An Open letter to President Bush (End run vs. Outsourcing)

Me | Me

[A. Pole]

Those John Wayne movies were really good, but they do not delve deep enough to give you an appreciation of what led to WWII. The economic collapse happened first; then the bullets and bombs started flying; then the economic crisis was "fixed".

Good point. There was a Great Depression in Germany first.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Huh? XBOB keeps trying to tell corporations who they can or cannot hire. I'm not flip-flopping, I think XBOB is wrong.

He's not flip-flopping, he wants to nationalize industry.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, since they don't pay taxes, let's make it 100% for corportate taxes.

See, you want socialism. Why not just admit it. Then we can both stop wasting bandwidth.

[discostu]

I get this notion from having worked in startup companies, and numerous established companies. While some in the company might want to help society the goal of the corporation as an entity is and always will be profit. If people want to help the world they make non-profit organizations, if you want to make money you make a corporation.

Wrong again, when people make product for money they know to make the best product possible, it's called a recurring revenue stream. If your tank sucks countries won't buy it and you stop making money.

I feel like I need to give you a lesson in REALITY and how it works. There's nothing immoral or unethical about working for money. Money is how you pay bills, put a roof over your head, feed kids, and have something to put in the poor-box at church. Money makes the world go around. That's why we work, that's why companies exist. And until you get that you'll always be on the outside of life looking in.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Government will always lose to the corporations. And if the government ever wins the collateral damage will hurt far more of the little people than will be helped.

Especially in the banana republics.

Everywhere.

The government won vs. Arthur Anderson, right?

Good job, a handful of bad accountants and the government put 20,000+ employees out of work.

[lelio]

What has happened is that *technology* has improved the productivity of our farmers. We need fewer farmers to produce our food.

Ditto for what is happening in manufacturing.

Oh please. Having a state run economy in China offering workers at 50 cents an hour has no impact on "productivity"?

Why innovate when there's an aboundance of labor out there?

[lelio]

Our total imports are 9.5% of our GDP.

So if Dell "imports" a PC for $800, installs Windows on it, and sells it for $1000 what impact does that have on our GDP? $1000 growth?

I'm curious to know. But this one is a special case as computers have a "multiplier" associated with them that's on the order of 8 times. So a $1000 PC sale could register as much as $8000 in "GDP growth."

[Havoc]

I feel like I need to give you a lesson in REALITY and how it works.

Well, you gave me the propaganda of theory as though it were reality because the public is less offended with textbook theory that real life practice. It isn't even questionable that GM tried to get it deemed illegal to own a car longer than 10 years. My whole family worked for GM till Delphi split from them. They all complained about it from top to bottom. And GM's policy going forward after the attempt failed was to build in obsolescence. Nothing is made to last anymore.. it's all cheaper cheaper cheaper and junk junk junk. The number one consumer complaint is that most of what they buy today is junk - not because it looks or acts shabby; but, because it breaks down or falls apart so readily. Ya'll seem to forget who you're trying to kid - I spent 10 years in sales. I speak from long direct and practical experience.

I complain about it myself. I spent $140 on a nice AT&T cordless phone outfit. Dropped the phone 2 1/2 feet off my desktop onto deep plush shag carpet with 1" pad underneath and it destroyed the phone's lcd. I bought a VCR three years ago for a little more than that to get some nice features - it's dead and has been for a year. I bought a 3 disk dvd changer for around $250 in the same time period. It became a doorstop 6 months ago. Computer tech - I started off with a nice high end HP cdrw package about 4 1/2 years ago. It lasted a year. I replaced it with another high end piece that was dead in the box from Phillips when I got it home. I replaced that the next day and six months later had to do a repeat. In the past 3 years I've been through 4 cdrw drives on two different machines that have both been upgraded. I bought a GE washer dryer pair with my first Trailor. In four years I put three new sets of coils in the dryer and had to replace the transmission on the washer. Both high capacity units and it was just me using them for the majority of that time. I mean, I don't have to go very far to pull endless examples right out of thin air. None of us have to. How many of us here own at least one piece of sawdust furniture with bowing shelves and or destroyed bases from moving them?

I know how the stuff is because I've had to sell it and I've had to sign off on the return of the product as well. Practical personal and business experience.

And I didn't say it was unethical to work for money. I do beg to differ that this is the only motive behind a business. It may be for you; but, when I go to work for someone, I look at their ethic and why they got into it. I also talk to their employees and people who know the business before I get myself involved nowdays. Right now, I'm looking for a non-corporate job if I can find one that isn't taken; because I'm sick to the gills of corporate greed. When I was asked my personal and professional opinion years ago at Walmart by a customer with regard to our computer lines, I was truthful to them and they came back to buy from me, though they didn't buy the Packard bell doorstops we were selling. Management was pretty ripped about that. But I had a clientel in a retail store because people trusted my judgement. And when I left, they left. Walmart wasn't concerned about the truth, they just wanted to sell the junk they put on the shelves. Packard bell went belly up within months after I left Walmart. I like to feel like I had some to do with that in convincing people not to drive themselves mad with that junk; but, they were getting sued to death because they were junk.

That's Reality. I don't know who you think you're shining; but, you perhaps need to reassess.

[Havoc]

New math...

[discostu]

There's no propoganda in there at all. Just the real world. The primary contribution to society most corporations make is through profits, with profits they hire more people, pay existing employees more, and expand the business. Corporations help society by giving it a vibrant economy.

See your example proves my point. GM exists to make profit, recurring revenue stream is the holy grail of profit, getting people to buy cars more frequently is a path to a recurring revenue stream. But GM must be careful, if they make their cars wearout too quickly they get a reputation for making junk which is bad on sales (reference how Japanese cars keep getting a bigger piece of the pie compared to American cars).

I'm not trying to kid anybody. I'm showing you exactly how and why you are wrong and simply do not understand simple business rules. No kidding here, just cold hard truth that you should be paying attention to instead of railing against.

More examples of what I'm talking about. Businesses existing for profit. One thing you need to ask yourself: why is it so much of the stuff you buy is complete crap? Maybe you need to upscale more, start gunning for quality. There are different sections of each market, one section is the low price low quality area; another is the high price high quality area. I USED to own pressboard furniture like you describe, but I got tired of replacing it constantly, finally paid twice as much for stuff made with real wood and found it lasts at least 4 times as long (and counting).

All of your examples prove my point. Packard Bell went belly-up because Packard Bell sold crappy computers that were poorly put together, used non-standard parts and could only be upgraded with their overpriced non-standard parts. make a bad product, and one that isn't targeted to the bargain crowd, and you go out of business.

The only one shining anybody here is you, and sadly the person you're shining is yourself. You just burned out your keyboard demonstrating my exact point: businesses exist to make money, period, end of sentence. They inject as much quality as they must to fulfill their marketing needs, not one drop more. The ones that don't fulfill their marketing needs go out of business. They don't exist to contribute to society, unless that contribution is profitable. That is reality, and you just proved it in spades.

[Southack]

"Oh please. Having a state run economy in China offering workers at 50 cents an hour has no impact on "productivity"? Why innovate when there's an aboundance of labor out there?"

Per the sources already linked to on this very thread, China has lost 25 million manufacturing jobs, the U.S. has lost 2.5 million, and Europe, Japan, and every major industrialized economy has each lost manufacturing jobs since 1995.

One theory is that demand has declined (i.e. "innovation" isn't a factor).

My own opinion, however, is that painting robots have replaced painters on assembly lines, welding robots have likewise replaced welders, and similar technological enhancements have replaced manufacturing employees in other areas today just as the introduction of automated farming equipment (e.g. combines, tractors, trucks) caused the massive shift in American agricultural employment 70 years ago (i.e. "innovation" is a factor).

[Southack]

"That all sounds very reasonable. And at first glance would seem to work on many levels. My question/problem is why isn't the Bush campagain doing more to educate us on this? I don't expect you to have all the answers, but it would seem that if there is a plan, it should be detailed, rather than allow FUD to continue to build."

Because if the Bush administration admitted that they were letting the Dollar fall, our allies and our financial press would scream "Strong Dollar" and go into a 6 month long snit.

Nonetheless, look around. Look at the price of oil. Look at the rise of the Euro in price versus the Dollar. Look at Japan's Yen/Dollar intervention. Recall that India has $110 Billion worth of U.S. Dollars hoarded, and that China has hoarded even more.

All of those things can be explained by one thing: the U.S. is letting the Dollar fall (which means that other countries must intervene to keep their Strong Dollar party going).

NOTE: the common misperception is that the Dollar is fairly valued. It isn't. It is overvalued. This lets American consumers purchase more foreign goods than would ordinarily happen in a real "free market." In effect, it is a stealth subsidy of foreign industry. They get to sell more things to the U.S. because the Dollar is overvalued.

Letting the Dollar fall will remove that stealth subsidy eventually. By early next year the Dollar should once again be fairly valued (at about 40% less than where it stood in early 2003).

Leveling the playing field in this manner will have an enormously positive impact on the U.S. economy. We'll buy fewer total imported goods (though the Dollar amount of them may still be higher) and we'll make more domestic goods (services, too).

[Southack]

China posts 8.4 billion dollar trade deficit in first quarter
AFP ^ | April 12, 2004


Posted on 04/12/2004 12:34:02 PM CDT by RWR8189


BEIJING, (AFP) - China's trade deficit widened to 8.4 billion dollars in the first quarter as imports soared, fueled by the country's growing appetite for raw materials and energy to feed its booming economy.

The country reported a 540 million dollar deficit for March, after a whooping 7.8 billion dollar deficit in February, the highest monthly deficit in more than a decade, the People's Daily reported, citing customs figures.

In January, the country posted only a 20 million dollar deficit.

In the first quarter of 2003, China sustained a 1.03 billion dollar trade deficit although it had a trade surplus of 25.5 billion dollars for the year.

Imports are being driven by soaring fixed-asset investment -- which was up 53 percent in the first two months of the year -- and rising prices of raw materials and energy.

Imports surged 42 percent year-on-year in the first quarter to 124.14 billion dollars and were up nearly 43 percent to 46.4 billion dollars in March, on the back of higher imports of iron ore, crude oil, soybeans and edible oil, state press reports said, without giving a breakdown.

Figures released last month show that in the first two months of the year, raw material imports rose 64.9 percent to 16.8 billion dollars, with crude oil imports rising 39 percent to 20.8 million tons and iron ore imports growing nearly 37 percent to 31 million tons.

First-quarter exports jumped 34 percent to 115.7 billion dollars and rose nearly 43 percent to 45.8 billion dollars in March, the People's Daily said.

Machinery and electronic products exports amounted to 63 billion dollars, accounting for 55 percent of total exports during the quarter, with textile exports also up strongly, the report said.

Many analysts have been expecting China to swing into deficit this year or at least see a significant cut in its trade surplus due to rising oil and other raw material imports and prices, weaker export growth and a slowdown in foreign investment, one of the main drivers of export growth.

The country reported a record trade surplus of 30 billion dollars in 2002 but that fell to 25.5 billion dollars last year.

Beijing has come under pressure from its trade partners over its surpluses, especially from the United States, which ran a 124 billion dollar trade deficit with China in 2003, rising from 102 billion dollars in 2002.

Washington claims China keeps its currency artificially low to boost the export competitiveness of its companies and has been calling for a yuan revaluation.

Now, the rising deficit might ease pressure on the government and strengthen the position of Vice-Premier Wu Yi when she meets US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick in Washington next week.

[Toddsterpatriot]

China posts 8.4 billion dollar trade deficit in first quarter

That must be because they're buying up all of America's companies. LOL

[Havoc]

One can earn money in this country with ethics and without. Those that do it without leave a long trail of destruction behind them that society ends up footing the bill for. I'm not surrendering that point. You can't say "only contribution" you say primary. And that was my point. You admit it while trying to claim victory on the point. That's like waving a white flag and then yelling "I win". LOL.. markedly French.

[discostu]

I didn't say it couldn't make money ethically, but understand there is no ethical duty to make products in America. I never said "only contribution" I said "only DUTY". Very different.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never said "only contribution" I said "only DUTY". Very different.

Exactly. As Adam Smith said, "IT IS NOT FROM THE BENEVOLENCE OF THE BUTCHER, THE BREWER, OR THE BAKER THAT WE EXPECT OUR DINNER, BUT FROM THEIR REGARD TO THEIR OWN SELF-INTEREST"

These merchants weren't benefitting society because they were nice, but because their greed produced goods which benefit society.

Countries where it is difficult or impossible to reduce costs, headcount or do other "mean" things have much higher unemployment and much lower standards of living. But at least those lucky job holders can feel more "secure" than Havoc.

[discostu]

Well some benefit society because they're nice. Profitable and beneficial is a comfy bed for the mind. But when push comes to shove the duty of the company will always be profit and if that becomes bad for the society the society needs to ask itself why their needs are no longer aligned with the needs of their economy. Anytime good business is bad for a society that society has issues that need resolving.

[Havoc]

I didn't say it couldn't make money ethically, but understand there is no ethical duty to make products in America.

And that is an overgeneralization of the argument. We're dealing with specifics. Nobody's saying companies have to stay in America to provide service to outside countries and businesses. But when you're competing with the US market, you have an ethical responsibility not to undercut the us market with foreign labor in an effort to scuttle the market. That is an attack on business, on individual workers and on the market at large - devaluing the economy, depressing wages and devaluing products. That is why Dumping was made illegal - for those very reasons. And it's been stated over and over again.

Lynching is illegal because it's murder. And you're arguing essentially that if you stab a man that it's ethical because you didn't lynch them. I't still murder when the guy dies. It doesn't matter how you got there, the result is the issue you're being judged on. Dumping was illegal because it devalues wages and products and puts business at risk of failure. It is a subversion of the market. Competing with low cost foreign labor against the American market does the EXACT SAME THING - produces the EXACT SAME RESULT and is therefore EXACTLY the same issue. It's unethical because it was deemed illegal and for good reason. It's so clear it isn't even debateable, yet here we sit after how many days right back at the same point and not a one of you able to get around it.

[discostu]

No you don't. When you're competing in the US market your only DUTY is to do so profitably, and if that undercuts others that's their problem not yours.

Yes it is an attack on business, welcome to free market capitalism, it isn't for the weak of heart. Every business is either a lion or a gazelle and they don't usually find out which until blood is shed. It's a kill or be killed world in business, there's only so much money to go around and a business' job is to get as much of it as they can.

No I'm arguing that the duty of a corporation is profit. And anybody that knows anything about business knows that when one company makes profit there's a good chance others are going out of business. You said you used to work for WalMart, how many companies try to compete with WalMart and fail? What happens to those that fail? What I'm saying is stabbing someone in the back is ethical in a war when the other guy is wearing the wrong uniform, and that's what free market capitalism is: war. It's Target vs WalMart vs K-Mart vs Mom&Pop and if the gains of one put one of the others out of business too bad so sad.

Dumping isn't as illegal as you think it is. When my company is getting help from my government so I can sell goods for cheaper than they cost to make it's illegal. But when my company is deliberately losing money on a product in order to draw in customers to buy other products it's no longer called dumping, it's called a loss leader and it's perfectly legal. Grocery stores do it with milk and bread every day, that's why they're on opposite sides of the store, lose money on those common items but hope people buy more stuff as they walk through the store. And if some other grocery store can't afford to take a loss on milk and bread and wind up pricing themselves out of that market guess what happens? They'll probably be out of business in a year.