The first article I read for current events was an essay written by Carly Fiorina named "Government Shouldn't Decide Executive Pay", in reference to Obama's new policy that executives of companies receiving bailout money aren't to receive more than 500,000 dollars salary. Carly Fiorina is chief executive of Carly Fiorina Enterprises and former chief executive of HP and also a former advisor to Senator John McCain during his presidential campaign. Although slightly biased because of her position of CEO in her own enterprise as well as her former position at HP, she brings up a good point when it comes to Barack Obama's new policy that CEO's of companies receiving government bailout money have to cap their pay at $500,000 a year. It is true that the government should have a significant say in the working of a company that they are bailing out, but where should the line be drawn? Mrs. Fiorina asks: Why $500,000, and why not more or less? The number does seem to be arbitrary, and it goes against some of the traditions of the workings of the American free market.
First of all, the government deciding how much each job is worth does not strengthen the economy, for it draws back incentives and respectability from certain company positions. The only thing that hurts the economy is when companies and corporations hide the compensation they give to the CEO's and executives. Transparency gives investors a better idea of what they are getting themselves into, and balances greed with accountability. And, it should be up to the owners of the company to determine what the executive pay should be, but when that company receives taxpayers money, the executives should be prepared to take responsibility for the reasons that company failed and thus resign, not keep their job and take a pay decrease. This means that when an executive gets lavished with money, but does not produce, it is apparent to all through the transparency afforded to the investors by the owner, and thus, as a free market works, the investors, who usually foot most of the bill when it comes to the wealth of that particular company, are informed enough to recognize and call for a power change in the executive offices. Not disclosing this kind of information deters the free market ideals of this country and makes it more apt to be taken advantage of by the few and wealthy.
The next article I read was called "Republicans Urge Obama to OK Offshore Oil Drilling". This article talked about the Republican proposal for a 5 year plan of oil and natural gas drilling expansion off the U.S. Atlantic and Pacific coastline. This proposal was left over from the very end of the Bush administration and would authorize 31 energy exploration lease sales between 2010 and 2015 for tracts along the East Coast and the coasts of Alaska and California.The Republicans said in reference to the plan, "Our country needs to remain on the path to American energy independence, and we believe this is a critical and achievable goal." They cited for backup of the plan a study that concluded the untapped offshore oil and gas reserves would create more than 160,000 jobs by 2030 and provide the government with 1.7 trillion in royalties.
In my opinion, although there is a clear environmental crisis at hand, I think that politically and economically for America this plan could be very beneficial, if limited. This plan, along with Obama's extensive plan to make America green could snap the need America has to deal with the tumultuous and unstable Middle East. Countries that are anti American will no longer benefit from our money or our sharing of weapons, and thus be very apt to become more peaceful as the demand for their prime product diminishes. Also, 160,000 jobs is a very significant along with the 1.7 trillion dollars promised. I think if this plan, if limited so that the green revolution can still be ushered through, will speed the process of diplomatic and economic stability, and hold us over for a few decades until oil drilling become completely unnecessary.
My third article is called "Japan and Australia warn on "Buy American" protectionism", which talked about the provision in the proposed $825 billion stimulus package that only American iron, steel, and manufactured goods would be allowed in the construction of public works proposed by the bill. This offended Australia especially who is a major iron and steel producer who exported 484 million worth of steel to the United States last year. Japan stated that "The common responsibility shared by the two countries, which are the world's number one and number two economies, is to resist protectionism together".
The fact of the matter is that this bill is going to funded by the American tax payer, and that as such the bill should have their interests in mind number one. Now, along with meaning accommodating them by directly giving them jobs, it also means not starting trade wars with other countries which make it harder and more expensive for American government to buy materials. So, as such, the bill should slightly disproportionately favor American materials over foreign, but only to the point where Australia and Japan and every other country losing out on essential money during bad economic times doesn't ban together to stop trade with us.
No comments:
Post a Comment