Politics

[RDU Irish]

Sources? My family's road construction company turned 100 years old this summer, and I'm a city planner. There's your sources.

There's no question that it creates a value. The problem is where it creates the value, and how long that value lasts. Not all growth is good, random growth for the sake of growth is actually quite bad. In the medical field they would call that, well, cancer. Just as cancer can kill a body, suburbanization can kill a city/region.

Simply put, American development from 1950-2000 was very, very incorrect. I am not at all saying that everyone should live in an apartment building like we live in Manhattan or something, single-family homes are fine. But our sprawling nearly ruined the country; we are only now starting to repair it. Interstates and freeways are largely responsible for this.

Consider this: here in Columbus there is a mall just to the north called Polaris. Directly north of that is the city of Delaware. The sprawl is creeping into the southern edge of the county, and Delaware Officials pitched a plan to build this awesome new shopping mecca, creating hundreds of jobs and over a billion dollars in tax revenue over ten years. Sounds awesome huh? Well, for Delaware County is does, they'd see a tremendous boost in revenue. But does it actually create wealth? No. Does it create a value? Yeah. All it would really do is suck the life out Polaris and move that money to Delaware.

Likewise, building an interstate ring (i.e. access to the suburban countryside and room for development) certainly creates value, but it sure as hell does not create additional wealth for the region. In reality it's a strain.So the city is at 850,000 and while it cuts its budget to $9,500,000 it must still raise its taxes to $11.18/yr. Well now the city can't adequately support everything the incentive to leave the city for the suburb is now even greater, so 200,000 people take off over the next decade. Can you see where this is going? Now the city is of 650,000 and the taxes creep higher and higher. It becomes a blackhole. Eventually big corporations leave and business leaves for better taxes and the problem gets worse and worse. It spreads from the city itself to the first-ring suburbs, and they become slums as well.

Cities suck. I would never choose to raise my children in a concrete jungle. Most people do not "aspire" to live in the city unless they are young and single or old and retired.

No sh!t an interchange in Manhatten would cost a mint. Likewise, an interchange in rural Iowa would cost very little more than the cost of concrete.

As for Columbus. Sounds like you need to face the reality of downsizing and figure out a way to do it. How do you raze buildings and move from housing 850,000 to housing 650,000? You want HSR with a terminal in Columbus no doubt to control "demand" for you city. That is no more than supersizing the interstate interchange dilema you complain about. It is just that rail is "stuck" and can't easily move away, keeping your audience captive.

Sounds alot like Milwaukee. They are dying too. For some reason they don't want to widen freeways and make access to downtown easier. They think forcing business downtown and making access difficult will drive employees to live in Milwaukee. Instead, suburban business parks flourish to save people from the last five miles of their commute.

 

[RDU Irish]

But the profits have to go somewhere, right?

Look, I am not trying to be an azz here. I am just trying to illustrate some points.

No profit = no business. Since manufacturing clothes in the US is so lucrative and sustainable, where exactly are all of these textile companies? Here in NC it has been a long term decline in that industry.

Maybe you need to rehash your point since I am not sure I would expect you to argue against companies making profits?

 

[mgriff]

But the profits have to go somewhere, right?

Look, I am not trying to be an azz here. I am just trying to illustrate some points.

Back into America would be ideal, but that's not the case. I get it they have to profit, that's how it works, but taking all of those jobs away while maintaining prices isn't really helping anyone other than their bottom line, which is fine. It's their right to do that, I have a problem when they, and posters, try and act like they are doing things to benefit America when that's not the case. I would like to make it more corporate friendly in the country, our regulations are killing us, but I also want oversight in regard to the abuses that run rampant. Corporations are not people and through their use of lobbying the legislation which is passed has loopholes to exploit and profit. I'm not saying corporations are the only problem here, but everyone talking about capitalism is dead wrong, it's fascism. The way our major corporations interact with our government and its elected representatives have much more in common with facism than with capitalism.

 

[rock_knutne]

I'm sure he wouldn't say, lower corporate taxes, streamline regulations, eliminate the minimum wage, promote cheap reliable energy, keep unions off their backs.

More along the lines of just require them to do it.

Ummmmm, I did say some of those things.:idea:

 

[BobD]

Nice. I think I agree with you substantially but I don't see it all as evil. The free markets would fix this more quickly but GE is figuring out they need to become political to push their wares rather than "innovate" and grow organically.

Immelt in last week's Barrons interview said they are researching the effectiveness of moving operations overseas and finding over time they save no money. I think he is pandering to Washington since GE is in the government business more than anything but funny to see GE saying this. Almost as funny as Immelt saying GE would be at $60 to day if it traded at the multiple it was when he took over. And if my aunt had a d!ck she woudl be my uncle Jeff!

My take on why GE execs are "pumped up"? They don't realize how beat up they are until they get out of that freaking gulag and get a respectable job somewhere else. They are so damn busy chasing their tail they don't have time to realize the grass is very green on the other side of the fence relative to fighting for scraps where they are. Other companies know these guys think 70 hours is a light week and won't fail from a lack of effort. Great training ground for up and coming managers IMO.

I hear, homie. I wouldn't say that the majority of them are moving it out though. Companies like GE and Honeywell are deeply entrenched in it. They do have a "cult-like" feel to them though. I don't necessarily disagree with you on the points you made. Another thing that I would add is that it is designed around top-down change. Enabling mid level managers to rise to the top or fall out of ferver (sounds like our govt, eh). I am a bigger fan of management philosophies that are bottom-up. Ones that enable low level workers to take on more responsibility and push the people above them. I believe that it is human nature to want to achieve more. So that being the case, give the people that have the most desire to improve themselves the tools to do so.

Regarding Motorolla, I just overlooked them. Ironic considering they are the ones that developed it. lol

]......many think that Six Sigma has disabled Motorola

I'm glad that Jack Welch and Six Sigma came up in this conversation about the Presidential election. I believe they both represent in a big way what is wrong with America.

Businesses philosophy today seems to revolve around what can be cut instead of what can be created. As is obvious from my comments earlier, I beleive Jack Welch and Six Sigma were huge drivers of this.

We value share holders now more than our customers and employees. (The cart before the horse) We need to get back to valuing innovation, hard work and stability not the next sparkly thing to comes along (see facebook)

 

[k1ssme1m1r1sh]

I will vote for Obama because it's my choice, people don't have to like it, respect it, or otherwise. But I will because I want to, and because I can. OBAMA 2012!

 

[mgriff]

 

[Redbar]

You seriously had me laughing at that. The whole reason we had a housing crash was due to the government programs which in some cases forced banks to make loans to people that should have never gotten a loan! Now they add thousands of pages of regulations to banks and wonder why fees went up, and all that.

You've gotta be kidding me? Man, wake up. In your world this whole mess was caused by people who got a loan they couldn't afford? Had nothing to do with derivatives and credit defaults? This has been a global issue, does the joe on main street create the product (CDS swap) that is crushing Greece? Or did Goldman Sachs? It's the greedy homeowner who held a gun to the PROFESSIONAL bankers head and made him give him the loan that is now strangling the homeowner and making the Professional banker record bonuses again. Or did George W. Bush just care so much for the little guy and his right to have a home that he forced these banks to make record profits gambling with insured money, and then having their losses paid off by those little guys. If thats love-hate me. FOLLOW THE MONEY then lecture me about who caused and benefitted from this "disaster." I guess some poor guy on welfare is bankrupting this country too. Not the Mega energy/defense/banking conglomerates that have made it unacceptable to even consider minor cuts in their cut of the country. Just because you are getting information doesn't mean you are informed.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Back into America would be ideal, but that's not the case. I get it they have to profit, that's how it works, but taking all of those jobs away while maintaining prices isn't really helping anyone other than their bottom line, which is fine. It's their right to do that, I have a problem when they, and posters, try and act like they are doing things to benefit America when that's not the case. I would like to make it more corporate friendly in the country, our regulations are killing us, but I also want oversight in regard to the abuses that run rampant. Corporations are not people and through their use of lobbying the legislation which is passed has loopholes to exploit and profit. I'm not saying corporations are the only problem here, but everyone talking about capitalism is dead wrong, it's fascism. The way our major corporations interact with our government and its elected representatives have much more in common with facism than with capitalism.

Again, not trying to be that guy.

But, you still haven't answered my question, which is okay. The company in theory, increases profits. But they just don't sit on that cash for decades upon decades. They do one of two things, distribute the extra profits to shareholders (maybe a few % points of the net increase) or they reinvest the profits for growth.

If, they lowered prices with costs, they could still profit. But if that profit doesn't increase fast enough, it stifles growth and development.

There are many things in life that we take for granted that came from profits and growth. I can also tell you that at some point, as RDU pointed out, the living standards of the countries that we outsourced too will take away any benefit of moving jobs overseas. Eventually, we will get back to manufacturing on the continent of consumption for most big ticket items (already happening for some things). Once that happens, the battle will not be a China versu USA, it will be something like South Carolina Vs Michigan.

 

[BobD]

I will vote for Obama because it's my choice, people don't have to like it, respect it, or otherwise. But I will because I want to, and because I can. OBAMA 2012!

You tell'em!

My hope is that Obama takes the lead in the poll again, so I can close the thread before anyone else votes, then I can say " Look I was right" : )

I'm just kidding, I'm actually enjoying the conversation a lot. It's amazing how much I learn on IE.

 

[Ndaccountant]

]......many think that Six Sigma has disabled Motorola

I'm glad that Jack Welch and Six Sigma came up in this conversation about the Presidential election. I believe they both represent in a big way what is wrong with America.

Businesses philosophy today seems to revolve around what can be cut instead of what can be created. As is obvious from my comments earlier, I beleive Jack Welch and Six Sigma were huge drivers of this.
We value share holders now more than our customers and employees. (The cart before the horse) We need to get back to valuing innovation, hard work and stability not the next sparkly thing to comes along (see facebook)

But what if the capital tied up in wastes (six sigma term there ) or inefficient processes/costs allows the company to grow and for output to increase?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Corporations are not people and through their use of lobbying the legislation which is passed has loopholes to exploit and profit. I'm not saying corporations are the only problem here, but everyone talking about capitalism is dead wrong, it's fascism. The way our major corporations interact with our government and its elected representatives have much more in common with facism than with capitalism.

I'm really surprised to hear this coming from a self-described libertarian. The most accurate way to describe it is "crony capitalism", and it's a direct result of: (1) a Byzantine tax code; and (2) over-regulation. Now that the Feds regulate everything under the sun, and one can effectively purchase a customized tax loophole with a few modest campaign donations, businesses have to lobby to stay competitive. If they don't, their competitors will, and they'll get crushed by legislation that their corporate rivals basically authored.

The problem is not "corporations". In an efficiently regulated market, their ruthless self-interest promotes the greater good via creative destruction. But we don't have an efficiently regulated market, so the market doesn't end up deciding who wins and loses. The government does, via who has the most money to toss around on K Street.

This is truly the #1 issue facing our country. Crony capitalism is sucking the vitality out of our economy, upon which all of our social programs depend. Fixing it has to start with the following: (1) a dramatically simplified tax code; (2) massive deregulation; and (3) increased transparency in Washington regarding who's getting what for their campaign donations.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Cities suck. I would never choose to raise my children in a concrete jungle. Most people do not "aspire" to live in the city unless they are young and single or old and retired.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

You'd probably want to raise your kids here:

No? That is urban living. Cities =/= apartments, or a "concrete jungle." That is just ignorant.

No sh!t an interchange in Manhatten would cost a mint. Likewise, an interchange in rural Iowa would cost very little more than the cost of concrete.

...and concrete is f*cking expensive, and we don't build them wide enough the first time and have to go redo them every ten years.

And I don't believe you understood my Manhattan (no E's there) comment. It's that we DO NOT NEED TO BUILD LIKE WE ARE IN MANHATTAN. I'm saying that single-family homes for people like RDU Jr. to grow up in are PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. That isn't the problem.

While I'm on the topic, did you know that widening the lanes on a freeway actually makes the traffic problem worse the vast majority of the time? You don't actually provide more space for the same number of drivers, instead you increase the incentive to take a faster/better road and you only solve the traffic congestion on nearby roads.

As for Columbus. Sounds like you need to face the reality of downsizing and figure out a way to do it. How do you raze buildings and move from housing 850,000 to housing 650,000? You want HSR with a terminal in Columbus no doubt to control "demand" for you city. That is no more than supersizing the interstate interchange dilema you complain about. It is just that rail is "stuck" and can't easily move away, keeping your audience captive.

LOL WUT

Columbus is thriving. It's one of the fastest growing cities in the entire country. It is nothing short of booming right now. Downsizing? Huh?

You completely missed my point again. Take a look at a shopping mall. Draw a 1/2 mile line from it and move it in a circle. How many people live there? How many people can walk there comfortably without a car? Most of the time it's about zero. Do you know what that means? You need to take a car to get there--it's not a f*cking neighborhood. So when the newer, fancier, cooler place opens up, you abandon the older place. Malls that are 30 years old are dying across the country. From 1950-1990 we didn't build walkable neighborhoods, we built automobile-driven unsustainable (commercially, mostly) strip malls and shopping centers, and the vast majority of them die before you and I.

I want HSR because it makes sense. The midwest US is the most ideal place for HSR in the entire world. It would thrive.

Sounds alot like Milwaukee. They are dying too. For some reason they don't want to widen freeways and make access to downtown easier. They think forcing business downtown and making access difficult will drive employees to live in Milwaukee. Instead, suburban business parks flourish to save people from the last five miles of their commute.

I don't know enough about Milwaukee to comment. You want to slow traffic on select city streets, not on the freeway. Sooo if I'm hearing their thinking correctly, it's ***-backwards.

 

[RDU Irish]

You tell'em!

My hope is that Obama takes the lead in the poll again, so I can close the thread before anyone else votes, then I can say " Look I was right" : )

I'm just kidding, I'm actually enjoying to converation a lot. It's amazing how much I learn on IE.

Freudian slip there, you tried to say conversion. It's OK, you have five months to get it right.

 

[mgriff]

Again, not trying to be that guy.

But, you still haven't answered my question, which is okay. The company in theory, increases profits. But they just don't sit on that cash for decades upon decades. They do one of two things, distribute the extra profits to shareholders (maybe a few % points of the net increase) or they reinvest the profits for growth.

If, they lowered prices with costs, they could still profit. But if that profit doesn't increase fast enough, it stifles growth and development.

There are many things in life that we take for granted that came from profits and growth. I can also tell you that at some point, as RDU pointed out, the living standards of the countries that we outsourced too will take away any benefit of moving jobs overseas. Eventually, we will get back to manufacturing on the continent of consumption for most big ticket items (already happening for some things). Once that happens, the battle will not be a China versu USA, it will be something like South Carolina Vs Michigan.

So you're saying that they are reinvesting in America? That is not the case at all since the economic collapse, there has been minimal growth and chronic unemployment while profits have been at record levels. They are profiting, and giving it to shareholders, that's where the profits are going. In your scenario they are using it for growth but it's production growth overseas.

You realize how long it is going to take for the standards of living in those areas to match our own? A more likely scenario is ours decreasing until their growth is on par with our deduction. So this is okay that the outsourcing is killing the American middle class? I'm not arguing against their profits, they can run their business how they like, it's America, but those profits are going to shareholders now as evidenced by the negligent growth of the American economy since the collapse. If they are investing, it is in foreign manufacturing and production.

If they want less regulation so they can do business, fine. Knock down the percentages and get our tax brackets competitive with the rest of the world. They need to be able to profit and create jobs, but the way they present themselves is completely disingenuous, as if they care anything about America as opposed to their bottom lines. Economic growth will happen when its profitable for them to create jobs here, that's the end of it. They aren't going to take a hit to keep Americans afloat when they can maintain the pricing and cut costs by taking jobs overseas.

And the idea that these corporations are helping the foreign growth? What do you think happens to local production? They are decimated because they can't compete with the mass produced goods of major corporations. So, they corner a market, acquire cheap labor, and reap massive profits while the American middle class erodes, local foreign competitors are crushed, but they pay some **** wages to the foreign production workers. They'll be on par with America in no time! You can't be that naive. They care about profit, and that's it. Again, I'm not saying they should care about anything else, but they are not going to ride to our rescue unless they can make money doing it.

 

[mgriff]

I'm really surprised to hear this coming from a self-described libertarian. The most accurate way to describe it is "crony capitalism", and it's a direct result of: (1) a Byzantine tax code; and (2) over-regulation. Now that the Feds regulate everything under the sun, and one can effectively purchase a customized tax loophole with a few modest campaign donations, businesses have to lobby to stay competitive. If they don't, their competitors will, and they'll get crushed by legislation that their corporate rivals basically authored.

The problem is not "corporations". In an efficiently regulated market, their ruthless self-interest promotes the great good via creative destruction. But we don't have an efficiently regulated market, so the market doesn't end up deciding who wins and loses. The government does.

This is truly the #1 issue facing our country. Crony capitalism is sucking the vitality out of our economy, upon which all of our social programs depend. Fixing it has to start with the following: (1) a dramatically simplified tax code; (2) massive deregulation; and (3) increased transparency in Washington regarding who's getting what for their campaign donations.

As I said in a previous post I'm not only railing against corporate practices here, but against our corrupt government. I'm kind of in the middle here because I'm against the big government intrusion, but a lack of oversight leads to corporations running rampant. Again, the truth is somewhere in between but I just fail to see how major corporations are innocent. I dislike the big government, but the idea that corporations care about anything in America other than our consumer culture is disingenuous. If they really cared they would keep their business here and take a loss on profit margin. I'm not saying they should or its viable, I'm simply calling out the bullshit that corporations will be our saviors if we let them act accordingly. I've been reading, studying, researching all of this since I went back to school and since I've graduated. There is no one to trust but yourself. The government will corrupt and profit, and so will the corporations. I do not have all of the answers, no one does. But I know that I'm sick of large entities lording over people and spouting bullshit like anyone actually gives a **** about the little guys. No one does but yourself. You and your fellow man and we are so divided along these petty partisan lines it's disgusting. The left/right paradigm is working as intended.

 

[Buster Bluth]

So you're saying that they are reinvesting in America? That is not the case at all since the economic collapse, there has been minimal growth and chronic unemployment while profits have been at record levels. They are profiting, and giving it to shareholders, that's where the profits are going. In your scenario they are using it for growth but it's production growth overseas.

You realize how long it is going to take for the standards of living in those areas to match our own? A more likely scenario is ours decreasing until their growth is on par with our deduction. So this is okay that the outsourcing is killing the American middle class? I'm not arguing against their profits, they can run their business how they like, it's America, but those profits are going to shareholders now as evidenced by the negligent growth of the American economy since the collapse. If they are investing, it is in foreign manufacturing and production.

If they want less regulation so they can do business, fine. Knock down the percentages and get our tax brackets competitive with the rest of the world. They need to be able to profit and create jobs, but the way they present themselves is completely disingenuous, as if they care anything about America as opposed to their bottom lines. Economic growth will happen when its profitable for them to create jobs here, that's the end of it. They aren't going to take a hit to keep Americans afloat when they can maintain the pricing and cut costs by taking jobs overseas.

And the idea that these corporations are helping the foreign growth? What do you think happens to local production? They are decimated because they can't compete with the mass produced goods of major corporations. So, they corner a market, acquire cheap labor, and reap massive profits while the American middle class erodes, local foreign competitors are crushed, but they pay some **** wages to the foreign production workers. They'll be on par with America in no time! You can't be that naive. They care about profit, and that's it. Again, I'm not saying they should care about anything else, but they are not going to ride to our rescue unless they can make money doing it.

The best thing this country could do economically is embrace it's energy potential. We can be a world superpower in energy production. Natural gas alone is making production costs cheaper in Ohio and luring back plenty of businesses. We'd be making great-paying careers in this country using its resources for its people.

And a lot of global corporations are making all of their profits overseas. Booming markets in asia is driving a lot of the growth.

 

[IrishLax]

Oh politics and economics.......... on the internet...............................

The only thing I'll say is that if there was a simple solution to "economics" WE WOULD BE DOING IT. Economics as a whole is so beyond complex... and so based in very tough to prove hypotheses, theories, and opinions..... that you can't debate it.

 

[RDU Irish]

lol get a clue. That's not what I'm saying at all.

You'd probably want to raise your kids here:

No? That is urban living. Cities =/= apartments, or a "concrete jungle." That is just ignorant.



...and concrete is f*cking expensive, and we don't build them wide enough the first time and have to go redo them every ten years.

And I don't believe you understood my Manhattan (no E's there) comment. It's that we DO NOT NEED TO BUILD LIKE WE ARE IN MANHATTAN. I'm saying that single-family homes for people like RDU Jr. to grow up in are PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. That isn't the problem.

While I'm on the topic, did you know that widening the lanes on a freeway actually makes the traffic problem worse the vast majority of the time? You don't actually provide more space for the same number of drivers, instead you increase the incentive to take a faster/better road and you only solve the traffic congestion on nearby roads.



LOL WUT

Columbus is thriving. It's one of the fastest growing cities in the entire country. It is nothing short of booming right now. Downsizing? Huh?

You completely missed my point again. Take a look at a shopping mall. Draw a 1/2 mile line from it and move it in a circle. How many people live there? How many people can walk there comfortably without a car? Most of the time it's about zero. Do you know what that means? You need to take a car to get there--it's not a f*cking neighborhood. So when the newer, fancier, cooler place opens up, you abandon the older place. Malls that are 30 years old are dying across the country. From 1950-1990 we didn't build walkable neighborhoods, we built automobile-driven unsustainable (commercially, mostly) strip malls and shopping centers, and the vast majority of them die before you and I.

I want HSR because it makes sense. The midwest US is the most ideal place for HSR in the entire world. It would thrive.



I don't know enough about Milwaukee to comment. You want to slow traffic on select city streets, not on the freeway. Sooo if I'm hearing their thinking correctly, it's ***-backwards.

I won't be hiring you to do my patio if you think an interchange is $250 million worth of concrete.

And that house is WAY to close to the neighbors. They'd be calling CPS on me everyday when I'm alternating between berating my wife and beating my children.

And what is the problem with relieving nearby roads? I can't wait for the 540 tollway to open up near me to take congestion off of the roads I use daily. Even though I won't be paying for it, I benefit greatly thus the reason I think gas taxes should actually go toward improving infrastructure rather than subsidizing every other form of government. Can't tell me forty cents a gallon isn't enough to keep our roads hunky dorry.

And FU, I will spell Manhottin any way I damn well please. I would rather **** on it than think about it.

Milwaukee sucks, that is why I left. RDU area has traffic problems and needs real roads. Cracks me up they say Cary is "bike friendly" but there is zero shoulder to the roads down here and limited sidewalks. Give me a cow pusher on my car and let me plow those hippies out of my way!

If they can't make HSR work between LA and Las Vegas I don't know how it can work anywhere.

And Romney is by far the better candidate for president. Obama is not, and never has been, qualified to run a lemonade stand, let alone this country. Eliminate politics, look at their resumes and think on that one for one minute (just getting back to the happy place where we agree).

 

[Irish YJ]

I worked for AT&T for 16 years, then left for 1 of my vendors where I've been for the past 4 years. I have been responsible for the operational side of off-shoring while at AT&T, and both the strategic and operational side where I reside now. Here's what I can say first hand....

1. As a consumer, most demand low prices, most shop at Walmart
2. As a financially responsible individual, you invest. When you invest, you want a return on investment. If you buy stock and mutuals, that equates to a profitable company.

If you agree with the above, you want low cost, and only invest in profitable companies. Very hard to argue with this right?

What is required to make a company profitable and maintain reasonably cost goods?

1. Not the crazy out of control regs from the government.
2. Not the burdensome corp tax structure.
3. Not the increasing costs of health care due to the current administration's efforts.
4. Not the sense of entitlement most people have when it comes to salary and benefits.

With AT&T, I acheived a 2.5-3.0 to 1 ratio when I offshored to Eastern Europe, and almost 4.0 in South or Central America. With the small company I work for now, 4.0 in Belize.

I can say with absolute certainty, the small business would have folded 2 years ago if we did not off-shore some things. Because I off -shored, we stablized, and now I've almost doubled the staff here in the US, and only grow the BZ resource for low complexity tasks.
AT&T would not have survived if it had not off-shored. Maybe it would have, with a bail out....

If you don't want jobs gonig overseas...
1. Vote for someone who will ease restriction and taxes on US business, and not drive up health care costs.
2. Be personally accountable. Buy US made products and stay away from low cost goods made overseas.
3. Ease your sense of entitlement when seeking the highest salary and benefit package.

Oh, you think business should pay for special interests and bail outs, you want a high salary, you want to shop at Walmart and drive a Honda. Your're part of the problem.

 

[Ndaccountant]

So you're saying that they are reinvesting in America? That is not the case at all since the economic collapse, there has been minimal growth and chronic unemployment while profits have been at record levels. They are profiting, and giving it to shareholders, that's where the profits are going. In your scenario they are using it for growth but it's production growth overseas.

You realize how long it is going to take for the standards of living in those areas to match our own? A more likely scenario is ours decreasing until their growth is on par with our deduction. So this is okay that the outsourcing is killing the American middle class? I'm not arguing against their profits, they can run their business how they like, it's America, but those profits are going to shareholders now as evidenced by the negligent growth of the American economy since the collapse. If they are investing, it is in foreign manufacturing and production.

If they want less regulation so they can do business, fine. Knock down the percentages and get our tax brackets competitive with the rest of the world. They need to be able to profit and create jobs, but the way they present themselves is completely disingenuous, as if they care anything about America as opposed to their bottom lines. Economic growth will happen when its profitable for them to create jobs here, that's the end of it. They aren't going to take a hit to keep Americans afloat when they can maintain the pricing and cut costs by taking jobs overseas.

And the idea that these corporations are helping the foreign growth? What do you think happens to local production? They are decimated because they can't compete with the mass produced goods of major corporations. So, they corner a market, acquire cheap labor, and reap massive profits while the American middle class erodes, local foreign competitors are crushed, but they pay some **** wages to the foreign production workers. They'll be on par with America in no time! You can't be that naive. They care about profit, and that's it. Again, I'm not saying they should care about anything else, but they are not going to ride to our rescue unless they can make money doing it.

Perhaps I over simplified things to illustrate a point.

Growth now isn't enormous due to uncertainty. I have been sitting on an analysis to invest $250M in the US of A for the last 12 months because demand for 2014 and beyond is so hazy. I am quite certain the company I work for is not alone in holding up investments.

Growth is also small because companies don't bring profits back to the USA due to taxes. We also have this problem in the company I work for. We have excess cash overseas but will not move it back to the US because no investment decision is logical when you start by losing 30%+. We can argue all we want about whether or not this rewards companies that push jobs overseas. Whether it does or it doesn't, what it does prevent is the ability to reinvest profits into America.

And those are only two issues....

 

[Buster Bluth]

I won't be hiring you to do my patio if you think an interchange is $250 million worth of concrete.

And that house is WAY to close to the neighbors. They'd be calling CPS on me everyday when I'm alternating between berating my wife and beating my children.

And what is the problem with relieving nearby roads? I can't wait for the 540 tollway to open up near me to take congestion off of the roads I use daily. Even though I won't be paying for it, I benefit greatly thus the reason I think gas taxes should actually go toward improving infrastructure rather than subsidizing every other form of government. Can't tell me forty cents a gallon isn't enough to keep our roads hunky dorry.

And FU, I will spell Manhottin any way I damn well please. I would rather **** on it than think about it.

Milwaukee sucks, that is why I left. RDU area has traffic problems and needs real roads. Cracks me up they say Cary is "bike friendly" but there is zero shoulder to the roads down here and limited sidewalks. Give me a cow pusher on my car and let me plow those hippies out of my way!

If they can't make HSR work between LA and Las Vegas I don't know how it can work anywhere.

And Romney is by far the better candidate for president. Obama is not, and never has been, qualified to run a lemonade stand, let alone this country. Eliminate politics, look at their resumes and think on that one for one minute (just getting back to the happy place where we agree).

haha I never said it was 250mil worth of concrete (Yes, I saw the italics)

I don't really know what I can comment on from what you said other than an LA-LV HSR line would be great.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

As I said in a previous post I'm not only railing against corporate practices here, but against our corrupt government. I'm kind of in the middle here because I'm against the big government intrusion, but a lack of oversight leads to corporations running rampant.

Has anyone here advocated for total deregulation and a return to the corporate abuses of the Industrial Revolution? This is the canned argument against deregulation that usually comes from the Left, and it's a total straw man. Efficient regulation is very necessary, but we've had far more than would be efficient for some time now.

Again, the truth is somewhere in between but I just fail to see how major corporations are innocent.

Why are you expecting "innocence" from corporations? They're supposed to be relentlessly self-interested organizations. It's on the government to design a framework within which that self-interest can be harnessed for the greater good.

I dislike the big government, but the idea that corporations care about anything in America other than our consumer culture is disingenuous. If they really cared they would keep their business here and take a loss on profit margin.

Who are you arguing against here? Corporations aren't altruistic, nor should they be; otherwise, they'd be non-profits, and such organizations aren't very good at driving an economy.

I'm not saying they should or its viable, I'm simply calling out the bullshit that corporations will be our saviors if we let them act accordingly.

America still has a lot of the same competitive advantages that made us the world hegemon. If we could get out of our own way (taxes, regulation, transparency), it's fair to say that the innate strengths of American business would take care of the rest. But they're not going to rescue our economy out of altruism, but out of greed. That's the beauty of capitalism.

I've been reading, studying, researching all of this since I went back to school and since I've graduated. There is no one to trust but yourself. The government will corrupt and profit, and so will the corporations. I do not have all of the answers, no one does. But I know that I'm sick of large entities lording over people and spouting bullshit like anyone actually gives a **** about the little guys.

(1) You sound like an anarchist; and (2) that's not a fair comparison. Corporations are supposed to be greedy and self-serving. Governments are not. If the government was working as intended, corporate greed would be driving a higher standard of living for all Americans. It would be a mistake to give up on capitalism simply because government corruption is squandering its benefits.

 

[ohara831]

Politics is a funny thing. People I love and who are my very good friends, we disagree deeply on so many issues. So we just agreed not to discuss it. No need to lose a good friend because of politics.

I post frequently on NFL sites and NBA sites. During the recent labor disputes, it was truly sad to see how people you have been discussing your team with for a few years all of a sudden start attacking each other because one side agrees with Labor and the other with Owners. Seems too many people have a hard time agreeing to simply disagree and cannot let it go without getting in the last word.

 

[mgriff]

Perhaps I over simplified things to illustrate a point.

Growth now isn't enormous due to uncertainty. I have been sitting on an analysis to invest $250M in the US of A for the last 12 months because demand for 2014 and beyond is so hazy. I am quite certain the company I work for is not alone in holding up investments.

Growth is also small because companies don't bring profits back to the USA due to taxes. We also have this problem in the company I work for. We have excess cash overseas but will not move it back to the US because no investment decision is logical when you start by losing 30%+. We can argue all we want about whether or not this rewards companies that push jobs overseas. Whether it does or it doesn't, what it doesn prevent is the ability to reinvest profits into America.

And those are only two issues....

Yea sorry, my use of exclamation points wasn't trying to yell, belittle, you or anything similar. And the naive part was just that, I knew you couldn't honestly believe that. Thanks for the clarity.

I completely understand that they have to profit, and we need to make our regulations competitive, but a complete lack of oversight and regulation will simply lead to predatory practices. While being a libertarian I'm not naive enough to let them run rampant. I would argue that our best way forward is civic education and interaction. Most of America is woefully ignorant so the required oversight of government or education on markets and economies is left lacking. And educated electorate can only help all the problems affecting the country.

 

[BobD]

Politics is a funny thing. People I love and who are my very good friends, we disagree deeply on so many issues. So we just agreed not to discuss it. No need to lose a good friend because of politics.

I post frequently on NFL sites and NBA sites. During the recent labor disputes, it was truly sad to see how people you have been discussing your team with for a few years all of a sudden start attacking each other because one side agrees with Labor and the other with Owners. Seems too many people have a hard time agreeing to simply disagree and cannot let it go without getting in the last word.

I must be defective. I love good conversation and debate. I respect everyones right to disagree and enjoy trying to see others POV's. I'd really rather have a friend that challenges me than agrees with everything I say.

 

[mgriff]

Has anyone here advocated for total deregulation and a return to the corporate abuses of the Industrial Revolution? This is the canned argument against deregulation that usually comes from the Left, and it's a total straw man. Efficient regulation is very necessary, but we've had far more than would be efficient for some time now.



Why are you expecting "innocence" from corporations? They're supposed to be relentlessly self-interested organizations. It's on the government to design a framework within which that self-interest can be harnessed for the greater good.



Who are you arguing against here? Corporations aren't altruistic, nor should they be; otherwise, they'd be non-profits, and such organizations aren't very good at driving an economy.



America still has a lot of the same competitive advantages that made us the world hegemon. If we could get out of our own way (taxes, regulation, transparency), it's fair to say that the innate strengths of American business would take care of the rest. But they're not going to rescue our economy out of altruism, but out of greed. That's the beauty of capitalism.



(1) You sound like an anarchist; and (2) that's not a fair comparison. Corporations are supposed to be greedy and self-serving. Governments are not. If the government was working as intended, corporate greed would be driving a higher standard of living for all Americans. It would be a mistake to give up on capitalism simply because government corruption is squandering its benefits.

Well at this point I would rather have no government than be held to the flame by an uneducated electorate which I commented on in the post directly above this. I agree that the government is the solution to many problems which ail our country, but at this point in time we don't have near the educated electorate to achieve that type of government. The American people have forgotten their civic duty and a complicit mainstream media which refuses to ask tough questions and reinforces the left/right paradigm is not helping. We want no crony capitalism but we aren't going to get that when the major medium for information is part of the problem. People would rather watch Jersey Shore unfortunately.

As far as corporations, I think I summed it up my feelings pretty well in a previous post; they will create jobs in America when it's profitable, and not until then. I also said we need to make our tax code competitive with the other nations of the world to stimulate investment.

 

[BobD]

Freudian slip there, you tried to say conversion. It's OK, you have five months to get it right.

Haha! Very funny......its fixed

 

[Grahambo]

 

[ohara831]

I must be defective. I love good conversation and debate. I respect everyones right to disagree and enjoy trying to see others POV's. I'd really rather have a friend that challenges me than agrees with everything I say.

You are someone with whom one can discuss these matters. But unless you know for a fact that someone is mature enough not to go off the deep end, then avoid it. I've seen it far too many times. Friends start talking and find themselves on polar opposites on a passionate issue such as Abortion, Labor issues, etc... and all of a sudden they start accusing each other of being ignorant, heartless, and evil. If you can discuss the matter and remain friends, then good job. But it is risky.