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

Me | Me

[XBob]

709 - "Look at Ann Richard's environmental laws when she was governor of Texas compared to Bush's. Ann's laws were much more restrictive, but the cost of compliance was too high and it didn't make economic sense for businesses to follow the law,"

Ah, here you advocate breaking the laws to make a profit.

Great 'responsibility'.

Not changing the laws, but breaking the laws.

[discostu]

Misstatement on your part. Outright lies actually. STOP LYING!

[XBob]

709 - "merchants have no loyalty to the ground they stand on and are only loyal to the ground they earn on. That's the simple truth, anybody expecting a corporation to be loyal to a country just because that's where their articles of incorporation are stored might as well expect rain to be dry. Corporations are loyal to profit, "

Then, as corporations have no loyalty to anyone, or any country, they have no right to be here, or to suck off us, and have our support and defense, and must shoulder these costs themselves.

And they also have no 'right' to sell their products here, so, the corporations should be forced out, and overseas, so we can have entities here which support our country and provide a benefit to our society.

[discostu]

So basically you're saying we should destroy every corporation in the country and put everything under the government. That's called communism and it doesn't work.

Funnny for a guy that blames every bad thing in the world on a bad economy to come up with a "solution" opf disintigrating our economy.

[discostu]

I'm not advocating breaking laws to make a profit, I'm telling you why it happens. It's a matter of simple mathematics. If it's going to cost you 100 million dollars to comply with a law, and the fines for breaking the law are only 5 million a year, and their the type of law that changes almost every gubenotorial term (4 to 6 years) what is the economically intelligent thing to do? At most in fines you'll pay 30 million bucks, breaking the law saves you 70 million. In a situation like that complying with the law makes you a good person, but it also makes you a stupid CEO and a bunch of decisions like that will make you a former CEO.

Learn to understand the difference between advocating and explaining. I think it would be great for every business to obey every law, but having taken BUS101 I know that's not going to happen and the Texas environmental laws show one of the reasons it happens. Poorly written laws make good economic sense to violate, well written laws make good economic sense to OBEY. That's why I say restrictions need to be thought out, good restrictions are ones the businesses will WANT to obey.

[TomasUSMC]

Your right. H1b and L-1 visas have taken close to a million hi tech jobs ( the exceptions in the fine print make the limits on the number of visas issued a moot point). Our own Government, Repubs and dems, have brought in foreigners to take our best jobs. That is Treason. They claim that in a country of over 250 MILLION people they can't find qualified people, and apparently can't train them either.

If that weren't enough they sign Nafta and then support outsourcing. And then, open the borders to 10 million illegal invaders every Presidential election year - thus driving down the salary and increasing social cost and destroying our education and medical system.

But its a bipartisan effort to destroy the middle class.

[XBob]

this sounds like the story of good capitalists like you all:

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/k/u.htm

Kulaks in WWI: Throughout the early twentieth century kulaks bought communal land where they could, but it was difficult to do so; the communes refused to sell their land despite threats and pressure. During World War I, kulaks came into a new era.

Kulaks bribed local officials to prevent conscription into the army, and lied in wait for the field of opportunity to soon open up. While hundreds of thousands of peasants were sent to the slaughter on the front, kulaks grabbed up the communal land in a free-for-all.

By 1917, the success of kulaks cannot be seen more clearly than in the amount of land they owned: over nine-tenths of Russia's arable land.

The most valuable commodity throughout the war was grain, and the kulaks understood this with absolute clarity: food prices climbed higher than any other commodity during the war. In 1916, food prices accelerated three times higher than wages, despite bumper harvests in both 1915 and 1916. The price of grain in 1916, already at two and a half rubles per pud, was anticipated to raise up to twenty five rubles per pud. Hoping to raise prices, the kulaks hoarded their food surplus as their lands continually increased.

Throughout 1916, the average urban labourer ate between 200 and 300 grams of food a day. In 1917, the urban populations of Russia were allowed to buy only one pound of bread per adult, per day. Workers sometimes went days without food.

As a result of the Soviet Land Decree of October 26, 1917, when the peasants took back their land from the kulaks, food slowly came back into the cities again. Though the Kulaks were overwhelmed by the peasants at home and those returning from the front, many responded later in the year, during the coming Civil War.[...]

[discostu]

Here's where I mention in a post specifically to YOU about reasonable restrictions:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1114631/posts?page=561#561
Reasonable restrictions can be placed on them, but they must be REASONABLE and well thought out.

And here's where I first mention cost of compliance:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1114631/posts?page=497#497
Your problem is that you take things to far. Duty to the law is achieved through duty to profit, breaking the law is usually unprofitable. Of course sometimes following the law is unprofitable, look up "cost of compliance" in regards to environmental regulation, especially look it up in relationship to Bush's time as governor of Texas.

There's plenty of other places in this thread where I mention REASONABLE and WELL THOUGHT OUT restrictions as a GOOD THING. But since that doesn't fit inside your insult ridden box I'm sure you just ignored them completely.

[XBob]

720 - "Blaming capitalism for these things shows you're a communist, "

you are a blooming idiot: I wrote:

716 - "UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM IS BAD.

RESTRAINED CAPITALISM IS GOOD."

[discostu]

Thanks for providing a quote that shows clearly that Russia had a COMMAND ECONOMY, not capitalism:
In 1917, the urban populations of Russia were allowed to buy only one pound of bread per adult, per day.

"allowed to buy ony" very important phrase. The difference between unrestricted capitalism and command economy. In unrestricted capitalism there's no restriction, people get to buy what they can afford and there's no "allowing" involved.

[XBob]

722 - "Misstatement on your part. Outright lies actually. STOP LYING!"

Methinks the liar protesteth too much:

where do you advocate any restrictions?

"

[discostu]

Restrained capitalism is a happy shiney (lie) phrase for socialism, which is a happy shiney (lie) phrase for communism. Once you put the government in charge of the economy it's not capitalism anymore, and it's also doomed to miserable failure.

[discostu]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1114631/posts?page=561#561
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1114631/posts?page=497#497

And others.

[XBob]

722-"Misstatement on your part. Outright lies actually. STOP LYING!"


seems to me it was you who said:

698 "I NEVER said there should be no restrictions period. Never, not once, not even close to it."

504-"The people ... What is a corporation's duty to them? Corporations have a duty to investors and share holder, and nobody else. Deal with it.
504 posted on 04/12/2004 4:05:49 PM CDT by discostu "

[discostu]

Yeah, those two statements are not mutualy exclusive. Corporate duty != restrictions. Corporations have no duty to the people that are not investors and shareholders, their corporate duty to people that are investors and shareholders is to provide them with a return on their investment via profit. But people DO have a duty to place reasonable and well thought out restrictions on corporations, this is a legitimate function of government and society, but they need to understand what corporations do and how they work so that they can think these restrictions through and understand what they will actually accomplish.

[XBob]

724 - "So basically you're saying we should destroy every corporation in the country and put everything under the government. That's called communism and it doesn't work."

Sorry, corporations are allowed to help congress "provide for the common welfare", not just the stockholder's welfare. If they don't do that, then they shouldn't exist. Plenty of corporations provide for the common welfare, and therefore are good.

Go drink some water - it will either allow you to live or to die. Too much, and you die, a controlled amount and you can live nicely.

Where do you allow for corporate/capitalist restrictions? you haven't pointed out anyplace where you have called for any restrictions, until I wrang a simple example of eased pollution restrictions and high fines for pollution out of you.

Where did you post before that, any restrictions at all - for about the 10th time.

[discostu]

Corporations provide for the common welfare by making profit. Profit allows them to expand their business (buy more goods), increase their facilities (buy construction), hire more people, pay their people more, and provide a return on investment for share holders and investors. They provide for the common welfare by being a vital section of our economy and bringing money and goods into the area.

Actually you've only asked 4 times (more LIES from you) and this is the third time I've answered:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1114631/posts?page=561#561
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1114631/posts?page=497#497

[XBob]

you are right - command economy - which the super capitalists want, where they are in control of the command.

Russia was under siege for years, and had rationing because of it:

Russian Revolution of 1905


Russian Revolution of 1905 a widespread uprising during most of 1905 against the monarchy of the Russian Empire. The revolution began in Saint...
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588301/Russian_Revolution_of_1905.html


http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569348/Russian_Revolutions_of_1917.html

Russian Revolutions of 1917, two revolutions that occurred in Russia in 1917. The first revolution, in February, overthrew the Russian monarchy. The second revolution, in October, created the world’s first Communist state.

The Russian revolutions of 1917 involved a series of uprisings by workers and peasants throughout the country and by soldiers, who were predominantly of peasant origin, in the Russian army. Many of the uprisings were organized and led by democratically elected councils called soviets. The soviets originated as strike committees and were basically a form of local self-government. The second revolution led to the rise of the modern Communist movement and to the transformation of the Russian Empire into what became known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The goal of those who carried out the second revolution was the creation of social equality and economic democracy in Russia. However, the Communist regime that they established eventually turned into a bureaucratic dictatorship, which lasted until 1991.

The overthrow of the Russian monarch, Emperor Nicholas II, and the ruling Romanov dynasty took place after an uprising that lasted from February 23 to 27, 1917, according to the Julian calendar then used in Russia, or March 8 to 12 according to the Gregorian calendar. (On January 31, 1918, the Russian government adopted the Gregorian calendar; events occurring before that date will be given in this article according to the Julian calendar.) The events of late February 1917 are known as the February Revolution. After the overthrow of the emperor, a shaky coalition of conservative, liberal, and moderate socialist politicians declared itself the Provisional Government, on February 27, 1917. That government initially received the support of the soviets—the councils that insurgent workers and peasants set up and elected. However, the Provisional Government proved unable to resolve the problems that had led to the February Revolution. Chief among these was the problem of ending Russia’s involvement in World War I (1914-1918).

The second revolution was initiated by an armed insurrection on October 24 and 25, 1917. Known as the October Revolution or the Bolshevik Revolution, it was led by a group of revolutionary socialists called Bolsheviks. It swept aside the Provisional Government with the goal of giving “all power to the soviets.” The Bolsheviks hoped that their revolution would result in more fundamental changes in Russian society and also inspire the working people of other countries to carry out socialist revolutions.


Kulaks
Order from Lenin to communists in Penza, August 11, 1918, demanding that they publicly hang at least 100 kulaks and confiscate their grain, to set an example.
www.ibiblio.org/pjones/russian/Kulaks.html

[XBob]

728 - the 'restrictions you cite - #1

561 - this is a pile of crap - you can't have it both ways:

561 - "Reasonable restrictions can be placed on them, but they must be REASONABLE and well thought out. And when the restriction you want to put on a company is a silly one like "don't import labor" you aren't being reasonable. You're attempting to restrict their ability to make a profit so that people you think are more deserving of the company's labor dollar get it, who deserves Company X's labor dollar isn't your or my call to make, that is Company X's decision exclusively. They earned the money, they decide who earned a piece of the pie."

You don't approve of restrictions. You approve of restrictions that don't restrict, like setting the speed limit at 1000mph.

It is sheer bull.

As the charterer of this corporation, I will allow reasomable taxation - up to 150% of gross income. Just a minimal right to tax.

That's one reference shot down, as totally meaningless.

[XBob]

Another pile of meaningless crap.

497 - "Corporations don't have a duty to any constitution, they exist to make money, they don't vote, they don't fight in wars, they can't be elected for office. They pay taxes, that's about as deep as it gets.

They also don't have a duty to "the people", except for the members of the people that are investors in the company, their duty to them is to create profit so these people have a return on their investment. "

Here you state they have no responsibilities and should not be regulated.