I for one do not know why Steve Verdon got his knickers all knotted up about Pfizer and their negotiations with New London.

Going to take a wild guess here...cause you are an idiot?

Surely he must know that the buidness of buidness is to make money. The more money a buidness makes, the more successful it becomes. And as we know, the largess is spread around, to the stockholders, to the money managers, and of course to the top executive corps. Those are the only folks that count, the community their buidness is located in is of no value, their workers just pieces of the economic puzzle.

To fully understand the buidness of making money, one has but look what happened to Simon Mattress Co (take it from me, well worth a read). Alternatively the story of Stanley Tools is well worth curling up with by the fireside. (Sorry, our hosts spam filter is such that only 3 links are allowed before you are relegated to never-never land – try “Stanley Tools + Bermuda” in your browser).

Correspondent Franklin (November 14, 2009 | 09:45 pm) had this to say:

The fact is, we're living in a plutocracy. Ruled by corporations or government, it makes little difference.

I think only a fool or a very committed “free marketer” would argue that since the days of the “Great Bumbler” wealth has precipitously shifted to a small upper class. By definition, a plutocracy.

Yet I am not sure Franklin comprehends the function of government. Government is us chickens, we the people. Either we manage it, or assuredly the corporations will manage it for their benefit. He ought to spend a few minutes with a recent global BBC poll, to wit:

And there is very strong support around the world for governments to distribute wealth more evenly. That is backed by majorities in 22 of the 27 countries.

If there is one issue where a global consensus seems to emerge from the survey it is this: there are majorities almost everywhere wanting government to be more active in regulating business.

Correspondent Steve Plunk (November 15, 2009 | 12:47 pm) ignoring the population of New London or the way the city was scarred, has no trouble identifying where the fault lies, to wit:

Should we fault Pfizer for working within the rules? Should we fault Pfizer for trying to do what's best for it's stockholders? When conditions changed Pfizer had a fiduciary responsibility to it's owners, not the city of New Haven.

Those council representatives … failed to secure contracts that would have protected them from the current situation. The blame rests solely on their shoulders.

Unfortunately brother Plunk, there were no rules in place to constrain Pfeizer’s negotiations with New London, the company could do what they wished. And guess what, they did! Some folks would ascribe Pfeizer’s behavior to good corporate governance, others to corporate greed, I prefer to view this episode as an example of psychopathy, to wit:

Psychopathy is a personality disorder whose hallmark is a lack of empathy… "What is missing, in other words, are the very qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony."

If we elevate corporations above the community, if we allow them to look upon their work force as pieces in the money making puzzle, if they can pollute at will, and ravage our natural resources as they see fit, we have lost all...

"The key is to never give preferential treatment and to never abuse the power of government."

I agree with his statement, but would have to add: Voters should pay attention and remember longer. From my highly subjective experience, sweetheart deals generally don't pay off, even if they are just subsidies in the form of tax relief. But politicians love them because they get their name in the paper and get a lot of grateful people who campaign for them. In the end, the voters reward them for exactly this kind of behavior, and more so, punish them if they lose the deal to another community.

Pfizer, on the other hand, understood it should get the best deal possible from the city and use all legal means to secure the project. Should we fault Pfizer for working within the rules? Should we fault Pfizer for trying to do what's best for it's stockholders? When conditions changed Pfizer had a fiduciary responsibility to it's owners, not the city of New Haven.

Those council representatives tried to run with the big boys and failed their constituents. They abused the trust given them through the abuse of eminent domain. They failed to secure contracts that would have protected them from the current situation. The blame rests solely on their shoulders.

But the city council was *also* doing what was in their best interest. They were attracting jobs to the area and therefore making themselves more re-electable.

The real problems here are the concept of eminent domain and the stupidity and immorality of preferential tax breaks to corporations. The fact is, we're living in a plutocracy. Ruled by corporations or government, it makes little difference.

Thanks, Barack. I'm moving to Switzerland.

Isn't that the truth. Town officials everywhere are so naive when it comes to these deals. My city in Oregon has two incomplete "public/private partnership" deals. The taxpayers are left out in the cold while the professional staff that brokered the deals moves on. It's like contracting with minors, they don't have the where with all to do it right.

Well looks like the entire town of New London, Conn. is going to get screwed by Pfizer.

What kind of a commie are you Steve? Our corporations need the freedom to act as they see fit to pursue profits...

Ms. Kelo, a nurse who works in New London and Norwich, Conn., said she was still bitter about the loss of her house, which she sold for $1 to Avner Gregory, a preservationist. Mr. Gregory dismantled the house and moved it across town. It now stands as a bright-pink symbol of the divisive dispute that drew so much attention to New London.

“In all honesty, I’m not happy about what happened to me,” Ms. Kelo said. But, she added, “With 43 states changing their laws, in that sense I feel we did some good for people across the country.”

BTW, years ago I worked on a massive multi-volume work on anti-trust. A certain drug company, whose name escapes, had a lot of litigation attached to it for price-fixing. I remarked on this to the author. "Wait," he said, "until we get to the chapters on Pfizer."