Basically you get the idea-- you destroy one thing to get a better thing. It's about growth and advancement... Perhaps Americans should consider what that advancement means and who gets it? They are about to vote in a man who made a fortune with this 'creative destruction' and it's his sole reason for saying he's worthy of being the president of the United States.
Romney cannot run on policies because he's been all over the place in those policies. One time he says he will be the gay's best friend. Next time he favors a federal marriage amendment which would totally end all gay marriages in all states-- with or without kids.
He's for choice. Oh wait, now against it as he had an enlightening experience-- wanta guess from where?
Hates ObamaCare but since it was formed on the policies of RomneyCare (his only real success while running Massachusetts) now he has to deny it).
He criticizes our educational system but would gut it with sending tax dollars to private schools while he also advocates for bigger class sizes. Everybody knows a teacher can teach better with 40 students than 16. (wonder what size classes his kids benefited from). If ANY teacher is supporting him, they aren't paying enough attention.
He saved Denver's winter Olympics by-- wait for it-- getting government aid for it. But he's against government aid.
He's against the deficit while he talks war with Iran. And on it goes. I am an old woman but in all my years of voting, I have never seen the like. Maybe in the lower ranks but never with a real shot at being president. Well, maybe Sarah Palin if something had happened to McCain after he got the presidency.
You tell me what Romney (the I'd cut the deficit the first day in office or wait-- everybody knows if you severely cut the deficit right now we'd go into a depression) would do policy wise, but we do know what he'd do in economics based on his consistent past performance. Success is measured by how well the stock market does. It's not about jobs. It's not about pensions. It's not about good salaries. It's not about working conditions. It is all about whether the investors did well.
So as president, he'd be all out there for investors; and those who are funding Super PACs know this. If you are an investor-- good going to support him. IF you are an average Joe and have a little pension you've been building up through the company where you work-- you better think twice. This man doesn't believe in people accumulating wealth in the lower levels. That kind of thing, along with good salaries for the average worker, blocks prosperity. If he had taken over your company, you'd have been fired, your pension gone, and if you were lucky and the company survived, you could reapply starting all over again for benefits. Guess who walks off with whatever pension pool there might be!
How do you suppose the Bain investors, like Romney, came out of their endeavors with so much wealth? They did it on the backs of the workers. They broke unions, smashed contracts, paid those workers less, and walked away with millions time and again-- even if the company failed.
The irony of this with Romney and likely many like him-- no guilt. I always wondered why GW Bush had no guilt either. They simply don't get what they put others through. They don't care. It's all about them. Is this a case of to the silver spoon born?
When you vote, you better think about what you care about, Unless you are rich, Romney isn't in your corner and you know it if you study anything about his record. He favors gutting public schools, increasing their class sizes, banning a whole group of people from marriage simply for their gender, gutting regulations (because everybody knows corporations don't cheat or do damage to the environment). OR he doesn't and he's been lying this campaign season. Which do you suppose it is?
Just remember one thing about it all-- creative destruction means you!
9 comments:
Ah, yes, creative destruction! I do have to wonder how many of those companies that were closed down might have been saved in some manner with more creative solutions? Perhaps there was a need for some creative profits necessitating closing some companies? I'm sure the employees who lost their jobs would have concurred any monies to be made should not be shared with them.
FWIW your captchas are gone -- you asked at Darlene's.
I can't vouch for what they do now; but, for nine years I worked for a company who said that their mission was to provide premier services to their customers - on time, within budget, at a profit - while providing challenging and rewarding work for their employees. Refreshing!
Cop Car
The reason they have no guilt is they're Darwinists and think themselves superior to those who can't keep up.
My husband worked many years for that kind of company. The two men who began it cared about the employees, working conditions, the product, and the buyers. Hewlett and Packard had a very sophisticated view of what made a company profitable that took in more than the stock market. As they got old and others took their places, the vision was lost and today it's not remotely that same company-- but once there was a place and it was very like a Camelot for the quality and attitude. In today's world could such a company survive?
David Packard said in internal speeches never focus your company on the stock market. Focus it on the customer.
Those two saw the importance of people all the way down the chain and used to run their corporate jets to meetings and when extra space was there, a technician could ride them. Fiorina got in power and ended that with an elitist attitude toward who was important enough to be on the jets. She ran it all toward the stock market. Maybe it was a changing time. We lost something though when it was forgotten that all contribute to success, not just the ones at the top.
I am so afraid that Romney just may win this election, But I am holding out hope for the silent majority to wake up and really smell the coffee! I just do not know what Obama can do to pull ahead of Romney in this race? I even question what I can do? I am telling everyone I know to register to vote! I am not telling them who to vote for, just telling them to vote!
That's good wisdom for them, Mary Lou. That and be informed. Make sure they do at least know the truth of the various issues out there.
I read the Wikipedia article on "creative destruction." It is a phrase used by "Socialist communists." Is it really Capitalism that makes disposable products that are made to self-destruct and become obsolete so they can be replaced? Meaning workers continually have to acquire new skills to keep up or they are jobless? Hewlett Packard use to be very good at paying the tuition of employees who wanted more education. I just don't understand why the company lost its vision.
I believe it is not Capitalism that caused creative destruction ushering in our disposable age. Just think of all the products we use that are petroleum based. Can you name any that endure as the pyramids have?.
I don't know what it is but you are right about what happened to our culture. People don't repair things. They replace them because it's cheaper. That's not how it used to be and we had capitalism then too. Maybe our problem now is we have vulture capitalism which is always looking for the buck. Autos use plastic parts in places they used to use something more permanent guaranteeing we will have to have it repaired eventually. It's everywhere.
Post a Comment