Which Side Are You On?

[bripat9643]

What drove those companies away?

People like Nosmo and GeorgePhillip

 

[bripat9643]

What drove those companies away?

profit

So you think they should stay in some union shit-hole of a city and go bankrupt?

 

[bripat9643]

Government IS my fellow citizens.

No it isn't. Government is a gang of criminals.

 

[bripat9643]

They were asked to make sweeping concession in pay, retirement benefits, long term medical coverage and hiring freezes. In every case IN EVERY CASE the unions made those concessions just to keep the opportunities here for future generations.

You keep looking for some Leftist boogeyman. Can't you fathom the vast motivation of greed some corporations have? Sometimes the fault, dear Daveman, is right on the conference table in the board room.

Your fantastical version of history is charming.

 

[bripat9643]

How did you come to the conclusion I want to control Ford?

Duh, you just asked "What can you do to effect the decisions of a corporation?"

And the next time Ohio Power spews tons of sulfur into the atmosphere, I know what will show them! I'll stop using electricity! The next time Crucible Steel dumps hydrofluoric acid into the Ohio River, I'll buy stock in them and tell them exactly what I think! I sure have a lot of power over corporations!

It appears you want the products corporations make. Since you're so hostile to corporations, sell your car, your house, your flat screen TV, your computer, and go live in a cave somewhere. Corporations produce virtually everything that makes modern life enjoyable. What does government produce that improves my life?

 

[bripat9643]

Rubbermaid would not have moved by their own choice. But, if they want to market their product at the World's Largest Retailer, Rubbermaid had to dance to Wal*Mart's tune. The same dynamic was in play for Sterling China.

I doubt rubbermaid based its decision solely on WalMart's demands. The fact is that brute labor for manufacturing is a low-wage occupation. It doesn't require any special skills or education. Manufacturing is an industry for developing economies. A country cannot pay high wages with a work force that is only competent to screw a nut on a bolt. As our economy develops, more low skill jobs will move overseas. It's unavoidable.

As for steel, the decision was made to ship the works off to Asia to take advantage of the dirt cheap labor there. As well as the lax environmental regulations. If you think we should roll our standard of living back to the standards set in Singapore just so a company can make steel here, I submit that this idea can not, under any circumstances be thought of as a good thing for America. A vibrant middle class is essential to maintaining our republic.

Otherwise, we have the rich and the poor and the company making the decision for society. Kind of like Rhodesia.

Have you ever been to Singapore? It's a beautiful, clean gleaming city with a standard of living comparable or even superior to ours.

You obviously don't know what the hell your talking about. I'm sure your claims are entirely fabricated.

 

[Nosmo King]

How did you come to the conclusion I want to control Ford?

Duh, you just asked "What can you do to effect the decisions of a corporation?"

And the next time Ohio Power spews tons of sulfur into the atmosphere, I know what will show them! I'll stop using electricity! The next time Crucible Steel dumps hydrofluoric acid into the Ohio River, I'll buy stock in them and tell them exactly what I think! I sure have a lot of power over corporations!

It appears you want the products corporations make. Since you're so hostile to corporations, sell your car, your house, your flat screen TV, your computer, and go live in a cave somewhere. Corporations produce virtually everything that makes modern life enjoyable. What does government produce that improves my life?

It's one thing to post viable arguments here. It's a wholly different thing to post a bunch of screeds saying "you're wrong and I'm right and, incidentally, you are an idiot for thinking the way you do."

You might be effective if you tried to reason out an answer first.

Take Daveman as you paradigm of debate. He's consistent and uses sound reasoning.

I love to lock horns with him because i think he really reads my posts and answers them with a sincerity that reveals reasoning. You, on the other hand, answer like a fog horn. Monotonous, disharmonious and boorish. I wonder if you can debate or if you just like to get your post count up.

 

[bripat9643]

Your analysis makes no sense. It's a lot easier to vote out politicians than to vote out CEOs and corporate boards. You're talking "one man, one vote" vs "one dollar, one vote". The ones with the dollars are already sitting on the boards, so what chance do we have?

If it's hard to vote out CEO's, that's only because nitwits who opposed "hostile corporate takeovers" made it hard. It used to be that if shareholders didn't like the current management, they could sell their shares to someone like T-Boone Pickens who would replace the management. Then leftists like you and union agitators got all kinds of laws passed that made it more difficult for investors to buy a controlling share of a corporation.

Furthermore, only the ignorant believe the rich purchase the bulk of the products sold by companies like WalMart and Ford Motor Company. the board members of most corporations own only a very small percentage of the shares. Institutional investors, like grandma's pension fund, are the biggest share holders.

The left demonizes corporations because they can't justify looting them unless the public believes they are evil and harmful.

Every time you see someone attacking a corporation, you're looking at a moocher trying to loot someone else's property.

That's all this is: naked plunder.

 

[TheBrain]

Rubbermaid would not have moved by their own choice. But, if they want to market their product at the World's Largest Retailer, Rubbermaid had to dance to Wal*Mart's tune. The same dynamic was in play for Sterling China.

I doubt rubbermaid based its decision solely on WalMart's demands. The fact is that brute labor for manufacturing is a low-wage occupation. It doesn't require any special skills or education. Manufacturing is an industry for developing economies. A country cannot pay high wages with a work force that is only competent to screw a nut on a bolt. As our economy develops, more low skill jobs will move overseas. It's unavoidable.

As for steel, the decision was made to ship the works off to Asia to take advantage of the dirt cheap labor there. As well as the lax environmental regulations. If you think we should roll our standard of living back to the standards set in Singapore just so a company can make steel here, I submit that this idea can not, under any circumstances be thought of as a good thing for America. A vibrant middle class is essential to maintaining our republic.

Otherwise, we have the rich and the poor and the company making the decision for society. Kind of like Rhodesia.

Have you ever been to Singapore? It's a beautiful, clean gleaming city with a standard of living comparable or even superior to ours.

You obviously don't know what the hell your talking about. I'm sure your claims are entirely fabricated.

I'm "on your side" in this debate. But you do seriously underestimate the clout a company like Wal Mart has. They can make or break suppliers and often do. They do it by signing you on as a supplier then order so many goods that you essentially have to gear your entire production towards them being your largest, and sometimes ONLY customer and then they just quit buying from you if you don't cede to their demands.

Now the thing is if a company wasn't greedy and didn't try to get rich quick off of Wal Mart they would never get caught in that situation so Wal Mart is REALLY only doing what other companies ALLOW them to do, but that is the reality of the situation.

 

[konradv]

You affect the decisions of a corporation by choosing to buy or not to buy their products. You can also purchase stock, and then you can vote that stock. You actually have far more control over corporations than you do over the government. Furthermore, corporations don't force you to pay for their products. The government does.

Why do you think you need to control Ford Motor Corporation?

Your analysis makes no sense. It's a lot easier to vote out politicians than to vote out CEOs and corporate boards. You're talking "one man, one vote" vs "one dollar, one vote". The ones with the dollars are already sitting on the boards, so what chance do we have?

You are of course wrong. We can affect who's in charge of companies both by buying stock and voting and by voting with our dollars. And guess what? We don't have to wait til an arbitrary date rolls around once every four years to do so.

Got those kinds of bucks, do you? Don't you realize that there's more stock owned by those one might want to vote out than by all the small shareholders combined? At least every 4 years my vote counts the same as Trump's.

 

[bripat9643]

t's one thing to post viable arguments here. It's a wholly different thing to post a bunch of screeds saying "you're wrong and I'm right and, incidentally, you are an idiot for thinking the way you do."

You might be effective if you tried to reason out an answer first.

Take Daveman as you paradigm of debate. He's consistent and uses sound reasoning.

I love to lock horns with him because i think he really reads my posts and answers them with a sincerity that reveals reasoning. You, on the other hand, answer like a fog horn. Monotonous, disharmonious and boorish. I wonder if you can debate or if you just like to get your post count up.

Your problem isn't that I say you're stupid, because I didn't do that. Your problem is that I prove you're stupid. Your arguments are pathetic.

My purpose here isn't to have some scintillating debate. My purpose is to discredit the ideas you espouse. Sarcasm and ridicule are effective weapons in that endeavor.

Haven't you ever read Saul Alinsky?

 

[konradv]

Your analysis makes no sense. It's a lot easier to vote out politicians than to vote out CEOs and corporate boards. You're talking "one man, one vote" vs "one dollar, one vote". The ones with the dollars are already sitting on the boards, so what chance do we have?

If it's hard to vote out CEO's, that's only because nitwits who opposed "hostile corporate takeovers" made it hard. It used to be that if shareholders didn't like the current management, they could sell their shares to someone like T-Boone Pickens who would replace the management. Then leftists like you and union agitators got all kinds of laws passed that made it more difficult for investors to buy a controlling share of a corporation.

Furthermore, only the ignorant believe the rich purchase the bulk of the products sold by companies like WalMart and Ford Motor Company. the board members of most corporations own only a very small percentage of the shares. Institutional investors, like grandma's pension fund, are the biggest share holders. The left demonizes corporations because they can't justify looting them unless the public believes they are evil and harmful.

Every time you see someone attacking a corporation, you're looking at a moocher trying to loot someone else's property.

That's all this is: naked plunder.

But those "institutional investors" also sit on the boards, making them part of the problem. Are you saying they're always right and anyone that doubts it is a "moocher". Sounds like you've been drinking your own brand of Kool-Aid!!!

 

[bripat9643]

But those "institutional investors" also sit on the boards, making them part of the problem. Are you saying they're always right and anyone that doubts it is a "moocher". Sounds like you've been drinking your own brand of Kool-Aid!!!

The institutional investors represent the interests of millions of share holders. If they are party of the problem, then you have a problem with representative democracy.

Your real problem is with capitalism, period. You obviously belong to the moocher class who wants to loot other people's property.

 

[TheBrain]

Your analysis makes no sense. It's a lot easier to vote out politicians than to vote out CEOs and corporate boards. You're talking "one man, one vote" vs "one dollar, one vote". The ones with the dollars are already sitting on the boards, so what chance do we have?

You are of course wrong. We can affect who's in charge of companies both by buying stock and voting and by voting with our dollars. And guess what? We don't have to wait til an arbitrary date rolls around once every four years to do so.

Got those kinds of bucks, do you? Don't you realize that there's more stock owned by those one might want to vote out than by all the small shareholders combined? At least every 4 years my vote counts the same as Trump's.

Hate to break the news to you sparky but your vote don't mean shit. Not when the majority of those voting aren't voting off of anything more than party loyalty.

 

[Newby]

If I didn't live it, didn't watch it happen, watch it unfold slowly like a cancer every place in this valley I wouldn't believe it.

Sometimes our partisan blinders are on a little too tight to accept the facts we see every day. Perhaps you would consider moving to Youngstown, Ohio or Aliquippa, Pennsylvania or Weirton, West Virginia and sell the notion that our economic downturn is due to the greed of the workers and the malfeasance of our government.

But I doubt you could ever make that leap as easily as you made the leap of faith that lets you dismiss the actions of corporations as consistently beneficial to communities, working families and the American economy.

You say I have blinders on, but refuse to consider why your own view is so narrow.

I guess you missed the part where I said companies have had a role in their relocation. Can you admit that it's not always their choice?

Rubbermaid would not have moved by their own choice. But, if they want to market their product at the World's Largest Retailer, Rubbermaid had to dance to Wal*Mart's tune. The same dynamic was in play for Sterling China.

As for steel, the decision was made to ship the works off to Asia to take advantage of the dirt cheap labor there. As well as the lax environmental regulations. If you think we should roll our standard of living back to the standards set in Singapore just so a company can make steel here, I submit that this idea can not, under any circumstances be thought of as a good thing for America. A vibrant middle class is essential to maintaining our republic.

Otherwise, we have the rich and the poor and the company making the decision for society. Kind of like Rhodesia.

Okay, let's say the steel companies stayed here and had to pay high environmental costs and higher wages. How did you expect them to compete with foreign steel then and stay in business? Wouldn't the end result be the same? No more steel companies? Or are you deluding yourself that they could have just made a smaller profit and stay operational?

 

[Newby]

What drove those companies away?

profit

So you think they should stay in some union shit-hole of a city and go bankrupt?

Apparently that's exactly what he thinks they should do. Then all of of the US 401K accounts could have gone bust as well.

 

[daveman]

What drove those companies away?

People like Nosmo and GeorgePhillip

The studio audience keeps shouting out the answers, but the players keep giving the wrong answers!

 

[Nosmo King]

You say I have blinders on, but refuse to consider why your own view is so narrow.

I guess you missed the part where I said companies have had a role in their relocation. Can you admit that it's not always their choice?

Rubbermaid would not have moved by their own choice. But, if they want to market their product at the World's Largest Retailer, Rubbermaid had to dance to Wal*Mart's tune. The same dynamic was in play for Sterling China.

As for steel, the decision was made to ship the works off to Asia to take advantage of the dirt cheap labor there. As well as the lax environmental regulations. If you think we should roll our standard of living back to the standards set in Singapore just so a company can make steel here, I submit that this idea can not, under any circumstances be thought of as a good thing for America. A vibrant middle class is essential to maintaining our republic.

Otherwise, we have the rich and the poor and the company making the decision for society. Kind of like Rhodesia.

Okay, let's say the steel companies stayed here and had to pay high environmental costs and higher wages. How did you expect them to compete with foreign steel then and stay in business? Wouldn't the end result be the same? No more steel companies? Or are you deluding yourself that they could have just made a smaller profit and stay operational?

Our Department of Commerce ignored the dumping of foreign steel here. American steel and American steel workers can be the most competitive on the planet. All we ask is a level playing field.

No company can compete with imports which are sold at below cost.

 

[bripat9643]

Our Department of Commerce ignored the dumping of foreign steel here. American steel and American steel workers can be the most competitive on the planet. All we ask is a level playing field.

No company can compete with imports which are sold at below cost.

No company ever sells anything at below cost. What would be the point of that?

However, union thugs always accuse their foriegn competition of selling below cost because their costs are far lower than the costs of companies overpopulated with fat, lazy overpaid union thugs.

 

[Nosmo King]

Our Department of Commerce ignored the dumping of foreign steel here. American steel and American steel workers can be the most competitive on the planet. All we ask is a level playing field.

No company can compete with imports which are sold at below cost.

No company ever sells anything at below cost. What would be the point of that?

However, union thugs always accuse their foriegn competition of selling below cost because their costs are far lower than the costs of companies overpopulated with fat, lazy overpaid union thugs.

China loses steel dumping case, a sign of things to come | McClatchy

Steel Dumping | U.S. Targets Brazil, Japan in Steel-Dumping Ruling - Los Angeles Times
Greater New Orleans AFL-CIO: Steel Dumping Crisis
Industry seeks protection from steel dumping

The point of it is to effectively kill the American stel industry.