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

Me | Me

[discostu]

yeah you did cite what I said, and it clearly showed you'd taken my position to a silly extreme. I never said companies should be allowed to murder people, that's stupid.

There's nothing mutually exclussive about the statement that the only duty of corporations is profit. For one thing there's only one clause in that statement and mutual exclussion assumes multiple clauses. Now YOUR idea that they also have a duty to some ethical code you seem to make up on the spot can be mutually exclussive, profit and ethics don't always mix and investors want their money back. Knowing that the company they sank millions into went bankrupt doing the right thing is cold comfort.

No the whole point of saying that companies sole duty is profit is pointing out a painfully obvious truth that anyone that's ever taken a business class shouldn't need to be told. My position is to point out that if a company feels it needs to outsource to remain profitable then people are going to be losing their jobs one way or the other, either to local competition (not all outsourcing is overseas you see), overseas competition, or the won't be replaced at all. Business is about balance sheets and most of the time ethics don't show up on the P&L statement (most of the time, sometimes they do, this is a good thing because they're more often P than L).

You know what happens when you stop the great god profit? Recession. Bad for everybody. Stop the great god profit hard enough and recessions grows into it's nastier brother depression. Really bad for everybody.

[Havoc]

Let's hire pigmies for 52 cents a day to compete against guys making 80k a year why don't we - you go rationalize that the the American people and see if you make it out with your skin. Not a one of you has the brass to defend it in a crowd - not that I blame ya, I wouldn't be looking to get myself lynched either.

[discostu]

479 - 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.

There you are, undercutting the competition is unethical. I'm just taking it to the next level, you're upset about foreign labor undercutting US labor, but lots of people are upset about your old boss WalMart undercutting Mom&Pop. If undercutting is unethical then it's unethical all the time. If it's not unethical then it's ethical all the time.

Sorry but you started blathering about what was OK yesterday vs today and it didn't make sense, had a few nasty sentence fragments that made things even more confusing. Stating that your last paragraph made zero sense was simply Disco Stu speak for "you should proof read".

[discostu]

We're defending our position in a crowd right now. I've defended this position in many circumstances and have no fear of being lynched. I know most people actually know JS and when reality is explained to them they get... then there's the pigheaded whiners that think it's the Presidents fault they got fired, like he was on the board or something, they'll never be convinced of anything.

[Havoc]

There you are, undercutting the competition is unethical.

Nope. Read it again. If you can get your talking points out of your hand and your brain turned on, you might learn something.

[Havoc]

Good, how bout I ask the local UAW to get it's members together so you can explain how pigmy labor prices is fair competition. What say, you man enough to do it? Cause I'd just about garauntee you'd need police protection to leave - in a rather big hurry.

[discostu]

I've read it plenty here, let's cut it to the crux of the biscuit:
"you have an ethical responsibility not to undercut"

That's YOUR statement. You say undercutting is unethical. Sure you only want it to be unethical in a specific circumstance where it hurts you and you have no problem with it happening when you benefit, but that's just because you're a hypocrite.

Like I said, if undercutting is unethical once then it needs to be unethical always. Otherwise you're just making up rules to protect your own butt, which is highly unethical... always.

[discostu]

Luckily the pygmyes aren't working for 52 cents a day, so I don't have to explain that to them. That's a silly situation YOU made up to create a STRAWMAN, so you go explain it to them. I will explain to them how many companies think American labor is more than worth the additional price, as can be seen by looking at all the factories in America being built and expanded.

[XBob]

506 - "it's obvious that the type of killing you were talking about was the real, illegal, and immoral kind. "

LOL - you free traitors have spent this whole thread arguing that there are no morals, or ethis, or laws for corporations, as long as they make a profit. Profit trumps all.

ROTFL

Havoc - I'd like a share in your sarcastic 'murder for hire' corporation. and I am sure discostu would support my right to that, my property, and our right to earn some profit.

[discostu]

LOL, anybody that uses the term "free traitor" shows their just a kneejerk protectionist that takes no time to actually consider what's being said. And then you continue to demonstrate that you're not paying attention by saying I said things I didn't.

Nope I've already said that murder for hire is bad for business. Ethical or not it's unprofitable, John Gotti knew it and now so do you.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think we need to stop arguing with this bozo. He'll pop a blood vessel in his head,then we'll be on the hook for his medicare bill.

He worked for 4 years at WalMart at $7.50 an hour when he admits he could have made more at McDonalds.

He spent 4 years as a high powered techie at EDS and is about to lose his $30,000 a year job. He is obviously way too bright for us to win this argument.

We should cut our losses.

[discostu]

It's almost time to go home. I'll be spending the night in front of the NHL playoffs (which features... GASP... imported guest workers!!) and not be contemplating this at all. Fun while it lasted, hope somebody in the audience read and understood.

See everybody in the threads.

[Havoc]

I've read it plenty here, let's cut it to the crux of the biscuit: "you have an ethical responsibility not to undercut"

Now you're editing me to make me say something I didn't. What's the matter, can't deal with the full quote - you haven't yet. All you've proven to this moment is that you can Quote someone then lift part of the quote. Let's see how that works shall we:

"this guy was running down the streat yelling and screaming that 'I want to kill the president of the company'"

What you're doing is editing me - so you can say that I said: "'I want to kill the president"

See how obvious, easy and utterly unethical that is. Course you can't busy yourself with the ethics of it, you've got too much on your hands tryin to desperately grasp at straws for something you think you can argue to make your position look better. It ain't there - even with you editing me. I'll give you a favorite edit that Walter Martin used to use to display the use of collapsing contexts. "judas went out and hanged himself. Go and do ye likewise" And then you leap of the cliff with the falacy that if something is wrong in one instance it is therefore always wrong. A notion any 10th grade debator with any ethics at all could shoot down handily.

[discostu]

Yawn. Can't deal with what you said huh. Too bad so sad. You said it, you said companies selling in America havfe an ethical duty to not undercut the US labor market, that is a silly thing to say. It's even sillier for a former WalMarter to say since you made your living in the undercut industry. That's what you said, and you know that's what you said, that's why you fled from the question so many times.

[Havoc]

yeah you did cite what I said, and it clearly showed you'd taken my position to a silly extreme. I never said companies should be allowed to murder people, that's stupid.

No, it isn't. And it's not an unreasonable conclusion to draw. You started with the mutual exclusive that business owes to nothing but profit. Nothing. Nothing is mutually exclusive - it excludes all but the primary concern: profit. It is therefore an entirely reasonable conclusion that excluding all other concerns means ALL other concerns. Your words. I didn't choose them, you did. And your buddies on here have been more honest about it to the extent of saying that hampering business' ability to make profit is an evil and should not be done. I've given you every opportunity to correct yourself; but, you won't disclaim the notion on your own that putting restrictions on business' abiltity to make profit is within our right. I have yet to see you admit that. And that is the issue on which your whole argument rises or falls before the ethical considerations are actually weighed. It isn't necessary for you to admit it, there is already public record showing it not only our right; but, a right previously excersized and enforced. That means your pretty well buggered to begin with.

[XBob]

you know, toddsNoPatriot brought up an interesting point:

511 - "I guess if an evil drug company made a cure for XBOB's diabetes or a cure for Havoc's disability they would only buy it if it was made in America.
Maybe not even then because the drug company didn't do it to be nice but did it for filthy profit. "

You know, I got diabetes in my 20's (most people get it in the 50's-60's), before he was born, from Agent Orange, fighting for my country so that fools like him would have a place to be born and grow up in, safely (fool that I was - wasting my time and life to support idots trying to destroy everything I was fighting for).

But, that point aside, I was saving up my money to go to Israel, to get an operation they invented there, pancreatic cell transplants. They were doing good work there, and having a pretty good modicum of success. Unfortunatly, apparently the transplants died after 6 months to 2 years, leaving the patient back where he was.

I always wondered, did that really happen, or did the drug companies foil it. You see, diabetes is an almost perfect disease for the drug companies, as it kills very slowly, and they can sell all sorts of expensive medicines for years and years and years. All those profits for all those years.

This disease has been killing me slowly and I have been taking expensive medicines for 30 years now, and overcoming my problems, but now the disease is winning faster and faster every month and year.

I wish the drug companies would use their profits to develop a cure for diabetes, but it is too profitable not to. Do you know, that even after 100 years, these drug companies haven't figured out the whole insulin cycle, or how insulin works? A hundred years of making money off diabetics slowly dieing.

Things like cancer, generally kill much quicker, so they have to figure out how to make their money, fast, before they die. So they charge really big money for the cancer drugs. It cost $250,000 for my wife to die from cancer in a matter of months.

[Havoc]

That isn't what I said. And I'm sorry you have to so boldly and blatenly lie about it. Words mean things. Just because you don't know how to use the language, don't excuse your ignorance by lying on me. Want to mention that you're Catholic again so the Catholics can get ticked off at ya. Or are you just planning to do a ring around the rosery and some penance to expiate your venial issues from this thread. That's assuming you aren't pulling our leg on that too.

[XBob]

514-discostu - "Grow up."

LOL - Yes, these children will someday find out the consequences of their actions, and unfortunatly, they will be very dire, because of what is happening.

Southack points this out in his post on China:

"Imports are being driven by soaring fixed-asset investment -- which was up 53 percent in the first two months of the year

weaker export growth and a slowdown in foreign investment, one of the main drivers of export growth

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.
473 posted on 04/12/2004 12:47:51 PM CDT by Southack

They are importing our and other high tech equipment to compete against us, with our technology using their cheap labor. Then they will copy our technology, and we won't have either the technology or the labor.

When our wages get to a sub-chinese level, then maybe the free-traitors will understand.

[XBob]

514 - "You really don't get it do you - do you have any moral or ethical standard beyond praying to a dollar bill? "

Let me answer for discostu, as he will not answer this question - No.

[Havoc]

I'm so sorry for your loss XB. But, yeah, I think about things like that myself. When they say some of the things they say here and you know the thinking goes beyond just them by quite a bit, it really has to make you wonder.