Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-03-Speech-2-089"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001003.3.2-089"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
This proposal puts economic growth above equality for all. America is taken as a case in point, worshipping as it does at the shrine of venture capital and profits. It pins its hope on the model-function of multinationals in the fields of biotechnology and health care. Opting for direct government aid when acquiring risk-bearing starting capital for innovative companies means that this aid must mainly be funded by those paying taxes and pension premiums. This proposal sees companies first and foremost as benefactors, which have the welfare of society as a whole in mind and must be remunerated for it accordingly. In reality, they often have more in common with gamblers who hope to tap into goldmines. It is only natural then that they should carry the entrepreneurial risk themselves, rather than passing some of it on to the community. My colleague Mrs Armonie Bordes cuttingly pointed out yesterday that only a minority benefit from deploying community capital and pension premiums for entrepreneurial risks. Those on the lowest incomes suffer the most. As I see it, that is a good reason not to vote in favour of the agreement."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples