PDA

View Full Version : An NDD Spin-off Thread


Roguish Lawyer
02-08-2004, 14:52
Let's discuss the following proposal made by NDD in the Street Gangs thread. I think it's a separate issue:

Businesses that take their employment overseas have to be made to pay a penalty so stiff they won't do it. Businesses that stay in the US and hire US workers should get every advantage possible.

Do you agree? Why or why not? I disagree, but I'm not going to explain why until this discussion gets going.

CRad
02-08-2004, 17:31
I disagree in part and agree in part.

There's something about punishing a co or person for making a choice about what they are going to do with their own business that bothers me a whole lot. What would ever give us the right to do that? If the owner can't have his own say then what's the point of being an owner? Why not just deed it over to the Gov't and be done with it.

Making it attractive to businesses to stick around or come to a certain area of the country is a good idea. It's good for the people - they will have jobs and money to feed their families and enjoy life. It's good for the community because the business may attract more business but it'll definately have payroll which will be spent locally. That spending will cause more jobs and more spending and more tax money for the city, county and state. Good for the community, good for the tax base, good for the people and the owners get to have control of their own business. That is good in an American Tradition sort of way.

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 17:52
Ok, let's say you're CRad Computer Company Inc. You sell 85% of your products to US citizens. They keep you in business. You advertise being an "American Company" products are "Manufactured in the USA", but you buy Indonesian micro chips and now you want to put your Customer Service Center in Bangladesh. Why? To help the poor starving people of Bangladesh? NO! Because Bangladesh has no minimum wage, your local manager there can hire for 1/100th what it would cost in the US. Who suffers?

The other thing is I think our stupid tax laws have driven companies off shore. If we're driving them away, we need to change something. What happened in California is to me a microcosm of what will happen in the US if we keep going down this road.

Any company that puts it business in a foreign country that does not have minimal labor restrictions should be fined out the ying yang. They are truly exploiting the worker class for pure profit.

OMG! I'm a communist!

RL, what's up with quoting me? You make me sound horrible. Why didn't you include the part about the right to not be abused, etc.?

brownapple
02-08-2004, 18:07
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc

Any company that puts it business in a foreign country that does not have minimal labor restrictions should be fined out the ying yang. They are truly exploiting the worker class for pure profit.


Hmmmm....

But Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, China etc, have labor restrictions, and companies are moving more and more activiities to them.

So, if Bangladesh would legislate some minimum labor restriction, you'd be OK with it?

Let's look at this from a business point of view. Companies don't move part or all of their operations overseas on a whim. They move because it is more cost effective. Between taxes and labor costs, the United States is simply failing to compete. Market forces apply, and companies will respond to them.

Penalties of any sort will simply lead to higher costs to Americans. Fine them? They build that into the cost of the their product and raise the prices. They have to. Companies do not make money out of thin air, they make money by charging for their products more than what it costs to produce them. Taxes, fines, etc. are just part of the costs.

The Reaper
02-08-2004, 18:14
Socialism, globalism, or protectionism.

You raise the other country's minimum wage, lower your own, or create financial disincentives for using foreign labor or benefits for using your own, via taxes, tarriffs, or deductions.

TR

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 18:18
I don't know if Bangladesh does or not. It was merely an example. I know what you are saying, but the US consumer will only buy his favorite brand as long as the price is competetive to the others in the same market for most items. Remember how many people started smoking generic cigarettes when the taxes went way up?

Why is it more cost effective to have a business unit thousands of miles away? Where is the savings? In the worker's wages and the exchange rates for the most part. The tax rate in Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela is higher than the US. Ecuador doesn't have an exchange rate. But you can get a secretary for less than $1,000 a month all in. You can get workers for about $500 a month.

I think a lot of the businesses, at least the ones I have been involved in, are moving to China to go after the Chinese market - a different set of dogs altogether.

But is Michael Dell selling a lot of computers to Indians? Is that why he moved his call center there?

I agree that the US is failing to compete. Taxes are one reason. But do we lower our worker's standard of living in order to compete with third world countries for the available jobs of our own US companies?

The decision to lower costs by moving US jobs overseas is profit driven. So you take away the profit incentive or level the profit here, at the worker's expense.

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 18:23
Originally posted by The Reaper
Socialism, globalism, or protectionism.

You raise the other country's minimum wage, lower your own, or create financial disincentives for using foreign labor or benefits for using your own, via taxes, tarriffs, or deductions.

TR

Right. But you can't really lower your own, especially if you're a politician who wants to be re-elected. So what would you do?

Wouldn't raising the other country's minimum wage in some cases help alleviate other problems?

Roguish Lawyer
02-08-2004, 18:24
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
RL, what's up with quoting me? You make me sound horrible. Why didn't you include the part about the right to not be abused, etc.?

Ok, ok, I'll take it out. I didn't think you sounded horrible. I thought it was hysterical. :p

brownapple
02-08-2004, 18:30
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I know what you are saying, but the US consumer will only buy his favorite brand as long as the price is competetive to the others in the same market for most items.

So, you'dput companies out of business because they dared to move overseas?

That is what it sounds like you are advocating.

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 18:35
Originally posted by Greenhat
So, you'dput companies out of business because they dared to move overseas?

That is what it sounds like you are advocating.

Not necessarily out of business, but I'd make them have to hire US workers if they wanted to stay in business and their only reason for moving overseas was to increase their profit margin.

Sacamuelas
02-08-2004, 18:40
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
... your local manager there can hire for 1/100th what it would cost in the US. Who suffers?

I don't suffer because of the subsequent lower price.

Using your Bangladesh scenario, I would get each of my twins their own CRad brand computers at the lower price of $399 each verses getting only one unit at $600 each(if made in the USA) .

I would actually end up spending more ($798) which brings in more sales tax , and both my children get to learn on their own computer. :D

Roguish Lawyer
02-08-2004, 18:41
Don't we also care about American consumers?

I like buying cheap TVs that work. I'm happy to buy imported ones as long as the country where they're manufactured gives us equal access to their markets.

The only exceptions I might make involve strategic industries where we can't let ours die for security reasons.

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 18:47
Originally posted by Sacamuelas
I don't suffer because of the subsequent lower price.

Using your Bangladesh scenario, I would get each of my twins their own CRad brand computers at the lower price of $399 each verses getting only one unit at $600 each(if made in the USA) .

I would actually end up spending more ($798) which brings in more sales tax , and both my children get to learn on their own computer. :D

Who does the sales tax go to?

Who pays the unemployment and welfare entitlements to the laid off worker because you spent $399 and not $600 on each and provided jobs for Bangladeshis and not Americans. Who's crime rate is going to go up becuase of increases in unemployment? Now add another $1,000 for a security system and higher taxes for more police.

Look at the cost, not the price. You don't suffer in the short term because of the subsequent lower price. You very well could in the long run.

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 18:48
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Don't we also care about American consumers?

I like buying cheap TVs that work. I'm happy to buy imported ones as long as the country where they're manufactured gives us equal access to their markets.

The only exceptions I might make involve strategic industries where we can't let ours die for security reasons.

Sure, I care about American consumers. But they can't consume if they don't have jobs.

Where was your TV made that we have equal access to their market?

Every industry is strategic when it involves the national unemployment rate.

Roguish Lawyer
02-08-2004, 18:54
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Where was your TV made that we have equal access to their market?

I believe that all of my TVs were made in Japan. I've got two JVCs and a Mitsubishi.

Whether equal access to that market is being provided today or not, I don't know.

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 19:02
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
I believe that all of my TVs were made in Japan. I've got two JVCs and a Mitsubishi.

Whether equal access to that market is being provided today or not, I don't know.

Gotcha! So this:

I'm happy to buy imported ones as long as the country where they're manufactured gives us equal access to their markets.

should really read: "I'm happy to buy imported ones so long as they're cheaper and I get to keep more of my money." LOL

Human nature. There is a gear manufacturer here that does good, not great but good, work. His claim to fame is that he copies the real deal's work and sells it for a fraction of the price. I have nothing against those that do, but I will never buy anything from him. i have talked to people like eggroll and have a small idea of what it takes to get these products to market. I will not help a guy circumvent the cost to save on the price. I waited 6 months for a pack that I could have gotten locally in a week for half the price. Same thing with drug companies. I have a friend that is head of security for a major. We have talked about what it takes for them to make a profit. I won't buy generic because of it.

Basically, we legislated out way into this mess. Like GH says, we're not competetive. But I don't want to see even one US worker living and working in the conditions I've seen elsewhere. No matter what it takes. We need to raise the rest of the world up, not lower ourselves to their level.

WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

Roguish Lawyer
02-08-2004, 19:10
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Gotcha! So this:



should really read: "I'm happy to buy imported ones so long as they're cheaper and I get to keep more of my money." LOL

Human nature. There is a gear manufacturer here that does good, not great but good, work. His claim to fame is that he copies the real deal's work and sells it for a fraction of the price. I have nothing against those that do, but I will never buy anything from him. i have talked to people like eggroll and have a small idea of what it takes to get these products to market. I will not help a guy circumvent the cost to save on the price. I waited 6 months for a pack that I could have gotten locally in a week for half the price. Same thing with drug companies. I have a friend that is head of security for a major. We have talked about what it takes for them to make a profit. I won't buy generic because of it.

Basically, we legislated out way into this mess. Like GH says, we're not competetive. But I don't want to see even one US worker living and working in the conditions I've seen elsewhere. No matter what it takes. We need to raise the rest of the world up, not lower ourselves to their level.

WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

Two points:

1. Price is not the only factor I consider in making purchases. I consider lots of things just like you do. I didn't buy these TVs because they were the cheapest; I bought them because I thought they were the best quality for what I was paying. The features were more important to me than the price, in fact. I sometimes buy American just for the sake of buying American, but not when the product is inferior and overpriced. I don't buy French products these days. I often buy brand-name products even though there are cheaper equivalents available, in part for the reasons you describe.

2. How do you propose to improve conditions abroad other than through free trade?

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 19:20
Blasphemer! When is the US product inferior?:D

I also have Japanese televisions, because I like them and they have better features for the price. But I never said I do it because we have equal access to their markets - we don't.

I'm not against free trade. I wish there was more free trade. I'm talking about US companies exploiting cheap labor overseas for purely profit motives at the expense of the US worker. I don't want to increase tariffs on foreign goods coming in or our going out. I want US companies that move their offices overseasto make more of a profit to pay a penalty for not hiring our workers in order to make a buck.

If a Venezuelan cattle rancher can produce beef that the US consumer will buy for a dollar a pound using Venezuelan cowboys and truckers and butchers - fine.

If Hormel moves their offices to Caracas because they can hire a Venezuelan secretary for 1/10 of the cost of a US secretary - not fine.

See what I mean?

Sacamuelas
02-08-2004, 19:23
Your proposal is not worth the risk to me. I don't want ANY more government control over trade.

FWIW, I am already paying for a security system in my house. Already paying for unemployment resources for other Americans AND non-citizens. Already paying for healthcare for these noninsured Americans.

I believe that our workforce should evolve/adapt with the changes in economic conditions that our country experiences. I honestly don't think that most Americans view the job export situation in an honest manner. I am tired of the "keep it like it is" mentality. There should never be a guarantee of keeping a job/benefits for every worker. That is way to close to socialism for my taste.

The media points out that we are losing all the high paying supervisor level technology jobs. I don't believe we are losing ALL of them. I think we are losing the "fat" that was developed in an overly opportunistic accelerated growth period in that sector during the 90's. I think we had a LOT of overpaid people in the technology sector up until recent times. It became expected for people with a simple little four year college degree in IT to expect a starting job with great benefits and a salary of over 90k/year. Unfortunately, the rapid growth led to the naive misconception that the business would be "that good" forever. Sorry Charlie, everyone got into techs because it was a get rich quick occupation.... and people did just that for several years. They should have done their research on the market and its potential for long term stability in it's workforce. I don't want to listen to the whining when the money well runs dry for a few years. They can always become educators( a great profession IMO) or go back to school.

Get an occupation that can’t be done by some uneducated Indian for 1/1000th your salary. If what one can do can be done in a sweat shop, maybe one should reevaluate just how valuable ones services really are. Maybe a paycut to save your job is a good idea. Just my .02

Roguish Lawyer
02-08-2004, 19:26
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I also have Japanese televisions, because I like them and they have better features for the price. But I never said I do it because we have equal access to their markets - we don't.

I didn't mean to say that either. I think the government should use the powers at its disposal to ensure that countries that restrict our access to their markets face the same restrictions from us. That's what I meant.


Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc

If a Venezuelan cattle rancher can produce beef that the US consumer will buy for a dollar a pound using Venezuelan cowboys and truckers and butchers - fine.

If Hormel moves their offices to Caracas because they can hire a Venezuelan secretary for 1/10 of the cost of a US secretary - not fine.

See what I mean?

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. There are costs associated with moving operations overseas, and we'll see how this trend shakes out in the marketplace.

I'm going to go work in a conference room for a while, but I'll be back from time to time tonight.

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 19:30
Well, we don't all have the talent to be dentists.:D

All I want is a level playing field based on our values. US products get slammed everywhere else. How do we factor in humanity and the strides we made in the last 100 years in protecting our workforce from sweatshop hours, unsafe working conditions, etc. If we can do that, then I'm all for letting the products compete on a quality basis. But I don't see that same protection where I am. I'm not saying Colombia has to have the same minimum wage as the US, there are other factors that impact the cost of living. But in some cases, it is abusive.

I saw a guy fall off a scaffold in Quito a while back. No safety gear. It killed him. They aren't required to wear it, so the employer doesn't provide it. They never missed a beat. Just replaced him and moved on. We used to have that too. We don't now and I don't think we should.

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 19:38
Why do I feel like the Lone Ranger on this thread?

lrd
02-08-2004, 19:44
Chinese Workers Pay for Wal-Mart's Low Prices
Retailer Squeezes Its Asian Suppliers to Cut Costs

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22507-2004Feb7.html

This appeared in this morning's Washington Post. Wal-Mart says this benefits both sides. Rationalization?

Sacamuelas
02-08-2004, 19:47
My argument stands for "blue collar" as well as "white collar" occupations. I realize that it may seem I am on the other side of the fence concerning my job being lost overseas. However, I face the same consequence (firing and relocation) in other ways. Example:
The current Administration's Government outsourcing proposals. My current job has been identified twice in the last two years for government outsourcing. They looked at my pay/benefits and workload and compared it to the cost of contracting the position out to private companies. I defended my work level/ability/quality of care and won the competition. If they had fired me then I would have moved on. I understand that the idea of keeping the same job for your entire lifetime is a thing of the past. That is our world we live in today, its not the 50's anymore.

My ideas translate to other nondentist fields as well. Ex. There is no economic benefit for companies to hire [u]legal[/i] non citizen workers to come to America and work as shipbuilders. Therefore, shipbuilders have put themselves in a valued occupation. It works for almost all jobs.

Sacamuelas
02-08-2004, 19:54
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Why do I feel like the Lone Ranger on this thread?

b/c you are the lone socialist in a room of capitalist! ;) LOL

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 19:55
Originally posted by Sacamuelas
My argument stands for "blue collar" as well as "white collar" occupations. I realize that it may seem I am on the other side of the fence concerning my job being lost overseas. However, I face the same consequence (firing and relocation) in other ways. Example:
The current Administration's Government outsourcing proposals. My current job has been identified twice in the last two years for government outsourcing. They looked at my pay/benefits and workload and compared it to the cost of contracting the position out to private companies. I defended my work level/ability/quality of care and won the competition. If they had fired me then I would have moved on. I understand that the idea of keeping the same job for your entire lifetime is a thing of the past. That is our world we live in today, its not the 50's anymore.

My ideas translate to other nondentist fields as well. Ex. There is no economic benefit for companies to hire [u]legal[/i] non citizen workers to come to America and work as shipbuilders. Therefore, shipbuilders have put themselves in a valued occupation. It works for almost all jobs.

I understand that. But a couple of things. You are in a protected profession. People trained as dentists in other countries for a fraction of what you paid to put yourself through school have to pass an exam and get a license in order to practice here. Two - most people don't look for the cheapest dentist or doctor or lawyer, they get the one that gives them the most confidence. You are providing services, not producing products so you don't compete with Venezuelan dentists in Venezuela, you don't import dentistry.

Again, I'm not talking about workers coming to the US and taking jobs, I don't think that is nearly as big an issue as some would have us believe.

I'm talking about your shipbuilder moving his shipbuilding operation from the US to Hong Kong to make a bigger profit. Not selling ships to the Chinese, but still selling them to US customers.

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 19:59
Originally posted by Sacamuelas
b/c you are the lone socialist in a room of capitalist! ;) LOL

More of a nationalist I think, but I'll be a socialist on this issue.

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 20:03
I'll be back, I'm going over to DU.com to recruit some communist libs.:D

Gypsy
02-08-2004, 20:40
Originally posted by Sacamuelas
[B]
The media points out that we are losing all the high paying supervisor level technology jobs. I don't believe we are losing ALL of them. I think we are losing the "fat" that was developed in an overly opportunistic accelerated growth period in that sector during the 90's. I think we had a LOT of overpaid people in the technology sector up until recent times. It became expected for people with a simple little four year college degree in IT to expect a starting job with great benefits and a salary of over 90k/year.

And they also received up to $100K sign on bonuses, free breakfast lunch and dinner, health club memberships etc. Crazy but true. I was doing some tech recruiting, specifically software sales and engineer types, between 1999 and 2001. The fees were fat and as were the salaries so I made a comfortable living. Part of the dot bomb problem as I saw it, just my uneducated opinion mind you and some conversations with people in the field, was that there was such a rush for the get rich quick piece of this pie that often the funders weren't even asking for solid business plans prior to funding a venture. And many of these young hot shots weren't interested in the more experienced work force who understood the value of a business plan, they had their creative visions but not the ability (or patience?) to implement solid business strategies. The burn rate for one company I dealt with was over $800K per month. Per MONTH! Yet....not enough money was coming in to cover their expenses. They were lucky in a way...the "evil" entity known as Microsoft acquired the company but eventually those I dealt with were expendable.

I would be in favor of companies getting additional perks and incentives for keeping the American worker employed, thus keeping the economy moving and growing. My question is what do you do with...as an example...the middle managers in Manufacturing, Distribution or Production who are downsized due to corporate greed? They don't make exhorbitant money, probably on average $50-70K. How about the average Joe working to support his/her family. These people are losing their livelihood thanks to organizations moving operations or production overseas. The market has been flooded with these people, where do they go to find work? If I had a quarter for every person I've spoken with in the past two years that was "downsized" because their company either outsourced operations, was acquired or just closed down I'd be a rich woman.

Edit to add: The burn rate I referred to was for rent, utilities and the like...it did not include salaries.

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 20:55
Right - so we're agreed - gypsy, lrd and I are right and you guys are wrong.

Have a very SF day.

ghuinness
02-08-2004, 21:34
Excuse the intrusion, but I didn't see anyone mention patents
and how they have been given away. Nor did anyone mention
reverse engineering.

We accept people from foreign countries to study and then they
go back and steal our technology. I have to be careful what I say, but I know for a fact one specific manufacturer we visited had the US components plainly on the table. They made no attempt to hide the fact they were reverse engineering US equipment.

We are losing jobs, I see it in my sector.

my .02.

CRad
02-08-2004, 21:52
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Ok, let's say you're CRad Computer Company Inc. You sell 85% of your products to US citizens.

That's kind of funny about that computer since the first computer we had and the one that worked the best and longest (still being used by a niece) is one the other half built from parts bought on the American market, SF CSM who got out and opened a computer store to be exact. I have no clue where they originated but since he built that first one in the mid-80's I would guess the Silicon Valley.

My tv is a Phillips, dvd player an RCA and my cd player a Pioneer. I got rid of the vcr.

brownapple
02-08-2004, 23:23
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Sure, I care about American consumers. But they can't consume if they don't have jobs.

Where was your TV made that we have equal access to their market?

Every industry is strategic when it involves the national unemployment rate.

They only don't have jobs if they and their industries fail to compete. Forcing any solution that is not market driven on industry doesn't work.

brownapple
02-08-2004, 23:24
Originally posted by CRad

My tv is a Phillips, dvd player an RCA and my cd player a Pioneer. I got rid of the vcr.

None are built in the USA.

CRad
02-08-2004, 23:33
Originally posted by Greenhat
None are built in the USA.

I figured as much, but I like being able to at least say the name of what I own.

Valhal
02-09-2004, 10:19
Mega companies seem no longer to be American. They are international companies now. The parent company might be US, based in US, but look at the major stock holders. The age of globalization is on us. If the invisible hand doesn't care about American workers, it certainly cares about our technology and innovation. This in turn will create other types of jobs in a continually evolving marketplace. Americans are bold and innovative. That is something that can not be contracted out to a foreign entity. There might be tough times for American workers in fields that are cheaper to produce outside, but the invisible hand suggests that when things balance out it will be good for all.

The culture of corporate greed, Enron, MCI...etc. worries me more. These CEO's make ungodly amounts of money, then oftentimes get mega bonuses for making deals that are part of their job in the first place.

Another thing that I see as despicable are US companies based in the Bahamas so they do not have to pay our government taxes.

My .02 I hope I didn't miss the party.
Mark

NousDefionsDoc
02-09-2004, 10:30
Originally posted by Greenhat
Forcing any solution that is not market driven on industry doesn't work.

Now that is a bold statement - I like it. What about environmental protection?

Roguish Lawyer
02-09-2004, 11:48
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Now that is a bold statement - I like it. What about environmental protection?

There are market-based solutions to environmental problems like tradeable pollution permits. Unlike the topic at hand, pollution is an externality which requires market intervention.

Solid
02-09-2004, 16:15
Good evening, and sorry to intrude, but I'd like to continue the CRad computer company illustration slightly farther.
CRad invests overseas- foreign direct investment. This is money flowing out of the US economy, which isn't great. Furthermore, what was once a US-manned call center is now a Bangladeshi call center, which translates to excess labour supply (unemployment) in the US.
The advantage/attraction of having a call center in Bangladesh is that the labour costs (wages) are lower because of excess supply or lack of regulation. This relates back to the US-based firm in the form of decreased unit costs, of which wages for a substantial percentage. Assuming that the import/export market is not interfered with by trade barriers (tariffs etc), the decreased unit cost derived from globalisation allows the US firm to compete with foreign firms, and perhaps establish dominance of the global market.

Global competition increases demand for the firm's product massively, and the firm stretches to increase supply capacity. This is likely to be done in the United States, because if factor costs were better elsewhere, it would be logical that the firm would have already shifted production to another country. New facilities create more jobs, potentially more than were lost to the Bangladeshi call-center. Furthermore, the lower unit costs and increased demand for the good increase revenue for the firm, which translate into tax revenue for the US government and increased living standards, amoung other multiplier effects. Furthermore, global sales translate as an inflow of money into the US current account (and an outflow from foreign countries!:D ).

In short- this situation isn't all bad. Foreign Direct Investment is generally good for the home country (in this case the US), providing, over time, profits, and either improves the host country (Bangladesh) or stagnates growth, based on how corrupt the host government is.

Thank you for reading,

Solid

brownapple
02-09-2004, 18:28
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Now that is a bold statement - I like it. What about environmental protection?

Take a look at the companies that have operated in areas/industries that are considered environmentally challenged for many years. Each of them has a stringent environmental approach of their own that is based on market forces and long-term vision, not on a legal basis. Companies that take a short-term view of pollution/environmental protection don't survive. The Chinese are learning that, just as it was learned in Pittsburgh and Manchester. It wasn't laws that brought about that change, it was the communities and the market.

ghuinness
02-09-2004, 19:07
If I am intruding, then let me know. I didn't see the following considerations in the CRad Corp.

1) trade agreements - we want to sell our equipment to third world countries and in return the company *must* establish a manufacturing plant or guarantee x number of jobs. The drive to save money in the US is not the only factor in the relocation of work. Now we have an established plant, can we ship our equipment? Er.....wait a minute. Is that a monitor or a fish tank?
You can't bring anything in that we can build here.

2) Debt. The country can't raise funds through the IMF or anywhere else and our trusted US company fronts the doe. However the country subsequently defaults on the loan.
The sales pitch somehow justifies boosts in market price, albeit temporarily. Example: Now you have x number of telcos billions of dollars in debt. How do you mask this debt? Spin off the company and call it a new name.

3) market demands - Let's take an example. Why is it that FCC regulations for Locator Services can be extended, but the ability to sell a phone so some buffoon can take a picture is so important? Market driven has it's drawbacks.

4) Environmental concerns - in my experience it depends on the target country.

I have thought about this stuff a lot and I have no answers. I used to think tax reform would clear up some of the mess. Maybe I am getting cynical, but I don't see quality product improving the situation. Cost rules. It doesn't seem to matter how reliable the product is nor how well designed.

Sorry for the vent (well, sort of).

Solid
02-10-2004, 02:03
Each of them has a stringent environmental approach of their own that is based on market forces and long-term vision, not on a legal basis. Companies that take a short-term view of pollution/environmental protection don't survive.

Sir, while I would absolutely agree that in most instances market-based internalization of externalities is the best way to go about things, I would also suggest that:
a) some changes corporations are unwilling to push on themselves. Seatbelts and airbags are a good example, laws were created and now, through Say's Law, they are a standard feature in most forms of transport.

b) in some pollution cases, it is very, very difficult to create market-based solutions. In my very limited experience, I have noted that the foremost market-based solution to pollution is tradeable pollution permits, as RL states. However, tradeable permits can only function in a market that is easily regulated, which is generally one with few companies. Some areas that pollute don't have only a few companies in the field, and market-based solutions therefore become very difficult to devise.

One of the big problems, as I see it, with internalization of negative externalities is that there are many of them to be dealt with, and the cost of dealing with them is high enough to have serious inflatory effects on the price of US goods. This makes it more difficult for the US to compete internationally with NICs like Taiwan and other Asian Tigers. It's the same argument for labour laws- if they aren't equal everywhere, the Most Developed Countries, like the US, will be fighting an uphill cost battle.

Again, sorry to intrude,

Solid

brownapple
02-10-2004, 11:32
Originally posted by Solid

a) some changes corporations are unwilling to push on themselves. Seatbelts and airbags are a good example, laws were created and now, through Say's Law, they are a standard feature in most forms of transport.

Your assumption here is that seatbelt and airbag laws are good things, and I'm not sure I agree with that.

Both are devices intended to protect people from themselves, and the laws that mandate them basically assume that people cannot be responsible for themselves. I disagree.

Also, those features have become major market features on a number of vehicles (as have ABS brakes, which are not mandated by law), even in countries where they are not mandated. Brands like Volvo started a market trend prior to any law, a trend which suppliers either respond to, or choose not to recognizing that limits their market.

Solid
02-10-2004, 11:59
Thank you for pointing this out to me. One question- do you think seatbelts, airbags, ABS etc primarily protect people from themselves, or from other people?

Solid

PS: I did some research and was interested to find out that the Volvo 240 series was used to set US safety standards. I was under the impression that Volvo had not always had the 'saftey' slant to their cars, and instead had expanded into the market later in their commerical lifetime. Lesson learned.

Roguish Lawyer
02-10-2004, 12:00
Originally posted by Greenhat
Your assumption here is that seatbelt and airbag laws are good things, and I'm not sure I agree with that.

Both are devices intended to protect people from themselves, and the laws that mandate them basically assume that people cannot be responsible for themselves. I disagree.

Also, those features have become major market features on a number of vehicles (as have ABS brakes, which are not mandated by law), even in countries where they are not mandated. Brands like Volvo started a market trend prior to any law, a trend which suppliers either respond to, or choose not to recognizing that limits their market.

Right on, GH.

Sacamuelas
02-10-2004, 12:28
"One question- do you think seatbelts, airbags, ABS etc primarily protect people from themselves, or from other people?

Solid-
Don't sharpshoot GH just to attempt to defend your statement about the safety laws. It just clouds a very good point made by Greenhat. He seems to have been focused on the legitimacy of the actual creation of the laws. It is the "legislators making laws to tell us how to live our lives because they think they are infallible know-it-alls” type argument. I have a problem with these laws as well.

Your prior points are expressed quite well. Don't undermine the legitimacy of them. You are a smart young man. You are just wrong this time. ;)

Lawsuits and consumer demand for safety have driven all automakers to start including side air bags, etc. The government does not need to legislate their use. On that same note, I think an insurance agency can have a right to place into its written policies that non-belted drivers get no pain/suffering, etc if involved in an accident.

Solid
02-10-2004, 12:38
Sir,
With all due respect, while I tried to find a hole in GH's argument, and tried very hard, I couldn't and conceded the point. It was not my intention to undermine his clarity of thought by obfuscating the issue with another argument- I meant it as a genuine question, because his view interested me. However, I do agree that my question could be interepreted as a dig, and I wish I had worded it better.


Your prior points are expressed quite well
Thank you!


Lawsuits and consumer demand for safety have driven all automakers to start including side air bags, etc. The government does not need to legislate their use.

I agree that this is certainly the case currently, but I think that originally consumers were comparatively unaware of the risks involved in driving. As such, it was the government's saftey laws that created a concern, and therefore demand, for saftey features in cars.

Thank you, and if I sound sarcastic anywhere in this post, it's not intentional,

Solid

Surgicalcric
02-10-2004, 12:56
Originally posted by Solid
...but I think that originally consumers were comparatively unaware of the risks involved in driving. As such, it was the government's saftey laws that created a concern, and therefore demand, for saftey features in cars.

Solid

That and Ralph Nader. Can I just say I hate a Nader Nail.

Surgicalcric
02-10-2004, 13:03
On subject:

Its not the governments place to write laws forcing a person to protect himself.

Personally I hate airbags. Do they save lives? Yes they do. Would I like to see them removed from cars? Depends on whether I have had one deploy while I was treating a patient the given day you ask me.

Ockham's Razor
02-12-2004, 05:44
To touch back on the economy...

We can all agree that our economy is based on consumer spending, correct? In fact, our economy is 2/3rd's consumer spending. So, therefore, if we continue on this pace of outsourcing and replacing tech and manufacturing jobs with "service industry" jobs, we are going to have a much weaker consumer class. That would, by deduction, lead to a weaker overall economy.

When they factor in the level of increase in productivity they are actually including jobs in countries where we have outsourced jobs. Indian and Pakistan, for example. It's an untenable situation if we are going to leave a great void for all the jobs we are losing. Unless we innovate and find a replacement for those jobs in some "New" sector. As we did when we lost computer manufacturing jobs and replaced them with software jobs. Now we are even losing those to outsourcing.

These are scary times for the middle-class. I would advocate NDD's solution to ensure that jobs stay in America by tying those large tax incentives given to corporations are tied to keeping jobs in America for Americans. How much in taxes do many of these corporations that are outsourcing actually pay? And the argument that "they employ lots of people who DO pay taxes" is dwindling, because those jobs are being off-shore. Instead of providing a benefit, many corporations simply have a corporate office with a skeleton crew and do all of their work off-shore and the prices they charged for the same products made by Americans remain the same as when they employ foreign labor. The only difference? The profit margin of the corporatation.

Pure capitalism is a terrifying thing to many people. Pure capitalism is basically survival of the fittest. That is why we instituted so many social programmes to help those who could not survive in a capitalistic society. Public Works programs, Social Medicine for those who really need it, Food programs, education and job training... We have struck a very fair balance between capitalism and socialism for many decades. We try to only reign in corporations for very egregious violations, and yet provide some protection for the average citizen. To scrap that system, which has made us the most prosperous nation on Earth would be, in my opinion, a great mistake.

It's time to make corporations more accountible. If they want tax incentives, then they need to agree to maintain some percentage of their jobs on these shores. Without that guarantee, what incentive is there for the American taxpayer to subsidize their business in the form of tax incentives?

ghuinness
02-13-2004, 17:46
NBG

I have to say I always enjoy reading your threads.
You always seem to hit the nail on the head.

When people in my group ask difficult questions, I wish
I could articulate thoughts as eloquently as you.

Regards

Sacamuelas
02-14-2004, 07:55
Originally posted by Ockham's Razor
To touch back on the economy...
So, therefore, if we continue on this pace of outsourcing and replacing tech and manufacturing jobs with "service industry" jobs, we are going to have a much weaker consumer class. That would, by deduction, lead to a weaker overall economy.

Like the new name BTW.
I don't agree with your prediction. The economy is growing. We are on an economic upswing IMO. Please list some historical facts that support your statement. I can think of quite a bit of manufacturing/tech jobs lost in factories due to technology in the last few decades.. I think our overall economic status within the world community is actually due to this. We evolved, innovated, and pursued new technology and new ideas. That is what has made us "the most prosperous nation on Earth".

Unless we innovate and find a replacement for those jobs in some "New" sector. As we did when we lost computer manufacturing jobs and replaced them with software jobs. Now we are even losing those to outsourcing.

I agree, but that responsibility falls on the individuals shoulders. It should not be forced through legislation. Do you really think a mediated half-measure that would make it through the congressional BS factory would be best suited for US businesses? Or do you think that US businesses themselves know what is best for themselves in each of their unique business environments? I chose the latter. If they fail to make a proper decision, the company will pay for it through its consumers.

I would advocate NDD's solution to ensure that jobs stay in America by tying those large tax incentives given to corporations are tied to keeping jobs in America for Americans.

We have already noted NDD is a socialist on this issue. ;) TO much time studying peasant worker revolutions I think. LOL


It's time to make corporations more accountible. If they want tax incentives, then they need to agree to maintain some percentage of their jobs on these shores. Without that guarantee, what incentive is there for the American taxpayer to subsidize their business in the form of tax incentives?

Hmm.... that sure does sound like you should have used the buzzword "quota" in that sentence. What is this, a new form of affirmative action for middle class economic special interest groups too. Okay, that pretty much covers everybody in the country except the extremely wealthy. It is us verses them. We get to make decisions about where we work or when we quit, but they will be deemed illegal or penalized if they decide to change our status.
Sounds great comrade…

NousDefionsDoc
02-14-2004, 08:20
WTH? I thought this was over for some reason.

Couple of questions - what's the first duty of government?

If they fail to make a proper decision, the company will pay for it through its consumers.

Not necessarily. And even if they do, it will be after the fact and the jobs are gone. Easier to stop them leaving than get them back.

Greenhat, I disagree with you that the market forced environmental and safety consciousness. Maybe it is industry specific, but that hasn't been my experience.

The problem I see is with regard to overseas labor, the market isn't level and I don't see how it can level itself. At least not in this century. Your never going to convince a majority of US consumers to buy US so the companies will stay US. The consumer will buy what he feels is the best value, regardless of where it comes from. The US consumer doesn't want to hear about those Chinese workers building those Walmart stereos, he wants his blue light special and coupons.

Sacamuelas
02-14-2004, 08:42
I thought it was too. However, it popped up on the radar screen due to Guinness's post. Oh well, I am bored, the twin warriors are still asleep-and the wife is gone to a baby shower. What else is there to debate? LOL

First duty?
In reality, I would say- to preserve itself. Or were you going for Law and Order or freedom and democracy?

I know it seems easier to try and play prevention politics on these issues. I just think that there is no way to predict when the next "tech boom" type industry will be innovated and flourish in our country. If we start stifling businesses by actually providing incentive to keep the status quo, we will prevent them from having access to the free capital needed to invest in the new technology.

We can not stop our progress towards a consumer driven- service economy. If we do, we will become stagnant while the rest of the world catches us in technology and innovation. So for a few years/maybe a decade all things will look acceptable. However, as we flounder under a government enforced status quo, we will have lost the very thing that made America the economic leader in the world-flexibility, innovation, potential, desire for the new, and imagination.

Eventually, we will be forced to compete as an equal with all the other countries to market and produce the same items. We will not be able to do that with our standard of living and legal requirements for safety/environment/benefits.

IMO, that is not what America was founded on or successful doing for that last two hundred years.

Solid
02-14-2004, 09:30
Although the theory of Comparative Advantage has several flaws in application, I believe that it can function and that despite certain incongruences, the US economy is evolving a Comparative Advantage (CA) in the services sector.
This means that jobs that are not part of that sector must be shed so that employment can be re-allocated to service industries. Out-sourcing is a very good way of doing this, because it means that despite the initial loss of the original investment in a foreign country (foreign direct investment), the US-based company will be able to make profit in the long-run, thereby not only freeing labour for reallocation to economically efficient sectors, but also doing so in a way that preserves profits.

It seems to me that by preventing out-sourcing, we are simply preventing our economy from evolving to the next stage of Comparative Advantage, thereby incurring losses by remaining in industries where we can no longer effectively compete, missing out on the potential benefits of a CA in services, and decreasing the time and economic gap between the US and, for example, China, Japan, and to a lesser extent the EU.

That said, an unregulated CA motion would involve a sudden unemployment 'shock' to the US economy. It would therefore drop wage rates significantly, and decrease consumer power and living standards. To avoid this, it is prudent for the US government to create incentives to slow the rate at which companies out-source and shed labour. These incentives should be short term, because any long term incentives will 'snag' the evolution and thereby prevent the US from reaping the full benefits of a Comparative Advantage in services.

Just my .02.

Solid

brownapple
02-14-2004, 10:05
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc


The problem I see is with regard to overseas labor, the market isn't level and I don't see how it can level itself. At least not in this century. Your never going to convince a majority of US consumers to buy US so the companies will stay US. The consumer will buy what he feels is the best value, regardless of where it comes from. The US consumer doesn't want to hear about those Chinese workers building those Walmart stereos, he wants his blue light special and coupons.

You are assuming that it should be level. I disagree. Similar to NBG's (your logic patterns don't match your new user name, Ian) assumption that "service industry" somehow will make for a weaker consumer class than manufacturing. Nothing to support that assumption, as a matter of fact, it would be rather easy to demonstrate that the opposite is more likely true.

The US consumer (and any other consumer) should make decisions based on their best interests... and so should corporations. And they will, REGARDLESS OF LEGISLATION. You can't make companies stay here, and you can't pull stunts that penalize them with consumers because those things will penalize American consumers far more than they penalize any corporation.

When I refer to market forces, I am referring to those that businesses traditionally consider:
Price
Value
Relationships
Image
Supply
Demand

The US wants to maintain its standard of living? It has to keep moving ahead, has to keep innovating, inventing, recreating what America has done best. The fact that the United States did that for the entire 20th century is what drove the US economy. Not manufacturing...but being the leader in manufacturing technology. That is what Henry Ford brought to the table 100 years ago. That kind of innovation must continue... and that is what will differentiate the US from other nations, or the US will become a third-world nation. It's sink or swim... and it should be. Not a level market, but a differentiated market. Too much commodities focused thinking instead of creative thinking in business will kill business.

Capitilism scares people? Tough. So do lots of things. Doesn't change the fact that global markets and more efficient transporation leading to lower costs mean that competition is getting tougher. And that means that whoever (nation, company, etc.) that adapts better to capitilism (Adam Smith style) will survive and thrive. And those that don't? They will fold, sooner or later... just like the Soviet Union.

Sacamuelas
02-14-2004, 10:06
Solid-
I agree with everything in your first two paragraphs. Excellent post. I admit, you express my thoughts better than I do. :p

The idea of anything being "short term" legislation only is a difficult one to enact once the law is made. There are numerous examples of this in our country today. Affirmative action is a good one to stir up a little discussion. It was meant to be a temporary short term measure to help alleviate a problem. How hard is it going to be to repeal it now? We are better off not falling into the trap, IMO.

We are losing these jobs right now, you agree. Yet, our economy is on a upswing and the unemployment figures are actually better for the last three months than they have been in 2.5 years. Oh and the wage issue, well, the average Americans wage was higher than inflation in each of the last three years. Thoughts?

Solid
02-14-2004, 10:28
Affirmative Action certainly is "a big stirring stick". :D
That said, is is possible for the government to create time-limited subsidies which incentivise against out-sourcing? I must admit that I am used to dealing with the English economy, so I'm not sure if mechanisms are the same in both countries.

I'm out in a remote village in Switzerland right now, so I don't have very many available news sources (internet link is slow and treacherous). This severely impairs any ability I have (if it ever existed) to analyse the economy. A friend told me that unemployment was slowly falling, but that the economy MAY not be on the mend (unemployment may not be falling fast enough to suggest true economic recovery). Is this true?

Thanks, sorry to be a burden.

Solid

Ockham's Razor
02-14-2004, 15:18
GH and Sacamuelas,

Everything you presented is solid economic fact. I can't dispute that. Even the report on the economy as presented by Mankiw is proven economic fact, Solid pointed that out very clearly.

The economy, according to LEI's, IS improving. We are growing. This is all great news. Yes, I am aware of the difference between micro- and macro-economics. The jobs problem is a Macro issue.

My concern lies in that economists are having a hard time explaining why, after we have been in recovery status for several months, is there no increase in hiring. Many point to productivity, uncertainty, etc... All relevant. I for one am optimistic that the projected job growth of 3% for this year will be realised. It is a big number, but if we rely on past history an economic theory, our current economic growth should help us realise that 3% number.

I'm just a protectionist when it comes to jobs. I do realise the bigger picture in a macro frame of thought. Basically what Solid laid-out with regards to out-sourcing.

There is NO stopping our conversion to a service economy, absolutely none. I don't think legislation will be able to cushion the blow as we make that conversion either. Unfortunately, this is an issue that only time will resolve.

I just have a mistrust towards big business. Look at the Yankees, trying to get A-Rod... They need to be in the 100% tax-bracket. :)

I can only hope that businesses will worry about one of the points you mentioned GH, Image. Business should be free to make their widgets without governmental intervention or unfair taxation when they provide a service to the economy and create jobs. However, a balance between rights of the business and rights of the worker needs to be in place. Before the government stepped in with the creation of OSHA and passed legislation, worker's had no rights. Sure, they could quit and go elsewhere, but when unsafe working conditions and low-pay was the norm everywhere is that really an option?

We've struck a good balance between socialism and capitalism in this country. Businesses in this country are very prosperous and profitable, and we have safe workplaces and good wages. I'm only hoping, thinking with a Macro view, that wages and employment rolls increase as much as our overall economy has been. Then, as we transition to a service economy, I think we all benefit.

All I ask is that someone go to these countries that now handle customer phone calls and teach them how to speak English. It should not take me 45 minutes to order an Elvis plate from the Franklin Mint.

brownapple
02-14-2004, 18:03
Originally posted by Ockham's Razor
I can only hope that businesses will worry about one of the points you mentioned GH, Image.

Image is what allows businesses to charge more than the bare bottom line for their products. Look at BMW, Mercedes. How can they charge what they do? Image. Most corporations understand that. The Yankees sure do.

Before the government stepped in with the creation of OSHA and passed legislation, worker's had no rights. Sure, they could quit and go elsewhere, but when unsafe working conditions and low-pay was the norm everywhere is that really an option?


Ever read David Copperfield? That book and many like it are what made changes... image again. Not OSHA, not legislation. Those were just regulations, the cost of which drove up the cost of products.

We've struck a good balance between socialism and capitalism in this country. Businesses in this country are very prosperous and profitable, and we have safe workplaces and good wages.

Good balance? I don't think so. Businesses are very prosperous and profitible? Find out how many companies go under every year. Find out how many file some sort of bankruptcy.


All I ask is that someone go to these countries that now handle customer phone calls and teach them how to speak English. It should not take me 45 minutes to order an Elvis plate from the Franklin Mint.

Sounds like a market. Form a business.

Roguish Lawyer
02-14-2004, 18:13
Greenhat:

You are brilliant and correct.

:D

Ockham's Razor
02-15-2004, 01:02
GH,

Sir, your points are valid and correct. The best example of what can happen when the government meddles in business affairs too much is California. Many Californians were scratching their head at why so many companies were going bankrupt as well as many companies undertaking great costs to move their operations to other states. Yet, the answer was obvious; bad legislation.

Whilst I agree with you that social changes lead to much of the reformed labor standards, it was set in stone by legislation and regulatory bodies. I have never, and will never trust a company to police itself. It's an extreme on both ends. I'm trying to meet it in the middle. The problem seems not to be the legislation, but the extremes to which the legislation is brought to. Worker's Safety, great stuff. Let's have some minimum standards in order to assure we don't have people getting sucked into a meat grinder. But, then these governmentally created bodies, in order to perpetuate their jobs, create asinine regulations every year in order to seem like they are doing more. THAT is a serious problem.

My position is this, Sir. We have corporations whose motto is obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate... Eventually the truth comes out, and YES the system does work, they have to answer for any mistakes in judgement, Monsanto/Tobacco/DowCorning etc etc... When their mistakes come to light, the consumers are the ones who rally into action. I had always thought that the reason for regulation was to try to bring these issues to light sooner rather than later. We need environmental standards that are enforceable, but the EPA has gone to far. We need standards for workers safety, but OSHA has gone too far. We should not scrap these agencies or change the legislation to zero. These organisations need solid neutral/competant leadership. We can have it both ways. Unfortunately, it seems like everytime we create an organisation they wind up overstepping their bounds in some way.

It's hard for me not to want some legislation to protect workers. I'm the son of a Union Man. I understand your position, and on all economic levels it is factually sound. I honestly can't give you any personal stories from my region about this being a bad economy and that things look glum. In fact, I can point to quite the opposite. We are doing very well in New England. My concern lies with those folks who have at minimum a HS education and found solid pay in the manufacturing sector. There are quite a few of them.

I really liked the new proposal to help re-train those workers. I believe in that proposal. We WILL create jobs in new sectors and refocus our economic base. I think the 12-18 month forecast for this country is fantastic. If we maintain this level of growth and follow through on the re-training proposal, I really like the direction we are headed in. I've seen so many economic forecasts both doom and gloom and total prosperity to realise it will lie right in the middle. We will sort this out, we will add jobs, hopefully legislation will be introduced to roll-back some of the more-intrusive anti-business laws, and we WILL innovate. That is the Motto of the United States of America, we are innovators. I may hail from a Liberal bastion, but I understand that corporate success is what lends us to have the quality of life we enjoy. Meaning: everyone here dislikes me. The motto around here is "Big Companies are BAD very BAD." Hard to explain and pose the question "So, who signs your paycheck?"

The Yankees. Yes, if spending that much in luxury tax for a guy who can't pitch when we walk down Yawkey Way with the prize... Sound economic fundamentals. :)

With regards to phone centers in that region... I could write up a business plan, but I'm saving that for your Christmas present. The profit potential is enormous. All I ask in return is a company title and use of the corporate jet. If you think that consultants make a great deal of cash, try owning a corporate training company that expressly focuses on the training of the hottest growing industry in that region. Money will rain down from the heavens.

Always a pleasure discussing things with you, GH. I always wind up learning more than I say.

brownapple
02-15-2004, 01:14
Originally posted by Ockham's Razor
Unfortunately, it seems like everytime we create an organisation they wind up overstepping their bounds in some way.

It isn't unfortunate, it is the nature of the beast. And until you are willing to recognize that, you will continue to suffer with delusions that the government can do things via legislation that are good regarding business and regulation. They can't and shouldn't.

Want the government to legislate something useful? Criminal legislation, not civil. Legislate clearly actions that will be considered criminal and hold individuals responsible for those actions.

With regards to phone centers in that region... I could write up a business plan, but I'm saving that for your Christmas present. The profit potential is enormous. All I ask in return is a company title and use of the corporate jet. If you think that consultants make a great deal of cash, try owning a corporate training company that expressly focuses on the training of the hottest growing industry in that region. Money will rain down from the heavens.

Always a pleasure discussing things with you, GH. I always wind up learning more than I say. [/B]

http://www.nli.co.th

Ockham's Razor
02-15-2004, 01:28
Originally posted by Greenhat



http://www.nli.co.th

Firstly, you are right on the unfortunate argument. They wind up perpetuating themselves and creating legislation the restricts business.

Secondly, on that link... You win. LOL Obviously, I am slow and outdated. I had the feeling it was already in the works/being utilised. "Sales are expected to increase 50 fold from 20 million Baht to 1 billion Baht per year." I missed the bubble, again.

lrd
02-15-2004, 05:53
Originally posted by Ockham's Razor
It's hard for me not to want some legislation to protect workers. I'm the son of a Union Man. I understand your position, and on all economic levels it is factually sound. I honestly can't give you any personal stories from my region about this being a bad economy and that things look glum. In fact, I can point to quite the opposite. We are doing very well in New England. My concern lies with those folks who have at minimum a HS education and found solid pay in the manufacturing sector. There are quite a few of them.
My mother lives in rural Mississippi. There used to be 7 small factories in her community: 2 furniture, 1 beef jerky, 1 glove, 1 children's clothing, and a couple other textile factories. A majority of the people that worked in these factories were former farmers, wives of farmers, children of farmers and people who used to work for farmers. The big corporations moved in on the farmers, and these folks could no longer make a living farming. They swallowed their pride and went to work in town. Now 6 of the factories have closed due to outsourcing. What are these people to do? They are now driving 1 1/2 - 2 hours for a job paying less than what they were getting locally. Some of the young move closer to the work. Others simply cannot afford the expenses of moving and all that entails with higher rent, etc. The older folks want to hang on to their land for several reasons: it's one of their assets, it's been in their families for years, and if all else fails they will still be able to feed themselves and their children off of the land.

The children's clothing company sold to stores competing with WalMart. Their jobs were outsourced by companies trying to beat WalMart. Believe me, they see the irony of now having to shop at WalMart or drive a couple of hours to the city. Others refuse to step in the door -- but they're usually the ones who can afford to shop elsewhere.

Image is important to the consumer if you can afford it to be. When you are trying to clothe your children, your priorities change. That's how many of them ended up in the factories in the first place. But the feeling that these companies are leaving in these folks is not good.

You say that the service industry will replace manufacturing. I can see that, in the big picture. What worries me, is that this community may be dead by the time any type of service industry heads their way. They are down to one restaurant, the small family clothing store has closed, the hardware store is just hanging on because there are enough farmers in the area to keep it going. Many of these businesses were able to stay open because someone in the family worked at one of the factories. There used to be factory outlet stores -- they are closed.

My relatives went off to college and became preachers, teachers, doctors and nurses who farmed on the side. They returned to the community because that is where our family is, and because they wanted to repay the community that raised them. They would like to be able to serve and make a decent living that allows them to take care of their parents as they age. This is what makes a community alive.

I'm sure that eventually, down the line, someone will work with the people who are trying their best to get some sort of industry back in the community. There is a big world out there, however, and I'm afraid that it will be years before the pressure on companies to keep jobs here will have any effect. Outsourcing may allow jobs to be re-allocated to service industry jobs, but that doesn't mean that the jobs taken away will be replaced by new jobs.

brownapple
02-15-2004, 06:18
Lrd,

Sink or swim. That is the challenge for the community. Other communities have found solutions. And others have disappeared.

lrd
02-15-2004, 06:54
Originally posted by Greenhat
Lrd,

Sink or swim. That is the challenge for the community. Other communities have found solutions. And others have disappeared. I agree, looking at it from the big picture. I know I look at their situation less logically than I look at others, but they are my extended family. I know the Grandparents, Parents, Children, Grandchildren and Greatgrandchildren. And their dogs and horses, too. ;)

Sacamuelas
02-15-2004, 09:42
Lrd-
I am sorry to hear about your families trouble. Economic and political debate aside, it is never easy when things affect a family member. So know that I have sympathy for them in their decision.

However, I am with GH on this one. It is her choice to stay on your family land and attempt to maintain the "way it has always been". Nothing wrong with that idea, however there should be no public legislation created to protect and isolate them from the effects of a potentially poor decision. If it is important for them to stay where they are then that is a decision that they made after weighing all the factors. Most Mississippians are actually striving to change the "way it has always been" (myself included).

Where in Mississippi? I can think of numerous reasons that businesses are relocating from rural MS that have absolutely nothing to do with overseas outsourcing. FWIW, MS just landed a new 100 million dollar Nissan factory plant in Canton. Your family may not be giving you the full story on their situation. It may not be on purpose, it is just that they are focusing on what they want to see as the only problem.

If these rural farm towns in MS would get control over their civil court systems the companies might be willing to do business there again. You wouldn't believe the frequency of runaway jury awards and disability/unemployment/workers comp claims burdening the companies that try to operate there. We won't even go into the farmers that claim they are in bankruptcy for the last twenty years, yet everyone in their family has a $45,000 dually truck.

I have lived in MS for 25 years, and my wife has litigated corporate defense cases in these towns/counties. If there was ever a poster made as an example of a unfriendly environment for businesses and wealth, it would be the conditions you find in rural MS counties. I say this b/c I live here... Let's not get into a bashing of MS... I will defend her honor from attacks by you outsiders!! ;) LOL

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 09:52
Originally posted by Greenhat
Lrd,

Sink or swim. That is the challenge for the community. Other communities have found solutions. And others have disappeared.


Lrd, are you using the word outsourcing to describe companies moving overseas? If so, that's not the appropriate term. The appropriate term for that is Tax evasion-based profiteering by the bourgeoisie oppressor.

GH, you really want to get into this, don't you? "Sink or swim"? You are coming very close to invoking the spirit of Che. I don't know how much longer I can keep it at bay.

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 10:03
I have lived in MS for 25 years, and my wife has litigated corporate defense cases in these towns/counties. If there was ever a poster made as an example of a unfriendly environment for businesses and wealth, it would be the conditions you find in rural MS counties.

Damn Yankees and their nylon/poliester/rayon leisure suits! If the Army would make the uniforms out of 100% cotton like they know they should, Mississippi would be sittin' in tall cotton again.

ghuinness
02-15-2004, 10:22
..

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 10:36
Random thoughts:

guinness - be careful about agreeing with me, you don't know why I'm taking this stance.

Jawbreaker - the first duty of government is to protect the citizens of the republic.

Image is what allows businesses to charge more than the bare bottom line for their products.
While you are right about this GH, you are basing the incentive for companies to do the right thing on the most easily manipulated piece of the pie. Your concept of market driven control assumes educated and conscientous consumers as the driving force, which we have already shown is not the case with the televisions.

Do you think we should abolish the electoral college and have direct elections for President?

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 10:39
Caveat - I am not saying RL and CRad are not good consumers because they own Japanese television. I also own Japanese televisions.

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 10:52
lrd,
The fine people of Mississippi's agrarian society are yet another victim group of the decay of family values, divorce, and unwed mothers. Its not their fault.

lrd
02-15-2004, 11:26
Originally posted by Sacamuelas
Lrd-
I am sorry to hear about your families trouble. Economic and political debate aside, it is never easy when things affect a family member. So know that I have sympathy for them in their decision.

However, I am with GH on this one. It is her choice to stay on your family land and attempt to maintain the "way it has always been". Nothing wrong with that idea, however there should be no public legislation created to protect and isolate them from the effects of a potentially poor decision. If it is important for them to stay where they are then that is a decision that they made after weighing all the factors. Most Mississippians are actually striving to change the "way it has always been" (myself included).

Where in Mississippi? I can think of numerous reasons that businesses are relocation from rural MS that have absolutely nothing to do with overseas outsourcing. FWIW, MS just landed a new 100 million dollar Nissan factory plant in Canton. Your family may not be giving you the full story on their situation. It may not be on purpose, it is just that they may just be focusing on what they want to see as the problem.

If these rural farm towns in MS would get control over their civil court systems the companies might be willing to do business there again. You wouldn't believe the frequency of runaway jury awards and disability/unemployment/workers comp claims burdening the companies that try to operate there. We won't even go into the farmers that claim they are in bankruptcy for the last twenty years, yet everyone in their family has a $45,000 dually truck.

I have lived in MS for 25 years, and my wife has litigated corporate defense cases in these towns/counties. If there was ever a poster made as an example of a unfriendly environment for businesses and wealth, it would be the conditions you find in rural MS counties. I say this b/c I live here... Let's not get into a bashing of MS... I will defend her honor from attacks by you outsiders!! LOL I wrote a long reply, and then decided it was best to delete and start over. Let me try again, now that I've vented my spleen on my keyboard. I began this as an example to illustrate Ian's concern that I originally quoted, but I may have used an example I'm a little to close to. . . :)

When I said "my family" I wasn't referring to my immediate family. However, my ancestors helped settle the area where my mother was born. We have strong ties to the land, and, indirectly, I probably am related to a good number of the people in the county and neighboring counties. Thus I feel a sense of responsibility to those that live there. We were taught to be a part of the community; that it was our civic duty to look out for those less fortunate than we.

I fully understand that my immediate family can afford to keep their land because my grandfather insisted that all 10 of his children (all born before 1929) attend college. After the depression, he knew that you always needed a back-up plan, and that education was the equalizer for his rural Mississippi children. He even drove the school bus to make sure they went to school. My uncle can afford to maintain the family farm in Northern Mississippi because he has a good job in Jackson. He is willing to do that to save the land for his children. That also means that he isn't living on the land. It stays in our family because we rent the house and land to a young family, who can't afford to buy their own land. This works well for all involved. His daughter will be able to do the same, in large part because she and her husband are tenured professors at MS State.

The people I'm worried about are the ones who can't afford a college education, or can't afford the time away from work to get a college education. In the past, they could farm, work at the factories, the restaurants, the grocery stores, the dry-goods stores; or they could join the military. When the factories started closing the workers didn't have the money to spend on "extras" and within a few years the other businesses began to close. When the people were able to get jobs in Tupelo or Columbus, they could either move there or commute. I know exactly where Canton is. It will help those in that area, but does little to help those people who live in my mother's area who need jobs to survive.

I'm sure that there are farmers who work the system. That pisses me off. I get pissed off at anyone who takes advantage of someone else. I think that companies like WalMart are taking advantage of everyone: not just the people here, but the people who are now doing the jobs.

I worry about the people who are being lost in the cracks as we move from manufacturing to service industies. It will take time for this transition to take place, and in the meantime the community is being tried even further as they try to give what they can to help those in need. You are right. My family has chosen to live in this area when they could have moved on and become much more wealthy elsewhere. I'm not worried about my cousins, I'm worried about the children in my mother's classroom. These children will one day be responsible for our country.

There are people working to get jobs brought to the area, and I truly believe that they will succeed -- eventually. In the meantime there are families without jobs. And that affects everyone in the community.

I'm sorry if I got off track here.

Edited to untangle a sentence.

lrd
02-15-2004, 11:34
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
lrd,
The fine people of Mississippi's agrarian society are yet another victim group of the decay of family values, divorce, and unwed mothers. Its not their fault. Are you trying to pick a fight? LOL

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 11:42
No, I mean it. If those Yankee girls would stay home and iron, their men could still wear cotton clothes. But they either want or have to work. All those synthetic fabrics were invented because women don't want to iron any more. destroyed the cotton market. LOL

ghuinness
02-15-2004, 11:54
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Random thoughts:

guinness - be careful about agreeing with me, you don't know why I'm taking this stance.



If you are heading to tax reform or flat tax ... you have my vote.

You were being facetious on the third one.....right?

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 15:50
Originally posted by ghuinness
If you are heading to tax reform or flat tax ... you have my vote.

You were being facetious on the third one.....right?

About the electoral college? Not at all.

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 16:37
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
About the electoral college? Not at all.

You want to abolish the electoral college? Why?

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 16:55
No, I asked GH if he did.

brownapple
02-15-2004, 17:48
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc

While you are right about this GH, you are basing the incentive for companies to do the right thing on the most easily manipulated piece of the pie. Your concept of market driven control assumes educated and conscientous consumers as the driving force, which we have already shown is not the case with the televisions.

I don't think so. Even in uneducated areas, consumers understand image and want to buy quality. Mercedes is still the preferred choice of vehicle among the rural population of Thailand even though they cannot afford it. Image is an interesting thing, because it must be formed by targetting educated consumers, but will affect all consumers. Efforts to create image based on the general population don't generally work.

Do you think we should abolish the electoral college and have direct elections for President?

Nope. And that has nothing to do with the general population. The Representatives in the House represent the people. The President is the Executive, he must represent the country (which is more than just the people).

brownapple
02-15-2004, 17:50
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Caveat - I am not saying RL and CRad are not good consumers because they own Japanese television. I also own Japanese televisions.

Everybody owns Japanese televisions. Even if you own Philips or RCA, they are made in Asia by a Japanese sub-contractor.

Sacamuelas
02-15-2004, 18:45
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Random thoughts:
Jawbreaker - the first duty of government is to protect the citizens of the republic.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What do you think the constitution intends for the government to protect us from? Who decides where to draw the line?

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 18:51
Originally posted by Sacamuelas
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What do you think the constitution intends for the government to protect us from? Who decides where to draw the line?

That's easy. The Constitution is intended to protect us from the government.

Sacamuelas
02-15-2004, 19:00
BINGO!! We have a winner.

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 19:40
WTH is your point? Of course it is, I never said it wasn't. What about ensuring domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare? Doesn't your general welfare depend on having a job? (Not welfare in the lib sense). WTH did this tangent come from?

You don't think provide for the common defense includes defense unagainst unfair trade in today's world? Hell, the most famous incident of the revolution had nothing to do with human rights, it was about commerce. Money.

GH - is MB is the preferred car because it is a quality car or because it is a status symbol? If all the rich dudes started driving VW bugs, would the same thing happen? You're proving my point. The consumer is too easily swayed by crap and the business world knows it, they've been taking advantage of it for years. Remember light cigarettes? What a joke. Light beer? Another joke.

The country is more than the people? I don't begin to understand that one.

I'll agree with you all after you fix the education system and show me informed consumers that can do battle with the tactics of the business world. Show me 10 high schoolers, that over the next five years will become consumers and trying to get into the job market, that can even follow this thread and I'll concede the point (they can't be your kids).

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 19:45
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
WTH is your point?

Aren't we touchy today. More poodle trouble?



Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Remember light cigarettes? What a joke. Light beer? Another joke.

I don't follow. Are you telling me that low tar cigarettes aren't less harmful? That light beer doesn't have fewer calories? The latter in particular will piss me off, as I just made the painful switch.

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 19:49
This
That's easy. The Constitution is intended to protect us from the government.
ain't the answer to this
What do you think the constitution intends for the government to protect us from? Who decides where to draw the line?

The question wasn't "What does the Constitution protect us from?"

Sacamuelas
02-15-2004, 19:56
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
WTH is your point? Of course it is, I never said it wasn't. What about ensuring domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare? Doesn't your general welfare depend on having a job? (Not welfare in the lib sense). WTH did this tangent come from?
Glad to see you took my recipe for cheerios and tried it….

Every time I read RL's title I laugh and think of Billy crystal in the Analyze This role of Paul Vede's shrink/consigliore.
Therefore, keeping with the character:

"What do you think my point was? What do you think about ensuring domestic tranquility and welfare? Do you think general welfare depends on a job? Where do you think it came from? Have we figured out this thing yet? Or are we still talkin’ bout the udder thing?":D

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 19:56
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
This

ain't the answer to this


The question wasn't "What does the Constitution protect us from?"

You're right. Oops.

Now that I think I have the issue corrected in my mind, I think you guys are wasting time looking at the preamble. There is express power for this in Article I, Section 8, clause 3: Congress has the power to "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

The Constitution doesn't say what policy should be, just that Congress has the power to set policy in that area.

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 19:57
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Aren't we touchy today. More poodle trouble?

I don't follow. Are you telling me that low tar cigarettes aren't less harmful? That light beer doesn't have fewer calories? The latter in particular will piss me off, as I just made the painful switch.

No.

Advertising. Light cigarettes less harmful? Maybe. But the implication when they first came out was they were ok. They didn't say "Your ass will still get cancer, only it will take longer." They emphasized the "less" and people bought it. I know people that think because they smoke a half a cigareete, they cut their chances of having health problems in half - that came from lights and shorter cigarettes. "Well, if I only smoke half of a light, I stand a 75% less chance of having a problem." Tabacco industry doesn't care, they charge more and you still have to buy the whole pack. The only impact I ever saw was when the surgeon general's warning came out. Now, I don't agree with being able to sue now, after the warnings, but before yes. Who did that, the gobermint.

Do you drink more light beer than you did regular beer? How do you KNOW it has less calories? because the gobermint made them put the info on the cans. that wasn't a consumer thing, it was legislated. And you still don't know for sure. Why did you switch?

Sacamuelas
02-15-2004, 19:58
Correct NDD. I worded my sentence incredibly awkward. My mistake. I am a rookie at setting verbal ambushes. By the time I realized how confused the question sounded, RL had already answered with what I was trying to lead someone into saying. :(

edited for typos

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 19:59
No, you two are working together against me. trying to trip me up and what not.:D

As a matter of fact, why did they even come up with light cigarettes and beer? Consumer demand?

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 20:00
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Do you drink more light beer than you did regular beer? How do you KNOW it has less calories? because the gobermint made them put the info on the cans. that wasn't a consumer thing, it was legislated. And you still don't know for sure. Why did you switch?

I probably drink less because I don't like the taste as much. I don't "KNOW" it has fewer calories, but it would be false advertising to market it that way if it's not true. While there has been legislation, there was movement in that direction based solely on market forces. (Remember "less filling?")

I switched because I'm fat. :p

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 20:03
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
No, you two are working together against me. trying to trip me up and what not.:D

As a matter of fact, why did they even come up with light cigarettes and beer? Consumer demand?

We could use some more help, I think. Spectre and a couple of A teams would be good. LOL

Yes, consumer demand. Are they selling this low-carb Michelob down there? How about the Carl's Jr. low-carb six-dollar burger?

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 20:06
Why do they care about false advertising? Do you really think people will change brands of beer because Miller lied about how many calories are in the can?

Market forces? You mean in this case advertising? Drinking light beer won't make you fat? I remember Light Beer coming out, what I don't remember is a consumer hue and cry for less filling. In fact, if I remember correctly, the original target audience was women.

If you buy the idea of diet beer (or soft drinks) or healthier cigarettes, I got this bridge...

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 20:09
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Why do they care about false advertising?

Because they'll get sued and have to pay for it. I know; I defend cases like this from time to time.


Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Market forces? You mean in this case advertising? Drinking light beer won't make you fat? I remember Light Beer coming out, what I don't remember is a consumer hue and cry for less filling. In fact, if I remember correctly, the original target audience was women.

If you buy the idea of diet beer (or soft drinks) or healthier cigarettes, I got this bridge...

I hear your sarcasm, but not any facts supporting your theory. That is not to say you're wrong, by the way. I'm listening. :)

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 20:10
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Yes, consumer demand. Are they selling this low-carb Michelob down there? How about the Carl's Jr. low-carb six-dollar burger?

Consumer demand didn't cause the firsts, the first light beer, etc. In fact, nobody liked the crap at first. How do you know that you need low carb beer and hamburgers to be healthier?

How do you know German Lagerbrewmeister dark lager and fat sausagebatweinerwurst sandwiches on white bread with loads of mayo aren't healthier for you?

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 20:11
Because they'll get sued and have to pay for it. I know; I defend cases like this from time to time.

Right, but to get sued first you have to break what? (Theoretically)

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 20:13
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Consumer demand didn't cause the firsts, the first light beer, etc. In fact, nobody liked the crap at first. How do you know that you need low carb beer and hamburgers to be healthier?

How do you know German Lagerbrewmeister dark lager and fat sausagebatweinerwurst sandwiches on white bread with loads of mayo aren't healthier for you?

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the truth is. It matters what people want. They want to be thinner, so "light" beer and diet soda will sell even if you're right that they don't accomplish what they are supposed to. Companies will make what they can sell.

You are not convincing me at all.

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 20:16
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Right, but to get sued first you have to break what? (Theoretically)

Not really. You can bring these claims on common law theories that go back to Coke and Blackstone.

(But nice try! :) )

Sacamuelas
02-15-2004, 20:23
Did you guys realize that this rant has now gotten so far off track that we are arguing "Taste great/less filling"? LOL

Classic.. we are about as effective as a UN session trying to decide on an issue. :p

On a more interesting note: RL change your avatar for me, please. LOL

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 20:25
Originally posted by Sacamuelas
On a more interesting note: RL change your avatar for me, please.

Looks like he's trying to break his jaw. Why don't you use it? :p

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 20:41
Hey, where'd he go?

I'll be back later.

NDD: I've got new material in your AO too. Maybe one of them will catch on . . .

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 20:48
Common law is still law and a judge or jury still decides if the case has merit and what damages should be awarded if any.

Look, my point in all this is that businesses do things for several reasons, image, market share, etc. They mostly avoid unscrupulous things because of fear of violating a law, code,regulation, that opens the door to law suits that eventually will impact the image. In that sense, I agree with GH. The tobacco companies could have taken the pay out hits and driven on, but the image thing really hurt them (they think, only long term time will tell).

But that door is opened because of the government. Fear of punishment impacting on image is the biggest reason businesses don't do or do certain things.

Underwood deviled ham tastes like I imagine cat feces tastes. However I have a reasonable expectation that Underwood doesn't put cat feces in the can. Because the government makes them put the ingredients on the can and if they deviate from it, somebody will sue them in a government court and break their ass. They don't not put it in there because whatever meat-like substance they do use is cheaper than cat feces. Cat feces is free and some people will pay you to take it I imagine. And they don't do it because they care about the consumer - if they did they would take that product off the shelves voluntarily.

Many businesses will do anything they think they can get away with to make a profit. I quit the best job I ever had because of it, with a relatively clean company. If Enron went back on the market tomorrow, I'll guarrantee you people would buy the stock and they would sell it. Why don't they? Because the government won't let them.

Business has learned that you can indeed screw the consumer, and for a very long time, with the right ad campaign. Business doesn't have any moral code other than profit. They don't fear the consumer anymore because very few businesses are truly in it for the long term (despite the ad campaigns to the contrary). Look at Blackhawk. Preeminent gear maker. I own some of it. Good kit. Not great, good. Good prices too. I learned from Reaper and others that their gear is made in sweatshops in Vietnam, People's Democratic Republic of. I will never buy another piece of gear from them because I remember Vietnam. You think their sales are off because they moved their operation to Vietnam? LOL. They can't keep up. Will they suffer because of it? Perhaps, but not until everyone of them is already retired. Meanwhile, people like eggroll are working in their basements trying to make a living. I will buy my gear from him. But millions of others won't. So eggroll will not grow (he might not want to) as fast as Blackhawk, because his customers have to wait for him to sew each piece by hand. He may get the flu and not be able to work. And he doesn't have 100 Vietnamese laborers working in his basement, so he has to charge more and it takes longer - two kisses of death in most businesses, especially today. I will wait and I'll pay the price, as will other professionals. And I will do it gladly. But you see, I'm not average. I grew up in a different time and with a different business ethic. One that we are fast losing. So to swim instead of sink, eggroll may have to consider moving his operation to some third world country in order to increase production and keep costs down. And that would be a shame. Because a fine American living the dream would have compromised his ethics in order to stay competitive with a less scrupulous competitor. And, I would have to shoot him in his ass with my BB gun. Now, I can't imagine eggroll doing that, but he, IMO, is an exception in that regard. Imagine if he had shareholders? Demanding ever increasing profit margins?

Now let's say we implement my plan. Eggroll will still be slower. But the advantage gained by the competition is negated by increased cost. So now we have a choice. Great gear-made in America - by an American in a month. Or good gear - made in Vietnam - by a company owned by an American - in a day. Price is comparative because Blackhawk had to offset their cheaper labor cost by paying a tariff for using overseas labor, which they passed on to the consumer. CONSUMER HAS A CHOICE.

Eggroll sells more, keeping him in the US and I don't have to shoot him in his ass with my BB gun. Will Blackhawk sales go down? Perhaps, but they still have the "need it yesterday, need a million of them" market. So I doubt they will even feel it.

Win-Win

I'm right, you're all wrong and you're all capitalist oppressers exploiting the proletariat.

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 21:04
You were drafting that on a word processor, weren't you? LOL

Well, it's a compelling piece, NDD. I don't agree, but I don't think a more compelling case can be made for that point of view. Well done.

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 21:07
I'll just add that in reference to GH's sink or swim thing - if everybody does what they have to do to swim, or sinks by not doing it, that doesn't offer the consumer much of a choice in my opinion. A choice between "Made in China" or Made in Malaysia" or "Made in Venezuela", all in a sweatshop, is not much of a choice for an American. Better choice is "Made in a Chinese Sweatshop" or "Crafted in the US by an American Living the Dream".

You're all still capitalist oppressors exploiting the proletariat.

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 21:09
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
You were drafting that on a word processor, weren't you? LOL

Well, it's a compelling piece, NDD. I don't agree, but I don't think a more compelling case can be made for that point of view. Well done.

LOL - no, but I should have been, I've re-read it 3 times and I know I still have errors.

Thank you for the complement. Its ok that you don't agree, I'm working protracted popular war this month anyway.



Capitalist pig.:D

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 21:10
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
You're all still capitalist oppressors exploiting the proletariat.

And proud of it. In the words of RT Georgia:

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 21:14
In the interest of fair and full disclosure - If my cable goes out during football season, I don't give a rat's ass if they kidnap a 12 year-old virgin snatched from her mother's arms in broad daylight as long as the signal comes back on before the next play. :D

Just kidding - capitalist oppressors of the proletariat.

Sacamuelas
02-15-2004, 21:29
I think you contradicted your logic in that thesis there Comrade desafio socialista. There are a couple of 1+1=45's in there.

Should we agree to disagree or move out and draw more fire on this issue?
If so, I am geting out the microscope and going to town on that last thesis of yours. :p

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 21:33
LOL - I'm not a communist, I'm a nationalist. I don't want everybody to have an equal share. I want everybody in the US to have an equal opportunity to earn their own and compete on quality with the best interest of the customer first and foremost. And I want their customers to be willing to pay a fair price for goods and services rendered taking into account the craftsmanship and artistry, research costs and price, etc., that went into the product or service.

Think I'm asking too much?

Let's say I need a lawyer. Now, if I want a Harvard lawyer that never lost a case, I can have him. But it will cost and I will probably have to wait. It'll cost more in part because he invested more to get good. Time and money. He could lose for the first time.

Or, I can have one from the James Jones School of Law in Guyana. He could win every case.

The problem we're talking about is taking a white boy from Cambridge and sending him to Harvard (after Harvard built up their rep) but they send him to Guyana on exchange and give him the same instructors from Guyana because they're cheaper, then give him a Harvard diploma and charge me the Havard price. All to make a profit. And they get away with it because he won and they have a great ad campaign. Even though he won, did I get a Harvard lawyer? And let's say its overturned on appeal. He's gone and I call the help desk and get Pakistan.

Should have just hired one from Northwestern and been done with it.

And don't tell me "What difference does it make, he won." If I hire a Harvard lawyer, I should get a real one.

Sacamuelas
02-15-2004, 21:34
Oh hell... NDD just signed off so he can get on that damned word processor again. Better go get a cup of coffee.. it is gonna be a long night. Glad I am off tomorrow, its President's day after-all.

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 21:35
Originally posted by Sacamuelas
I think you contradicted your logic in that thesis there Comrade desafio socialista. There are a couple of 1+1=45's in there.

Should we agree to disagree or move out and draw more fire on this issue?
If so, I am geting out the microscope and going to town on that last thesis of yours. :p

Whatever trips your trigger. There is no logic in my thesis - I'm a communist, remember?

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 21:36
Show me 1+1=45.

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 21:41
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Let's say I need a lawyer. Now, if I want a Harvard lawyer that never lost a case, I can have him. But it will cost and I will probably have to wait. It'll cost more in part because he invested more to get good. Time and money. He could lose for the first time.

Or, I can have one from the James Jones School of Law in Guyana. He could win every case.

The problem we're talking about is taking a white boy from Cambridge and sending him to Harvard (after Harvard built up their rep) but they send him to Guyana on exchange and give him the same instructors from Guyana because they're cheaper, then give him a Harvard diploma and charge me the Havard price. All to make a profit. And they get away with it because he won and they have a great ad campaign. Even though he won, did I get a Harvard lawyer? And let's say its overturned on appeal. He's gone and I call the help desk and get Pakistan.

Should have just hired one from Northwestern and been done with it.

And don't tell me "What difference does it make, he won." If I hire a Harvard lawyer, I should get a real one.

Well put. As I said much earlier in this thread, however, the market will punish firms that sell inferior goods. Buyers will stop buying from such firms and go elsewhere.

You assume that all foreign-manufactured goods are inferior in quality and made under deplorable working conditions. That may be true in some sectors, but it certainly is not always true. The market will correct for these things -- look at all the pressure Nike is under right now.

Can you go look at my new terrorism threads now? This is getting old. :)

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 21:42
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Show me 1+1=45.

:rolleyes:

Yawn. Well, I do have work to do anyway.

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 21:53
Yes, for the sake of this argument I am denigrating foriegn goods - we all know that isn't the case in every instance. I want an Audi so bad I can taste it.

You are assuming the market will adjust, and all the while small American businesses are going under. I'm tired of waiting for the educated consumer - he's getting to be harder to find than Nietzche's Ubermensch.

Has Nike's profit margin or sales fallen off? I honestly don't know.

If you're talking about that blatant pladgerism from the Navy, I saw it. I was waiting in ambush for the discussion to get started. You see counselor, I too am an acorn.:D

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 21:58
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
If you're talking about that blatant pladgerism from the Navy, I saw it. I was waiting in ambush for the discussion to get started. You see counselor, I too am an acorn.

:D

brownapple
02-15-2004, 22:08
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc

I'll agree with you all after you fix the education system and show me informed consumers that can do battle with the tactics of the business world. Show me 10 high schoolers, that over the next five years will become consumers and trying to get into the job market, that can even follow this thread and I'll concede the point (they can't be your kids).

My sister's two kids, my brother's eldest, and my partner's two kids (the last two are currently freshmen at Universities in Thailand, but I don't know a lot of high school kids in the States).

People don't have a right to a job. It still comes down to competing. And competing for jobs anywhere in the world is more and more about education and ability to think.

Why should we want to support people who can't think? Who can't find a way to get educated?

Kumbaya, huh?

Fuck that. Education system is screwed up? Why? Could it be that there is no real penalty for screwing off in school? For parents failing to teach kids good study habits and discipline?

Let them fail. Let them starve.

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 22:13
Yeah, what he said! LOL

Sacamuelas
02-15-2004, 22:23
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc

1
Look at Blackhawk. Preeminent gear maker. I own some of it. Good kit. Not great, good. Good prices too. ....

plus

1
Meanwhile, people like eggroll are working in their basements trying to make a living. I will buy my gear from him. But millions of others won't.So eggroll will not grow (he might not want to) as fast as Blackhawk, because his customers have to wait for him to sew each piece by hand. (***infer highest quality product) He may get the flu and not be able to work. And he doesn't have 100 Vietnamese laborers working in his basement, so he has to charge more and it takes longer - two kisses of death in most businesses, especially today. I will wait and I'll pay the price, as will other professionals. And I will do it gladly.

Equals

45
CONSUMER HAS A CHOICE.
Eggroll sells more,
Win-win


The actual solution to your equation: Correct answer being two. LOL

2
Eggroll can't sell more because to make his superior product he has to spend crucial time painstakingly sewing each peace. You already admitted he is on a 1 month wait. How can he sell more when he already maxed out his production?

2
Blackhawk products will have an artificially inflated price which will end up costing the average consumer more money for the same product. This will translate into pricing the leisure consumers out of the market and cause less articles to be purchased in total. The company, its contracted advertising agency, the magazines it pays to advertise with, its lawyers, the raw material suppliers, etc all will lose significant income and capital. Blackhawk MAY still make the same profit, their workers WILL still be in Vietnam, and they might even raise their price MORE than absolutely necessary to cover the tariff because of the hassle. How could they do this? Well, you already admit that they cater to a desperate/need it fast/don't need it perfect type client base which used to include civilian wannabes and probably still includes US military personnel. So your solution would cost a very modest income earning Private more money to get the same crap that he needs to save his life and do his job. And who gets the extra money you have taken from him in the form of a tariff- thats right it proabably going into more inefficent/unnecessary government programs and pork projects.

2
What would stop EGGROLL from raising his price higher to compensate for the fact that his product is still superior to the Blackhawk products? You going to start government price ceilings in the accessory business to prevent this? Common sense and good business practice dictates that is exactly what Eggroll should and would do. All your solution would do is raise the price of both products without increasing production or quality of either with the possibility of putting a dampening effect on the entire market by putting the products out of the market for the average consumer.

2
More tax/tariffs collected. Not good for anybody including the US foreign policy/future itnernational trade policy negotiations.

LOSE,LOSE, LOSE, LOSE


I agree with RL. This is getting old and I really don't care that much. I am still going to drink lite beer, not smoke or dip, buy Jap Tv's, prefer to buy made in the USA products when I make the decision that supporting US companies makes sense for me on that particular purchase.:D

brownapple
02-15-2004, 22:24
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I'll just add that in reference to GH's sink or swim thing - if everybody does what they have to do to swim, or sinks by not doing it, that doesn't offer the consumer much of a choice in my opinion. A choice between "Made in China" or Made in Malaysia" or "Made in Venezuela", all in a sweatshop, is not much of a choice for an American. Better choice is "Made in a Chinese Sweatshop" or "Crafted in the US by an American Living the Dream".

You're all still capitalist oppressors exploiting the proletariat.

The assumption is that you can't swim paying higher labor, etc. That's not true. Mercedes is made in Germany. They do just fine. A whole lot better than the Korean auto manufacturers.

There are lots of ways to swim, and price isn't the only way to approach the market. (that NLI link? NLI is the most expensive language training provider in Thailand, and there are lots of providers in Thailand. NLI is also growing while most of the rest are shrinking).

Sacamuelas
02-15-2004, 22:29
How about using your example on Les Baur or Bill Wilson custom .45's. Poor bastards must be starving by now according to your economics NDD. LOL

I am considering sending BW's company $2000.00 for a CQB model right now. There is definitely a much cheaper and probably equally functional alternative for someone of my skills in the market.
OK, I am done. I still like you "desafio socialista" :D

**edited for spelling/grammar

brownapple
02-15-2004, 22:33
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
The market will correct for these things -- look at all the pressure Nike is under right now.


Even when it isn't deserved.

Nike is one of the best employers in South East Asia. Their shops have significantly better working conditions, benefits packages and wages than the local factories. They actually take care of their employees, pay attention to environmental issues and do a pretty good job of manufacturing good shoes.

And they get hammered for it by people who have no idea of what the economics of the nations that Nike manufactures in are.

TR mentioned raising other nations wages? Companies like Nike moving to them do just that.

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 22:34
I can't help myself.

I have a general contractor I use for repairs/improvements to my house. He's not the cheapest guy out there, his workers all speak fluent English and he takes forever to return my phone calls let alone get started on projects. But he gets the job done right the first time. That's why he gets all of my business. I think the same principles apply to the subject we're discussing.

Sacamuelas
02-15-2004, 22:36
Its like crack for type A stubborn guys like me... LAST WORD:p

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 22:53
LOL - capitalist pigs!

Eggroll continues to be successful. He will expand and add a nubile young virgin to run a second sewing machine he was able to buy with his Bush tax cut. I want him to hire a nubile white girl virgin from his home town (I can't believe I said that!) and not send the sewing machine to Vietnam for Uncle Ho's grandaughter to run. He can sell more because he will increase his labor, thereby increasing his production. Blackhawk was once a one man operation too.

2-Blackhawk made the decision to move their operations overseas, I don't care if they go out of business now because of that and that alone.

2 - Eggroll's prices are determined by the market, as it should be. His profits are determined by the market and his labor costs as it should be. If he chooses to keep his operation in the US and hire higher priced gringos becuase he is a patriotic American, the market will still determine his prices, however his profit margin will be lower than Blackhawk's because his labor costs are higher. HE is being punished for hiring American labor, not the consumer.

2 - I don't give a shit about foreign trade/relations when it comes to this. Every other country in the world protects their goods and their workers from US, its time we did the same. We almost ruined the US steel industry being nice to other countries. (Yes Sigi, that was gratuitous profanity).

More US jobs, more US businesses, more US taxes, tariffs, penalities to finance wars on terrorists.

win Win WIN.

GH - Mercedes is an exception. They are almost excflusive in a very high profit industry. Their target consumer buys Mercedes because it is Mercedes. And manufacture is not labor intensive by unskilled labor. Apply the same concept to those Chinese kids making Walmart stereos. Bang-Olafson does very well too. But they don't sell $50 dollar steros made in a sweatshop for $65. And they don't sell 10,000 a month and they don't compete with Stereos Are Us.

Jawbreaker - You are not buying a Bill Wilson custom .45, you are buying a Bill Wilson Custom© .45 I doubt Bill Wilson will touch that pistol. It will likely be built by an apprentice and inspected by another qualified pistolsmith. (I'm just guessing) While I doubt he will move his operation overseas, he could have. Would you still buy it? Will you still buy it even if you know he's not building it himself? Wanna bet he's still charging relatively the same as when he did them himself, adjusted for inflation? Would you still buy it if you knew his apprentice wasn't getting minimum wage?

On another note, WTH are you buying a pistol that will out shoot you for?:D

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 22:55
That little C thingy should be a t.

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 23:01
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
On another note, WTH are you buying a pistol that will out shoot you for?:D

Good, a tangent.

NDD and anyone else who wants to chime in:

What handguns are good for a novice shooter to buy? Are you saying a novice shouldn't get like a USP or a 1911, even if such novice generally likes to get the best toys?

On the same subject, would it be silly for a novice who has a Colt H-Bar target rifle (AR-15 style, no flash suppressor with carry handle upper) to send it to MSTN for installation of a new upper receiver and Aimpoint?

(I'm asking for this friend of mine. LOL)

Sacamuelas
02-15-2004, 23:07
See I am an educated consumer. His website talks about the assembly process which expressely discusses that fact the Mr. Bill will not touch my pistola especial. I kknow it will be an apprentice doing the work. I will buy because of reputation for premier quality, workmanship, and customer service. Oh yeah and its cool to have one of the best pistols made.


AS to the need for the gun, I am going to fly to AZ and beg the Team Sergeant to teach me how to shoot. Probably have to bleach his family's teeth for free and make some halloween teeth for the little warriors to get him to do it. At least if he shoots my pistol, it will be used for its intended purpose/level of marksmanship. I am going for more CBA points in the gun shop/firing range. ;) LOL

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 23:10
The novice should buy a nice, regular, serviceable pistol and spend the other $1,500 on not being a novice anymore by buying ammo and seeking instruction from a professional trainer.

Since MSTN is a member of this site :D no, it is not a silly idea and I think your friend should also buy some other stuff for his AR. Some expensive stuff.

Surgicalcric
02-15-2004, 23:11
I dont have the economics understanding of you guys so I am not even gonna go there.

I have only one piece of kit thats Blackhawk Ind. Its a STOMP II bag and it was given to me by someone buying the LBT version from which Blackhawk stole from. It has held up good for me so far, but then again I am not that rough on it.

That said, after having had several conversations with Egg he will be getting all the business I can give him. From what I can tell he builds high quality stuff and stands behind what he builds.
_______________________
Now on the subject of pistols.

I have a HK USP.40 and a Walther P99 in .40. Both of them are fantactic platforms, but I would rather fire the P99. It just feels better in my hands.

brownapple
02-15-2004, 23:11
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc

GH - Mercedes is an exception.

Really?

Ever hear of BMW?

How about Audi?

Volvo?


RL, regarding pistols...

Any well made 1911 type pistol with decent sights (not the slit and bump of military 1911s) is just fine. You don't need all the bells and whistles, you need practice.

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 23:14
Originally posted by Sacamuelas
See I am an educated consumer. His website talks about the assembly process which expressely discusses that fact the Mr. Bill will not touch my pistola especial. I kknow it will be an apprentice doing the work. I will buy because of reputation for premier quality, workmanship, and customer service. Oh yeah and its cool to have one of the best pistols made.


AS to the need for the gun, I am going to fly to AZ and beg the Team Sergeant to teach me how to shoot. Probably have to bleach his family's teeth for free and make some halloween teeth for the little warriors to get him to do it. At least if he shoots my pistol, it will be used for its intended purpose/level of marksmanship. I am going for more CBA points in the gun shop/firing range. ;) LOL

1. You're not fooling anybody - you did the research to be able to justify the purchase to HH6. It won't work by the way. Take your ass whippin' like a man. LOL

2. Better to learn from the best early - good choice, even if you have to give free dental care for life. Word of advice - don't screw up the dental work. Bad form to get shot in the ass with your own brand New Bill Wilson Custom.45 Bullet Launcher. And remember Rule #1 on the range - Don't shoot the Team Sergeant. Very important.

Sacamuelas
02-15-2004, 23:18
Uh oh... GH is still fiesty and wants a piece of NDD. LOL

And NDD- I will still have money left over to buy enough ammo to make myself good. I will just quit paying for sex (did I say that outloud?)..err, I mean I will quit lettin my wife go shoppin so much. Plus, I can shoot with my LE little bro for peanuts as long as I shoot .45 or .223. :D

Sacamuelas
02-15-2004, 23:20
One other problem... the Team Sergeant has no idea about my second part of the plan concerning my new pistol. LOL
I will probably get booted for being a stalker when he reads this! haha

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 23:21
Originally posted by Surgicalcric
I dont have the economics understanding of you guys so I am not even gonna go there.

I have only one piece of kit thats Blackhawk Ind. Its a STOMP II bag and it was given to me by someone buying the LBT version from which Blackhawk stole from. It has held up good for me so far, but then again I am not that rough on it.

That said, after having had several conversations with Egg he will be getting all the business I can give him. From what I can tell he builds high quality stuff and stands behind what he builds.


LOL - I don't know anything about economics except what I learned OJT while running the biggest security contract in Latin America. Mostly a lot of mistakes in the early days and I was much better at ops than money.

I'm just doing this to piss off GH.

That's why I told guiness to be careful earlier. LOL.

GH, you are first on The People's List.:D

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 23:25
Originally posted by Sacamuelas
Uh oh... GH is still fiesty and wants a piece of NDD. LOL

And NDD- I will still have money left over to buy enough ammo to make myself good. I will just quit paying for sex (did I say that outloud?)..err, I mean I will quit lettin my wife go shoppin so much. Plus, I can shoot with my LE little bro for peanuts as long as I shoot .45 or .223. :D

You will have enough money because you have a government-protected profession you capitalist running dog. Just don't pay some kid 10 cents an hour to pick up your brass. LOL

You plan on using the barter system - I like it. Very third world and communist. The People's currency.

The stalker thing made me spit my US-made Copenhagen on the screen. Can you imagine someone actually stalking the TS? LOL

Surgicalcric
02-15-2004, 23:26
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
LOL - I don't know anything about economics except what I learned OJT while running the biggest security contract in Latin America. Mostly a lot of mistakes in the early days and I was much better at ops than money.

I'm just doing this to piss off GH.

That's why I told guiness to be careful earlier. LOL.

GH, you are first on The People's List.:D

I really should have paid more attention in my economics classes in college. I was too busy drinking and chasing...well you know what I was chasing.

I am much better out here where the head...errr I mean rubber meets the road.

Sacamuelas
02-15-2004, 23:34
Can you imagine someone actually stalking the TS? LOL

Not for long anyway..... You think the end result would become legendary on one of those " the world's stupidest criminal" videos? LOL

Easy on the assumptions with the idea of paying a whole $.10 for some uneducated compesinos to pick up brass. I would negotiate with his friend standing next to him and get him to undercut his buddies price by $.05. Survival of the fittest Señor Marx

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 23:39
GH - "The guerrilla is the fish that swims in the sea of the people, and you have got to have a sea of people for the guerrilla to swim in." And they can't be unemployed or they'll sink. LOL

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 23:43
The first law of war is to preserve our small businesses and destroy the enemy's. - Mao Tse-Tung (On Guerrilla Warfare, 1937)

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 23:47
It is necessary to be completely unsympathetic to abstract economic formulas and rules and the hiring of sweatshop labor to make a profit and to study with sympathy the conditions of the hiring of Americans, for these will change in accordance with the political and economic situations and the realization of the people's aspirations of having a small business. These progressive changes in conditions create new jobs for Americans and not profits for profiteers.
- Mao Tse-Tung, 1937


What you guys don't know is GH said I was "Peace Corps" on another board.

brownapple
02-15-2004, 23:48
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc


GH, you are first on The People's List.

Can't piss me off on this. I'm one of those people making money running a company charging top dollar in an environment that many claim won't pay it.

Sink or swim.

As for being on the list? "The People's List" rarely represents the people.

You sure are acting like the Peace Corps though. :cool:

Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2004, 23:50
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The novice should buy a nice, regular, serviceable pistol and spend the other $1,500 on not being a novice anymore by buying ammo and seeking instruction from a professional trainer.

Since MSTN is a member of this site :D no, it is not a silly idea and I think your friend should also buy some other stuff for his AR. Some expensive stuff.

My friend. LOL

Sgt. Rock referred me to some good courses run by LAPD SWAT guys. The challenge is finding the time!

What expensive stuff? Remember, Catwoman controls the purse strings!

NousDefionsDoc
02-15-2004, 23:52
Originally posted by Greenhat
Can't piss me off on this. I'm one of those people making money running a company charging top dollar in an environment that many claim won't pay it.

Sink or swim.

As for being on the list? "The People's List" rarely represents the people.

Can I have a job? Maybe something in HR or labor relations?

Sacamuelas
02-15-2004, 23:52
A military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective.
Sun-tzu

Now I know why your arguments have been SO bad NDD. ;)


Yeah, I read that ..."peace corp with a gun" wasn't it? Right next to "Quiet Professional" and "Green Beret". Well. you guys can joke like that between each other, I know better. You seem to fit the "diplomat fighter" ...IMO much better than anything described as"quiet" LOL

brownapple
02-15-2004, 23:56
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Can I have a job? Maybe something in HR or labor relations?

You just want to have an excuse to come to Thailand. :D

NousDefionsDoc
02-16-2004, 00:00
Originally posted by Greenhat
You just want to have an excuse to come to Thailand.

Busted DAMN! E had Wild On Thailand last night.:D

Sacamuelas
02-16-2004, 00:04
DAM@$ RL... hurry up and post that thing. I am waiting around to read one last humorous post before I hit the rack. Have enjoyed it gentlemen. buonas noches

NousDefionsDoc
02-16-2004, 00:06
sytl - why are on earth would you print this thread?

Roguish Lawyer
02-16-2004, 00:07
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
you capitalist running dog

LOL

We are Chairman Mao's Red Guards,
Tempering ourselves in great waves and winds;
Armed with Mao Zedong thought,
We'll wipe out all pests and vermin.

Break the yoke of capitalist exploitation!

Degenerate enemy of the people!

Trotsky-fascist hyena!

Bourgeois-nationalist!

For mad dogs -- a dog's death!

We demand the vermin and all their followers be mercilessly
exterminated!

Time will pass. The graves of the odious traitors will be overgrown with weeds, covered with the eternal contempt of Soviet people, of the whole Soviet nation. But over us, over our happy country, our sun will shine with its bright rays as clearly and joyfully as before. We, our nation, will walk as we did before, on a road cleansed of the last impurity and vileness of the past, following our beloved leader and teacher -- the great Stalin -- forward and ever forward, to Communism!

NDD the HR dude. I love it!

Sacamuelas
02-16-2004, 00:08
trying to make himself dumber and really frustrated... Your just scared someone else will think your a socialist and have a hard copy to prove it!! LOL

NousDefionsDoc
02-16-2004, 00:12
LOL - DAMN!

Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy.

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

Revolution is not a dinner party, not an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly and modestly.

Power to the People!

NousDefionsDoc
02-16-2004, 00:18
"At the risk of sounding ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by feelings of love"

"I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves "

"'It is not a matter of wishing success to the victim of aggression, but of sharing his fate; one must accompany him to his death or to victory.'"

"to accomplish much you must first loose everything. "

"Imperialism has been defeated in many partial battles. But it remains a considerable force in the world, and we cannot expect its final defeat save through effort and sacrifice on the part of all of us."

"We must bear in mind that imperialism is a world system, the last stage of capitalism-and it must be defeated in a world confrontation. The strategic end of this struggle should be the destruction of imperialism. Our share, the responsibility of the exploited and underdeveloped of the world, is to eliminate the foundations of imperialism: our oppressed nations, from where they extract capital, raw materials, technicians, and cheap labor, and to which they export new capital-instruments of domination-arms and all kinds of articles, thus submerging us in an absolute dependence."

Sacamuelas
02-16-2004, 00:23
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin, 1755

----------------------------------------------------------------

I would think that if you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become communist.
--Jane Fonda of Hanoi Jane notoriety at a discussion with students, at Michigan State University, 1970.
It is interesting that she says you would pray......my question is to whom.....communism denies a god, or other supreme being except the supreme communist leader, so would she pray to President Putin now to become communist, or would she pray to the supreme communist, President Clinton to become a commie?
--Chet McWhorter Sr
---------------------------------------------------------------------

It does not matter how many lies we tell, because once we have won, no one will be able to do anything about it.
--Minuted statement by Dr. Goebbels to Adolf Hitler
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
--Thomas Jefferson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
--Thomas Jefferson

NousDefionsDoc
02-16-2004, 00:24
I would give anything to see the Team Sergeant's face when he logs on and checks this thread in the morning. LOL

SON OF A BITCH! Coffee all over the screen. LOL

NousDefionsDoc
02-16-2004, 00:29
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."

"While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State."

"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all. I am just like everybody else. "

"Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps. "

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism. "

"Fascism is capitalism in decay. "

Sacamuelas
02-16-2004, 00:29
For that matter, all the members are going to read this expecting great logic and deductions to have come out of the thread. After all, it started off fairly intelligent. What was that line Marcinko puts in his books.. " Doom on you AProfMember for wasting your time reading the last three pages of this!! LOL"

NousDefionsDoc
02-16-2004, 00:30
"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make an exception."

Whoops...wrong Marx.

Roguish Lawyer
02-16-2004, 00:30
I'm done. Still have lots of work to do tonight! I'll try to check in next week, yankee imperalists.

NousDefionsDoc
02-16-2004, 00:33
Originally posted by Sacamuelas
For that matter, all the members are going to read this expecting great logic and deductions to have come out of the thread. After all, it started off fairly intelligent. What was that line Marcinko puts in his books.. " Doom on you AProfMember for wasting your time reading the last three pages of this!! LOL"

Yeah, PS.com has arrived! 3 pages of discussion and then CRAP! LOL

NousDefionsDoc
02-16-2004, 00:35
'Night bourgeoisie lackey. Hope you win.

Sacamuelas
02-16-2004, 00:37
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
--Benjamin Franklin


I am out also. Enjoyed.

NousDefionsDoc
02-16-2004, 00:41
Great quote!

'night.

Roguish Lawyer
02-16-2004, 18:06
I did not expect to find this thread DOA.

Note: Hi-speed connection in my hotel room! :D