Minor Keith, founder of the United Fruit Company (UFC), may have been lucky several times. His uncle won a Costa Rican public procurement for the construction of a railway line in the 1870s. The project has become unprofitable in the case of orders for state planning, moreover, nearly five thousand people, including his uncle, have died during the works. However, Keith’s idea of planting banana trees along the railroad line to ensure workers ’daily caloric intake later bore fruit. It proved to be an excellent investment.
The expansion in Central America has also attracted the interest of other entrepreneurs. In 1904, Manuel Estrada Cabrera, the dictator of Guetamala, decided to build a railway line that would practically pass through the strait. In return, he signed a 99-year concession contract with Samuel Zemurray, head of Cuyamel Fruit, to build it as well.
Nor did the United States want to miss out on business opportunities; in the following years, finding casus bells needed for domestic political intervention, he sent troops to Puerto Rico, Honduras, Guetamala, Nicaragua, Haiti, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic. Not long after, Zemurray and Keith won almost every additional procurement. They became intermediaries between American superpower interests and local little kings. By competing with each other, competing companies have become huge banana exporters with new marketing techniques and plantation strategies. Soon, bananas accounted for nearly 90 percent of the countries ’exportable products, and sales and the rail network were in the hands of the two U.S. companies – until Keith’s death in 1929, when Zemurray bought himself for his rival.
Capitalism virtually ceased to exist, and instead local dictators and dictators became loyalists to the UFC, which took great care to ensure that there was no market competition. Since there were few other job opportunities and behind the UFC was the entire U.S. military, the company could do virtually anything. He built an infrastructure for his own use, and it was only possible to pay the workers with the vouchers he issued, making it impossible for competitors ’products to be bought as well. Workers regularly went on strike to get at least one day off a week and maximize the workday at eight hours a day, but the UFC was adamant. It was profitable even during the Great Depression, though at the time it had to pull out the tighter years with a profit of $ 6.2 million instead of the previous $ 44.6 million.
The case of the UFC sounds very unusual, but it’s a recurring motif in history, the late Canadian psychologist Nathaniel Branden pointed out.
Robert Kuttner and writer highlights that lobbying has practically ushered in an era of new feudalism in the 20th century – drawing through the intentions of Ludwig von Mises and social philosophers fighting for the free market.
With the emergence of feudalism in the Middle Ages, interdependencies developed that were able to reconcile the interests of fiduciaries and fiduciary lords in the oppression of serfs. In the new feudalism, state leaders similarly embrace lobbying interests so that they can extend their mandate by allocating power. And the winning lobbyist doesn’t have to bother so much with annoying competitors or worry about layoffs caused by low wages, but even a deterioration in quality indicators and a lack of innovation can’t cause him a headache. The lobbyist can get into the ring carefree with the buzz of the labor market and consumer expectations with the politicians who contract with him.
According to the dictionary definition:
And when the lobbying interest rises to the force of law, lucky firms usually get a privilege similar to a fiduciary relationship. This could be a tax credit, which is in fact an additional tax on competitors, cash subsidies or regulations and concessions that restrict the entry of others into the market, contain commercial activity and bureaucratically unbreakable criteria.
Lobbyists, on the other hand, can hardly complain. Monitoring federal spending OpenTheBooks auditors have shown that between 2014 and 2017 in the United States
This might even be a meager result if those firms could not have sold an additional $ 393 billion in public procurement bills. That is, the largest U.S. companies could get an average of $ 1 in lobbies for $ 200 through taxpayers.
Moreover, big companies and banks will not be left alone if bad years greet them. THE TARP under the $ 700 billion lifebelt, for example, taxpayers were forced to give them between 2008 and 2010.
There are an astonishing number of varieties of lobbying, and it would be a mistake to believe that it is stronger overseas than in Europe. Green lobbies, road construction companies, oil lobbies, agricultural lobbies (especially on our continent), IT lobbies, the banking sector and of course public social services, cultural and sports lobbies – can be found in almost every country.