcement mechanism at the lowest level of government to replace the scarcely-used law enforcement mechanism of the Federal and State governments.
This is the solution needed for the United States to take back the country for its human citizens, and away from the corporate pretend citizens, which have been given Constitutional rights intended for the citizens that need food, sleep, shelter, clothing, time off, dental and health care and other amenities of life, whereas corporations with their right to live in perpetuity don't need to take time off or incur these expenses, and have an unfair advantage over human citizens, especially in their ability to dominate business and accumulate wealth, which they then use to purchase our political system and subvert it to their own use and benefit.
If you have any questions about this (or would like a free PDF copy of my book, Saving Main Street and Its Retailers, please give me a call at 212-307-4444 or email me at Send Email to Carl E. Person.
There are basic concepts you need to recognize, and keep in mind, when analyzing what you can expect as your share of the U.S. economy, assuming you try in good faith, over your working lifetime, to earn your own way, either as the owner of a business or as the employee of one or more businesses. After 60 years of self employment and job employment, I have concluded:
Students of government and war will readily recognize that if you take over control of the government, the media and the government agencies, you pretty much can do whatever you want, and your job is to main and extend your control to continue the takeover as long as possible, and take as much money for yourself and your backers as you can.
The one area not touched upon is the judicial system. The people in control of the government also would like to get some control over the nation's judicial system. In the United States, federal judges (Article III judges in the U.S. Constitution) are appointed for life, so that the persons controlling the government cannot fire all of the judges and appoint ones to their liking. Instead, they have to wait until openings occur, and then appoint favorable judges to fill the openings. This is what the frequent battles are about with respect to appointment of U.S. Supreme Court Justices and the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The persons in control of the government want to ensure that they have as many of the Justices predictably willing to support the programs of the persons controlling the government, and not raise technical objections to these programs. This support in the nation's highest court also helps to hand over a contested Presidential election to the right person when necessary. Another thought: If you were the President and were worried about the possibility that you might be impeached or indicted before or after leaving office, who would you like to have on the U.S. Supreme Court, and is this subject not something the President's lawyer might explain to the President? Is this the real reason that President Bush nominated his lawyer, Harriet E. Miers, to become a Justice of the Supreme Court. Because of various objections (and this does raise an issue why anyone in favor of the overall plan should object to President Bush's nomination) the nomination was withdrawn.
With these thoughts in mind, I now want to describe some of the consequences I have seen over the years:
Ever since the start of the Administration of President Richard M. Nixon, in 1969, the U.S. Government has been doing the things described above, which enabled the major corporations to grow at the expense of smaller competitors and the public.
The success of Wal-Mart during this growth period spawned various corporations to do the same thing but in specialized areas, such as appliances, books, records, auto parts, hardware, office supplies, and ethical drugs, thereby putting additional illegal competitive pressure on independent, law-abiding wholesalers, jobbers and retailers, who paid more for their goods than the major retailers who brought pressure on manufacturers to sell their products to the major retailers at lower per-unit prices than were being paid by the manufacturers' other customers.
The prices being paid by the independent wholesalers for their product went higher and higher in relation to the price per unit paid by Wal-mart and the major specialized retailers, and as a predictable result, the major retailers got more and more customers away from the independents, and the independent started going out of business. Some of them did what was necessary to hang in and hope that whatever was happening would stop - that someone in government would see what what happening and put a stop to it.
But this never happened. The Government instead, and with a vengeance, went with the major retailers as part of the Government's support of major corporations, and the hopes of the independent competitors went down the tubes as a result. More and more independent went out of business or sold their businesses at a substantial lost (for about 10% to 25% of the value of the inventory). At the same time, the regional manufacturers were unable to compete, because they couldn't afford to pay the fees demanded by retailers to give them shelf space, and the regional manufacturers either folded or sold out to larger manufacturers, who hoped that by becoming even larger (through acquiring failing regional manufacturers) they would be able to stand up to the demands of the major retailers, but this did not work out. The manufacturers are unable to find anyone else able to use their product. They put most of the independents out of business, and now the manufacturers are stuck competing for the unprofitable business of the major retail chains, who demand that the manufacturers do their manufacturing in low-cost foreign countries, which the manufacturers are doing in an attempt to slow down the destruction of their businesses. They are playing a game of musical chairs with the major retailers, with another chair being taken away from time to time and one more manufacturer going out of business as a result.
It is interesting to note that in the auto parts industry during 2003, only one auto-parts manufacturer went out of business. Starting on January 1, 2004 up to the present (11/19/05), at least 35 auto-parts manufacturers have gone out of business (and into bankruptcy), with one of them, Delphi, being the largest bankruptcy of record.
Of course, the government does nothing about this because bankrupt companies don't have clout, not having any money to make substantial campaign contributions. The persons benefiting from these bankruptcies are the major retailers, who are in the business of moving U.S. jobs to foreign countries, and causing parts companies to go into bankruptcy unless they quickly move their operations to other countries to make their parts more competitive with the manufacturers already making their goods in foreign countries.
Of course, any one country (Mexico, for example) can't count on keeping the jobs for a long period of time. The corporations that moved jobs to Mexico to reduce their labor costs will move gthe same jobs to other countries with even lower labor rates, in what is a race to the bottom (to get the lowest labor rate in the world), and eliminating U.S. (and now Mexican) jobs in the process.
The major corporations and their shareholders make a killing and probably hold job-loss parties to celebrate each time a U.S. factory closes and transfers its 10,000 jobs to China or other low-cost country.
Government could stop this, and should, by imposing tariffs or penalties on the importation of goods, and by requiring companies that sell goods in the United States to pay their fair share of taxes on their use of the United States markets.
Note added 5/8/07: As part of the cure, I have been seeking the appointment of an official I have named the "Town Attorney General". Now, in New York City, we are trying to obtain an amendment to the New York City Charter which would appoint an independent commission to investigate 9/11 and to appoint me as its counsel, with the title of New York City Attorney General, to enforce the rights of individuals, citizens, residents, homeowners, workers and small businesses at public expense. If you are interested in looking at a copy of a draft of the petition to have NYC voters create the independent commission, please let me know by email, and I'll send it to you. As I have been telling you, there must be a way of curing the problem before the problem turns the U.S. into a third-world country. End of Note
The problem, as I see it, is that there is too much centralized power. When the President is elected, he/she appoints several people to key positions (including the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Director of Homeland Security, and several other key positions) and most of the power of the government is then exercised through these key people, who do what is wanted by the persons who really control the government (who may or may not include any or most of the group consisting of the President and his/her appointees). In recent years, the persons with money who ordinarily provided the funds for politicians to run for the Presidency have stepped up to the plate themselves, without embarrassment, to ask the voters to vote for them directly, starting with H. Ross Perot, followed by other wealthy politicians such as Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Corzine and Senator Warner, and of course the Kennedy clan.
If the levers of government could operate at the lowest level of government, which is easier for the public to control, you could offset to a considerable extent the evils of concentration of the economy and political control.
The control of the largest corporations can be achieved at the lowest level of government. In order to replace the withdrawn enforcement activities of the U.S. Justice Department (to stop illegal mergers and acquisitions, and other anticompetitive activities), the Federal Trade Commission (to stop illegal price discrimination and other anticompetitive trade activities), the Securities and Exchange Commission (to require full disclosure by the nation's largest corporations and competition for capital), a fluid or changing group of Town Attorney Generals could bring lawsuits for their respective towns and villages and have the combined effect that a single suit by the Federal Trade Commission would and did have in the past. For example, if the cost of defending a meritorious antitrust against a corporate defendant could amount to $5,000,000 over a 3-5 year period, the corporation could probably afford such suit and would have no pressure to change their trade practices to end the litigation. However, if 50 towns and villages out of the nation's 18,000 towns and villages were to bring suit (as 50 separate lawsuits), the errant corporation would be facing perhaps $250,000,000 in litigation expenses, and perhaps 1 to 5 times that amount in liability. Many corporations could not afford that kind of charge to their yearly earnings, and would be required to stop their illegal practice because the cost of continuing with the practice would exceed the value of engaging in the illegal practice. If this is not the case, it could take perhpas 200 lawsuits to stop the practice, but there is a number of town lawsuits that could stop almost any illegal practice by a corporation, even as large as Wal-Mart, I might add.
The incentive for any one town to do what I suggest (i.e., appoint a Town Attorney General) is inherent in the appointment. A skilled Town Attorney General (hopefully no less skilled than the lawyers representing the corporation whose conduct needs correction) can expect to obtain settlements of this type of lawsuit (or be required to go the whole distance, in which the town might wind up with nothing, or wind up winning quite a few million dollars plus reimbursement of the town's legal expenses). Two towns could expect no more than the same result - to make money on the litigation. If other towns see that the towns with a Town Attorney General are making money for their residents, other towns will also appoint a Town Attorney General, and instead of two lawsuits against an errant corporation the corporation might find 10 or 30 or 300 lawsuits against it, and will be forced into changing its practices at some point along the way. If not, the corporation will find that the lawsuits will drive it out of business or into bankruptcy, at which point the illegal activity might be dealt with and ended.
As I see it, a law-enforcement official at the lowest level of government (i.e., the town or village) is the way to go, through appointment of a "Town Attorney General", to function for the town or village similar to the way the Attorney General functions for the United States or each of the 50 States.
The Town Attorney General would bring suit to enforce the law against such persons that the federal or state governments had immunized from regulation or oversight. Thus, if Wal-Mart cannot be stopped at the federal level, there is no reason why some of the nation's 18,000 towns and villages can't go into court and enforce various laws against Wal-Mart or any other major corporation. The mere fact that they seem to have protection from the federal government from any enforcement activities doesn't mean that a local government can't attempt to enforce the law. Attorney General Spitzer in New York did some of this during the past few years in New York, and during 2003 was able to obtain settlements amounting to $2.3 billion for New York State.
If a town or village did this type of law enforcement to protect the businesses and residents of the town or village, it could expect to obtain settlements of perhaps $5,000 to $10,000 per year per family, with the money available for distribution to the residents periodically (such as at the end of year year).
See my website My Town Attorney General Website for a further explanation. The website more fully develops what I explained in my book SAVING MAIN STREET AND ITS RETAILERS, which I self-published during September, 2004. My website for this book and two others I wrote during the summer of 2004 is located at Website for My Book SAVING MAIN STREET AND ITS RETAILERS. The other two books are A LAW CAREER IS THE SMART WAY - TO AVOID THE EVIL ECONOMIC TRIO OF OUTSOURCING, GLOBALIZATION AND DECLINING STANDARD OF LIVING, and SELF EMPLOYMENT - TO AVOID THE EVIL ECONOMIC TRIO OF OUTSOURCING, GLOBALIZATION AND DECLINING STANDARD OF LIVING. The website for these two other books is at Website for My Book SAVING MAIN STREET AND ITS RETAILERS. Last but not least, see these two campaign websites: my campaign website and my related website to build list of Americans interested in keeping their jobs, earning more, obtaining a job or a better job, and stopping jobs from leaving the country.
I am quoting from my book Saving Main Street and Its Retailers (pages 55-57) to explain my view on how globalization occurred and how it can be stopped, at least in part:
Globalization seems to be the result of the disparity of government
taxation and regulation of business and related costs, together with the
standard of living of the persons living within a country and the increased
ease with which business can be conducted across country lines without
interference of, or even knowledge by, the host country.
It seemed easy to outsource components of an American business to other
countries, and the practice grew as companies learned how to expand their
outsourcing, and companies new to outsourcing got in on the act.
Part of the responsibility for this devastating evil of globalization has
to be assigned to the unbelievable culpability of the United States government
in creating and financing opportunities for American and foreign businesses to
move jobs out of America (through NAFTA, GATT and CAFTA, the Central America
Free Trade Agreement), but still be able to sell their products and services
to Americans with no penalty for their hostile business practices.
Globalization is a War on the U.S. Economy
In effect, globalization is a war on the American economy, permitted by the
multinational business interests, which control the United States government
through continual campaign contributions.
To some extent Americans through their tax dollars are providing the money
for American and foreign businesses to pull American jobs out of the United
States. The rationale by proponents of globalization in support of such evil
practices is that this makes the corporation stronger and better able to
compete in the world market.
Globalizing American Corporations Should Have Their American Passport
Taken Away
Yet, this movement into the world market makes the corporations less
American to such extent and less important for Americans that it be able to
compete (and instead when losing its pro American character, the globalizing
corporation should have its American passport taken away as a corporation
which has given up its United States citizenship). American companies, with
the support of American money, are becoming non-American and responsible to no
government.
There should be no right to move jobs to foreign countries and then sell
the foreign output to Americans without payment of an appropriate penalty, for
use in compensating the persons in America injured by such practices. The
argument about making American corporations more competitive fails to
recognize that such increased competitiveness only deprives Americans of more
of their wealth, at least it seems to me.
A Use Tax Should Be Implemented to Compensate the United States for Use
of Foreign Labor in Products Sold to Americans
Companies which make sales to the United States of foreign output should be
required to pay what could be defined as a “use tax”, in an amount
corresponding to the amount lost by the United States by reason of the foreign
outsourcing, including income taxes and payroll taxes.
The failure to do this is making our country head into financial decline,
and a decline of the American standard of living. Globalization is a man-made
disaster and can and should be stopped, especially with appropriate imposition
of this use tax.
Some Basic Facts for You to Understand
The person controlling globalization want globalization and are encouraging
and financing it, so don’t expect anything but be-grudging relief; expect
denials that government can do anything to stop the forces of globalization.
The elected politicians who could do something to offset globalization have
been paid off with campaign contributions - to do nothing to interfere with
the large business corporations except if there develops substantial public
opinion demanding change, which is unlikely to occur because the same
interests own the nation’s major media.
As long as the public is unaware of what is happening there will be no
significant public demand for change; and whatever demand there is will be
based on misinformation and call for unwork-able solutions.
[end of quote from Saving Main Street and Its Retailers, pp.
55-57]
If you have any questions, please call Carl Person at 212-307-4444, fax
him at 212-307-0247, or email him at carlpers@ix.netcom.com
Causes of Globalization
05/03/06 14:15