Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/25/2006 6:12:10 PM EDT
Lou Dobbs had on tonight about NAFTA/CAFTA/Free Trade being the problems with outsourcing and America losing jobs, not unions. Looking on the net shows some interesting articles that show how free trade has screwed the USA. It's 4 pages long and a PDF document.

www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA_10_jobs.pdf



Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:25:01 PM EDT
Do you not find it strange that these people claim that to save America, we must RESTRICT freedoms?

Outsourcing was bound to happen. The more efficient that global logicical networks get, the more feasable sending work elsewhere becomes. The only solution to this would be a managed economy, and the socialism that would come with it.

Be prepared for National Healthcare to be touted as the savior of the US auto industry, and there will be no shortage of politicans that will happily try and ram it through congress.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:25:58 PM EDT
I always have a hard time understanding how free trade is bad
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:36:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 6:51:19 PM EDT by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Do you not find it strange that these people claim that to save America, we must RESTRICT freedoms?



Whose freedoms? A corporation's freedoms? You guys act like corporations are human beings and deserve to be viewed on equal standing with man. Corporations are entities created by the law, and therefore they only have whatever freedoms we allow them to have.


Outsourcing was bound to happen. The more efficient that global logicical networks get, the more feasable sending work elsewhere becomes. The only solution to this would be a managed economy, and the socialism that would come with it.


Nah, but an intellectual tariff on services provided inside the US by persons outside the US and the problem is solved. And don't give me that "tariffs are socialism" crap, Reagan loved tariffs. Reagan put tariffs on Steel, Japanese automobiles, motorcycles and Japanese electronics. How about some old fashioned Reagan protectionism, huh?


Be prepared for National Healthcare to be touted as the savior of the US auto industry, and there will be no shortage of politicans that will happily try and ram it through congress.


Already hearing it. But the noise is coming from corporations who are complaining to their workers that they cannot continue to pay their health care, pay their salaries and still make a profit. Corporate America will reap the benefits of socialized medicine (by realizing HUGE cost savings) and the American worker will be stuck with the bill.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:40:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dance:
Lou Dobbs had on tonight about NAFTA/CAFTA/Free Trade being the problems with outsourcing and America losing jobs, not unions. Looking on the net shows some interesting articles that show how free trade has screwed the USA. It's 4 pages long and a PDF document.

www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA_10_jobs.pdf






Did you read that before you hit submit?
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:40:36 PM EDT

NAFTA and "Free Trade" is the evil in America, not Unions.


False.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:09:08 PM EDT
"Free trade" isn't the problem, unions aren't the issue either.

The problem with globalization is the floating exchange rate system of debt-based fiat currencies, it leads to all manner of abuse. The havoc created by a concerted attack on a currency must be experienced to be appreciated.

Outsourcing wouldn't be a problem under a stable monetary system based on equity rather than debt. Persistent trade deficits are a symptom of a larger problem, namely the fact that we don't have a sustainable monetary system, not only globally, or in the US, but anywhere in the world.

The solution to our trade imbalances isn't more government intervention in the economy, that's the problem.

Lou Dobbs is a tool, he discusses the relevent issues but not their true nature, so his analysis is persistently wrong.

Debt instruments as legal tender in payment of all debts public and private is insanity, and the root of a great many problems not only economically but politically as well. It's the lifeblood of the welfare/warfare state.

Americas decline in manufacturing bagan when Bretton woods failed. Monetary reform is coming sooner or later, we really should get it over with.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:11:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
I always have a hard time understanding how free trade is bad



The problem comes when we realize that our government was supposed to be funded by taxes on foreign commerce not taxes laid on the citizens.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:12:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
blah blah blah
mindless drivel
blah blah blah



You know as much about economics as rosie o' donnell knows about guns.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:13:39 PM EDT
So, don't trade with the rest of the world?

The shelves would be bare dude.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:14:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
Lou Dobbs is a tool, he discusses the relevent issues but not their true nature, so his analysis is persistently wrong.



+1 he is also a liar.

A Bill O'Reilly wanta be except he is not very good at it.

If the comic book view of topics is all you can handle Dobbs is the man for you.

Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:17:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Oslow:
So, don't trade with the rest of the world?

The shelves would be bare dude.



Add a depression to that... If the protectionist idiots get their way it will be 1929 all over again.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:18:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 7:19:48 PM EDT by captainpooby]

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
I always have a hard time understanding how free trade is bad



The problem comes when we realize that our government was supposed to be funded by taxes on foreign commerce not taxes laid on the citizens.




Ding, ding, ding!!!!! We have a winner!

ETA: ...and interstate commerce as well, but we all know where that has led...
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:21:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
blah blah blah
mindless drivel
blah blah blah



You know as much about economics as rosie o' donnell knows about guns.



And you have yet to give a single credible explanation as to why you think that anything I have said is wrong. You are a mouth piece sounding off insults in defense of talking points that you have been told are correct.

BTW...I answered your inane question regarding rising labor costs in my previous thread. Your question was a very clear indicator to me that you have very little real world business experience. I am an IT consultant who has worked with customers in just about every market sector to find technology solutions to business challenges. I have worked for both multinational corporations and small business to serve customers ranging from the largest companies in the world (Ford, GM, EDS, Bayer, UPS, Yazaki NA, Mead, Johnson Controlls to name a few) to small businesses. What is your professional background?
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:22:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
"Free trade" isn't the problem, unions aren't the issue either.

The problem with globalization is the floating exchange rate system of debt-based fiat currencies, it leads to all manner of abuse. The havoc created by a concerted attack on a currency must be experienced to be appreciated.
...
Debt instruments as legal tender in payment of all debts public and private is insanity, and the root of a great many problems not only economically but politically as well. It's the lifeblood of the welfare/warfare state.



Interesting. I've never thought about that - the monetary system affects on nations as globalization continues.

What changes do you forsee in the future?
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:25:21 PM EDT
I would have to agree.

Trade tariffs / restrictions are an economic tool that can be used to moderate our ever increasing trade deficit. Free trade agreements such as NAFTA have only served to allow AMERICAN companies to bypass those trade restrictions. I don't have any problem with America competing in a global economy, but I don't want to compete against a third world standard of living.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:28:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
blah blah blah
mindless drivel
blah blah blah



You know as much about economics as rosie o' donnell knows about guns.



And you have yet to give a single credible explanation as to why you think that anything I have said is wrong. You are a mouth piece sounding off insults in defense of talking points that you have been told are correct.

BTW...I answered your inane question regarding rising labor costs in my previous thread. Your question was a very clear indicator to me that you have very little real world business experience. I am an IT consultant who has worked with customers in just about every market sector to find technology solutions to business challenges. I have worked for both multinational corporations and small business to serve customers ranging from the largest companies in the world (Ford, GM, EDS, Bayer, UPS, Yazaki NA, Mead, Johnson Controlls to name a few) to small businesses. What is your professional background?



oh, you finally got around to that then, eh?

You might want to let walter E william, Doctor of economics, and former chair of George mason university's economics department know that he's wrong. And you might also want to tell all the people that conducted studies about the effects of minimum wage increases know that they're wrong, too.

www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2005/03/23/14875.html

Your views on economics amount to little more than that of a spoiled child who think everything is owed to him (and the proletariat) and that the government must step in to keep other people from behaving in a free and open manner. Unless, of course, that free and open behavior benefits you and hurts the other guy.

You and the slobbering "big corporations are evil" goobers are the reasons for the decline of this country and the moving of jobs overseas. The problem is you're too freaking dense to see it and instead you blame everyone else for it.

Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:41:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rabbit9:
I would have to agree.

Trade tariffs / restrictions are an economic tool that can be used to moderate our ever increasing trade deficit. Free trade agreements such as NAFTA have only served to allow AMERICAN companies to bypass those trade restrictions. I don't have any problem with America competing in a global economy, but I don't want to compete against a third world standard of living.



I don't believe that we can compete against a third world standard of living without lowering our standard of living.

Creating jobs in the third world will raise the standard of living in the third world, but creating those jobs by taking jobs from America will lower the standard of living in the United States (I have witnessed this first hand with people who have had jobs offshored). In theory, it will eventually come to the point where wages in the US will decline to the point that the cost savings on wages in other countries coupled with the cost of moving manufacturing or technology infrastructure to other countries will not allow the firm to realize a cost savings, however there are many unknown factors that will play a part. For example, in order for wages to increase in other countries the labor pool will have to begin depleating the supply of available workers. This is already happening to some extent in India where job seekers are sometimes able to entertain multiple competeing offers. However, India has a population of over 1 billion people so it will take a very long time to exhaust the supply of available workers. Also, another factor is the ability of an employee to leave one job and seek a better paying job. One of the countries competing with us for jobs is China (also with a population over 1 billion). Can a worker in Communist China leave one job and seek higher pay at another, or are all workers restricted to the same pay at all jobs in order to maintain the communist ideal? 1 billion people who earn the same wage and work under the exact same conditions is a very difficult job market to compete with.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:41:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 7:43:24 PM EDT by Garand_Shooter]
Want to bring back manuafcturing to this country?

2 things would do most of it.

#1 Reform labor law with regard to unions, in the following fashion. No closed shops, if one wants to belong to the union they can, if ones chooses not to they are free to negotiate thier own wages. Allow an employer to refuse to deal with a union at any time, including when first formed. If people are to be free to form unions, then others in the company should be free to not participate in any fashion and the employer should be free to blow them off should it happen that thier product (labor) is not worth what they are asking.

#2 Bring on the fair tax. A consumption based tax will dramaticaly drop payroll taxes at every step, and them embedded taxes in a product produced here in the USA are estimated at 26%. That means that when you buy a product, the combination of all the taxes payed along the way to produce that product add 26% to the final cost. Imagine if overnight US business had a 26% advantage over products overseas. The consumer will still pay 23% at the cash register, but since the price of the goods you are buying has dropped that much in the end it hits your pocket the same, except for imported good that will not see the 26% drop in cost, so therefore will cost more. It is a plan that does away with the IRS, gives US manufacturers a 26% advantage, and in the end costs the consumer less or the same.

Free trade only harms business that can't exist without government(tax funded) protections.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:44:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Whose freedoms? A corporation's freedoms? You guys act like corporations are human beings and deserve to be viewed on equal standing with man.



Corporations are human beings.

They're employees, management, suppliers, investors and customers.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:53:56 PM EDT
The funny thing is when Lou Dobbs is NOT on CNN (ie interviewed on WOR-NY by John Gambling Jr.) he says exactly the opposite. Christianne Amanpour (sp?)or her producers at CNN, does EXACTLY the same thing I have seen her stories on two separate independant media outlets (CNN and an independant indian/pakistani-american news channel) If you had not seen the second one the CNN report has been edited down to leave out key facts and video -- giving the impression that demonstrations aginast the US in Pakistan were widespread and popular --the long version points out "protestors" circling the block and dragging local mercants along as far as they can to inflate thier numbers for the cameras, a few hours later -after dark- in another section of same town --same group same tactics portrayed on CNN as a whole nother demonstratin in ANOTHER CITY.
Lou Dobbs is a talking head for a cable news network with an demostrable agenda as such he reads the copy his producers make for him. On his own time he sings a diffrent tune
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:56:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
blah blah blah
mindless drivel
blah blah blah



You know as much about economics as rosie o' donnell knows about guns.



And you have yet to give a single credible explanation as to why you think that anything I have said is wrong. You are a mouth piece sounding off insults in defense of talking points that you have been told are correct.

BTW...I answered your inane question regarding rising labor costs in my previous thread. Your question was a very clear indicator to me that you have very little real world business experience. I am an IT consultant who has worked with customers in just about every market sector to find technology solutions to business challenges. I have worked for both multinational corporations and small business to serve customers ranging from the largest companies in the world (Ford, GM, EDS, Bayer, UPS, Yazaki NA, Mead, Johnson Controlls to name a few) to small businesses. What is your professional background?



oh, you finally got around to that then, eh?



It was a loaded question and it was a dud.


You might want to let walter E william, Doctor of economics, and former chair of George mason university's economics department know that he's wrong. And you might also want to tell all the people that conducted studies about the effects of minimum wage increases know that they're wrong, too.

www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2005/03/23/14875.html




I'd be happy to. My experience with college professors is that they often times they have spent their entire careers inside the classroom. They know the material and theories like the back of their hand but have little or no experience in the real world. I can cite for you specific examples where businesses have brought in additional "labor" at higher rates of pay without changing pricing to offset the additional cost and thereby reducing their profit margin. One example was a technolgy refresh that I worked on for a vendor to a big 3 automaker. The vendor that I was consulting for under projected the amount of staff required to complete the project ontime and risked forcing the customer into having to pay higher monthly costs on leased equiptment which would not have been returned to the leasing agency prior to the lease expiration. The vendor then brought in additional "laborours" who were paid at a higher rate, and authorized overtime for all of the "laborours" ont he project in order to complete the project by the customer's deadlines without being able to increase price. Same scenario, labor costs went up, workload unchanged, price unchanged, profits reduced. They bit the bullet and did what they had to do in order to deliver. Ever see a scenario like that in your text book son?


Your views on economics amount to little more than that of a spoiled child who think everything is owed to him (and the proletariat) and that the government must step in to keep other people from behaving in a free and open manner. Unless, of course, that free and open behavior benefits you and hurts the other guy.

You and the slobbering "big corporations are evil" goobers are the reasons for the decline of this country and the moving of jobs overseas. The problem is you're too freaking dense to see it and instead you blame everyone else for it.




Ah, the personal attacks. They entertain me so. Especially coming from someone who knows nothing about me, my line of work, my income level or may standard of living.

Now it's your turn to answer a question. I've told you what I do and what my professional background is. What is your professional background? What is your experience in the business world?
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:59:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SWS:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Whose freedoms? A corporation's freedoms? You guys act like corporations are human beings and deserve to be viewed on equal standing with man.



Corporations are human beings.

They're employees, management, suppliers, investors and customers.



Corporations are entities created by the law for the purpose of owning property between multiple people.

However, I find it interesting that you include employees in your definition of the components of a corporation, but you also deny that employees have any rights within the corporation. If the employee is part of the corporation then doesn't the employee have some rights within that entity?
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:05:49 PM EDT
Motown_steve, how long have you owned your company, and how many employees do you have? I am interested in your experience as a business owner, not a business consultant.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:09:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 8:11:23 PM EDT by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By DADX3:
Motown_steve, how long have you owned your company, and how many employees do you have? I am interested in your experience as a business owner, not a business consultant.



I don't own my own company. Does that mean that I don't understand business and cannot have an opinion regarding the regulation of business?

And for clarification, I am not a business consultant. I am an IT consultant. I help businesses find technology solutions to business problems.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:09:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By SWS:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Whose freedoms? A corporation's freedoms? You guys act like corporations are human beings and deserve to be viewed on equal standing with man.



Corporations are human beings.

They're employees, management, suppliers, investors and customers.



Corporations are entities created by the law for the purpose of owning property between multiple people.

However, I find it interesting that you include employees in your definition of the components of a corporation, but you also deny that employees have any rights within the corporation. If the employee is part of the corporation then doesn't the employee have some rights within that entity?



Sure.

The employee can continue to work there.
The employee can quit.
The employee can buy stock and become an owner if the company is publicly traded.

Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:10:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
However, I find it interesting that you include employees in your definition of the components of a corporation, but you also deny that employees have any rights within the corporation.





Originally Posted By motown_steve:
If the employee is part of the corporation then doesn't the employee have some rights within that entity?



Well Steve, according to your following definintion of a corporation, you can answer that question yourself.


Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Corporations are entities created by the law for the purpose of owning property between multiple people.



Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:15:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By DADX3:
Motown_steve, how long have you owned your company, and how many employees do you have? I am interested in your experience as a business owner, not a business consultant.



I don't own my own company. Does that mean that I don't understand business and cannot have an opinion regarding the regulation of business?

And for clarification, I am not a business consultant. I am an IT consultant. I help businesses find technology solutions to business problems.



No, but it does explain a lot about your point of view.

Especially IT, it seems most IT folks have the worst business sense of people I work with..... they have a lot of problems seeing the big picture.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:20:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SWS:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
However, I find it interesting that you include employees in your definition of the components of a corporation, but you also deny that employees have any rights within the corporation.





Originally Posted By motown_steve:
If the employee is part of the corporation then doesn't the employee have some rights within that entity?



Well Steve, according to your following definintion of a corporation, you can answer that question yourself.


Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Corporations are entities created by the law for the purpose of owning property between multiple people.






Circular argument. You stated that employees are part of a corporation, but you also seem to believe that even though employees constitute part of a corporation they do not have a right to a safe work environment, a community that is free of industrial pollution, a fair wage in return for their labor, freedom from harassment on the job, freedom from discrimination, a right to additional pay for working hours beyond their normally scheduled work period or even a predefined work period. So, in your view that employees constitute part of a corporation do you believe that employees are the property of the corporation?

My belief is that corporations are entities created and codified by man in the law and therefore have no rights other than what the law provides and that the rights of corporations can be altered as necessary to limit or grant rights to corporations. Corporations are a tool invented by man for the benefit of man. And as such, if a society deems that corporations should have their rights or activities limited in one way or another to benefit man then the laws governing the corporation can be changed at will to benefit man in whatever way the society sees fit.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:26:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

No, but it does explain a lot about your point of view.

Especially IT, it seems most IT folks have the worst business sense of people I work with..... they have a lot of problems seeing the big picture.



Good IT people know "the big picture" involves telling the customer things they don't want to hear. Once you do it a couple times and have the CEO tell you he doesn't want some 20 year old kid (even when you're older than he is) telling him how to run his business, you learn to keep your mouth shut about it.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:29:03 PM EDT
As long as corporate executives and upper management benefit greatly in the form of stock options and bonuses from downsizing their American workforce, down sizing and offshoring will continue. It is a matter of greed, and if this problem affected your profession you too would be concerned.

How many engineers do we have here that supports the proposition that we let young engineers from India and other countries come here on the H1B visas? What if there was no limit on the number of eng. grads that we would let in? We have some where I work and they will gladly work 50 hour weeks for 20K.

It's all the same principle, find someone who will do the job much cheaper. Funny how you never hear about an Indian or Chinese being named as as CEO of a Fortune 500 company. I 'm sure a million a year would do him just fine. Ours made abou 27 million last year. Oh, did I mention that we are down sizing?
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:31:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By DADX3:
Motown_steve, how long have you owned your company, and how many employees do you have? I am interested in your experience as a business owner, not a business consultant.



I don't own my own company. Does that mean that I don't understand business and cannot have an opinion regarding the regulation of business?

And for clarification, I am not a business consultant. I am an IT consultant. I help businesses find technology solutions to business problems.



No, but it does explain a lot about your point of view.

Especially IT, it seems most IT folks have the worst business sense of people I work with..... they have a lot of problems seeing the big picture.



You're right, IT people do lose track of the big picture. That is why customers engage consultants such as myself. The customer's IT staff usually has limited their vision of the organization to uptimes on the servers and applications that they have been assigned to manage. People such as myself come in a develop a larger view of the business goals of a customer (say for example to reduce overhead in a procurment process) and then help develop a solution that meets that goal (by say helping to develop a single procurement system by which purchasing, vendors, production sites, shipping and receiving and accounts receivable can order, ship, receive, inventory, utilize, bill and issue payment for outsourced materials).

That's OK though. You can keep implying that I'm just a narrow minded commie without explaining why it is wrong to limit the activites of for profit entities to ensure that those who are profiting from these entities are not doing so to the detriment of the society that they are profiting from.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:33:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

NAFTA and "Free Trade" is the evil in America, not Unions.


False.



+1
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:34:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 8:40:03 PM EDT by Jorge-Arbusto]

Originally Posted By bastiat:
You know as much about economics as rosie o' donnell knows about guns.



bastiat, in just the 3 weeks of my short tenure here I’ve seen you pop into a few threads and you have nothing but a barrage of poorly worded insults.

I live in the (not-so-great anymore) state of Texas and I am watching idiots like you hand over the republic to a bunch of authoritarians.
The FTAA is a BAD thing… the TTC is a BAD thing… I’m here, and I’m involved.

Guys like you are a dime a dozen, and none of you have an opinion that Fox news didn’t give to you.
You and other jerk offs like you; Tomislav, RikWriter, exocet, et al… are amazing in the fact that not only are you dimwitted, but also narcissistic at the same time.

It would be laughable if you didn’t have guns.

Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:52:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jorge-Arbusto:
bastiat, in just the 3 weeks of my short tenure here I’ve seen you pop into a few threads and you have nothing but a barrage of poorly worded insults.

I live in the (not-so-great anymore) state of Texas and I am watching idiots like you hand over the republic to a bunch of authoritarians.
The FTAA is a BAD thing… the TTC is a BAD thing… I’m here, and I’m involved.

Guys like you are a dime a dozen, and none of you have an opinion that Fox news didn’t give to you.
You and other jerk offs like you; Tomislav, RikWriter, exocet, et al… are amazing in the fact that not only are you dimwitted, but also narcissistic at the same time.

It would be laughable if you didn’t have guns.




Shit, someone left the door open. The trolls keep getting in. Time to call an exterminator.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:04:30 PM EDT
2005 was a banner yearsfor the US auto industry. Peak all-time employment and sales. Curious that the only companies not sharing in this bounty have union workforces.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:07:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jorge-Arbusto:

Originally Posted By bastiat:
You know as much about economics as rosie o' donnell knows about guns.



bastiat, in just the 3 weeks of my short tenure here I’ve seen you pop into a few threads and you have nothing but a barrage of poorly worded insults.

I live in the (not-so-great anymore) state of Texas and I am watching idiots like you hand over the republic to a bunch of authoritarians.
The FTAA is a BAD thing… the TTC is a BAD thing… I’m here, and I’m involved.

Guys like you are a dime a dozen, and none of you have an opinion that Fox news didn’t give to you.
You and other jerk offs like you; Tomislav, RikWriter, exocet, et al… are amazing in the fact that not only are you dimwitted, but also narcissistic at the same time.

It would be laughable if you didn’t have guns.




Don't stick up for me...especially if you're going to bad mouth Texas.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:13:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By imposter:
2005 was a banner yearsfor the US auto industry. Peak all-time employment and sales. Curious that the only companies not sharing in this bounty have union workforces.



Yes, the Japanese and Saturn treat their employees very well. Business is booming for these companies in large part because they don't have to labor under the strain of union imposed burdens. But, isn't it possible that these manufacturers treat their employees so well because they fear that if they do not treat their employees well then their employees will organize and demand better pay and better working conditions? Would these companies treat their employees as well as they do if they did not have to worry about the unions coming in?

The unions are not completely without value and in the begining they saved the American worker.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:15:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Circular argument.



And it's your circle.

Now that you've expanded your original, overly-simplistic definition of a corporation (below) to include the "human aspect" definition, perhaps you can now answer your own question:


Originally Posted By motown_steve:
"If the employee is part of the corporation then doesn't the employee have some rights within that entity?"



If a corporation has "no rights other than what the law provides" (below), then why would its employees, mangement, suppliers, investors and customers have any more rights?

Of course, going back to a previous thread, these corporate rights will vary from country to country, and we'll have to either accept or reject doing business with these countries based on our own beliefs and economic situations.

Again, I'm in favor of letting the consumer decide.


Originally Posted By motown_steve:
My belief is that corporations are entities created and codified by man in the law and therefore have no rights other than what the law provides and that the rights of corporations can be altered as necessary to limit or grant rights to corporations. Corporations are a tool invented by man for the benefit of man. And as such, if a society deems that corporations should have their rights or activities limited in one way or another to benefit man then the laws governing the corporation can be changed at will to benefit man in whatever way the society sees fit.

Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:31:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SWS:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Circular argument.



And it's your circle.

Now that you've expanded your original, overly-simplistic definition of a corporation (below) to include the "human aspect" definition, perhaps you can now answer your own question:


Originally Posted By motown_steve:
"If the employee is part of the corporation then doesn't the employee have some rights within that entity?"




I have NOT changed my definition of a corporation, and I have NOT altered my stance one inch. You have engaged in some very deceitful editing in to confuse your words with mine in order to make me look wishy washy on this issue and I do not appreciate it one bit. Disagreement on an issue is fine and so is civil debate, hell I can even take being called names and ridiculed, but I will not stand for you twisting my words by removing their context in order to make it look as if I am presenting two contradictory arguments. That is uncalled for and down right cowardly!



If a corporation has "no rights other than what the law provides" (below), then why would its employees, mangement, suppliers, investors and customers have any more rights?

Of course, going back to a previous thread, these corporate rights will vary from country to country, and we'll have to either accept or reject doing business with these countries based on our own beliefs and economic situations.

Again, I'm in favor of letting the consumer decide.


Originally Posted By motown_steve:
My belief is that corporations are entities created and codified by man in the law and therefore have no rights other than what the law provides and that the rights of corporations can be altered as necessary to limit or grant rights to corporations. Corporations are a tool invented by man for the benefit of man. And as such, if a society deems that corporations should have their rights or activities limited in one way or another to benefit man then the laws governing the corporation can be changed at will to benefit man in whatever way the society sees fit.




The answer is simple. The employees, management and customers are man. The corporation was created by man to service man by providing him with a means to engage in for profit (and even non-profit) enterprise. But if the corporation allows one man or a few men to profit by crushing and oppressing another men, then the corporation corporation has become a monster and is a danger to the soceity. The operating perameters of the corporation must be limited to ensure that the corporation does not crush other people in order to make a profit.

As for the suppliers, these are usually corporations as well. The right of the supplier is to get paid for goods that is supplies other corporations with. Since the supplier is a corporation and the most common purpose of a corporation is to generate profits then it is only reasonable that the supplier be paid for the goods or services that it supplies to other corporations. Beyond that, the supplier's rights can also be limited by law.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:33:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By imposter:
2005 was a banner yearsfor the US auto industry. Peak all-time employment and sales. Curious that the only companies not sharing in this bounty have union workforces.



Yes, the Japanese and Saturn treat their employees very well. Business is booming for these companies in large part because they don't have to labor under the strain of union imposed burdens. But, isn't it possible that these manufacturers treat their employees so well because they fear that if they do not treat their employees well then their employees will organize and demand better pay and better working conditions? Would these companies treat their employees as well as they do if they did not have to worry about the unions coming in?

The unions are not completely without value and in the begining they saved the American worker.


This is a bit too existential. The foreign makers build their plants in parts of the country where there are no unions. They do not have productive workers because they treat them well to avoid unions. They have productive workers because they have no unions. Can anyone really keep a strait face and say that Toyota is worried about it's plant in Alabama unionizing? If Toyota thought the plant was going to unionize, they would not have put the plant there. They are smart enought to know that in a competition between a unionized company and a nonunion company, the union company will die.

The auto industry is a perfect example of why it is not foreign trade that is killing US industry. It is competition that is killing union jobs, because companies with unions can not compete. That is true whether the competition is making its products in China or Alabama.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:40:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By imposter:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By imposter:
2005 was a banner yearsfor the US auto industry. Peak all-time employment and sales. Curious that the only companies not sharing in this bounty have union workforces.



Yes, the Japanese and Saturn treat their employees very well. Business is booming for these companies in large part because they don't have to labor under the strain of union imposed burdens. But, isn't it possible that these manufacturers treat their employees so well because they fear that if they do not treat their employees well then their employees will organize and demand better pay and better working conditions? Would these companies treat their employees as well as they do if they did not have to worry about the unions coming in?

The unions are not completely without value and in the begining they saved the American worker.


This is a bit too existential. The foreign makers build their plants in parts of the country where there are no unions. They do not have productive workers because they treat them well to avoid unions. They have productive workers because they have no unions. Can anyone really keep a strait face and say that Toyota is worried about it's plant in Alabama unionizing? If Toyota thought the plant was going to unionize, they would not have put the plant there. They are smart enought to know that in a competition between a unionized company and a nonunion company, the union company will die.



Honda has plants in Ohio and Saturn is in Tennessee. The Unions have attempted to organize these plants and have failed. But the threat is very present. Also, while southern states may be "right to work" state (which means that you do not have to join a union to go to work for a company that has unionized labor) do not think for a minute that unions do not exist in the south. They do.


The auto industry is a perfect example of why it is not foreign trade that is killing US industry. It is competition that is killing union jobs, because companies with unions can not compete. That is true whether the competition is making its products in China or Alabama.


Partially true. However, if the Japanese did not have to pay huge tariffs for importing cars into the US, then they would not be manufacturing their cars here.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:48:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By txsrche:
As long as corporate executives and upper management benefit greatly in the form of stock options and bonuses from downsizing their American workforce, down sizing and offshoring will continue. It is a matter of greed, and if this problem affected your profession you too would be concerned.

How many engineers do we have here that supports the proposition that we let young engineers from India and other countries come here on the H1B visas? What if there was no limit on the number of eng. grads that we would let in? We have some where I work and they will gladly work 50 hour weeks for 20K.

It's all the same principle, find someone who will do the job much cheaper. Funny how you never hear about an Indian or Chinese being named as as CEO of a Fortune 500 company. I 'm sure a million a year would do him just fine. Ours made abou 27 million last year. Oh, did I mention that we are down sizing?



BINGO .... we have a winner !

I have always said that NAFTA/GATT was the biggest boneheaded idea to ever come down the pike. For Corporate Management, this was no different than turning a Jenny Craig class loose inside a Krispy Kreme.
I have watched business after business close or cut back to a skeleton operation in my community due to "outsourcing". Many families have been uprooted, lifestyles downsized, divorces upsized....all due to the cheap monkey labor and unfair tax advantages on imported goods.
This is NOT fair competition....we have lost entire industries over this crap: Textiles, Glass, (Steel is on life support),etc.
You say " Oh don't worry ...those are just the low level menial jobs. We can afford to lose those". Heh, well guess what...its moving up the food chain. Value added manufacturing : Cars, Appliances, TV's, Computers, electronics, furniture, Tires....are quickly dwindling away, if not gone already.
Engineers who think they're safe, think again....Rhashid Rhakman from India can do your job for 1/5 the cost.
Physicians are not exempt either...HMO's have found that foreign Dr.s do just fine for a much lower salary.

"Oh but we have a service industry now"....bullcrap, they're not immune either. Customer Service call centers in India/Pakistan are now giving voice lessons to employees so they sound more "American".

The only bright side is that "Outsourcing" is coming home to roost in the countries that got our manufacturing jobs: China is now outsourcing jobs to Vietnam...and other foreign countries are eyeing that vast untapped cheap labor market of Africa. So it looks like Juan may lose his job to Booglyboogly in Mozambique.

Nafta may have worked out , but they didn't put any brakes on the damn thing. Or if there were any, our invertebrate Congress critters are too damn scared they'll lose an ethnic vote if they enforced them. (Imagine your Congressman having to get a job as a walmart greeter).

No country has ever survived without a manufacturing base. How long before we have to mandate all BurgerKing employees must take there lunch break at McDonald's to keep the money flow going?
This is not a protectionist rant....I want to see FAIR trade , not unfettered one-sided unfair "free" trade as it is now.
It just pisses me off to see so many highly qualified, skilled workers who still have so much to offer to this country , be tossed by the wayside .....while upper management bails out with platinum parachutes , only to go feed like locusts on another company/corp.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:50:47 PM EDT
.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:58:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rabbit9:
I would have to agree.

Trade tariffs / restrictions are an economic tool that can be used to moderate our ever increasing trade deficit. Free trade agreements such as NAFTA have only served to allow AMERICAN companies to bypass those trade restrictions. I don't have any problem with America competing in a global economy, but I don't want to compete against a third world standard of living.



+1-It has been all downhill since NAFTA.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 10:07:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 10:14:42 PM EDT by imposter]

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By imposter:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By imposter:
2005 was a banner yearsfor the US auto industry. Peak all-time employment and sales. Curious that the only companies not sharing in this bounty have union workforces.



Yes, the Japanese and Saturn treat their employees very well. Business is booming for these companies in large part because they don't have to labor under the strain of union imposed burdens. But, isn't it possible that these manufacturers treat their employees so well because they fear that if they do not treat their employees well then their employees will organize and demand better pay and better working conditions? Would these companies treat their employees as well as they do if they did not have to worry about the unions coming in?

The unions are not completely without value and in the begining they saved the American worker.


This is a bit too existential. The foreign makers build their plants in parts of the country where there are no unions. They do not have productive workers because they treat them well to avoid unions. They have productive workers because they have no unions. Can anyone really keep a strait face and say that Toyota is worried about it's plant in Alabama unionizing? If Toyota thought the plant was going to unionize, they would not have put the plant there. They are smart enought to know that in a competition between a unionized company and a nonunion company, the union company will die.



Honda has plants in Ohio and Saturn is in Tennessee. The Unions have attempted to organize these plants and have failed. But the threat is very present. Also, while southern states may be "right to work" state (which means that you do not have to join a union to go to work for a company that has unionized labor) do not think for a minute that unions do not exist in the south. They do.


The auto industry is a perfect example of why it is not foreign trade that is killing US industry. It is competition that is killing union jobs, because companies with unions can not compete. That is true whether the competition is making its products in China or Alabama.


Partially true. However, if the Japanese did not have to pay huge tariffs for importing cars into the US, then they would not be manufacturing their cars here.


Lets get the facts straight. Saturn is a union plant. UAW. And Saturn is sucking wind, just like the rest of GM.

There are no big tariffs on imported cars. The foreigners build cars here because it is cheaper to do so. It is cheap because of exchange rates and the fact that the nonunion workers in our economy are very productive. The most productive in the world as a matter of fact.

Are you really arguing that the foriegners put their plants in the south for some other reason that a deliberate attempt to get away from unions? That was THE reason. They know you can not be competitive with American unions.

As far as Honda in Ohio, I can not speak to that specific situation. But I imagine Honda's attitude is like Wal-Mart's. Organize a union today, you will not have a job tomorrow. Workers get it.

Mazda has a union plant that was foisted on it by Ford. Mazda has not exactly been lighting the world on fire lately, has it? The correlation between unions and failure is as plain as day.

ETA: The tariff on imported autos is a whopping 2.5%.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 10:10:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
I have NOT changed my definition of a corporation, and I have NOT altered my stance one inch. You have engaged in some very deceitful editing in to confuse your words with mine in order to make me look wishy washy on this issue and I do not appreciate it one bit. Disagreement on an issue is fine and so is civil debate, hell I can even take being called names and ridiculed, but I will not stand for you twisting my words by removing their context in order to make it look as if I am presenting two contradictory arguments. That is uncalled for and down right cowardly!



I just used your own words, Steve. VERBATIM.

Socialism and capitalism are contradictory ideologies and they don't mix well.

Link Posted: 1/25/2006 10:25:09 PM EDT
What a timely thread. I am at this moment writing out my recommendations about offshore outsourcing for a project in my Geography of the World Economy class.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 10:37:12 PM EDT
I don't like free trade. Free trade occurs within our states, not with other countries. Why? Money then goes there. Our money. Economics is also war by other means. You don't send your enemy bullets. Why send them jobs? Company takes jobs from here and sends them elsewhere, they should eat a tarriff.


Originally Posted By SWS:

Corporations are human beings.




Corporations are only treated legally as human beings because the courts (some of the justices that later decided a slave wasn't a person) decided to simply assume a railroad company was the equivalent. There was no debate on this issue.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 10:37:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By purplecheese:

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
"Free trade" isn't the problem, unions aren't the issue either.

The problem with globalization is the floating exchange rate system of debt-based fiat currencies, it leads to all manner of abuse. The havoc created by a concerted attack on a currency must be experienced to be appreciated.
...
Debt instruments as legal tender in payment of all debts public and private is insanity, and the root of a great many problems not only economically but politically as well. It's the lifeblood of the welfare/warfare state.



Interesting. I've never thought about that - the monetary system affects on nations as globalization continues.

What changes do you forsee in the future?



Prognostication is difficult.

However, several things seem quite obvious to me, as eventualities, meaning these things almost certainly will occur, at some unknown point in the future.

All fiat currencies throughout history have failed, most pretty rapidly, those that lasted longest failed most spectacularly.

The first issue is the structure of the monetary system as a whole, with money being loaned into existence at interest the debt incurred is inherently irredeemable, because the accrued interest means the debt is always larger than the money supply from day one. If the total debt burden were to be reduced the money supply would also decline, and the money supply would reach zero long before the debt was satisfied. Complicating matters is that not only must the debt never decrease, it must never stop increasing, else the interest would consume the money supply as well.

Modern economics is really all about keeping this mechanism operating, keeping DEBT INFLATION at the appropriate level.

This is a complicated subject about which I have a great deal to say, but the bottom line is that it's a system that demands continuous, exponential growth operating in a finite environment. There are only so many people(though with our open borders we get fresh blood every day) ,resources, and so on, and only so far the interbank rate can be lowered (0% or Z-boundary) to keep that debt inflation going.

The current monetary regime has only been operating since the Nixon administration when Bretton Woods failed, and really didn't stabilize until the Volcker Fed chairmancy during the Reagan administration. It's interesting to chart the fed funds rate against GDP growth from that point until the present, it paints an interesting picture. Fed funds declines on average about 80 basis points per year, whenever we get behind that slope (high rates) the economy slows down and if the rate isn't immediately cut we have a recession, and whenever we get ahead of that slope we boom.

So one prognostication I can make with great certainty, since the recent rate hikes have taken us way behind the slope, is that we'll either have major rate cuts or a recession within the next couple years.

Eventually we'll get to a point where rates cannot be cut enough to keep the system running, either because we reach the Z-boundary or because the market will not accept dollars at so low a rate. This is why foreign debt holdings and the petro-dollar system (which creates large foreign demand for $$) are so important.

Could be soon or could be decades down the road, no way to know.

At that point there will be a default. A great deal of speculation goes on about what form that default will take, whether it's inflationary (outright money printing) deflationary (bankruptcies) both or other. The new fed chair Bernanke is a well-known inflationist.

When that happens our trade deficit will vanish shockingly fast. The dollar would lose its status as global reserve currency at the same time, if that isn't what precipitates the default in the first place. The horrific nature of such an event for the global economy is likely a reason it hasn't happened already. Our enemies understand this situation very well, we are not nearly so secure economically as we are militarily. It may also play out in slow motion, a grinding series of events where the markets become less transparent and less free and the news becomes less believable all the time, or even bring about a hot war over economic issues because the alternatives are politically unpopular, such times are very chaotic.

At some point we get a completely new monetary regime, I doubt very much there is the political will to remedy the situation before a crisis presents itself. There are no remedies that don't involve a great deal of pain, the situation is similar to somebody who's putting 30% of their income on a credit card balance and continuously rolling it over( US public and private debt increases by over $3Trillion a year, not counting unfunded liabilities like medicare or pensions) They know it's going to end badly, but can't cut up the cards because then the house of cards comes crashing down immediately, so they keep on until they're forced into bankruptcy when the lenders say enough.

What that monetary regime will be is anybodies guess, I think it will be a decisive moment in human history, maybe we get something better, something honest, maybe we get the end of capitalism if they choose a more authoritarian path.

M3 (money supply) and repurchase agreements will no longer be public information as of this March, and Iran has been planning an oil bourse denominated in Euros to open in March for over a year (so any nation can buy oil from any opec nation and pay with Euro) not that I think that means anything drastic is necessarily imminent, but it's another in a long chain of interesting actions taken by government and/or the fedreserve, and a hell of a coincidence.

I look back at my post and realise I may not have answered your question very well, not being a prophet when asked what I foresee in the future I find myself trying to adequately describe the present, a difficult endeaver in itself.

Cliff notes....

I foresee a recession AND/OR drastic interest rate reductions in the next couple years.

I foresee another bout of dollar weakness in the same period.

Eventually, likely within the next decade or two, the current monetary system will be replaced by something else, likely less conducive to free markets than the current one, but possibly better, it'll be up to us, and the pivotal moment of our generation politically IMO.

Our trade deficit is nearing a top and when it declines so will the US standard of living, but this will necessitate more domestic manufacturing.

Financial and luxury services will take a beating at some point.

We're going to be dealing with economic warfare from nations and stateless actors, not only in the Muslim world but around the world, and in many cases we'll have little alternative but to resort to military action or accept large financial losses.

Nothing in this post is meant to be political, both parties are equally culpable on these issues IMO, the policy mistakes go back a century and more, but particularly back to Wilson, and then FDR after him. Just snowballs from there.

Oh, and I've got to say, most of the left/right arguements on economic policy are ludicrous, it's the underlying insufficiency of the monetary system that creates the problems both sides attempt to address, I actually should have spent this time cataloging the damage already done , the past rather than the future, perhaps another time.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 11:24:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:


You're right, IT people do lose track of the big picture. That is why customers engage consultants such as myself. The customer's IT staff usually has limited their vision of the organization to uptimes on the servers and applications that they have been assigned to manage. People such as myself come in a develop a larger view of the business goals of a customer (say for example to reduce overhead in a procurment process) and then help develop a solution that meets that goal (by say helping to develop a single procurement system by which purchasing, vendors, production sites, shipping and receiving and accounts receivable can order, ship, receive, inventory, utilize, bill and issue payment for outsourced materials).

That's OK though. You can keep implying that I'm just a narrow minded commie without explaining why it is wrong to limit the activites of for profit entities to ensure that those who are profiting from these entities are not doing so to the detriment of the society that they are profiting from.



At least you know you are narrow minded with socialistic desires.

So when does the transition take place? As a free man, I am free to hire and fire people to work for me. If my business is a sole proprietorship, I am the only owner. So how much do you think society should "restrict" my activities? How about if as an individual who wants to hire some people to help him remodel his house.... how much restriction do you place on them then?

So what if 3 people own a house, and want to hire people to remodel it...... because it is multiple people, do you now think society should restrict how they do business?

But if those 3 people form a corporation to own and rent the house, somehow they are now so evil the government must have the ability to regulate how they spend thier money?

I want to know where you draw the line.

A person who has money, can they spend it as they see fit?

Can that person buy, sell and trade to make money so long as there is not fraud involved?

What if 3 people get together for the purpose of using their money to make more money?

But if those people form a corporation, suddenly the government should be able to dictate how they do business?

I don't know what in your past made you so bitter about business, but I hate to break it to you that the sole reason business exists is to make money. So long as they do not do so through fraud, the government should not have any involvement. Yes its a mean world, and people get laid off, but thats life and the reality of the world we live in. If your services are no longer required, then they are no longer required, and for you to keep that job only because "society" steps in and says so means that person is nothing more than a leech. If someone does not like thier working conditions, they are free to find a new job. If they can't get any other job because they have no marketable skills, well that reflects back to the decisions they made earlier in life..... some people do what they need to do in order to set themselves up for a successfull life, and other sit back and expect to be "owed" a living for whatever effort they do. If they don't like it, this whole country is covered with community colleges that will, for a very small tuition cost, set them up with any of a number of very marketable skills. they can get off thier ass and better themselves.

Whenever I see a plant closing and some dumbass whining about not being able to make that much money anywhere else, I see someone who failed to plan, failed to educate themselves, and felt they were "owed" a living and will whine when thier employer stopped giving them money because thier services were no longer needed. Thier choices earlier in life set them up to be totally dependant on one employer, and they gambled betting that job would always be there and lost. In the end, it comes down to individual responsibility, not some evil done by the corporation. If I hired the kid down the street to mow my lawn, but one day replaced all my grass with rock, I owe that kid nothing. I no longer need his services. If my yard had steep hills and potholes and was dangerous to mow, the kid is free to either refuse to mow it or ask for money that he feels is worth the risk. If I can find someone else to do it for less, it is only logical to pay the person who is willing to do the job for the least amount that still does it to my standard. Same goes for any employer/employee realtionship, except in your concept of the world where society would be free to step in and tell me "you payed this kid before, so now find something else for him to do, like pulling the weeds from your rocks".

I am self employed, but I have backup plans and can market myself to be employed in a number of other areas should my main source of income for whatever reason no longer exist. I manage my own retirement, I manage my own career, and am not owed a living my anyone. I can make my own way, earn my own money, and succeed without the government stepping in.



Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top