The Necessity to Change the Investment Premise has been presented by the repected economic writer, K.C.Adams. K.C. has presented analysis for the Ford Motor Company who refused to invest in Windsor (Canada), but the principles apply on the Isle of Wight too. Ford’s refusal is despite offers from governments and organised car workers to pay over $1-billion of the proposed $1.5 billion investment.
The refusal to invest on the Isle of Wight by companies like GKN were always an issue until they received funding support and the area became an Assisted Area. Vestas refused to invest despite having been given funding and in fact upped sticks and moved out.
They have since moved back with funding looming.
Government and local authorities
In response, the local authority needs to determine what factors are encouraging investors to build new plants elsewhere and not in here.
Investments that begin from the premise of serving the global monopolies and their aim to make as much money as possible in the shortest time continue throughout their existence with the same underlying premise. The owners of monopoly capital and their aim dominate the investment and do everything to fulfill their aim. They demand workers and governments serve the same aim from the beginning and for as long as owners of monopoly capital decide their aim is being met and the original premise of serving their demands is honoured.
It perpetuates a situation where people do not exercise control over their broad economy.
The premise of serving the monopolies to encourage them to invest guarantees instability, insecurity and loss of control of the economy to global finance capital. Whenever the narrow private interests of investors lead them to disinvest.
How can Isle of Wighters argue with the decision? For example official political leaders, like the Labour Government’s Minister in charge at the time, Ed Miliband (the very person who is hoping to be the next Prime minister) agreed, along with the then Conservative led IOW Council with the original premise to give Vestas Wind Turbines permission to invest because it served the narrow private interests and aim of its investors. Then apparently it served them to disinvest.
The workers demanded Nationalisation but Miliband refused to interfere in “Commercial decisions” when it suited him.
Vestas didn’t give back any of the Public funding that amounted to several millions but took the money and ran.They refused to give upassets, including property and wouldn’t allow any competition in to fill the gap.
Monopolies ensure that as they disinvest they take out of the economy amounts equal to or greater than the original investment.
To challenge the right to disinvest requires repudiation of the the premise that the investment must serve the narrow private interests and aim of business mopololies and not the public interests and their aim for a stable all-sided economy that guarantees the people’s rights, well-being and security.
We face the problem of overcoming the original premise governing why monopolies invest.
Investments under the control of the working people would have the aim of extended reproduction of the economy to serve the rights, well-being, needs and security of the people and humanity. This broad investment aim to serve the public interest requires restriction of monopoly right and the narrow private interests and aim of owners of monopoly capital.
A change in the premise means change throughout the life of the investment. This change puts control into the hands of the people and specifically those who work.
This change is necessary as the old premise is finished as a way of doing business.
The Isle of Wight is open for business but on terms set us and under our control and aim, not on terms set by international finance capital and under their control and aim.
The investment premise has to change.