Are globalized corporations unamerican?

[uscitizen]

I mean where do their loyalties lie?
Do they care if America goes down the tubes as long as their profits increase?
Same with those who play the global market.

Does America owe them any breaks or support?

 

[Moonglow]

we owe them nothink! they are only there for profit. Same can be said of Mitt Romney and his investment firm which gives jobs to other parts of the world.

 

[editec]

I mean where do their loyalties lie?
Do they care if America goes down the tubes as long as their profits increase?
Same with those who play the global market.

Does America owe them any breaks or support?

Not necessarily.

The problem isn't that corporations have reach in many nations, the problem is that our governments (both here and abroad) are so easily manipulated by those enormously powerful organizations.

So as a consequence governments can be easily stampeded toward a race to the bottom of labor and citizens' rights when it comes to seeing to it that those corporations aren't taking advantage of their ability to move operations from one nation to the other.

I'm informed that one of the things happening in China right now is that corporations are demanding advantages or they'll move to Viet Nam.

Well I'm of the opinion that if we're going to liberate capital from national responsibilities and grant them the right to be international citizens, then we need an equally powerful interantional government to see to it that the corporations SERVE THE PUBLIC at the same time they are serving their stockholders.

If one truly wants international economy then we also need international government to regulate the corporations that will be the winners in that economy.

Getting the undue and pernicious influence of capital out of governments is a problem facing not just this nation but ALL nations.

Or we could just say, screw it! and just all sign on as serfs to whatever corporation we can cleave to.

THAT is what the neo-cons really want, ya know.

And end to reprentational governments replaced by a world wide oligarchy lead by the owers of corporations.

I can actually even craft a good damned argument for why that ought to be the way mankind ought to head itself, too.

My objection to this development is really not so much that nations will cease to matter, (nationalism is a meance to mankind really, now that we have the BOMB) but rather it is based on the notion that when there is no representational power given to the have-nots, the HAVES turn life into a totalitarian nighmare for people.

Most American people are just now beginning to feel the lash of capital's domination of government. (Most Black Americans probably already understand THAT problem instictively as they were once considered property)

If we allow this trned to continue things will truly only get much worse in terms of human freedom and dignity.

Freedom as you or I think we know it will end.

Doubt me?

How much FREEDOM do you really have ON THE JOB if you work for a major corporation?

The answer, is ZERO.

You have exactly those rights your BOSS tells you you have.

 

[uscitizen]

Strange how those that tend to spout off the most about freedom are the corporate sycophants.
corporate freedom generally means less individual freedom.

 

[xsited1]

Are globalized corporations unamerican?

Like General Electric? Bite your tongue, boy!

 

[uscitizen]

Yes like General Electric. In spite of the feel good commercials they are producing.

 

[DaGoose]

I mean where do their loyalties lie?
Do they care if America goes down the tubes as long as their profits increase?
Same with those who play the global market.

Does America owe them any breaks or support?

Great thread!! I tried to give you a pos rep but it seems I gave one to you not long ago and was prevented from doing so.

The global market and the agreements that go with it (NAFTA) have left many, if not most, Americans worse off than they would have been without it. Ross Perot was 100% correct in his opposition to NAFTA.

The biggest problem is that we have a much higher standard of living than nations such as China and Mexico. As a result it's difficult, if not impossible to compete with them from a labor standpoint. Why wouldn't a company choose to relocate to a nation where labor costs are so much lower? Litttle or no workers comp? No pension benefits? Little or no environmental laws? When you couple that with little or no tariff costs to ship your product back into the US they would be stupid NOT to move.

So what's our recourse? According to the "new brand of conservatives" we need to lower our wages (hence our Standard of Living) in order to be more "competitive". They consider American workers to be lazy and spoiled. They are willing to sacrifice our natural resources to gain corporate profit. And that's what we're seeing now. But unless we lower our Standard of Living to that of say, Mexico, then we truly cannot compete. (On the flip side Mexico could raise their Standard of Living to that of ours but then would lose jobs since companies would get no benefit from relocating.

The bad part of repealing laws like NAFTA is that it would cause a spike in inflation since we would see prices of most goods going up due to higher tariffs and a heavier reliance on American labor. But it would correspond with more and better paying jobs for Americans too. And, in my opinion, American workers are the best workers in the whole world.

To answer your question......American corporations care only for profits. They would gladly throw American workers under the bus if they could save a buck. And that does not make for a good partnership with the nation they rely on to buy their goods. But keep in mind that if the US regulates their business (minimum wage, worker safety, minimize environmental impact) that we need to give them enough support to help them maintain a decent profit margin.

.

 

[Google]

I mean where do their loyalties lie?
Do they care if America goes down the tubes as long as their profits increase?
Same with those who play the global market.

Does America owe them any breaks or support?

I wholeheartedly agree. The effects of globalization has been devastating to blue-collar America.

I was speaking with my boss the other day, we live in Georgia, about the new illegal immigration bill that is being legally challenged with several South American governments support. He pointed to the AJC's front page story on a shortage of agriculture workers, saying that isn't any American workers that would do that job. He is correct they wouldn't do those jobs for the current pay that has been artificially reduced by the availability of a cheap exploitable underclass.

I contend that it is this idea of globalization that drives Barack "Citizen of the World" Obama to do absolutely nothing about immigration policy. He recently stated that people that come to America by way of slave boat or the Rio Grand we are both equally American.

The globalization of corporate America is treasonous. I think it is Constitutional and essential to American workers that Congress requires American corporations to operate within the bounds of America, and increase tariffs on all imports. Call it isolationism, I call it returning to a proven economic strategy that gave rise to the modern world.

America needs to start leading again, unfortunately that won't be possible while we have a president that is gleefully presiding over its' decline.

 

[Sallow]

I mean where do their loyalties lie?
Do they care if America goes down the tubes as long as their profits increase?
Same with those who play the global market.

Does America owe them any breaks or support?

Globalized Conglomerates (The New Monopoly) are BAU for Conservatives.

Anything that kills jobs and concentrates wealth (Socialism for the rich..as Per Bachmann) is a good thing for Republicans.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Strange how those that tend to spout off the most about freedom are the corporate sycophants.
corporate freedom generally means less individual freedom.

Well, the freedom they’re spouting off about is indeed corporate freedom, with ignorant whining about the Commerce Clause being ‘bastardized,’ yet advocating violations of 4th Amendment privacy rights for individuals.

 

[Toro]

I mean where do their loyalties lie?
Do they care if America goes down the tubes as long as their profits increase?
Same with those who play the global market.

Does America owe them any breaks or support?

Corporations are not "unAmerican."

America doesn't owe corporations anything. America has to have a competitive and attractive environment to attract and retain corporations, who create jobs and are the engine of growth. Without corporations, the economy would collapse. Without a strong business community, America will wither. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Contumacious]

I mean where do their loyalties lie?
Do they care if America goes down the tubes as long as their profits increase?
Same with those who play the global market.

Does America owe them any breaks or support?

Are the socialists and fascists unamerican? i mean where do their loyalties lie? Do they care if America goes down the tubes as long as they get the thrill of regulating the economy thereby forcing the companies to enter the global economy?

.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I mean where do their loyalties lie?
Do they care if America goes down the tubes as long as their profits increase?
Same with those who play the global market.

Does America owe them any breaks or support?

Corporations are not "unAmerican."

America doesn't owe corporations anything. America has to have a competitive and attractive environment to attract and retain corporations, who create jobs and are the engine of growth. Without corporations, the economy would collapse. Without a strong business community, America will wither. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Notice the economy collapsing. Notice America withering.

 

[code1211]

<snip>

How much FREEDOM do you really have ON THE JOB if you work for a major corporation?

The answer, is ZERO.

You have exactly those rights your BOSS tells you you have.

Freedom on a job? How does this even apply to a job? You are effectively selling your time and effort to another for a consideration or a group of considerations. You need cash and the employer has the cash to give. If they want you to wear a uniform or report to a particular place at an appointed time, that is your part of the bargain.

You are free at any time to cease doing that and leave their employ.

What do you interpret as "Freedom" within a job?

On my job, I have a very wide range of freedom and I arrange my own schedule and negotiate with little or no guidance, but it is always for the benefit of the corporation. I am free to serve the needs of the corporation in a way that is most profitable to the corporation.

I do not see how this differs significantly from running my paper route at the age of 11. As long as I do the job in a manner that meets the expectations and standards of the employer, they leave me alone to do it.

Freedom on the job is not available unless you are the owner but then the paying customers become your boss and, again, you are in servitude. Employment by its defintion is servitude, but within capitalism, the fruit of that servitude allows the wherewithal to pursue individual happiness.

We are free to choose to be employed or to not be employed, but after that agreement is reached, we forfeit freedom for cash.

 

[auditor0007]

I mean where do their loyalties lie?
Do they care if America goes down the tubes as long as their profits increase?
Same with those who play the global market.

Does America owe them any breaks or support?

I wholeheartedly agree. The effects of globalization has been devastating to blue-collar America.

I was speaking with my boss the other day, we live in Georgia, about the new illegal immigration bill that is being legally challenged with several South American governments support. He pointed to the AJC's front page story on a shortage of agriculture workers, saying that isn't any American workers that would do that job. He is correct they wouldn't do those jobs for the current pay that has been artificially reduced by the availability of a cheap exploitable underclass.

I contend that it is this idea of globalization that drives Barack "Citizen of the World" Obama to do absolutely nothing about immigration policy. He recently stated that people that come to America by way of slave boat or the Rio Grand we are both equally American.

The globalization of corporate America is treasonous. I think it is Constitutional and essential to American workers that Congress requires American corporations to operate within the bounds of America, and increase tariffs on all imports. Call it isolationism, I call it returning to a proven economic strategy that gave rise to the modern world.

America needs to start leading again, unfortunately that won't be possible while we have a president that is gleefully presiding over its' decline.

Another problem seems to be the fact that we allow just about anything in this country with no tariffs or limits, yet all the countries that export to us limit what we can export to them. While we have almost completely opened our doors to free trade, our trading partners have not, and this is especially true for China.

China's multiple barriers to American products

 

[code1211]

I mean where do their loyalties lie?
Do they care if America goes down the tubes as long as their profits increase?
Same with those who play the global market.

Does America owe them any breaks or support?

Not necessarily.

The problem isn't that corporations have reach in many nations, the problem is that our governments (both here and abroad) are so easily manipulated by those enormously powerful organizations.

So as a consequence governments can be easily stampeded toward a race to the bottom of labor and citizens' rights when it comes to seeing to it that those corporations aren't taking advantage of their ability to move operations from one nation to the other.

I'm informed that one of the things happening in China right now is that corporations are demanding advantages or they'll move to Viet Nam.

Well I'm of the opinion that if we're going to liberate capital from national responsibilities and grant them the right to be international citizens, then we need an equally powerful interantional government to see to it that the corporations SERVE THE PUBLIC at the same time they are serving their stockholders.

If one truly wants international economy then we also need international government to regulate the corporations that will be the winners in that economy.

Getting the undue and pernicious influence of capital out of governments is a problem facing not just this nation but ALL nations.

Or we could just say, screw it! and just all sign on as serfs to whatever corporation we can cleave to.

THAT is what the neo-cons really want, ya know.

And end to reprentational governments replaced by a world wide oligarchy lead by the owers of corporations.

I can actually even craft a good damned argument for why that ought to be the way mankind ought to head itself, too.

My objection to this development is really not so much that nations will cease to matter, (nationalism is a meance to mankind really, now that we have the BOMB) but rather it is based on the notion that when there is no representational power given to the have-nots, the HAVES turn life into a totalitarian nighmare for people.

Most American people are just now beginning to feel the lash of capital's domination of government. (Most Black Americans probably already understand THAT problem instictively as they were once considered property)

If we allow this trned to continue things will truly only get much worse in terms of human freedom and dignity.

Freedom as you or I think we know it will end.

Doubt me?

How much FREEDOM do you really have ON THE JOB if you work for a major corporation?

The answer, is ZERO.

You have exactly those rights your BOSS tells you you have.

Corporations with an international reach have a strong advantage over the labor force in that the Corporation can abandon the workers for a more compliant set of workers.

This is also true of a corporation that can relocate within a country, like Boeing, when the workers become unreasonable. In the case of Boeing, we can all be thankful that they stayed in the USA.

It's interesting that you cite an example of a company willing to leave China for another place. As all of the "another" places are slowly used up, the world community will become a macrocasm of the Washington/South Carolina Boeing decision in which great jobs for the relatively unskilled are made available to more and more places.

The Afghanistans of the world are going to be perpetually screwed, but for those areas that will have it, a better life is coming.

Value for value is the basic stock in trade, though. If the employers perceive a better value elsewhere, the jobs that employer has to trade will flow away.

Part of that value is the cost of taxation. Right now we covet the Number 1 position in attracting jobs, but we occupy the number 5 position in being attractive as a destination for companies to set up shop. Corporations are like vegetation. They grow best in certain very definable and predictable and producable environments.

Are we to condemn those corporations who choose the best deal for their stockholders? Shipping jobs overseas is a Union Jingoism. The jobs are not shipped anywhere. The companies that have the jobs to trade for cash are setting up shop in the places where the host countries are the most capable of allowing them to profit.

Right now we are in fifth place. By all indications, fifth place and dropping like a stone in a pond.

 

[Wiseacre]

How would you define "unamerican"? Who's to say what is contrary to the interests of the American people?

Look guys, if a company has to outsource to stay profitable, would you rather they went out of business? Do you like paying higher prices if they do not outsource?

I think our gov't should do what they can to ensure a level international playing field, but we can't be subsidizing or giving tax breaks to anybody. I'd rather legislate exchange rates with specific foreign currencies if they won't play fair.

 

[code1211]

How would you define "unamerican"? Who's to say what is contrary to the interests of the American people?

Look guys, if a company has to outsource to stay profitable, would you rather they went out of business? Do you like paying higher prices if they do not outsource?

I think our gov't should do what they can to ensure a level international playing field, but we can't be subsidizing or giving tax breaks to anybody. I'd rather legislate exchange rates with specific foreign currencies if they won't play fair.

I was with you until you limited the ability of government to attract employers. Open the gates and let 'em in.

They will tolerate our EPA to a point to get our infrastructure and educated workforce.

As long as we hold back and don't give them what they want in terms of corporate tax levels, ability to hire, investment credits and other financial incentives that the competition is providing, we will continue to have a problem with unemployment. Big unemployment means big government to take care of the population, small tax revenues and a dying economy.

Oh, look! That's what we've got!

By the by, if we change things this minute, the good effects won't happen for about a year. The time to change things is right now, this minute. The guy who can do it is not currently welcome on Airforce 1.

 

[midcan5]

This is a bit off topic but it is an interesting way to view a complex global world.

On buying American: The Level Field Institute

"In corporate culture, keiretsu refers to a uniquely Japanese form of corporate organization. A keiretsu is a grouping or family of affiliated companies that form a tight-knit alliance to work toward each other's mutual success. The keiretsu system is also based on an intimate partnership between government and businesses. It can best be understood as the intricate web of relationships that links banks, manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors with the Japanese government.

These ironclad corporate alliances have caused much debate and have been called "government-sponsored cartels." While some think keiretsu are a menace to trade, others see them as a model for change. Features common to most keiretsu include "main bank," stable shareholding, and seconded directors. Some keiretsu concepts have no American parallel such as "general trading company." The keiretsu system is one of the profound differences between Japanese and US business structures."

What is keiretsu? - Definition from Whatis.com

 

[midcan5]

How would you define "unamerican"? Who's to say what is contrary to the interests of the American people?

Look guys, if a company has to outsource to stay profitable, would you rather they went out of business? Do you like paying higher prices if they do not outsource?

I think our gov't should do what they can to ensure a level international playing field, but we can't be subsidizing or giving tax breaks to anybody. I'd rather legislate exchange rates with specific foreign currencies if they won't play fair.

Each of us live a narrative that we imagine makes sense, but consider you have lived a life of a sort of socialism, nothing wrong with that, but consider instead your job was outsourced because you make too much. Personally I'd be willing to pay more for American made and do whenever I can. Our cars are American, made here for instance. Same with my bikes. If we don't work and produce we may as well turn the lights out.