I recently read that more than 20 of the Fortune 100 companies in 1993 would not exist as independent companies without government intervention at some point in their company history (i.e., government subsidy). Here is the list of Fortune 100 companies in 1993:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/full/1993/
My search was cursory at best, only looking for evidence for the companies that jumped off the page (i.e., Oil Companies, military). A simple search on google of “Company Name” + Government subsidy was all that was required to find the results I needed:
Lockheed Martin, ConocoPhillips, GM, ExxonMobil, Ford, Boeing, ConAgra Foods, Chevron, Shell, Marathon Oil, Honeywell, Monsato, Texaco, ADM, and Occidental Petroleum. That’s 15 out of 100; I found in just 15 minutes.
So, next time someone tries to tell me that the “free market” determines which companies succeed or fail I will call their ignorance out, and so should you.
Noam Chomsky points out “that the modern corporation is almost completely totalitarian.”
Do we agree?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
"free market" determines which companies succeed or fail is a gross oversimplification. It's a short-cut taken by the undisciplined and unscrupulous.
ReplyDeleteI like where this is headed. I had been thinking for some time now that I needed to know the history of some of these important corporations. Afterall, it is the institution of the day.
I believe if we were to look deeper into this we would find a cyclical relationship between business subsidies from the government and then campaign contributions to politicians from the businesses
ReplyDeleteIs there a distinction here between subsidies and government contracts? I specifically think of that because of Lockheed Martin & Boeing, and I'm sure they have contracts with automotive companies and oil companies for government usage. I seem to remember in Red Wing there was a county station that government workers would use to fill up on gas (at least the police officer I was with at the time-friend not detainer).
ReplyDelete