Big Gov't Doesn't Create Jobs, Gibson Guitar Does
Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn issued the following statement today announcing that Gibson Guitar CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz, will be her special guest for President Barack Obama’s address to the Joint Session of Congress on Thursday night:
“Gibson Guitar is at the heart of this jobs debate, and is an example of exactly why President Obama has it wrong when it comes to getting our economy back on track. Maybe if the President spent more time finding real solutions to empowering small business owners and less time hindering businesses like Gibson, we'd see more new jobs being created.
Small businesses under the leadership of executives like Henry are the key to getting our nation’s economic engine running again. While the President is busy delivering speeches, small business leaders like Henry are busy trying to deliver results. The best thing President Obama could do is seek their advice, then get out of the way. Big government doesn’t create jobs, small businesses like Gibson Guitar do.”
See previous CD posts about the government raids on Gibson guitar here and here.
See previous CD posts about the government raids on Gibson guitar here and here.
12 Comments:
"Big Gov't Doesn't Create Jobs, Gibson Guitar Does"
Not after Big Government gets its paws on it!
"In an affidavit, agent John Rayfield of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said U.S. Customs agents in June detained a shipment of sawn ebony logs from India.
The paperwork accompanying the shipment identified it fraudulently as Indian ebony fingerboards for guitars and it did not say it was going to Gibson, the affidavit said."
It appears that Indian law is attempting to keep fabrication jobs in India, and the US company, Gibson, is trying to get logs here and do the fine fabrication work here. Gibson therefore fabricated not only wood, but proper disclosures and paperwork.
Obviously, I side with Gibson emotionally.
Still, an interesting issue raised: If the law is the law, should not we comply with it? Should we comply only with those laws we as individuals or private companies, approve? Or is that anarchy?
So breaking the law is okay when it conflicts with commercial interests?
What if India cuts off US sales to India in retribution for feeble US enforcement of this particular law and trade agreement?
Usually, when a news-story reads like a right- or left-wing set piece, reality has been shunted aside in the telling.
So breaking the law is okay when it conflicts with commercial interests?
All American guitar-makers are importing and using the same wood from the same location. So selective enforcement of the law is okay if it coincides with political interests?
Benji - we should comply with laws, but if they are stupid we should complain about them and try to get them changed. What is your point?
In my opinion, the only proper justification for a law is to protect liberty. Has does this law and enforcement action protect liberty?
I agree!!
Less government, lower taxes and less regulation. People are smart. Let them keep their money and watch all the good ideas come forth.
We should comply with laws, but I feel no particular compulsion to comply with unjust laws and regulations. I do so only to avoid the consequences the state will impose on me.
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. The number laws in this state imply a very high level of corruption.
Quote from Benjamin: "If the law is the law, should not we comply with it? Should we comply only with those laws we as individuals or private companies, approve? Or is that anarchy?"
Keep going. You're almost there.
Should we follow a law just because it's a law (whatever that means)? Like the slavery laws? The segregation laws? The prohibition laws? Were these all laws we should have been following? Hmmm?
And what is a "commercial interest"? Is that a special class of interests, separate from say religious or political interests?
There are only personal interests. Collective interests are an illusion, usually created by somebody interested in trumping others' interests with their own.
All-
I find it difficult to justify falsifying documents, to further a commercial transation.
Yes, if I had to falsify documents to prevent slavery, or someone going to the gas chambers, of course I would do it.
Evidently, Gibson falsified documents, probably for a perfectly valid commercial reason.
But this is a slippery slope. If falsifying documents can be justified, and compliance with law is based on circumstance and personal initiative...then anything is legal.
In Afghanistan, about three-quarters of Afghan troops simply go AWOL. Eventually, the Taliban will take over.
In Mexico, people throw trash everywhere and dump carcinogens into the water supply. Drug cartels provide more order than the federales.
When rule of law is not the norm, there are consequences.
But this is a slippery slope. If falsifying documents can be justified, and compliance with law is based on circumstance and personal initiative...then anything is legal.
Right. It is. That's the problem.
When there are too many stupid laws that criminalize stuff for the sake of expanding the power of government, then people stop paying attention to them. They do not respect the law.
When people start ignoring ridiculous laws, they tend to stop respecting all laws. That's the danger of criminalizing activity that the population does not consider immoral and worthy of prohibition or laws (such as this one) that hamper productivity.
Because such laws prevent people from conducting their lives normally, you can scream about obeying the law until you lose your voice. They won't.
For instance, has the criminalization of drugs prevented anyone from smoking pot recreationally? People don't really consider smoking pot or exceeding the speed limit a crime.
benjamin: "Gibson therefore fabricated not only wood, but proper disclosures and paperwork."
Do you have any evidence that Gibson fabricated disclosures and paperwork? I have not read anything stating that Gibson was the company which completed the shipping documents.
This is such a stupid case.
The "sawn logs" were pieces of wood of 10mm thickness. Had the wood been 6mm thick, there would have been no violation of Indian law by the exporting company. Does everyone reading this blog post realize how insignificant 4mm really is?
The Lacey Act of 1900 was intended to protect the international and interstate trade of threatened wildlife. It was implemented to protect wildlife which was being uhnted in one part of the nation and sold in another part.
It is only in recent years that the scope of this law was expanded so that it can now be used to "protect" foreign jobs such as the Indian workers who would have milled this lumber from 10mm down to 6mm.
As I understand the legislation, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (aka the Farm Bill of 2008) - vetoed by Pres. Bush but overridden by Congress - expanded the Lacey Act to include wood products. So the importing of this particular wood by Gibson has been legal for decades, until the federal government decided it could interpret provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill and go after this venerable manufacturer.
Nice job vacancy. Thanks for this great help.
Job Search
Post a Comment
<< Home