Well...that's certainly how we have imagined and implemented our economy, and now it's as if hardly anyone can imagine anything else. So when you say that companies "have to go" to where profits are highest, the necessity is only contingent on how we've structured and understood our economy. Change that, and suddenly the necessity evaporates.
One way to understand my posts in this thread is as simply exposing the consequences of the economic system we have now, the implication being that those consequences are bad, they're getting worse, and we will be forced to change at some point, but probably soon, or face a very grim future indeed.
That'd all certainly be a start, but I'd go much farther.
Yes, surely.
Seems correct to me.
I would hesitate to make that kind of sweeping claim. Surely not literally all politicians are globalists.
You have a much more optimistic view of how those politicians and economic elites think about American citizens generally than I do.
I work in education (university professor) and I think the problems with public education are much deeper.
Not according to the data I've seen...which has been fairly considerable. Net profit expectations for any business from the immediate post-war years through the early 80s was around 5-8%. Many people don't understand the power of compounding interest here. An investment at 7% will nearly double the original capital in ten years.
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here, but I might be inclined to agree with you. However, what I can tell you is that businesses who have offshored a significant portion of their labor tend to make profits in that range. Of course, that's not what they report to the public. But that's what they actually do.
Yep.
How was Cambridge able to create such loyalty? Trump and his voters have been beset by a barrage of focus grouped slurs since election day something in the range of 95% negative coverage? You'd think if the support was that shallow it would have abandoned him.
You mentioned red states and red districts.....wasn't the Republican going to win those anyway? It would be like Hillary campaigning in California rather than Wisconsin.
But I am more interested in the "grooming". The left grooms their voters at university, public schools and through identity politics those and their total dominance in the media and Hollywood.
How does the right even exist? Must frustrate the heck ......
Sorry to take so long to reply. Watched a good game between the Eagles and Patriots.....maybe I was being groomed
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
CEO's and stockholders are the ones mainly responsible for businesses, especially manufacturing leaving the country. Cons like to say it was government regulation, but they know it came down to greater earnings by moving manufacturing overseas to low wage areas of the world. If started with Japan, then moved to South Korea and China and now is slowly moving again to places like South Vietnam, India and Indonesia. Always looking for the one more buck of profit. Even in this country some states have passed laws that do not allow employee salary increases without permission of the companies stock holders. they see all money within the company as belonging to the stockholders. It is one reason so many companies have moved their headquarter to New Jersey. So blaming regulations for these moves is the Cons way of deflecting from what they know as the truth.
"Conserve White Nationalist Agenda that saturated the Educational processes"?
What is left that is conservative in the education process? Even the military is being inundated with leftist tripe lest some sergeant use the wrong pronoun.
I used to be a c-span junkie (1990s). At first it was very interesting. Not sure anything of value comes from a congressional hearing anymore. Showboats on a stage delivering a narrative for sycophants in the media. Republicans playing to Sean Hannity the Democrats to everyone else.
White Nationalists; what are there like 3 of them? Washington Generals playing the Harlem Globetrotters with all their pay checks coming from the same source. A foil.....
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
The late Republican strategist in the Reagan Era, Lee Atwater captured the dynamic in an infamous 1981 quote:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites … “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
What have got to you lose?Sorry to burst your bubble, but its not that simple. First of all, Conserve Confederacy Ideals, was never beneficial for American Democracy.
From the Era of Goldwater's racist segregationist agenda, that was embraced by Nixon policies and then promoted by Reagan's agenda and policies. is Replayed by Trump and the Republican devotee.... it was easy for Cambridge Analytica to reach in and stir up that ingrained bias and bigotry into a racist fervor...once stirred, they could then attack any Democrat in the arena, especially after their 2 yr campaign to smear Hillary with the Benghazi Drama Game, that backfired when it was uncovered that Republican had the responsibility to provide security funding. So... they set out on other smear gamesmanship tactics... including playing to the historical race bigotry that simmered in the undercurrent as if to think it was covert, yet, Liberals saw how overt it was and is. Now, all society can see it, and no amount of denials gamesmanship can hide.
GOP: Distractions & Diversions are Trump Defense
The damages that racism has done to and within and upon and against America is a pure vile savagely atrocity....
Uh...there are less than 4000 publicly traded companies listed today on US markets. Do you think that's all the businesses there are in the US?
The US economy has been at least since the 60's designated a "Consumer Based Economy". That means consumer spending is what drives the economy not manufacturing.
What that means is if you lower costs to manufacture something, you lower prices in an effort to compete with other companies offering the same product. Lower prices increases consumption, theoretically. (I use this as a caveat to prevent "but what about...")
Delaware, not New Jersey is the State of choice for incorporation. With over half of publicly traded companies in the US being incorporated there.
I'm thinking maybe more Economics and Finance classes and less Justice Studies coursework would do you a world of good...just a suggestion.
:roll:
That is incorrect. American consumers were purchasing cars manufactured overseas because they were less expensive due to labor manufacturing costs. When American manufacturing went overseas consumers decided to continue purchasing that car. That decision to purchase cars manufactured overseas severely impacted other manufacturers and those that wanted to survive had a choice to make. Follow suit or go under.
The price wars of Ford and Chevy - driven by consumer demand for cheaper cars -forced them to make decisions. Quick way to lower cars is cheap labor and few manufacturing restrictions. It worked.
That follows suit for most industries.
When consumers have a choice between company A (manuf here for more money) and company B (manuf overseas for less money) and they choose B they are forcing A to move as well. And largely it isn't because they can't afford it. People are just as greedy as corporations.
The idea of cheap merchandise and high labor doesn't work. We can't have both.
Uh...there are less than 4000 publicly traded companies listed today on US markets. Do you think that's all the businesses there are in the US?
The US economy has been at least since the 60's designated a "Consumer Based Economy". That means consumer spending is what drives the economy not manufacturing.
What that means is if you lower costs to manufacture something, you lower prices in an effort to compete with other companies offering the same product. Lower prices increases consumption, theoretically. (I use this as a caveat to prevent "but what about...")
Delaware, not New Jersey is the State of choice for incorporation. With over half of publicly traded companies in the US being incorporated there.
I'm thinking maybe more Economics and Finance classes and less Justice Studies coursework would do you a world of good...just a suggestion.
:roll:
Respectfully disagree.
The entire Walton family, especially their father, Sam Walton, are and always were lifelong Republicans and talked of conservative values ever since the first Walmart was opened in the 1950's. The difference is in the KIND of conservative then and now.
Sam believed domestic manufacturing was the key to his success.
The very second the old man was in the ground, his children reversed that belief and in the blink of an eye 85 to 90% of all goods in Walmarts were Chinese made.
CEO's and stockholders are the ones mainly responsible for businesses, especially manufacturing leaving the country. Cons like to say it was government regulation, but they know it came down to greater earnings by moving manufacturing overseas to low wage areas of the world. If started with Japan, then moved to South Korea and China and now is slowly moving again to places like South Vietnam, India and Indonesia. Always looking for the one more buck of profit. Even in this country some states have passed laws that do not allow employee salary increases without permission of the companies stock holders. they see all money within the company as belonging to the stockholders. It is one reason so many companies have moved their headquarter to New Jersey. So blaming regulations for these moves is the Cons way of deflecting from what they know as the truth.
Walmart shifted to imported goods when those imported goods became available at a competitive price, not when the old guy was put in the ground. Giving China complete and unrestricted access to our markets and technology without the same access to their markets has been to our detriment and Chinas benefit.
“Consumer based economy” implies consumption of mostly domestically manufactured goods
The main reason for incorporating in Delaware was the lack of a declared purpose for the corporation. Once a corporation was formed it could be used for any reason with no modification required of its original paperwork, no approval process. A practice for most states today.
Me's thinking there's a bit more to it.
That's all there is to it. When I incorporated my first business in NY, I had to state purpose(s). As I branched out to other businesses, rather than use the same entity, I was obligated to form new corporations for each business. More fees and corporate taxes for the state, more franchise taxes for the city. Same principals, same workers, same office address. Eventually I formed a holding corporation in Delaware, and under Delaware laws, established sub-entities under the same corporate name, each with a different DBA filing locally. Saved me a small fortune from duplicative taxes and fees for what were technically small businesses at that time. As each business progressed or failed, liability issues forced creation of new corporations for those that survived and prospered. In the beginning every penny counts. Later you are glad to have the income to pay the appropriate taxes and fees.
Even today, investment properties I have are held in Delaware sub entities, protected from cross liabilities, even tho all income is passed to the holding corporation for tax purposes. At the end of a fiscal year, the difference in net income can be as much as 8 full points. Significant money. I could not accomplish this under NYS corporate law. The IRS recognizes it with no problems, the State of New York loses corporate tax revenues because of stupid tax law planning. Without the excess of income from NYC being the economic capital of the world, the State of New York would be bankrupt, and likely the city as well.
Delaware benefits by not having to levy other taxes on its citizens.
When the gas crisis hit during the Carter administration, the big boat Detroit heavy metal which consumed gas faster than I could quaff a cold beer on 99 degree humid day after exiting the unairconditioned NYC subway, fell in favor of Japanese econocars that sipped gas, and ran 50k miles with minimum repairs. Quality control became an issue the American auto industry failed to recognize. The Ford Pinto and Chevy Chevette hit the streets, and fell apart on the streets as we drove them out of the showrooms. They were cheaper than their Japanese competition, and sold well, but not well enough.
It wasn't cheaper labor or reduced manufacturing restrictions that drove American auto manufacturers overseas, it was quality controls, gas consumption ratios, combined with world markets and protectionism in the countries where the Americans wanted to penetrate the markets. On the other hand, Peugeot, Renault, Opal, Saab, Fiat, and a slew of other foreign automakers failed in American markets.
Peugeot, Renault, Opal, Saab, Fiat, and a slew of other foreign automakers failed in American markets.
See? That's more, and there is even more than that.
This is incorrect, at least in my experience, which is considerable and relevant. Business managers and owners have learned ways to dictate what consumers do, at least statistically speaking.
For example, manufacturers began moving automobile manufacturing overseas at a non-negligible rate in the 1970s, and sold it as something that would be good for consumers, since it was (at the time) only a few jobs, and the lower labor costs would drive down the price of automobiles for all. But that's not what happened. When the lower labor costs were reaped, the big three actually raised the retail price of automobiles slightly, while taking the profits for themselves and the company owners. But, of course, in American cities, and thanks to lots of auto-industry lobbying, you need a car to get around, and so those economic elites could count on receiving slightly more of each American family's yearly budget, plus paying lower labor costs, all for the low-low price of having also weakened the U.S. economy.
Of course, the story is more complex still, as the decline of the U.S. auto industry was largely precipitated by moving jobs overseas and dismantling geographically concentrated chains of production (which model still obtains for Japanese and European automakers). But those decisions were taken by managers of the Big Three as a means of minimizing worker power in the face of increasing unionization.
I think you'll have a hard time explaining how consumers in the 1970s were demanding the same cars at slightly increased prices, while also demanding that jobs leaves these shores. Obviously, U.S. consumers demanded no such thing.
I can admit I am not aware of the quality issue. Not saying that isn't true.
the cars that Ford, GM, and Chrysler were producing were trash....the only thing keeping them afloat were their trucks
Datsun and Honda came into the USA with great running, well made cars, that were fairly priced....Detrot couldnt get out of its own way
The oil embargo hit...gas lines, and the little imports became VERY POPULAR and ran forever
Why buy a Grand Fury with that huge 318 in it, when you could get the Civic that everyone was raving about that got over 2x the gas mileage or god forbid a Reliant K car....
The metal work was better, the cars were better fabricated, and yes, the unions screwed themselves with their labor demands
The one thing the imports took decades to figure out was the Trucks....the F100 and F150 stayed king of the hill
Blame detroit...blame their engineers, their lack of vision, and their lack of a willingness to adapt and change
This from a guy that just retired from the retail auto business after the last 35 years
Sorry but you are incorrect.
Sam Walton's biggest pet peeve was the flood of imports.
''Our continued success depends on our mutual reaction to a very serious problem with regard to our balance of trade deficit,''
---Sam Walton
That because the vast majority of Americans are not willing to pay the money that it costs to build a quality product. It's why Walmart sells way more then what ever is main brand of coats are compared to a company like Arc'teryx despite that Walmart brand being not even in the same ballpark as far as quality goes.And much lower quality.
Our current model only works if they sell more things to more people more times.
We had one can opener and one toaster my entire childhood. Now you're lucky if those things last more than a year or two.