Marx in the news

On february 1, 2010 there was an article in the Chicago Tribune with the title "Owners skeptical of Obama plan." The article presented the issue that president Obama brought up a plan that would help small businesses develop more in order to stimulate the economy.
The small business owners are in fact a little skeptical about this because the money that they should receive from the federal government is not going directly to them, but rather to big business. Small businesses express their hope to receive the aid necassary in the near future just as the president has in mind.
In my opinion, this article ties in perfectly with Marx's theory of a never-ending gap between the worker and the owner of a business. But could this be the case where small businesses can't catch up with big business in this poor economy? As the article says, Obama's plan includes $30 billion for community banks to lend money. But the problem still persists in that banks need to loosen up their lending policies.
Another point in the article is that the plan tries to stimulate small businesses to hire new workers. In return, the business will receive tax breaks and other benefits. But the problem is that a business owner will hire people if he/she needs employees. But if there is no need for extra labor, then the small business will not make new hires.
If they start to hire people only to receive a tax break, then the new employees will be paid for nothing. Their production isnt required at the moment, nor is their labor or time. As Marx puts it, in a capital society businesses pay people for the time they work, and not for the production. But I think the new Obama plan will make businesses hire people and not pay them for time or for labor. They will pay the new employees just to get the tax break. What do you guys think?

Here's the article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/la-fi-smallbiz1-2010feb01,0,6538633.story

Locke in the news

I was just reading an interesting article about a bank robbery. It seems that the robber took money from a credit union, and ran away while shooting at the police. You may ask yourselves how this relates to Locke, and the idea of labor and property. Well, as I was reading the article I stopped to ask myself "Is the robber the new owner of the stolen money according to Locke?" I mean, the guy worked up through a good deal of trouble in order to steal that money, and so according to Locke, he should be the rightful owner. Or not?
As Locke says, we own our bodies, therefore we own the work that comes out of us and that energy is embodied in "labor." Also, by putting our labor into something, we have made it private property. It is obvious that the bank robber instilled alot of labor into stealing the money, and therefore why shoudln't he become the rightful owner of it?
Now I understand that stealinng is not right, and of course as of today's society and its standards, the guy should be punished. But if we lived in a world according to Locke's rules, how would these actions be described? Would we still punish people for stealing or would it be ok since they put their labor into stealing?
Is it possible that Locke would disagree with this practice because it does not lead to productivity? Althogh this could be argued because Productivity is achieved anyway for one person or another, depending on the definition.

Link: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/police-gurnee-bank-robber-shot-at-cop.html