Who's Wrecking America OWS or the 1%?

If I'm a major shareholder in a large corporation that lays off thousands of US workers and moves to China, doesn't my gain come at the expense of thousands of productive American workers?

No, your gain comes due to increased productivity and therefore a higher profit margin for the company in which you are an owner. Are you suggesting American companies should be run intentionally inefficient? How is that going to work out in the absence of an isolated economy forbidden to trade internationally?

Besides, when the company in which you are a shareholder increases productivity, you earn a greater return, allowing you to either buy more goods and services, save more money, or make more investments, all of which are job creating actions.
I'm still not clear on why millions of jobs can be shipped to China without compensating US labor.

German corporations were prevented from moving to China by German unions with voting members sitting on their boards. Those same German corporations seem to be competing efficiently in the global marketplace today.

If labor is prior to and independent of capital and deserving of much greater consideration, why have most of US productivity gains over the last thirty years gone primarily to investors?
 
If I'm a major shareholder in a large corporation that lays off thousands of US workers and moves to China, doesn't my gain come at the expense of thousands of productive American workers?

No, your gain comes due to increased productivity and therefore a higher profit margin for the company in which you are an owner. Are you suggesting American companies should be run intentionally inefficient? How is that going to work out in the absence of an isolated economy forbidden to trade internationally?

Besides, when the company in which you are a shareholder increases productivity, you earn a greater return, allowing you to either buy more goods and services, save more money, or make more investments, all of which are job creating actions.
I'm still not clear on why millions of jobs can be shipped to China without compensating US labor.

German corporations were prevented from moving to China by German unions with voting members sitting on their boards. Those same German corporations seem to be competing efficiently in the global marketplace today.

If labor is prior to and independent of capital and deserving of much greater consideration, why have most of US productivity gains over the last thirty years gone primarily to investors?

So, your answer is for MORE government meddling, this time to prevent corporations from becoming more efficient and to tell them where they can and where they cannot do business. That's a hell of a plan. If only we have central planners like you in charge, why everything would be peachy. One thing is crystal clear: you've never risked everything to start a business.

If a private German business is prevented from moving operations overseas by their own boardmembers, union or not, that's a big fucking difference from the government doing it. I have no problem with private businesses making their own choices. You or some other nanny state meddler making those decisions for them? Not so much.
 
Conservatives are not strangers to the nanny state:

"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living.

"This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention. The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the government."

It was nanny state politicians who wrote tax and trade laws that encouraged the 1% to outsource millions of US jobs to China and elsewhere.

I'm not calling for central planning.
I'm calling for extending democracy to the US workplace.

The Conservative Nanny State
 
Conservatives are not strangers to the nanny state:

"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living.

"This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention. The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the government."

It was nanny state politicians who wrote tax and trade laws that encouraged the 1% to outsource millions of US jobs to China and elsewhere.

I'm not calling for central planning.
I'm calling for extending democracy to the US workplace.

The Conservative Nanny State

True, while Libertarians stand alone as the only group that stands against government intervention outside of the enumerated powers. We see big government conservatism every bit the disease that is nanny state liberalism.

Now, what in the hell do you mean by "extending democracy to the US workplace". Be specific and if you can, keep it within the confines of the law of the land. Are you throwing private property out the door? Who exactly will be voting to determine how a company will operate? Will those voters have an actual stake in the company? Love to hear you solution to keep companies from operating as efficiently as they can while competing in an international marketplace. Lay it on us...
 
Last edited:
Who is wrecking America?

Politicians, liberal ones to be more specific.
Can you name any politicians that aren't wrecking America?

Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Eric Cantor, Jim Jordan just to name a few.
Are deficits wrecking America?

Paul Ryan's voted for two wars, two tax cuts and one huge Medicare prescription drug benefit entitlement. Deficits don't matter, or was Dick Cheney lying about that too?
 
Last edited:
Conservatives are not strangers to the nanny state:

"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living.

"This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention. The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the government."

It was nanny state politicians who wrote tax and trade laws that encouraged the 1% to outsource millions of US jobs to China and elsewhere.

I'm not calling for central planning.
I'm calling for extending democracy to the US workplace.

The Conservative Nanny State

True, while Libertarians stand alone as the only group that stands against government intervention outside of the enumerated powers. We see big government conservatism every bit the disease that is nanny state liberalism.

Now, what in the hell do you mean by "extending democracy to the US workplace". Be specific and if you can, keep it within the confines of the law of the land. Are you throwing private property out the door? Who exactly will be voting to determine how a company will operate? Will those voters have an actual stake in the company? Love to hear you solution to keep companies from operating as efficiently as they can while competing in an international marketplace. Lay it on us...
Here it is:

"The MONDRAGON Co-operatives operate in accordance with a business model based on People and the Sovereignty of Labour, which has made it possible to develop highly participative companies rooted in solidarity, with a strong social dimension but without neglecting business excellence.

"The Co-operatives are owned by their worker-members and power is based on the principle of one person, one vote."

According to Wiki, Mondragon is currently the seventh largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover. "At the end of 2010 it was providing employment for 83,859 people in 256 companies in four areas of activity: Finance, Industry, Retail and Knowledge."

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parecon (participatory economics) is a related concept put forth by Michael Albert:

"Parecon is a proposal for a way of carrying out production, consumption, and allocation that is classless and equitable, that delivers to each actor self managing say, and that produces not only desired goods and services but also desirable solidarity and diversity.

"It is not a comprehensive blueprint but, instead, a description of the key attributes of four institutions deemed essential if economics is to be both worthy and desirable..."

Z Blogs | Parecon Summary Flyer

There Are Alternatives.
 
If I'm a major shareholder in a large corporation that lays off thousands of US workers and moves to China, doesn't my gain come at the expense of thousands of productive American workers?

No, your gain comes due to increased productivity and therefore a higher profit margin for the company in which you are an owner. Are you suggesting American companies should be run intentionally inefficient? How is that going to work out in the absence of an isolated economy forbidden to trade internationally?

Besides, when the company in which you are a shareholder increases productivity, you earn a greater return, allowing you to either buy more goods and services, save more money, or make more investments, all of which are job creating actions.
I'm still not clear on why millions of jobs can be shipped to China without compensating US labor.

German corporations were prevented from moving to China by German unions with voting members sitting on their boards. Those same German corporations seem to be competing efficiently in the global marketplace today.

If labor is prior to and independent of capital and deserving of much greater consideration, why have most of US productivity gains over the last thirty years gone primarily to investors?

Germans are much prouder of themselves than Americans. You don't see for instance German auto workers getting drunk on the job like Americans do, even if they belong to a union.

Unions in the US have no problem whatsoever in completely bankrupting a company as long as the union bosses get theirs. Perhaps the difference isn't so much the rules companes follow as the quality of the people making up workers and the corporation. German engineering has a reputation, so does American engineering but it's nowhere near the same.
 
Here's a partial list of 1% suspects and an opportunity for you to cast a vote for your favorite parasite:

"In just the last generation, the richest 1% almost quadrupled their incomes.

"The average wealth of the 1% is 225 times bigger than the wealth of the typical household – the highest it’s ever been..."

"Last year, half of Americans earned less than $26,000 while CEOs at top 500 companies raked in an average of $11 million.

"Over the past decade, earnings for middle-class Americans actually fell. In fact, working Americans’ wages are now a lower percentage of our economy than they’ve ever been..."

"The 1% is not an accident – it is the result of policies our government chose to pursue."

Who Are The 1%? Vote on it now.

I think it's pretty clear when you look at how long wages have been declining and how long the OWS people have been protesting. If it was OWS, things wouldn't be so bad already.
 
No, your gain comes due to increased productivity and therefore a higher profit margin for the company in which you are an owner. Are you suggesting American companies should be run intentionally inefficient? How is that going to work out in the absence of an isolated economy forbidden to trade internationally?

Besides, when the company in which you are a shareholder increases productivity, you earn a greater return, allowing you to either buy more goods and services, save more money, or make more investments, all of which are job creating actions.
I'm still not clear on why millions of jobs can be shipped to China without compensating US labor.

German corporations were prevented from moving to China by German unions with voting members sitting on their boards. Those same German corporations seem to be competing efficiently in the global marketplace today.

If labor is prior to and independent of capital and deserving of much greater consideration, why have most of US productivity gains over the last thirty years gone primarily to investors?

Germans are much prouder of themselves than Americans. You don't see for instance German auto workers getting drunk on the job like Americans do, even if they belong to a union.

Unions in the US have no problem whatsoever in completely bankrupting a company as long as the union bosses get theirs. Perhaps the difference isn't so much the rules companes follow as the quality of the people making up workers and the corporation. German engineering has a reputation, so does American engineering but it's nowhere near the same.

What the heck are you talking about? Do you have some link that shows Americans who belong to unions getting drunk on the job? Or did you just make that up?

How many Germans do you know? Trust me, they drink a lot more than Americans.
 
No, your gain comes due to increased productivity and therefore a higher profit margin for the company in which you are an owner. Are you suggesting American companies should be run intentionally inefficient? How is that going to work out in the absence of an isolated economy forbidden to trade internationally?

Besides, when the company in which you are a shareholder increases productivity, you earn a greater return, allowing you to either buy more goods and services, save more money, or make more investments, all of which are job creating actions.
I'm still not clear on why millions of jobs can be shipped to China without compensating US labor.

German corporations were prevented from moving to China by German unions with voting members sitting on their boards. Those same German corporations seem to be competing efficiently in the global marketplace today.

If labor is prior to and independent of capital and deserving of much greater consideration, why have most of US productivity gains over the last thirty years gone primarily to investors?

Germans are much prouder of themselves than Americans. You don't see for instance German auto workers getting drunk on the job like Americans do, even if they belong to a union.

Unions in the US have no problem whatsoever in completely bankrupting a company as long as the union bosses get theirs. Perhaps the difference isn't so much the rules companes follow as the quality of the people making up workers and the corporation. German engineering has a reputation, so does American engineering but it's nowhere near the same.
I've been drunk on too many jobs myself to have an unbiased opinion on German workers' drinking habits versus those of US drunks. Lately, I've been wondering if German (and other European) banks aren't about to have a Lehman's Brothers moment. There's been a lot of "fringe" speculation about this during the past year, or so, but now mainstream oracles like the New York Times and Goldman Sachs are chiming in:

"“Nervous investors around the globe are accelerating their exit from the debt of European governments and banks, increasing the risk of a credit squeeze that could set off a downward spiral.

"Financial institutions are dumping their vast holdings of European government debt and spurning new bond issues by countries like Spain and Italy. And many have decided not to renew short-term loans to European banks, which are needed to finance day-to-day operations..."

If the US and global economy is as bad or worse in November 2012 than it was in 2008, will it change how you vote?

EconoMonitor : EconoMonitor » The Complete and Annotated Guide to the European Bank Run (or the Final Phase of Goldman’s World Domination Plan)
 
Here's a partial list of 1% suspects and an opportunity for you to cast a vote for your favorite parasite:

"In just the last generation, the richest 1% almost quadrupled their incomes.

"The average wealth of the 1% is 225 times bigger than the wealth of the typical household – the highest it’s ever been..."

"Last year, half of Americans earned less than $26,000 while CEOs at top 500 companies raked in an average of $11 million.

"Over the past decade, earnings for middle-class Americans actually fell. In fact, working Americans’ wages are now a lower percentage of our economy than they’ve ever been..."

"The 1% is not an accident – it is the result of policies our government chose to pursue."

Who Are The 1%? Vote on it now.

I think it's pretty clear when you look at how long wages have been declining and how long the OWS people have been protesting. If it was OWS, things wouldn't be so bad already.
OWS has greatly increased the number of times the phrase "income inequality" has appeared in the corporate press lately. I think it's roughly a factor of ten times more frequently used today than before the Occupy Movement began. If our economy tanks next November the way it did in 2008, tens of millions of US voters will be heading into the polls with "income inequality" on their minds. And next time Wall Street won't have a rock star with roots to Lincoln waiting in the wings.
 
Conservatives are not strangers to the nanny state:

"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living.

"This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention. The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the government."

It was nanny state politicians who wrote tax and trade laws that encouraged the 1% to outsource millions of US jobs to China and elsewhere.

I'm not calling for central planning.
I'm calling for extending democracy to the US workplace.

The Conservative Nanny State

True, while Libertarians stand alone as the only group that stands against government intervention outside of the enumerated powers. We see big government conservatism every bit the disease that is nanny state liberalism.

Now, what in the hell do you mean by "extending democracy to the US workplace". Be specific and if you can, keep it within the confines of the law of the land. Are you throwing private property out the door? Who exactly will be voting to determine how a company will operate? Will those voters have an actual stake in the company? Love to hear you solution to keep companies from operating as efficiently as they can while competing in an international marketplace. Lay it on us...
Here it is:

"The MONDRAGON Co-operatives operate in accordance with a business model based on People and the Sovereignty of Labour, which has made it possible to develop highly participative companies rooted in solidarity, with a strong social dimension but without neglecting business excellence.

"The Co-operatives are owned by their worker-members and power is based on the principle of one person, one vote."

According to Wiki, Mondragon is currently the seventh largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover. "At the end of 2010 it was providing employment for 83,859 people in 256 companies in four areas of activity: Finance, Industry, Retail and Knowledge."

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parecon (participatory economics) is a related concept put forth by Michael Albert:

"Parecon is a proposal for a way of carrying out production, consumption, and allocation that is classless and equitable, that delivers to each actor self managing say, and that produces not only desired goods and services but also desirable solidarity and diversity.

"It is not a comprehensive blueprint but, instead, a description of the key attributes of four institutions deemed essential if economics is to be both worthy and desirable..."

Z Blogs | Parecon Summary Flyer

There Are Alternatives.

There are indeed alternatives and you are welcome to risk your own fortune to start an organization that follows these principals. If it's as good as you say, you'll need no government enforcement to make it happen. Best of luck...seriously.
 

Forum List

Back
Top