In business, CEOs and other high ranking management types are well compensated. But, they are only compensated to the degree the organization can afford. The same is true in sports. Your big hitting first baseman is paid well simply because people will come to watch him. He returns money to the organization that pays his salary, and profits the owners. Owners would not pay more than they can profit, or they would go out of business. Last year Walmart's CEO made $35 million dollars. He will get hit by the people who are jealous saying he is not worth it, etc. But his company posted $405 Billion in sales, $35 million isn't even 10%! And, I'm sure a big portion of that is incentives. A company I worked for had a CEO that was in charge when the economy tanked in 2008. He said that since the income wasn't there, he would not take his salary, admirable, but he did take incentives, and that kept him secure.
Now, a million dollars is not that close to the $35 million paid to Walmart's CEO. If you read the article you will see that the $1 million did not return profits. After all government isn't a profit generator. And that a few of his "projects" actually went belly up. So it is not the salary that should bother us, but rather the loss of treasury funds to prop up the projects. He runs an alternative energy research facility. We should be all for new sources of energy, energy is what drives our economy.
Government can encourage investment, but should never run the investment. Why? Because they are not in the business of making profit. I am a big lover of solar energy. I believe hybrid solar systems would be a boon to transportation, at least in some form. As long as oil is cheaper than solar panels, it will never happen. So to prop up government investment, have you noticed gas prices creeping up? Yet at historical high levels, oil is still cheaper than solar... Government is the vision of those that it governs. Yet in this instance goes against the consensus. And is failing, which is the primary reason government should not run the investment. Look back at history, and ask yourself what government has invented anything? TV? Radio? Computers? Internet? Cars? Farming techniques? Airplanes? Of all those listed, the only debatable one is the Internet. The Internet started as a Defense Department network. However, the current Internet is not what was the Defense Department envisioned. And private enterprise has improved it to the point that the early users would not recognize it.
Without a profit motive, there is waste. Without a visionary in control, there is no vision. These two reasons alone should be enough to encourage government to stay away from ownership. But it sadly doesn't. The view at high levels of government is that they know what's good for you and me. And that is their motivation. Sam Walton, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Frank Woolworth, Marconi, the Wright Brothers, and others had vision. They worked hard, and kept costs low, and they succeeded. Government has no real reason to control costs, there has always been the attitude of "we have to spend it or they will cut our budget next year".
 |
| Advertisement |
Now, what can government do? They can structure tax law to promote enterprise. Or even offer prizes for the first person to do what ever. The $1 million government man over sees a budget of $535 million. Do you think a half billion dollar prize would encourage invention? And that would be a one time payment, not every year into infinity. They say they want to balance the budget, so why not try it another way. What we have been doing for the last 40 years has brought us $16 Trillion in debt, and still oil and coal are the best answer... My favorite saying is "to do something over and over again, and expecting different results, is the definition of insanity."
Maybe that is why our Founders didn't include in the Constitution a section for Government investment.
Spend Wisely!
No comments:
Post a Comment