Liberal Racist?
 

Calif Bill wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
P. Fritz wrote:

So why no complaints from the liebrals about liebral hollywood doing
so
much offshore filming....backward places like Romania, Bulgaria, Canada
:-)


Liebral? Even if it is a coined word, you dumbfoch Konservatrashers
can't spell. Sheesh.

Sheesh, look at the spelling in your post. And why no complaints about
offshore filming?



Back to your bowl of porridge, Bilk.

Liberal Racist?
 

On 08 Jul 2004 15:58:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

You will not pay $1000 for a 60 gig disk drive! If you would, then the
manufacturers could build them here. Fully bundled labor cost in Malaysia
is probably in the $3-5 range, was $1.50 in the early 1990's. So, since the
consumer wants the $60 drive retail, the companies are forced to build
overseas. You think that a PR guy for a union pension fund, should make
$100k+? Then you can hire him, but if you could get the same thing for
$20k, would it not be provident to do so for the benefit of the pensioners,
and stockholders?

No, most folks wouldn't pay $1000 for a disk drive. That would amount to
several days' income for a typical American.

Ironically, when we build them overseas and sell them for $60, that price
represents several days' income for the people that built it.

It's all relative I guess.


The missing portion of this equation is executive compensation. UP Uranus
Widgets and Gidgets, (for example), traditonally grossed $500mm per year in
sales with a respectable 8% operating net of $40mm. The CEO earned $6mm per
year.

UP Uranus moved manufacturing from Oklahoma to Malaysia, and accounting and
customer service to New Delhi. The decrease in personnel cost improved the
company operating net from $40mm to $110mm, activating an "incentive" clause in
the CEO's contract that increased his pay from $6mm per year to $35mm.
The board of directors voted themselves fat bonuses, dividends went through the
roof, and the stock price advanced sharply. The CEO, the board, and the
stockholders were all delighted.

Somewhat less delighted were the ex-rank and file employees of UP Uranus. Many
had to rely on unemployment insurance, some were forced into an early and
underfunded retirement, and others settled for "underemployed" jobs at a
fraction of their former wages and lost homes, cars,
savings accounts, as a result.

Almost as undelighted were the taxpayers in Oklahoma. UP Uranus discovered that
by forming sub corporations in Malaysia
and India and registering these entities in certain Caribbean nations, there
would no longer be any US federal or local sate taxes paid on the proceeds.
Just when UP Uranus dumped thousands of involuntarily jobless people onto the
doorstep of society, UP Uranus engineered a way to avoid participating in the
social costs associated with the layoff.

That's what is defined as "smart business" by many people whose god is a
greenback
and holy writ is last quarter's financial statement. What the hell, let the
common people eat cake. If they get too desperate, they can sell one of their
Lexus......(surely every family has at least a couple of those, right?)

BUT.....we haven't finsihed casting all the villains in this little scenario.
Throw in another 200 million adults of consuming age and blind them all to any
portion of a purchase decision except price. Have them shop in a business that
is so powerful it collects almost 10-cents out of every retail dollar spent in
the US, and have that business inform its competing suppliers that it *expects*
them to offshore
as many jobs and reduce costs as much as possible so that the company's
200-million customers can buy a new toaster for $10, or a microwave oven for
$39.

Winners: The very rich and the very poor. (Most of the very poor being
overseas). Middle class consumers but only to a point. (Higher unemployment and
greater underemployment depresses wages for all,
meaing that it takes as long or longer to earn that $39 microwave as it did
when the
appliance cost a bit more).

Losers: The middle class overall. Skilled labor, white collar professionals,
and tax revenues. (Sales tax doesn't diminish much when the companies
reorganize offshore, so the portion of the tax burden paid by the consumer,
rather than the corporations, remains relatively high. Transfers the tax burden
to the little people).

Is this a "good" thing or a "bad" thing?
That's up to everybody to decide based on individual values and perspectives.
No doubt about it, however, it is a common scenario in contemporary times.

Chuck, you've outlined the case very well, and it is indeed a problem.
So what do we do about it?

Naturally, most of us who aren't on the board of directors of a large
corporation cannot understand the need for the high bonuses that are
paid to these guys. But I have to wonder just what percentage of the
total company profit that those bonuses account for if we eliminate or
greatly reduce them.

Now you have to consider and accept the fact that business is not
confined to this country, and we face competition from world wide
companies. Suppose an upstanding U.S. company decides to fly in the
face of "smart business", and keeps their production in this country,
obligingly pays union wages, and keeps the supports services here as
well. Even if the CEO forgoes his bonuses, do you think that the
product that this company manufactures could compete in the
marketplace against a competing company from say, Taiwan, who used
"smart business" techniques to lower production costs? What would
happen to the market share, stock valuation, and ultimately the
longevity of the U.S. company when its competitive edge is gone? How
long are those workers going to stay employed?

You'll probably remind me at this point to consider that the
government could impose tariffs against foreign made goods in order to
allow U.S. companies to remain competitive. This was how U.S.
businesses got off the ground in the 1700's. It was a smart idea then.
But it's not so good now. Here's why I feel this way:

First off, you will now raise the costs of all goods to the consumer,
which basically makes their take home pay worth less. This gives rise
to rampant inflation (Which is the reason we're in the boat we're in
to begin with), and a general falling off of demand, which will kill
businesses.

Consider also that the U.S. is not the only market for most companies.
In other countries which are not subject to our "Equalizing" tariffs,
our goods will be at a considerable competitive disadvantage, and our
market share will shrink to nothing.

Then you have to consider the backlash that a tariff would create from
other countries who would see this as an affront against them and they
would do similar things against us, further eroding our international
markets.

Chuck, I don't see an easy solution to this. The only solution that
seems viable is the long term equalization of the world's standard of
living. This will take time. In the meantime, the only thing we can do
is choose careers that are not likely to be outsourced. We will always
need services like plumbers, electricians, and other building trades.
Doctors, lawyers, and other professionals will also remain in high
demand. High tech jobs in areas which require a "hands-on" presence
are also not as likely to be farmed out.

Manufacturing is out. The sooner we adjust to it, the better.

Dave

Liberal Racist?
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
P. Fritz wrote:

So why no complaints from the liebrals about liebral hollywood doing
so
much offshore filming....backward places like Romania, Bulgaria,
Canada
:-)


Liebral? Even if it is a coined word, you dumbfoch Konservatrashers
can't spell. Sheesh.

Sheesh, look at the spelling in your post. And why no complaints about
offshore filming?


Because he is a liebral hypocrite

Liberal Racist?
 

P.Fritz wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
P. Fritz wrote:

So why no complaints from the liebrals about liebral hollywood doing
so
much offshore filming....backward places like Romania, Bulgaria,
Canada
:-)


Liebral? Even if it is a coined word, you dumbfoch Konservatrashers
can't spell. Sheesh.

Sheesh, look at the spelling in your post. And why no complaints about
offshore filming?


Because he is a liebral hypocrite







What's a "liebral," Dumfoch Fritz?

Liberal Racist?
 

On 08 Jul 2004 16:27:43 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Greed is a part of human nature. The more you have, the more you want.
That's why liberalism is destined to fail. Liberals believe that
people will do the morally right thing, if given the chance.

Hoboy.....

Dave, liberals try to avoid stereotyping. I can't think of a single thing that
*all* liberals believe in common. Unlike some folks, I actually know and
associate with a lot of liberals. :-)

I've studied the root philosophies which guide and form the idealogies
of both liberals and conservatives. The basic philosophical
differences between liberals and conservatives, based on my own
research, is this:

Liberals tend to believe that people are basically good. If left to
their own devices, under optimal conditions, they will do the right
thing. Any "bad" things which occur in the world are a result of
"circumstances", or "environment". Criminals are victims of poor
upbringing, or a bad childhood etc.. Improve the social environment,
and most of the problems will go away.

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in intrinsic evil. We all
have it to some degree, some obviously more than others. If left to
their own devices, some people would kill their neighbor if they could
rationalize a good reason and were reasonably certain that they could
get away with it. People with a lesser "degree" of evil might just be
content to rip them off. People's "bad sides" are kept in check by
only a rigid moral and social code of laws. People like Saddam
Hussein, Adolf Hitler, and Jeffrey Dahmer, are examples of truly evil
people.

Of course there are corollaries and other parts which add to it, but
those are the basic roots.



Don't tell me what liberals believe. Even if
Rush and Hannity have assured you that "liberals believe this and that" they
are usually (often deliberately) wrong.

My views transcend anything those guys say. Those guys are arguing
politics and the results of particular ideologies. I'm talking about
the roots of them. Perhaps you should do your own research. Maybe you
will find out that you are not as much of a liberal as you think.....


In example: You state that liberals believe people will do the morally right
thing if given the chance. Horseflies. Nobody is that naive.

You'd be surprised. Yet it is this naive idealism which identified
liberals, and underscore just why a true liberal view in unrealistic.


Some liberals
believe that one of the challenges in life is to figure out how to do the
morally right thing as often as possible while (as you say) the dominant force
in human nature is self serving greed.

That's basically the same thing.

If left to the natural course of
commerce, there will always be those who take advantage of any given
situation to increase their net worth.

There is a *natural* course to commerce?

Yea, it's called free market enterprise. The market decides it's own
path.

This natural course, or commerce itself, should be the supreme principle upon
which our social fabric is founded? It's all about money, property, and net
worth?

That all depends on what your priorities are and how practical you
are.



Only through strong government
regulation (Socialism) do you stand any chance of mitigating this.

Here's the hilarious aspect of your statement. Many of the countries where the
US coroporations are relocating manufacturing, accounting, engineering,
customer service, etc, are able to pay workers such itsy-bitsy salaries because
they are *more* socialized than the US!

That may have something to do with why those wages are so low. Most
socialist country's citizens are forced to get by with much less since
their governments tax them so highly.


(But not usually socialistic). Our industry fat cats eschew any suggestion that
we adopt public housing, health care, education, transportation, or subsidize
cultural events in this county while they trip over themselves to take
advantage of low wages made possible by other countries where government
subsidies and support make high individual wages unnecessary.

Like I said, it's all about their priorities. Or to put it another
way: Those who have the gold, make the rules.

And where do those governments get the money to provide those
subsidies to their citizens?

Socialism is not "strong government regulation of the market".

That certainly IS one aspect of it. Socialism tries to (unnaturally)
equalize everyone (From those based on means, to those based on
needs), and by doing so, disrupts the natural scale by which a
person's skills are normally set, based on demand.

Socialism is an
economic model where a country's natural resources, physical infrastructure,
public agencies and utilities are owned in common by the population.

In theory that is so, but in current practice, those things are
controlled by a government, which may not be amiable to the desires of
the people. It's the ideal system to indoctrinate and oppress people.
Feed them just enough, give them basic care, and tell them that
they're fat dumb and happy, and eventually they will be. After all,
that's the strategy that the democratic party has used for decades.

Socialism would be ideal if the mean lifestyle average was somewhere
in the 6 figure salary range. But that has not historically been the
case in the countries that have tried it. Disposable income is
practically unheard of, and very little discretionary spending is
spent on truly frivolous items, such as boats, campers, big screen
TV's etc.

(As opposed to pure communism, where there is no private property of *any* kind).

But in practice there are very little differences. In both systems the
government retains primary control. The will of the people is seldom
considered.

I know only two liberals who are socialists. Next failing argument, please?

Socialism is the end result of extreme liberalism, where Fascism is
the end result of extreme conservatism. Perhaps you and your friends
are merely moderate liberals.


No, the unfortunate truth is that the world market will have to
equalize on its own, and that could take 50 years. Not very comforting
for those of us in the inflated "1st world" countries. But as the rest
of the world catches up to our standard of living, there will be no
further incentive to more work offshore.

We agree, to a degree. The "world economy" will bring up much of the rest of
the world at the direct expense of the American economy. The winners are the
very rich in the United States, and the very poor overseas.

As well as the rich in other countries. The U.S. is not the sole
habitat for riches.


The losers are the
middle class, which will disappear as people willing to live in a home that
allocates 100 sq ft per resident, eat two sparse meals a day instead of three
big ones, walk a few miles to work or take a (god forbid!) bus displace the
middle class American workers doing those jobs now.

That is the ugly truth that we are faced with. On that point we are in
total agreement. Our differences may have more to do on how we solve
it. I really don't see any solution to this problem that doesn't
involve isolationism, uncertain and potentially costly tariffs, or
trying to roll back the clock. The ultimate solution may likely be the
one where the market equalizes naturally.

The 2030's will not look that much different than the 1930's in America. I'll
be dead (or close) by then, but I lament what unrestrained greed is doing to
the world my children are inheriting.

One thing you may not be considering. The U.S. is currently the number
one consumer of manufactured goods. If the population loses its
ability to purchase, then a very large market risks total collapse.
That would not be good for either business or government. So there
should be an incentive to make sure our population retains its ability
to consume.

Of course, if up and coming economies like China, overtake and replace
us as the ultimate consumer, we may just be cast aside, as will many
of the "1st world" countries, who's economies have also imploded.


Dave

Liberal Racist?
 

Chuck, you've outlined the case very well, and it is indeed a problem.
So what do we do about it?

The very first step has to be a huge reduction in government spending.

Each subsequent administration spends money even faster that the previous.
Until recently, each side had an excuse that the "other side" controlled either
the Executive Branch or Congress. Now that one party controls both, spending is
out of control like never before. We're borrowing almost $2 billion a day just
to keep up with
it. (to put that in perspective, every six weeks we're borrowing as much money
as congress appropriated last year to continue the war in Iraq!)

If we are going to reduce wages in the US,
and it seems that we must in order to compete with the third world, that money
that remains in a worker's paycheck has to count for something. High interest
rates (to support the government deficit) and high taxes collected either at
the time the spending is occurring or "postponed" until another party is in
power to absorb the political heat take far too much of the disposable income
from the average worker.

To say that taxes are the only problem, and that tax cuts without spending cuts
will solve it, is silly. Every dime of the deficit is a deferred taxation, we
just haven't scheduled the collection yet.

Just like $3mm a month CEO salaries, there is a lot of waste in the government.
Cutting out the waste would reduce the cost of government while leaving basic
services in tact.

Second step is to tax exported capital.
You want to send $1 billion US to East Overshirt to build a factory that will
put
35,000 Americans out of work? No problem, but we do have a bit of a tax you
need to pay to cover the social costs associated with your private
profiteering.
It just might be so high that you'll think twice about moving the
factory..........

Third step is to progressively eliminate social security, and the associated
taxation. It's too late to tell people in their 60's to start saving for
retirement because there isn't going to be any social security.
But it might not be too late to tell those
55-60 that their benefits will be only 95% of what they expect. Those 50-55
will have to
save enought to cover 10%. Ages 40-50
will get only 80%, ages 30-40 only 60%
(they have more decades to compound interest on savings), ages 20-30 only 30%,
and kids just starting off......zero.

When Uncle Harry or Aunt Georgia spends
every dime they ever earn and can't pay the rent in their "golden years" they
better hope the relatives will take them in.

There might ge a middle ground on Social Security. Nobody should be without
minimal and safe shelter or susbsistence food, and nobody should have to die
simply because medical treatment for an illness in unaffordable.
However, if able bodied and mentally alert people want to take the last few
decades of life "off" and not have to work for a living, it should be up to
them as individuals to arrange for that rather than up to all of us as a
society to guarantee it.

Liberal Racist?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
P. Fritz wrote:

So why no complaints from the liebrals about liebral hollywood
doing
so
much offshore filming....backward places like Romania, Bulgaria,
Canada
:-)


Liebral? Even if it is a coined word, you dumbfoch Konservatrashers
can't spell. Sheesh.

Sheesh, look at the spelling in your post. And why no complaints about
offshore filming?



Back to your bowl of porridge, Bilk.

Sheesh, look at the spelling in your post. And why no complaints about
offshore filming?

Liberal Racist?
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
P. Fritz wrote:

So why no complaints from the liebrals about liebral hollywood
doing
so
much offshore filming....backward places like Romania, Bulgaria,
Canada
:-)


Liebral? Even if it is a coined word, you dumbfoch Konservatrashers
can't spell. Sheesh.

Sheesh, look at the spelling in your post. And why no complaints
about
offshore filming?



Back to your bowl of porridge, Bilk.

Sheesh, look at the spelling in your post. And why no complaints about
offshore filming?

Just like when he was cornered on his lobsta boat and 'doctor doctor'
wife.....he lamely tries to change the subject.

Liberal Racist?
 

On 09 Jul 2004 16:16:46 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Chuck, you've outlined the case very well, and it is indeed a problem.
So what do we do about it?

The very first step has to be a huge reduction in government spending.

Then can I count on your support for republican congress people, who
have historically been more inclined to cut government spending?


Each subsequent administration spends money even faster that the previous.
Until recently, each side had an excuse that the "other side" controlled either
the Executive Branch or Congress.

The last administration managed to find a budget surplus, mostly due
to the efforts of the republicans in congress, who took great efforts
to cut spending.


Now that one party controls both, spending is
out of control like never before. We're borrowing almost $2 billion a day just
to keep up with
it. (to put that in perspective, every six weeks we're borrowing as much money
as congress appropriated last year to continue the war in Iraq!)

We are in a special circumstance. We're at war. Most of that spending
is toward the war effort. Once the war is over, things will settle
down again.


If we are going to reduce wages in the US,
and it seems that we must in order to compete with the third world, that money
that remains in a worker's paycheck has to count for something. High interest
rates (to support the government deficit) and high taxes collected either at
the time the spending is occurring or "postponed" until another party is in
power to absorb the political heat take far too much of the disposable income
from the average worker.

Hear hear!!!

To say that taxes are the only problem, and that tax cuts without spending cuts
will solve it, is silly. Every dime of the deficit is a deferred taxation, we
just haven't scheduled the collection yet.

The deficit is an illusion. It can be eliminated by the stroke of a
pen if desired. It has no effect on the interest rates charged by most
lenders, which are still at an all-time low. Only when inflation rears
its ugly head does the fed raise baseline interest rates.

Just like $3mm a month CEO salaries, there is a lot of waste in the government.
Cutting out the waste would reduce the cost of government while leaving basic
services in tact.

I agree. We need to stop spending money on things of questionable
worth. Such as entitlement for the arts, new sporting arenas,
healthcare for illegal immigrants, etc.

Second step is to tax exported capital.
You want to send $1 billion US to East Overshirt to build a factory that will
put
35,000 Americans out of work? No problem, but we do have a bit of a tax you
need to pay to cover the social costs associated with your private
profiteering.
It just might be so high that you'll think twice about moving the
factory..........

How is that different from an import tariff, as far as net effect? In
either case, the competitive edge of the U.S. corporation is lost to
foreign corporations. If the tax is excessive enough, it just might
drive the corporations off shore as well. They could just as soon set
up shop in the Bahamas or Bermuda, and thereby thumb their nose at the
U.S tax code. The end result is that in addition to factory workers,
the white collar office workers will be on the unemployment line. The
"rich" execs, will be living la-vida-loca in some nice tropical place
with no taxes.


Third step is to progressively eliminate social security, and the associated
taxation. It's too late to tell people in their 60's to start saving for
retirement because there isn't going to be any social security.
But it might not be too late to tell those
55-60 that their benefits will be only 95% of what they expect. Those 50-55
will have to
save enought to cover 10%. Ages 40-50
will get only 80%, ages 30-40 only 60%
(they have more decades to compound interest on savings), ages 20-30 only 30%,
and kids just starting off......zero.

That is EXACTLY my plan. And since many Americans are loth to stash
away cash for the future, the money that used to be deducted from your
pay to cover SS, would be instead deposited into an IRA, Roth, or
401K plan of your choosing.


When Uncle Harry or Aunt Georgia spends
every dime they ever earn and can't pay the rent in their "golden years" they
better hope the relatives will take them in.

That's sort of why I favor a mandatory IRA plan in leu of SS.

There might ge a middle ground on Social Security. Nobody should be without
minimal and safe shelter or susbsistence food, and nobody should have to die
simply because medical treatment for an illness in unaffordable.

Yes, but if you do provide it, someone has to pay for it, and the
costs go up again. It should be the responsibility of the individual
to plan for those eventualities while they are young.


However, if able bodied and mentally alert people want to take the last few
decades of life "off" and not have to work for a living, it should be up to
them as individuals to arrange for that rather than up to all of us as a
society to guarantee it.

Are you sure you're really a liberal Chuck? Those sound awfully close
to conservative ideas. ;-)

Dave

Liberal Racist?
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On 09 Jul 2004 16:16:46 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Chuck, you've outlined the case very well, and it is indeed a problem.
So what do we do about it?

The very first step has to be a huge reduction in government spending.

Then can I count on your support for republican congress people, who
have historically been more inclined to cut government spending?

The ones who wrote a blank check to a monkey for a war whose goal could've
been met for under five hundred dollars a year by simply getting your
president a prescription for Viagra? Those Republican congress people?