In article f59dda3b-def7-4970-a98a-c5314f862444
@h34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jan 24, 3:02*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...



Chinese are tightening their credit. *I thinks Obama's problems just got
worse. *Especially if China wants some of that maturing US debt paid off.

What happens if the USA just says, "No"?

Just curious.

Eisboch

They'll quit selling their products here. That'll show us.

I dare you to walk around your house and find 10 items you need to live
life the way you do.. Then do an Internet search and see if you could
have those items if the Chinese stopped making them or the parts for
them... OK, you might be able to do it if you tried, but if everyone in
the country was trying to buy a pair of socks from the last company in
the US that made them (BTW I don't think anybody here does) we would run
out pretty quickly.

Scotty

"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article f59dda3b-def7-4970-a98a-c5314f862444
@h34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jan 24, 3:02 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...



Chinese are tightening their credit. I thinks Obama's problems just
got
worse. Especially if China wants some of that maturing US debt paid
off.

What happens if the USA just says, "No"?

Just curious.

Eisboch

They'll quit selling their products here. That'll show us.

I dare you to walk around your house and find 10 items you need to live
life the way you do.. Then do an Internet search and see if you could
have those items if the Chinese stopped making them or the parts for
them... OK, you might be able to do it if you tried, but if everyone in
the country was trying to buy a pair of socks from the last company in
the US that made them (BTW I don't think anybody here does) we would run
out pretty quickly.

Scotty


Hey, we're all born barefoot and bare assed.

Eisboch

On Jan 24, 4:38*pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article f59dda3b-def7-4970-a98a-c5314f862444
@h34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...







On Jan 24, 3:02 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...

Chinese are tightening their credit. I thinks Obama's problems just got
worse. Especially if China wants some of that maturing US debt paid off.

What happens if the USA just says, "No"?

Just curious.

Eisboch

They'll quit selling their products here. *That'll show us.

I dare you to walk around your house and find 10 items you need to live
life the way you do.. Then do an Internet search and see if you could
have those items if the Chinese stopped making them or the parts for
them... OK, you might be able to do it if you tried, but if everyone in
the country was trying to buy a pair of socks from the last company in
the US that made them (BTW I don't think anybody here does) we would run
out pretty quickly.

Scotty

A huge part of the problem is the fact that we don't manufacture much
stuff here. IMO, we need to start making stuff here again. Of
course, we can't when unions think that unskilled labor assemblimg an
outlet strip should earn $60k a year.

And if we all bought socks from the last US company making them,
they'd have a banner year, expand, and we'd have the socks we need and
more jobs to boot.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Jan 24, 4:38 pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article f59dda3b-def7-4970-a98a-c5314f862444
@h34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...







On Jan 24, 3:02 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...

Chinese are tightening their credit. I thinks Obama's problems just
got
worse. Especially if China wants some of that maturing US debt paid
off.

What happens if the USA just says, "No"?

Just curious.

Eisboch

They'll quit selling their products here. That'll show us.

I dare you to walk around your house and find 10 items you need to live
life the way you do.. Then do an Internet search and see if you could
have those items if the Chinese stopped making them or the parts for
them... OK, you might be able to do it if you tried, but if everyone in
the country was trying to buy a pair of socks from the last company in
the US that made them (BTW I don't think anybody here does) we would run
out pretty quickly.

Scotty

A huge part of the problem is the fact that we don't manufacture much
stuff here. IMO, we need to start making stuff here again. Of

I agree.

course, we can't when unions think that unskilled labor assemblimg an
outlet strip should earn $60k a year.

What's wrong with them thinking that? Nothing. It's called what the market
will bear.

And if we all bought socks from the last US company making them,
they'd have a banner year, expand, and we'd have the socks we need and
more jobs to boot.

Except that GM/Chrysler designed cars that nobody wanted.


--
Nom=de=Plume

On Jan 24, 9:35*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Jan 24, 4:38 pm, I am Tosk wrote:





In article f59dda3b-def7-4970-a98a-c5314f862444
@h34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jan 24, 3:02 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...

Chinese are tightening their credit. I thinks Obama's problems just
got
worse. Especially if China wants some of that maturing US debt paid
off.

What happens if the USA just says, "No"?

Just curious.

Eisboch

They'll quit selling their products here. That'll show us.

I dare you to walk around your house and find 10 items you need to live
life the way you do.. Then do an Internet search and see if you could
have those items if the Chinese stopped making them or the parts for
them... OK, you might be able to do it if you tried, but if everyone in
the country was trying to buy a pair of socks from the last company in
the US that made them (BTW I don't think anybody here does) we would run
out pretty quickly.

Scotty
A huge part of the problem is the fact that we don't manufacture much
stuff here. *IMO, we need to start making stuff here again. *Of

I agree.

course, we can't when unions think that unskilled labor assemblimg an
outlet strip should earn $60k a year.

What's wrong with them thinking that? Nothing. It's called what the market
will bear.

No, it's called greed. It's not market driven when the company has no
choice but to pay.
Collective bargaining = legalized coercion. In the end the workers
priced themselves right out of a job.


And if we all bought socks from the last US company making them,
they'd have a banner year, expand, and we'd have the socks we need and
more jobs to boot.

Except that GM/Chrysler designed cars that nobody wanted.

That dog won't hunt... if that were true there wouldn't be so many of
them on the road. The companies simply became unprofitable, for many
reasons. One large factor is the cost of labor, AKA unions.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:11:32 -0800, Jack wrote:


No, it's called greed. It's not market driven when the company has no
choice but to pay.

Gordon Gekko, "Greed...is good."

Collective bargaining = legalized coercion.

I'm glad you finally see it. Although, I'm sure that you are in denial
that a corporation is a collective by definition.

On Jan 25, 2:19*pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:11:32 -0800, Jack wrote:
No, it's called greed. *It's not market driven when the company has no
choice but to pay.

Gordon Gekko, "Greed...is good."

You're basing your position on a fictional character? Awesome.


Collective bargaining = legalized coercion.

I'm glad you finally see it. *Although, I'm sure that you are in denial
that a corporation is a collective by definition.

Big difference in application, though.

In a non-union environment, the company offers the jobs for a wage,
and the workers have a choice to take it or not. The wage is driven
by , among other factors, market conditions.

In a union environment, the job and it's wages are controlled by the
union through coercion. As we've seen, the market's ability to
sustain the wage seemingly has no influence on the demands of the
unions. The company has no choice, as it can not terminate striking
workers, and will go under if it does not comply with the union's
demands. It is essentially held hostage until bled dry.

Easy concepts to grasp, if you'll just... think.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:52:08 -0800, Jack wrote:

On Jan 25, 2:19Â*pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:11:32 -0800, Jack wrote:
No, it's called greed. Â*It's not market driven when the company has
no choice but to pay.

Gordon Gekko, "Greed...is good."

You're basing your position on a fictional character? Awesome.


Collective bargaining = legalized coercion.

I'm glad you finally see it. Â*Although, I'm sure that you are in denial
that a corporation is a collective by definition.

Big difference in application, though.

In a non-union environment, the company offers the jobs for a wage, and
the workers have a choice to take it or not. The wage is driven by ,
among other factors, market conditions.

In a union environment, the job and it's wages are controlled by the
union through coercion. As we've seen, the market's ability to sustain
the wage seemingly has no influence on the demands of the unions. The
company has no choice, as it can not terminate striking workers, and
will go under if it does not comply with the union's demands. It is
essentially held hostage until bled dry.

The entire history of the labor movement, not withstanding. Coercion is
just as likely to come from management, as from the union. The entire
concept of unions, is to balance the equation. If either side gets out
of whack, the system doesn't work. You seem quite willing to accept the
company's collective, take it or leave it position. I'll point out,
that's many against one. With a union, it's many against many. Which is
fairer?

Easy concepts to grasp, if you'll just... think.

While you're thinking, consider this. The strength of this country is
the middle class, and the strength of the middle class correlates quite
closely with union membership. Cause and effect?

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 2:19 pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:11:32 -0800, Jack wrote:
No, it's called greed. It's not market driven when the company has no
choice but to pay.

Gordon Gekko, "Greed...is good."

You're basing your position on a fictional character? Awesome.

You're basing your position on words from Rush? Equally Awesome.


Collective bargaining = legalized coercion.

I'm glad you finally see it. Although, I'm sure that you are in denial
that a corporation is a collective by definition.

Big difference in application, though.

In a non-union environment, the company offers the jobs for a wage,
and the workers have a choice to take it or not. The wage is driven
by , among other factors, market conditions.

Assuming there are other jobs.

In a union environment, the job and it's wages are controlled by the
union through coercion. As we've seen, the market's ability to
sustain the wage seemingly has no influence on the demands of the
unions. The company has no choice, as it can not terminate striking
workers, and will go under if it does not comply with the union's
demands. It is essentially held hostage until bled dry.

No.. negotiated by the management and the union. Both have coercive elements
in their position. Yes, there's a lag in wage adjustment due to market
conditions, since it's a contract situation. The management (and the union)
need to honor the contract, unless the company goes bankrupts (as what
happened). Union workers don't generally strike in the middle of a contract,
unless there are special circumstances.

And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically union and
non-union shops. So, your statement about if they don't like the wage, they
can go somewhere else doesn't necessarily apply. There might be other
non-union shops, but there might not be.

Easy concepts to grasp, if you'll just... think.

I agree!

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
news
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:35:50 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


course, we can't when unions think that unskilled labor assemblimg an
outlet strip should earn $60k a year.

What's wrong with them thinking that? Nothing. It's called what the market
will bear.

The market has already spoken. We go to walmart and buy something from
china because it is cheaper.

And if we all bought socks from the last US company making them,
they'd have a banner year, expand, and we'd have the socks we need and
more jobs to boot.

Except that GM/Chrysler designed cars that nobody wanted.

I hear that a lot but they sold the hell out of their trucks. That was
the cash cow at all of the US manufacturers. The Ford F150 is still
one of the top 3 vehicles in the US, down from #1.
I will agree the assembly of a lot of these cars is crap (squeaks
rattles etc) ... but that brings us back to that $60,000 guy doesn't
it?


I suppose it does, but I don't know what Wal-mart has to do with the auto
industry. There are plenty of foreign cars that are affordable and darn
nice.

--
Nom=de=Plume